muslims, politics, war on terror

Conservatives resort to McCarthyism as criticism of Bill C-51 escalates

Published on March 21st, 2015 by Ricochet Media

Those who pay attention to what politicians say are familiar with the ambiguous way many of them prefer to speak on certain issues. That might be why it’s almost refreshing to hear the unrestrained racism coming out of the Harper Conservatives these days, most of which is directed at Canada’s Muslim population.

Anti-Muslim sentiment has always been part of the Conservatives’ strategy to galvanize their political base, and they’ve recently taken it up a notch in anticipation of this year’s elections. The current administration also has a vested interested in demonizing Muslims since curbing “Islamic extremism” is cited as a top reason for Bill C-51 (the Anti-terrorism Act), perhaps the Conservatives’ worst national security proposal since 9/11.

Muslim groups speaking out against the bill and a large chorus of critics, including Canada’s Harper-appointed privacy commissioner, have been met with open slander that conjures up memories of Joseph McCarthy’s anti-communist witch hunt of the 1950s.

When Ihsaan Gardee, executive director of the National Council of Canadian Muslims, gave expert testimony in Ottawa last week on C-51, he probably didn’t expect veteran Tory MP Diane Ablonczy of Calgary–Nose Hill to ask him to address “a continuing series of allegations” that the Council supports terrorism. But she did, by echoing a load of spurious allegations against the Council that originated last year from Harper’s spokesperson Jason MacDonald. Gardee pushed back, having to defend his group’s reputation at a hearing to which he was invited to speak on the bill. The Council is currently pursuing a lawsuit against Harper and MacDonald.

Yet the Conservatives seem to want to make a real habit out of this kind of politicking, and Muslims aren’t their only targets. Just ask Greenpeace Canada, whose executive director, Joanne Kerr, had to endure the followingquery from Conservative MP Lavar Payne. “The purpose of the act is sharing for national security threats, so it makes me wonder if your organization is a national security threat?” In other words, The bill is meant to stop terrorists, so are you opposing it because you’re a terrorist?

Payne’s questions ran out the clock on the allotted question-and-response time, leaving Kerr no time to answer. Even if she had responded, she would have had to take the time to address the insinuation that Greenpeace Canada opposes the bill because they’re a threat to national security. The BC Civil Liberties Association experienced a similar exchange with Tory MP Rick Norlock, who essentially asked the association’s senior counsel Carmen Cheung if her organization is “fundamentally opposed” to fighting terrorism, since Cheung had the gall to criticize the bill’s lack of checks and balances.

The skillful tagging of Bill C-51’s critics with unfounded and unfair accusations is the Harper Conservatives’ political bread and butter. It’s also the very definition of 21st-century McCarthyism, exercised in a way that deflects the conversation away from the matter at hand or plummeting public support for the bill. Tory MPs used the tactic to such an extent during last week’s hearings that opposition MP Megan Leslie of the NDP got up in Parliament last Friday to ask Ablonczy to apologize for her “disgraceful behaviour.” Of course, Leslie was promptly ignored.

It’s what Canadians should come to expect from the current administration, who have made it quite clear by now that political expediency trumps all else. Heading into last week’s expert testimony sessions, Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney referred to those testifying against some of the bill’s provisions as “so-called experts.” These “so-called experts” just so happen to be joined in their opposition to C-51 by former officials of CSIS, Canada’s spy agency, whose powers will be expanded if the bill is passed. Also in opposition are four former prime ministers: Jean Chrétien, Joe Clark, Paul Martin, and John Turner. All fear that the bill will open doors to abuse.

The most thorough analysis of the bill, conducted by University of Toronto scholar Kent Roach and his colleague Craig Forcese at the University of Ottawa, echo these concerns. The two have put together several backgroundersthat dissect the bill, concluding that many provisions are essentially anti-privacy and threaten to trample all over the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The bill will allow authorities to arrest people more easily, CSIS to morph into a secret police force (in the words of the Globe and Mail editorial board), and at least 17 federal agencies to share private citizen information with each other in unprecedented ways, all at a time when heavy-handed security laws have not been proven by anyone to prevent terrorism in a substantial way.

