Harper’s Anti-terror
Legislation Threatens Rights Of All
Canadians
By Peter Ewart
February 04, 2015 "ICH"
- The Harper government is putting forward
so-called anti-terrorist legislation that
should be of concern to all Canadians, no
matter their point of view or political
affiliation. There are many things wrong,
even dangerous, about this legislation, but
two things stand out: (A) the threat to the
right to privacy of Canadians; and (B) the
threat to freedom of speech.
One thing is very clear.
Canadians value their rights to privacy and
are concerned when anyone, including
government, abuses or intrudes upon these
rights. Indeed, the Privacy Commissioner of
Canada, who is mandated by Parliament to act
as a guardian of privacy in Canada, released
the results of a poll on January 28th
that show “nine out of ten Canadians were
concerned about privacy,” and one in three
(34%) were “extremely concerned.” The poll
also reveals that “a significant majority
(78%) expressed concern about how personal
information about them online might be used
in the context of government surveillance”
(1).
Despite this, the Harper
government is planning to ram through
anti-terror legislation which greatly
expands the ability of intelligence
agencies, especially CSIS, to gather and paw
through health, medical, family, tax,
business, and other information from other
government institutions, including Revenue
Canada, on potentially all Canadians. This
information only has to shown to be
“relevant” in some way. This is dangerously
vague and abstruse language, and open to
serious abuse. As the Privacy Commissioner
notes, “This Act would seemingly allow
departments and agencies to share the
personal information of all individuals,
including ordinary Canadians who may not be
suspected of terrorist activities” (2).
This expansion of
surveillance powers follows the revelation
recently that the federal government through
its spy agency, the Communications Security
Establishment, has been engaged in massive
covert surveillance operations on the
private online activities of millions of
people around the world. Even clicking on a
particular site, could result in a person
being put under scrutiny. As Ron Deibert,
of the Internet security think tank Citizen
Lab, explains, the surveillance program,
which is being conducted without search
warrants, resembles a “giant X-ray machine
over all our digital lives” (3).
Globe and Mail columnist
Lawrence Martin poses the question that,
with these kinds of “surveillance state”
powers, could the federal government, under
the rubric of “anti-terrorism”, decide to
monitor and target its political enemies or
opposition groups of one kind or another
(4)? The idea is not far-fetched at all.
Such anti-democratic activity and dirty
tricks were carried out by Liberal
governments in the 1960s and 70s against
political opponents, resulting in a huge
scandal and a Royal Commission into RCMP
wrongdoing. With the tremendous advances in
technology since then, as well as the
erosion of citizens’ rights since 9/11, the
potentiality for government to trample on
the right to privacy of all citizens has
reached a new and dangerous level.
Canadians highly value
freedom of speech. But Bill C-51 mounts a
grave threat to what should be a right. The
legislation reads: “Every person who, by
communicating statements, knowingly
advocates or promotes the commission of
terrorism offences in general” will be
liable for an imprisonment of up to five
years.
What does the vague term
“terrorism in general” mean? The
implication is that, if the federal
government claims you are advocating or
promoting “terrorism”, not only in Canada,
but in any country in the world, you will be
prosecuted. Of course, the big question
is: Just who defines what constitutes
“terrorism in general”?
As Anna Mehler Paperny,
senior producer at Global News, points out:
“Conceivably, if you’ve ever written a blog
post railing against Canada’s actions in
Iraq or Afghanistan; brought a Tamil Tigers
flag to a protest; argued that Canada should
restore humanitarian aid to Gazans through
their Hamas government; called Israel an
apartheid state; supported militant
independence movements in Turkish Kurdistan
or Spain’s Basque region,” you could be
found guilty of advocating or promoting
terrorism (5).
University of Ottawa law
professor Craig Forcese comments that “if
you want to … start throwing people into the
clink because they’re waving the wrong flag
at a protest … you’re going to have a huge
free speech case. It’s going to be an
enormous constitutional challenge” (6).
