Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Basema Al-Alami, SJD Candidate, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto

British Columbia Premier David Eby recently called on Prime Minister Mark Carney to designate the India-based Bishnoi gang a terrorist organization.

Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown echoed the request days later. The RCMP has also alleged the gang may be targeting pro-Khalistan activists in Canada.

These claims follow a series of high-profile incidents in India linked to the Bishnoi network, including the murder of a Punjabi rapper in New Delhi, threats against a Bollywood actor and the killing of a Mumbai politician in late 2024.

How terrorism designations work

Eby’s request raises broader legal questions. What does it mean to label a group a terrorist organization in Canada and what happens once that label is applied?

Under Section 83.05 of the Criminal Code, the federal government can designate an entity a terrorist organization if there are “reasonable grounds to believe” it has engaged in, supported or facilitated terrorist activity. The term “entity” is defined broadly, covering individuals, groups, partnerships and unincorporated associations.

The process begins with intelligence and law enforcement reports submitted to the public safety minister, who may then recommend listing the group to cabinet if it’s believed the legal threshold is met. If cabinet agrees, the group is officially designated a terrorist organization.

A designation carries serious consequences: assets can be frozen and financial dealings become criminalized. Banks and other institutions are protected from liability if they refuse to engage with the group. Essentially, the designation cuts the group off from economic and civic life, often without prior notice or public hearing.

As of July 2025, Canada has listed 86 entities, from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to far-right and nationalist organizations. In February, the government added seven violent criminal groups from Latin America, including the Sinaloa cartel and La Mara Salvatrucha, known as the MS-13.

This marked a turning point: for the first time, Canada extended terrorism designations beyond ideological or political movements to include transnational criminal networks.

Why the shift matters

This shift reflects a deeper redefinition of what Canada considers a national security threat. For much of the post-9/11 era, counterterrorism efforts in Canada have concentrated on groups tied to ideological, religious or political agendas — most often framed through the lens of Islamic terrorism.

This has determined not only who is targeted, but also what forms of violence are taken seriously as national security concerns.

That is why the recent expansion of terrorism designations — first with the listing of Mexican cartels in early 2025, and now potentially with the Bishnoi gang — feels so significant.

It signals a shift away from targeting ideology alone and toward labelling profit-driven organized crime as terrorism. While transnational gangs may pose serious public safety risks, designating them terrorist organizations could erode the legal and political boundaries that once separated counterterrorism initiatives from criminal law.

Canada’s terrorism listing process only adds to these concerns. The decision is made by cabinet, based on secret intelligence, with no obligation to inform the group or offer a chance to respond. Most of the evidence remains hidden, even from the courts.

While judicial review is technically possible, it is limited, opaque and rarely successful.

In effect, the label becomes final. It brings serious legal consequences like asset freezes, criminal charges and immigration bans. But the informal fallout can be just as harsh: banks shut down accounts, landlords back out of leases, employers cut ties. Even without a trial or conviction, the stigma of being associated with a listed group can dramatically change someone’s life.

What’s at stake

Using terrorism laws to go after violent criminal networks like the Bishnoi gang may seem justified. But it quietly expands powers that were originally designed for specific types of threats. It also stretches a national security framework already tainted by racial and political bias.

---

Read more:
Canadian law enforcement agencies continue to target Muslims

---

For more than two decades, Canada’s counterterrorism laws have disproportionately targeted Muslim and racialized communities under a logic of pre-emptive suspicion. Applying those same powers to organized crime, especially when it impacts immigrant and diaspora communities, risks reproducing that harm under a different label.

Canadians should be asking: what happens when tools built for exceptional threats become the default response to complex criminal violence?

As the federal government considers whether to label the Bishnoi gang a terrorist organization, the real question goes beyond whether the group meets the legal test. It’s about what kind of legal logic Canada is endorsing.

Terrorism designations carry sweeping powers, with little oversight and lasting consequences. Extending those powers to organized crime might appear pragmatic, but it risks normalizing a process that has long operated in the shadows, shaped by secrecy and executive discretion.

As national security law expands, Canadians should ask not just who gets listed, but how those decisions are made and what broader political agendas they might serve.

Basema Al-Alami does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Calls to designate the Bishnoi gang a terrorist group shine a spotlight on Canadian security laws – https://theconversation.com/calls-to-designate-the-bishnoi-gang-a-terrorist-group-shine-a-spotlight-on-canadian-security-laws-259844

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Gary N. Wilson, Professor of Political Science, University of Northern British Columbia

American tariffs and fears of a prolonged recession have increased calls to expand resource development and infrastructure projects in Canada. The pace and scope of expansion projects like these have major implications for Canada on many levels, including: commitments to environmental sustainability, relations with Indigenous Peoples and the quality of local health services.