The Conservatives are rushing C-51 through the legislative process with little critical evaluation. Of course, this is by design. The bill’s proponents, including the Liberal Party, have already expanded a bloated security apparatus by passing bills C-13 and C-44, but C-51 may be the worst yet. The post-9/11 era has always been an era of fear — but it’s fear of overzealous governments that truly stands out.

Photo credit: Rally protesting Harper’s C-51 anti-terrorist legislation in Toronto, City Hall, March 14, 2015/CC

[https://ricochet.media/en/357/conservatives-resort-to-mccarthyism-as-criticism-of-bill-c-51-escalates]

Advertisements
Standard
middle east, muslims, politics

Canada’s foreign policy: Business before human rights

Published on March 18th, 2014 by Al Jazeera English

The latest arms deal between Canada and Saudi Arabia exposes the ideological hypocrisy that underpins the Canadian Conservative Party’s present foreign and trade policy.

The Ontario-based General Dynamics Land Systems (a subsidiary of the Virginia-based aerospace and defence company, General Dynamics) outbid Germany and France to win a US$10m deal to export military hardware to Saudi Arabia, with a poor human rights record.

edfast

The deal is the largest of its kind in Canadian history, and was announced by Trade Minister Ed Fast this past February. Fast portrayed the deal as a triumph of effective diplomacy that will generate thousands of jobs for Canadians. The agreement is also meant to fulfil Canada’s “Global Markets Action Plan,” which aims to extract commercial and economic benefits from Canada’s international relationships. Concerns with respect to Saudi Arabia’s human rights have largely gone unaddressed by Canadian Tory officials.

Toronto Star editorial from February notes that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government “rarely shrinks from bemoaning the state of the world”. This is especially accurate with regards to the administration’s stances vis-a-vis the Middle East. Yet when it comes to doing business, Prime Minister Harper and Foreign Minister John Baird, among others, have time and time again demonstrated a willingness to suspend their artificial affinity to principle.

Money comes first

As Canadian writer and journalist Derrick O’Keefe notes, for all the Conservatives’ talk about free market ideology, “the Saudi deal confirms that the Conservatives […] do believe in industrial strategy and government intervention in the economy – at least when military hardware and arms, or bitumen, are involved.”

Both the Canadians and the Saudis refuse to reveal the specifics of the deal, but GLDS is famous for manufacturing the LAV III armoured vehicles used by Canada in Afghanistan, as well as the Stryker armoured vehicles used by the United States. US$10m can buy hundreds of such vehicles.

The deal was announced shortly after Postmedia News, a prominent Canadian wire service, reported that the Tories have planned to help the Canadian arms industry through “hard times” by looking for more international buyers of Canadian military equipment.

It’s long been revealed that Saudi Arabia’s forces have previously used military hardware from General Dynamics to crush dissent in the Gulf region. In March 2011, Saudi forces rolled into Bahrain with armoured vehicles made by General Dynamics to help suppress a growing protest movement. Inspired by the “Arab Spring” in Tunisia, Egypt, and elsewhere, the mostly peaceful protests were violently crushed.

The Harper government didn’t say much, and maintained its silence even when it was revealed that a Canadian citizen, Naser al-Raas, was tortured for over 30 days for taking part in the protests. Raas was finally assisted by Canadian consular services and released, but still seeks justice for the inhumane treatment he received.

When FM Baird visited Bahrain around two years later in April 2013, he made sure not to publically denounce what happened in 2011. So for all of the Harper regime’s rhetoric on its clear and principled stance regarding international human rights, the record shows that for Canada, business and money come first.