Canadians have many
differing views on struggles and conflicts
in other parts of the world, whether it be
Israel / Palestine, Middle East, Africa,
Ukraine, Asia or elsewhere. In previous
decades and centuries, Canadians have
supported people and organizations in other
countries fighting for national liberation
and political freedoms, but which were
labelled “terrorist” or “criminal” by the
government or politicians of the day. These
countries include Ireland, India, South
Africa, and Kenya to name just a few.
In that regard, it is a
fact that, in the past, a certain member of
Harper’s own Conservative Party considered
Nelson Mandela and the ANC to be “terrorists
(7).”
The term “terrorism in
general” is so vague that Stephen Harper
himself could conceivably be charged with
terrorism for expressing support for
so-called “moderate rebels” in Syria who,
abundant evidence has shown, are working
with and supplying arms to Al Queda and ISIS
linked groups (8). For his part, foreign
minister John Baird could also be charged
for supporting, selling military equipment
to (and kissing the cheeks of), the
government of Saudi Arabia which has been
doing the same with the Syrian rebels.
Bill C-51 constitutes a
direct threat to the privacy of all
Canadians, as well as their right to
conscience and freedom of speech. People of
all political persuasions, including those
who traditionally vote Conservative, should
take a serious look at this legislation.
Once it is in place, whatever government
happens to be in power will be able to use
and abuse it as they see fit. It
constitutes a further step towards a police
state and a surveillance society.
The question needs to be
asked: Why is the Harper government
bringing in such flagrantly anti-democratic
legislation at this time and why is the
terror threat being magnified and
exaggerated to such an extent in this
country? These are topics that will be
further discussed in Part 2 of this
series.
Peter Ewart is a
columnist and writer based in Prince George,
British Columbia. He can be reached at:
peter.ewart@shaw.ca
(1) News Release.
Office of the Privacy Commissioner of
Canada. January 28, 2015.
(2) Statement of the
Privacy Commissioner of Canada following the
tabling of Bill C-51. January 30, 2015.
(3) Gallagher, Ryan &
Glenn Greenwald. “Canada casts global
surveillance dragnet over file downloads.”
(4) Martin, Lawrence. “Mulcair is right
to question the politics of terror.”
Globe & Mail. January 20, 2015.
(5) Paperny, Anna Mehler.
“Are you already violating the feds’ new
anti-terror bill?” Global News.
January 30, 2015.
(6) Forcese, Craig.
Quoted in: “Are you already violating
the feds’ new anti-terror bill?”
Global News. January 30, 2015.
(7) Payton, Laura.
“Rob Andrews still no fan of Nelson
Mandela.” CBC News. December 6, 2013.
(8) Henningsen, Patrick.
“’Al Queda R Us’: John McCain’s
‘moderate rebels’ in Syria are ISIS.”
Global Research. January 24, 2015.
(9) Cockburn, Patrick.
“Iraq crisis: How Saudi Arabia helped
ISIS take over the north of the country.”
The Independent. July, 13, 2014.
Harper’s anti-terrorist legislation
threatens the rights of all Canadians – Part
2
By Peter Ewart
“A great evil has been
descending on our world.” These are ominous
words spoken recently by Stephen Harper the
Prime Minister of Canada to an audience of
Conservative Party supporters, police
officers and security officials.
He is referring, of course, to the threat of
terrorism in Canada, and the fact, according
to him, that “we are at war” with the
terrorists, a mantra that he has been
repeating everywhere in the months leading
up to the next federal election.
But, as was raised in
Part 1 of this series, how serious is
this threat in Canada? Are we, indeed, back
in the year 1939 on the eve of the Second
World War as his ominous words suggest? Or
is the threat of terrorism being magnified
for political purposes?
Yes, there were the two
separate attacks by crazed individuals on
military personnel at the end of last year.
But, even the newspaper of the Canadian
Establishment, the Globe & Mail, points out
that “there is no evidence that either
attacker was connected to ISIS. The more
likely theory is that they were troubled
young men who self-radicalized” (1).