In a study that I conducted with environmental health researcher Barbara Oke in northern British Columbia, we found that major resource projects can strain local health-care services in rural and remote regions. In particular, the influx of workers connected with development projects puts significant pressures on health-care providers. This is especially concerning as local health-care services are already experiencing funding, infrastructure and staff shortages.

Therefore, it’s critical that government and industry actively consider these pressures when planning new projects.

Health-care services under pressure

In recent years, northern British Columbia has been home to some of the biggest capital investment projects in Canada, including a major hydroelectric dam, liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities, pipelines and mines.

Our interviews with leaders from Northern Health, the region’s main health-care provider, have highlighted the link between major development projects and the pressures experienced by their health-care system.

Pressures on the local health-care system mainly stem from the influx of a non-local workforce when compared to the size of the nearest community, and local contexts. The smaller the community, the more vulnerable its health-care system is to additional pressures, especially if capacity challenges already exist.

How well a project manages its health service impacts clearly matters. When project workers resided in well-managed camps supported by competent onsite medical service providers, the pressures on the local system were less than when workforces did not have adequate accommodation and health supports.

An older workforce

Contrary to some popular assumptions that itinerant project workforces consist mainly of young, risk-taking individuals, most workers seeking health-care services were older and managing multiple chronic illnesses or disease risk factors.

Therefore, most of the pressure on health-care services did not come from what one would consider typical “workplace injuries” but, rather, from workers experiencing injuries and illnesses common within any population.

One health-care interviewee said: “It’s not that [project workers] are asking for special services, but just having more people needing health care adds to [the] pressure.”

Emergency departments

Impacts to the health-care system were felt primarily in the emergency departments of local hospitals and health-care centres.

Many communities in northern B.C. do not have walk-in clinics and most doctor’s offices are already at patient capacity.

So if a project does not provide its own on-site medical supports, the only option for workers is to seek care at a local emergency department, which are supposed to respond to urgent issues.

When staff have to deal with non-urgent needs, such as prescription renewals, sick notes or to manage regular ailments, it compounds the challenges and congestion faced by emergency departments.

Cumulative impacts on health services

Beyond emergency departments, industry pressures have cascaded throughout the system, affecting services such as primary care, infectious disease, diagnostic and lab services, and administrative and ambulance transfer services.

Rising workloads, combined with higher private-sector wages and an industry-driven increase in the cost of living, have made it harder to retain and recruit staff — especially in housekeeping, food services, laundry, administration, ambulance services and care aide roles.

Several people interviewed noted the consistent and cumulative pressures of projects on the health-care system.

While the pressures from a single project may seem inconsequential, the impacts from multiple projects in the same area pose a significant challenge to health-care services.

Balancing resource development and health care

The strategic and economic value of resource development is difficult to ignore.

Major infrastructure projects contribute to both local and provincial economies. When managed well, the economic benefits of such projects can positively contribute to community health.

But when not managed properly, the pressures that major infrastructure projects place on local health-care services can be significant. Therefore, we strongly urge governments and businesses to consider their impacts on overburdened and hard-working health-care providers in rural and remote communities.

Barbara Oke contributed to this article. She recently completed her Master’s of Arts in Political Science at UNBC.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Northern B.C. shows how big resource projects can strain rural health care – https://theconversation.com/northern-b-c-shows-how-big-resource-projects-can-strain-rural-health-care-256059

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Nadine Riedel, Director of the Institute for Public and Regional Economics, University of Münster

South Africa’s personal income tax system is in the spotlight as the country’s tax filing season gets under way. Personal income tax is an important way of redistributing income from higher-earning to less-well-off individuals.

But how effectively does it do this and what can get in the way?

At the heart of any redistributive tax system is its structure: which incomes are taxed or exempted, which expenses are tax deductible, how the tax rate schedule is designed, and which tax credits are granted, including how much they reduce the tax owed. The schedule translates taxable income into the taxpayers’ tax liability by defining tax rates by tax brackets. The top tax rate is 45%.

In a recent study we explore how features such as tax rates, deductions, credits, and bracket adjustments shape the redistributive capacity of South Africa’s personal income tax system. For this research, we analyse all the income tax returns of South African taxpayers provided by South Africa’s Revenue Service for the tax years 2015 and 2018. (All records were made anonymous.)

The country´s personal income tax operates under a progressive tax scheme: People pay higher rates of tax as their income rises. Those with lower incomes may owe no income tax at all, while top earners can face marginal rates as high as 45%.

Based on our analysis, this progressive rate schedule is the most effective mechanism for redistributing income from higher- to lower-income earners. By contrast, “tax expenditures” – that is, expenses, which taxpayers can deduct from what they owe in tax – lower the redistributive impact of the personal income tax system.