The exercise of silence

Of course, the Harper administration’s human rights hypocrisy doesn’t start or end with Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Similar to Human Rights Watch’s recent (though in keeping with a long and unfortunate tradition) denunciation of Saudi Arabia in its 2014 report, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has reportedEgypt as one of the most dangerous countries for journalists to report from/in.

A military regime, the current Egyptian government has essentially put freedom of the press on trial. The primary manifestation of this chilling development is the arrest and detention of 20 Al Jazeera journalists who have been branded enemies of the Egyptian state. According to state prosecutors, the journalistsattempted “to weaken the state’s status, harming the national interest of the country, disturbing public security, instilling fear among the people, causing damage to the public interest.”

Among the detained and charged is Canadian citizen Mohamed Fahmy, who, along with his colleagues, was captured late last December. Since then, he has suffered through solitary confinement and was only recently dumped into a lower security prison. Of course, Fahmy and his colleagues have pleaded not guilty to the Egyptian state’s charges.

So what does Harper and his party colleagues have to say about all this? On his first trip to Israel, Harper congratulated Egypt’s “return to stability” under the auspices of Field Marshal Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who has become de facto ruler of Egypt.

Editorials and op-eds from across the political spectrum in Canada have called for more action on the part of Harper’s government. The Australian government has advocated for the release of its citizen, Peter Greste (though some saynot enough), also an Al Jazeera journalist. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay has called for the “prompt release” of all those captured.

Even President Barack Obama has put out a statementcondemning Egypt’s abysmal devolution into journalist purgatory. And yet, so far, the Harper administration has shown itself capable only of mere platitudes regarding “consular services.”

Lecturing the world

It’s important to note, then, that just like every other governing political party or administration, Harper and his Conservatives operate with an ideological agenda in mind when it comes to foreign policy. This means that their selective condemnation of human rights abuses around the world is done on a strategic basis (or so they seem to think).

Sure, Baird had no problem condemning the blasts that killed four people in Beirut this past January. Harper also had no trouble expressing his disapproval of the bombings in Iraq that killed 37 people last Christmas. All this is well and good, but observers inside and outside of Canada would do well to treat the Harper administration’s self-proclaimed commitment to clear-cut and “principled foreign policy” with a substantial dose of scepticism.

There’s truly no shortage of speechifying by high-level Tory officials when it comes to proclaiming how principled the Conservative administration is with regards to human rights issues. Baird has, by now, lectured the rest of the world on the matter several times.

But his speeches, in front of the United Nations to “defend” the state of Israel, provide the best window for those who care to look, beyond the rhetoric, at Canada’s true stance on human rights.

It’s not a secret that numerous human rights organisations have condemned Israel for its treatment of Palestinians, both inside and outside of Israel. But for reasons of ideology and politics, Harper and his Conservatives, much like those who came before them, don’t really care.

 

Standard
politics

Senate killing Bill C311 shameful

Published On: The Canadian Charger, November 24th, 2010
[http://www.thecanadiancharger.com/page.php?id=5&a=694]

On November 16th, 2010, by an unprecedented snap vote, the Canadian Senate struck down the Climate Change Accountability Act, otherwise known as Bill C311.

By a vote of 43-32, the bill was defeated in a Senate where many Liberal Senators were missing. The bill was not subjected to debate before the Conservatives called it into a surprise vote, which makes the occasion truly unprecedented.

What strikes most Canadians regarding this development is the fact that the Senate, an unelected body of legislators, was capable of striking down a bill that the elected House of Commons passed. This in itself speaks volumes about the specifics of the Canadian legislative system.

After sitting on Bill-311 for 193 days, Stephen Harper and his Conservatives used a tactic that Harper himself disapproved of in the past.

Now, just ahead of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Cancun, Mexico (COP16), Canada has no regulations regarding greenhouse gas pollution. Worse still, many Canadian environmentalists and activists worked extremely hard to push Bill C-311 through the House of Common, only to have it undemocratically struck down.