Of course, over the last
few years, there have been a few incidents
of bumbling plots, such as the Toronto 18
(which had paid police agents involved in a
“sting” operation). But does this pose
such a grave danger to the country as the
Prime Minister claims? After all, as
Lawrence Martin of the Globe & Mail writes,
“in the last decade or two, you can count
the number of deaths from [terrorism] on one
hand” (2).
According to RCMP
statistics, the number of potential active
terrorists in Canada is probably, at best, a
few dozen. Haroon Siddiqui of the Toronto
Star asks: “How difficult can that be to
keep an eye on them and nab them, if
necessary?” However, he also points out
that with all the deafening thunder about
terrorism coming from the federal government
“such questions are now rendered moot, just
as similar queries were drowned out under
[George W.] Bush” (3).
Let’s look at some other
statistics. Every year in Canada, literally
dozens of people are killed in drug gang
violence, including innocent bystanders,
such as in the Surrey Six murders in British
Columbia. From time to time, mentally
unbalanced individuals also go on rampages.
A recent example was the eight domestic
murders committed by a disturbed family
member in Alberta.
And then there is the
example of the over 1200 missing and
murdered aboriginal women across the
country. Asked by CBC’s Peter Mansbridge
(in an interview last year) as to why the
federal government has not organized an
inquiry into this tragedy, Harper stated
that “it isn’t really high on our radar.”
So why is such a horrendous tragedy inside
Canada relegated to such a low priority and
other things high? Harper did not explain
his insensitive and objectionable remark;
nor, unfortunately, did Mansbridge pursue
the question any further (4).
For some additional
perspective on terrorism in Canada, in 2011,
over 2,000 people died in traffic related
deaths in Canada, and tens of thousands were
seriously injured. One of the hazards that
people face in rural and northern Canada is
the lack of divided highways. As experts
point out, the number of traffic deaths,
especially in winter, could be significantly
reduced if divided highways were
constructed. But, of course, that death
toll and carnage is not a priority for
governments.
One of the paradoxical
things about individual acts of terrorism is
that they can have a profound effect on the
politics of a country far beyond other types
of crime and far beyond their actual
physical damage or human cost. In a phrase,
they can be subject to extreme magnification
by the media and by unscrupulous governments
and politicians.
For months now, we have
watched as horrific images on television
play across the screen of pairs of hostages
in orange jump suits wait to be beheaded by
ISIS militants shrouded in black clothing.
We, quite rightly, have a lot of empathy for
these victims. But, because these horrific
images are repeatedly flashed before us on
all the news channels, a sense builds up in
us that perhaps we, too, way over here in
Canada are in imminent danger. Even though
these tragic events are taking place across
the ocean and thousands of kilometres away,
the sense is created that terrorists are
literally “at the gates” and on the verge of
overwhelming the country.
The effect can be so
powerful that the political leaders of
countries can literally have their fortunes
turned around overnight in the wake of
terrorist incidents. Before the Charlie
Hebdo killings, French president Francoise
Hollande was the most unpopular president in
France since the Second World War. Within
days of the killings, his popularity zoomed
upwards from single digits to over 40%,
leading the pack of all other politicians in
the country. As pollster, Frederic Dabi,
comments: “This is a rare phenomenon in the
history of opinion polls” (4).
The Encyclopaedia
Brittanica defines terrorism as “the
systematic use of violence to create a
general climate of fear in a population to
bring about a particular political
objective” (5). Now, governments in the
world today may or may not use “systematic
violence”, but, unfortunately, more than a
few are guilty of fostering “a general
climate of fear” in order “to bring about a
particular political objective.”
For example, George W.
Bush had all the signs of being, at best, a
mediocre president until the 9/11 terrorism
happened. However, in the wake of 9/11, his
popularity soared, despite serious economic
woes, the Hurricane Katrina fiasco, and
other problems. His popularity was
maintained, in large part, by a state of
extreme tension that permeated the country,
pumped up by frequent colour-coded “terror
alerts” flashing across the TV screens of
Americans. In a shocking admission after he
left office, former U.S. Homeland Security
chief Tom Ridge admitted that manipulation
took place and that “top aides to
then-president George W. Bush pressured him
to raise the “terror alert” level to sway
the November 2004 U.S. election” (6).