Put differently: Allowing taxpayers to claim tax deductions and tax credits reduces the extent to which personal income taxation effectively lowers gaps between the after-tax income of high- and low-income earners.

A number of recent tax policy reforms further dampened the redistributive capacity of the system. The spotlight is on potential policy reforms that may counter this.

Weaknesses

Our research shows that the benefits from tax expenditures in the country’s personal income tax system lower its ability to narrow income gaps. South African taxpayers can deduct various expenses from the personal income tax base and their tax liability respectively, including expenses for donations, home offices, certain insurance contributions and public offices.

Many of these benefits are claimed by a relatively small number of taxpayers (often below 1% of the taxpayer population or under 100,000 taxpayers) and are concentrated among top earners. And average deduction amounts can be high.

Even more widely used deductions and credits, such as those for pensions and medical schemes, are disproportionately claimed by higher-income individuals.

We also found that recent reforms have weakened the redistributive capacity of the personal income tax system.

Over the years, adjustments have been made, some intended to improve equity, others driven by the need to bolster revenues. A closer look at three key reforms offers some insight into the impact they have had on the distributive goal of the country’s tax system.

In 2016, pension-related deductions were redesigned to be more generous and to harmonise the treatment of different pension funds. The goal of the reform was to create a fairer and more coherent pension deduction system. While the number of taxpayers claiming pension deductions increased after the reform, our research found that that the policy change still disproportionately benefited higher-income earners. This is because they are more likely to make pension contributions – and do so in larger amounts.

As a result, the policy reduced the overall redistributive impact of the personal income tax system. In other words, it lowered the extent to which personal income taxation reduces income gaps between higher and lower income taxpayers.

The following year, the government introduced a new top tax bracket which raised the marginal tax rate on incomes above R1.5 million (today roughly R1.8 million or US$100,700) from 41% to 45%. That is, if you earn more than R1.5 million, you pay 45% of this income in tax.

The stated aim of the reform was to strengthen the progressivity of the personal income tax system. But our analysis suggests that the real-world impact was limited. This is because the pre-tax incomes of high earners grew more slowly than those of lower-income individuals after the reform. This may reflect that high income earners responded to the reform by lowering their taxable income. They could do so by tax avoidance – high income earners may, for example, shift income to the (potentially lower-taxed) future by compensation through stock options or higher retirement contributions. Or it could be through real adjustments, like earlier retirement entry or less job effort (and, in consequence, lower earnings).

Between 2015 and 2018, inflation pushed wages and prices upward, but tax thresholds did not keep pace. This led to many taxpayers being shifted into higher tax brackets despite no real change in their purchasing power (referred to as bracket creep). This raised effective tax rates, but also had a regressive side-effect: lower- and middle-income earners were disproportionately affected, weakening the personal income tax system’s ability to reduce income inequality.

For example, because of bracket creep, a significant fraction of low-income taxpayers – around 3% – became liable for tax. Without bracket creep they would have stayed below the tax exemption threshold.

Reforms to the tax system

South Africa’s progressive personal income tax structure has played an important redistributive role. Nevertheless, its effectiveness has been weakened by tax expenditures, bracket creep, and uneven reform outcomes.

Targeted policy adjustments can strengthen its redistributive capacity.

Deductions and tax credits: Most of these are regressive, with benefits concentrated among higher-income earners. Phasing out some could strengthen redistribution. But not without trade-offs. After all, deductions and credits also recognise unavoidable expenses, such as work-related or medical costs, and encourage behaviour like charitable giving or retirement saving.

Yet their appropriateness remains widely debated and their use differs across countries.

Beyond fairness, tax expenditures come with other downsides, too. For example, they can complicate tax enforcement and open the door to misreporting, particularly where qualifying expenses are hard to verify.

Policymakers might also consider shifting from deductions to tax credits.
While deductions reduce the taxable income of an individual, tax credits directly reduce the tax owed. Individuals in higher tax brackets gain a relatively higher advantage from deductions, as their tax rate is higher. Contrarily, one rand of tax credit provides the same relief to all taxpayers with a positive tax liability.

Making credits refundable, though potentially costly, could further boost their redistributive effect.

Standardised deductions could help as well, by allowing fixed rand amounts for certain expenses without requiring proof of payment, and offering relief to lower-income taxpayers who often forgo claims due to lack of resources or knowledge.

Finally, addressing bracket creep by automatically indexing tax brackets to inflation could preserve the progressivity of the personal income tax system over time, shielding lower- and middle-income taxpayers from a quiet rise in tax burdens.

Prof. Dr. Nadine Riedel receives funding from UNU WIDER.