This bill would have called for greenhouse gases to be cut 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, and to set a long-term target to bring emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

“This was one of the most undemocratic acts that we have ever seen in the Parliament of Canada,” NDP Leader Jack Layton said at a press conference Wednesday morning. Layton and his New Democratic Party were instrumental in the construction and defense of Bill C-311.

Bruce Hyer, a New Democrat representing Thunder Bay-Superior North was the one who introduced the bill in the first place.

“To take power that doesn’t rightfully belong to them to kill a bill that has been adopted by a majority of the House of Commons representing a majority of Canadians is as wrong as it gets when it comes to democracy in this country,” Layton continued. He attributed Harper’s decision as one that had in mind Harper’s friends in oil companies, not the Canadian people.

In fact, this is the second time that the NDP has seen a climate change bill killed in the Senate. In June 2008, the NDP pushed a similar bill through the House, only to have it killed due to the elections at the time. Furthermore, no Senate has killed a bill in such a fashion (without debate, by surprise, and against the will of the House) since before the Second World War.

Such unprecedented irresponsibility points to just how low environmental issues sit on the Tories’ priority list. Canada, a developed country, now heads to COP16 completely empty-handed.

Despite promises in the past to regulate emissions, the Conservative government, since coming to power, has not tabled one law regarding climate change. Instead, it has killed the only proposed mechanism by which the people of Canada could have gained some remnant of accountability from its government regarding environmental issues.

This uproar has also caused some to question Prime Minster Harper’s views on democracy. Having campaigned vigorously against unelected Senate killing of legislation pushed through an elected House, Harper did exactly that vis a vis Bill C-311. Many view this as an act of serious hypocrisy, and “morally wrong,” according to Layton.

Gerard Kennedy, the Liberal Party’s critic on the environment, also believes that the killing of Bill C-311 is not an accident, but planned by the Conservatives in order to free themselves heading into COP16.

As of now, after the resignation of Jim Prentice, the Conservative administration has only a part-time environment minister, no legislation on climate change, and no plan on how to regulate carbon emission heading to Cancun, Mexico.

Canada will perhaps be the only country with no idea regarding its plans on climate change at the United Nations Climate Change Conference. Shame.

Standard
middle east, muslims, politics, war on terror

The Harper Administration and Israel – a Love Affair

Published at: Palestine Speaks, November 6th, 2010 (http://palestinespeaks.net/2010/11/the-harper-administration-and-israel-a-love-affair/)

Compared to the hegemon south of its borders, Canada has over the past few decades acquired a tamer, gentler reputation vis-à-vis the rest of the world. Today, whatever is left of that peace-loving, peace-keeping reputation is at best a minute glimpse into the past.

With Stephen Harper at the helm as Prime Minister, the Conservative Party of Canada has held together a minority government that has equaled the United States in its war-mongering rhetoric and posturing. Part-in-parcel with this radical shift in foreign policy has been the Harper administration’s blanket support for the state of Israel’s brutal occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT).

No previous Canadian administration has shown as much loyalty and support to Israel as Harper’s, both rhetorically and policy-wise. In May 2009, Stephen Harper was awarded the Saul Hayes Award by the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC). Ironically, the award is supposed to honour those who have demonstrated their commitment to human rights. It was the first time that the award went to an acting Prime Minster.

A year later, the Likud Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, visited Canada for the first time in eight years. “The ties between Israel and Canada have never been stronger,” Netanyahu stated confidently in his address, “You show that we are not alone.”

This is just the tip of the iceberg–signs that Israeli-Canadian relations are at a zenith. Beneath this layer of rhetorical friendship is a deeply destructive relationship that undermines the democratic values of Canada, while assisting in the moral degeneration of Israel. The truth is, in the aftermath of Operation Cast Lead (2008-2009), and the massacre on the Mavi Mamara (2010), Israel is being recognized more and more as a pariah state. As the international Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement is gaining more and more traction, grassroots organizing for Palestinian rights is at an all-time high. The entire international community, with the exception of the United States, Canada, and a few island nations, now publically recognize that Israel’s occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank is absolutely unsustainable.