The question needs to be
asked: Is Prime Minister Stephen Harper
using Bill C-51 and the fear card of
terrorism to achieve his “particular
political objectives”? Some journalists and
politicians think so. After all, the
economic outlook for the country, at least
for the next year or two, is not good. Oil
prices are continuing to plummet, the GDP
itself is dipping, and even manufacturing in
the country has unexpectedly gone down.
Elizabeth May, of the Green Party, says that
“with an election coming, it’s clear
[Harper] would like it to be fought on the
grounds of who do you see as being tough on
terrorism, as opposed to the economy or how
many people are unemployed” (7).
According to Kristie Smith
of iPolitics, Harper has replaced his mantra
of “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs” with that of
“Jihadism, Jihadism, Jihadism” (8). If so,
this is a reflection of the sad and cynical
state that Canadian politics has degenerated
into. Yes, Mr. Harper, perhaps a “great
evil has descended on the country,” but more
than a few Canadians would argue that it is
your own government.
Unfortunately, as others
have pointed out, the federal NDP and
Liberals, instead of taking a strong stand
in defence of the rights of Canadians, are
playing coy and hedging their bets in
regards to Harper’s anti-terror legislation
(9) (10). This is despite the fact that
organizations like the BC Civil Liberties
Association and others are seriously alarmed
and have characterized this legislation as
“an unprecedented expansion of powers that
will harm innocent Canadians and not
increase our public safety” (11).
Whatever Harper’s
motivation may be for this anti-democratic
legislation, one thing is clear. The rights
of Canadians to freedom of speech,
conscience and privacy must not be
politicized and criminalized. If federal
politicians or governments are so bothered
and feel so hampered by these rights, they
should resign their office and return to
private life.
So, with an out-of-control
government and a dysfunctional, weak-kneed
opposition in Parliament, what are Canadians
to do, whether they be journalists,
commentators and posters on websites, or
ordinary citizens, all of whom could be
targeted or impacted by this legislation in
one way or another?
Speak out, speak up, get
active, get organized! We must not succumb
to the politics of fear. If we don’t defend
our rights as Canadians, who will?
This is the final
article in this series.
Peter Ewart is a
columnist and writer based in Prince George,
British Columbia. He can be reached at:
peter.ewart@shaw.ca
(1) Editorial.
“Parliament must reject Harper’s secret
policeman bill.” Globe and Mail.
February 1, 2015.
(2) Martin, Lawrence.
(3) Siddiqui, Haroon. “Stephen
Harper’s election platform: War on terror.”
Toronto Star. February 1, 2015.
(4) Kappo, Tanya.
“Stephen Harper’s comments on missing,
murdered aboriginal women show lack of
respect.” CBC News. December 19, 2014.
(4) Blandy, Fran. “Hollande’s
popularity soars after French jihadist
attacks.” January 19, 2015.
(5) “Terrorism.”
Encyclopaedia Brittanica. January 30, 2015.
(6) Amato, John. “Tom
Ridge admits terror alerts were used for
political reasons.” Crooks & Liars.
August 8, 2009.
(7) May, Elizabeth.
Quoted in: “Harper’s pre-election shift:
Goodbye economy, hello security.”
iPolitics. January 30, 2015.
(8) Smith, Kristie.
“Harper’s pre-election shift: Goodbye
economy, hello security.” iPolitics.
January 30, 2015.
(9) Walkom, Tom.
“Canada’s new backward looking terror law.”
Toronto Star. February 2, 2015.
(10) Levitz, Stephanie.
“Anti-terror Bill C-51: Opposition
parties treading carefully.” The
Canadian Press. January 30, 2015.
(11) “Release: BCCLA
reacts to sweeping new anti-terror bill.”
BC Civil Liberties Association. January 30,
2015.