This research is part of the so-called SATIED program. In the context of the program, I act as an academic work stream lead and receive compensation through UNU WIDER (which is the University of the UN) for this role.

Ida Zinke does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Tax season in South Africa: the system is designed to tackle inequality – how it falls short – https://theconversation.com/tax-season-in-south-africa-the-system-is-designed-to-tackle-inequality-how-it-falls-short-260351

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Basema Al-Alami, SJD Candidate, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto

British Columbia Premier David Eby recently called on Prime Minister Mark Carney to designate the India-based Bishnoi gang a terrorist organization.

Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown echoed the request days later. The RCMP has also alleged the gang may be targeting pro-Khalistan activists in Canada.

These claims follow a series of high-profile incidents in India linked to the Bishnoi network, including the murder of a Punjabi rapper in New Delhi, threats against a Bollywood actor and the killing of a Mumbai politician in late 2024.

How terrorism designations work

Eby’s request raises broader legal questions. What does it mean to label a group a terrorist organization in Canada and what happens once that label is applied?

Under Section 83.05 of the Criminal Code, the federal government can designate an entity a terrorist organization if there are “reasonable grounds to believe” it has engaged in, supported or facilitated terrorist activity. The term “entity” is defined broadly, covering individuals, groups, partnerships and unincorporated associations.

The process begins with intelligence and law enforcement reports submitted to the public safety minister, who may then recommend listing the group to cabinet if it’s believed the legal threshold is met. If cabinet agrees, the group is officially designated a terrorist organization.

A designation carries serious consequences: assets can be frozen and financial dealings become criminalized. Banks and other institutions are protected from liability if they refuse to engage with the group. Essentially, the designation cuts the group off from economic and civic life, often without prior notice or public hearing.

As of July 2025, Canada has listed 86 entities, from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to far-right and nationalist organizations. In February, the government added seven violent criminal groups from Latin America, including the Sinaloa cartel and La Mara Salvatrucha, known as the MS-13.

This marked a turning point: for the first time, Canada extended terrorism designations beyond ideological or political movements to include transnational criminal networks.

Why the shift matters

This shift reflects a deeper redefinition of what Canada considers a national security threat. For much of the post-9/11 era, counterterrorism efforts in Canada have concentrated on groups tied to ideological, religious or political agendas — most often framed through the lens of Islamic terrorism.

This has determined not only who is targeted, but also what forms of violence are taken seriously as national security concerns.

That is why the recent expansion of terrorism designations — first with the listing of Mexican cartels in early 2025, and now potentially with the Bishnoi gang — feels so significant.

It signals a shift away from targeting ideology alone and toward labelling profit-driven organized crime as terrorism. While transnational gangs may pose serious public safety risks, designating them terrorist organizations could erode the legal and political boundaries that once separated counterterrorism initiatives from criminal law.

Canada’s terrorism listing process only adds to these concerns. The decision is made by cabinet, based on secret intelligence, with no obligation to inform the group or offer a chance to respond. Most of the evidence remains hidden, even from the courts.

While judicial review is technically possible, it is limited, opaque and rarely successful.

In effect, the label becomes final. It brings serious legal consequences like asset freezes, criminal charges and immigration bans. But the informal fallout can be just as harsh: banks shut down accounts, landlords back out of leases, employers cut ties. Even without a trial or conviction, the stigma of being associated with a listed group can dramatically change someone’s life.

What’s at stake

Using terrorism laws to go after violent criminal networks like the Bishnoi gang may seem justified. But it quietly expands powers that were originally designed for specific types of threats. It also stretches a national security framework already tainted by racial and political bias.

---

Read more:
Canadian law enforcement agencies continue to target Muslims

---

For more than two decades, Canada’s counterterrorism laws have disproportionately targeted Muslim and racialized communities under a logic of pre-emptive suspicion. Applying those same powers to organized crime, especially when it impacts immigrant and diaspora communities, risks reproducing that harm under a different label.

Canadians should be asking: what happens when tools built for exceptional threats become the default response to complex criminal violence?

As the federal government considers whether to label the Bishnoi gang a terrorist organization, the real question goes beyond whether the group meets the legal test. It’s about what kind of legal logic Canada is endorsing.

Terrorism designations carry sweeping powers, with little oversight and lasting consequences. Extending those powers to organized crime might appear pragmatic, but it risks normalizing a process that has long operated in the shadows, shaped by secrecy and executive discretion.

As national security law expands, Canadians should ask not just who gets listed, but how those decisions are made and what broader political agendas they might serve.

Basema Al-Alami does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Calls to designate the Bishnoi gang a terrorist group shine a spotlight on Canada’s security laws – https://theconversation.com/calls-to-designate-the-bishnoi-gang-a-terrorist-group-shine-a-spotlight-on-canadas-security-laws-259844