Unfortunately, it is at this critical juncture when Israel’s conduct toward its Palestinian counterparts is under severe international scrutiny that Canada has chosen to negate the international consensus in blind support of Israeli Apartheid. This blanket support for Israel ultimately amounts to a criminal complicity regarding Israel’s brutal occupation of Palestinian land, now entering its 44th year.  The extent to which the Harper administration has gone to support Israel is recognizable not only by its international counterparts, but also by its very own citizens. In fact, it is within Canada itself where Harper’s support for Israel has manifested itself in a number of totalitarian gestures. Jason Kenney, who assumed the role as Harper’s Minister of Immigration, Citizenship, and Multiculturalism, deserves a place of distinction in this.

As Minister, Jason Kenney has imposed some of the most stringent anti-immigration laws Canada has ever experienced. Deportations in Canada have gone up dramatically. Vis-à-vis Israel, Kenney has taken a hardline, supportive stance. Citing what he believes to be the “new Anti-Semitism,” Kenney believes that “the alliance of Western leftists and Islamic extremists is more dangerous than the old European form of Jew-hatred.” Again, one should note that such rhetorical support for Israel coincides with the severe international scrutiny that Israel is receiving.

While practically the entire world condemned Israeli conduct in the 2006 bombardment of Lebanon, as well as in Operation Cast Lead, Canada refused to blame and scapegoat Israel for what happened. For instance, referring to Hezbollah and Hamas as “cancers,” the Harper administration played the Islamist/Islamic-fundamentalist card on both counts and refused to ally with, virtually, the rest of the world in compliance with international law.

Accompanied with this rejectionist position on the international stage has been a series of gestures within Canada that essentially disenfranchised numerous Canadian NGOs advocating for Palestinian human rights. Chief among these organizations is the Canadian Arab Federation (CAF), and KAIROS, a Canadian, faith-based ecumenical organization. In both instances, the Harper administration abruptly discontinued federal funding based on slanderous accusations.

CAF has had a history of criticizing Israeli actions regarding the Palestinians, and has advocated for Palestinian rights publically since its inception. However, the de-funding imposed by the Harper administration (namely Jason Kenney’s Ministry of Immigration) affected exclusively the service arm of CAF, which has for eleven years provided new immigrants of Canada with ESL classes and job-search workshops. Minister Kenney labeled CAF as an “Anti-Semitic organization” with “ties to Hezbollah and Hamas.” He did not substantiate his statements with any hard evidence.

KAIROS went through a similar experience. Their usually-approved funding application was rejected by Minister of International Development Bev Oda, after the application sat on her desk for a full five months. Curiously, as the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) stated that the goals of KAIROS did not fit CIDA’s stated priorities, KAIROS had been evaluated positively by CIDA in the past–for 35 years, in fact.

On December 16th, 2009, Kenney spoke at the Global Forum to Counter Anti-Semitism in Jerusalem (wouldn’t it sound better to put in Jerusalem, at the beginig of the sentence) and made the following (very illuminating) statement:

“We have articulated and implemented a zero tolerance approach to anti-Semitism. What does this mean? It means that we eliminated the government funding relationship with organizations like for example, the Canadian Arab Federation, whose leadership apologized for terrorism or extremism, or who promote hatred, in particular anti- Semitism.

We have ended government contact with like-minded organizations like the Canadian Islamic Congress, whose President notoriously said that all Israelis over the age of 18 are legitimate targets for assassination. We have defunded organizations, most recently like KAIROS, who are taking a leadership role in the boycott. And we’re receiving a lot of criticism for these decisions. I can’t recall how many times I’ve been sued for some of the decisions that we have taken, but we believe that we’ve done these things for the right reasons and we stand by these decisions.”

Such slanderous, inaccurate, and unsubstantiated claims colour the Harper administration’s disgraceful attitude towards Palestinian rights and self-determination. CAF and KAIROS are by no means the only NGOs to go through defunding. Numerous other organizations have felt the pressure from above, including Canada’s most prominent human rights organization, Rights and Democracy, which went through a Harper-initiated purge with absolutely disastrous results. This was accompanied by Canada’s decision to boycott the 2009 Durban Review Conference in Geneva, because of the conference’s “bias against the state of Israel,” and that Canada did not wish to “scapegoat the Jewish people.”

Furthermore, based on equally slanderous claims, Kenney banned former British MP George Galloway from speaking (and entering!) in Canada in March 2009. Claiming that Galloway was a proxy for Hamas, Kenney vaguely cited “national security concerns” as enough reason to ban Galloway. Tellingly, at the time, Galloway was putting together a convoy to deliver to Palestinians in the blockaded Gaza Strip, which qualifies for an open-air prison after Israel stepped up its suffocating measures in 2007.

Just this week, Richard Mosley, a federal court judge, issued a decision that vindicated Galloway and his supporters. Ruling against Kenney, the decision exposed Kenney’s attack on basic free speech rights. In a 60-page decision, Justice Mosley stated that “the evidence is that the government wished to prevent Mr. Galloway from expounding his views on Canadian soil.” Again, the extent to which Canada has tried to appease Israel boggles the mind.

These are only a few examples of Canada’s recent turn towards Israel. The list is much longer. For Canadians who care about international law and the plight of Palestinians, this “bond” between Israel and Canada seems like a pathetic imitation of Israel’s relationship with the United States. In an attempt to remake Canada in the image of the Republican Party of the United States (it seems), the Harper administration has wantonly eliminated numerous democratic institutions, and damaged Canada’s reputation abroad. These policies continue to alienate the Palestinian people, further destroying Canada’s commitment to human rights around the world, while ignoring the chance of a just peace in the Middle East.

Standard
middle east, muslims, politics, war on terror

Michael Ignatieff on Bill-94

I approached Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff this past weekend when his nation-wide bus tour landed him in Mississauga, Ontario’s annual MuslimFest festivities. After a rather warm reception, I asked the Liberal Party leader to “clear up the confusion” that has accumulated recently regarding his stance on Quebec’s proposed “niqab ban”, or Bill 94.

Ignatieff was reported by the Globe and Mail on March 26th, 2010 as to have backed the bill. Commenting on the matter at the Liberal Party’s 3-day “Canada at 150” conference, Ignatieff was quoted by the Globe as to have supposedly stated that the Quebeckers “have found a good balance.” That balance apparently referred to how “The Quebec government is trying to make sure that in civic and public places that freedom of religion is respected but at the same time on the other side citizens come forward and reveal themselves when they are demanding public service.”

This statement actually does make sense, but it was tough to see how banning the veil in Quebec would strike such a “balance”.

His answer to me this past weekend was similar, but lacked an endorsement. He was clear enough that he wanted to seek the “good-old Canadian compromise,” and that he thought Quebec would have to find its own way in achieving some common ground. When I followed up by asking whether he was misquoted in the Globe piece, he replied (with a slight hint of annoyance) with a brief “Yeah, I thought I was.” Fair enough.

I later spoke with Liberal MP (Parkdale-Highpark) Gerard Kennedy, and Omar Alghabra (former Liberal MP of Mississauga-Erindale) on the same issue. Both are against the proposed ban, and both concurred with Ignatieff’s statement.

[Addendum: I didn’t note this in the first version of this post, but in all fairness, Ignatieff did say explicitly, along with his statement on “balance”, that the state cannot/should-not dictate how women practice their faith and how they dress. Again, note the striking difference between these statements and the Globe piece. Both Kennedy and Alghabra concurred with this specific point as well.]

***

The reason I, and many others, occasionally fixate on Ignatieff’s stance on particular political and cultural issues is because we want to know how viable he is as a potential alternative to Stephen Harper. Like most people I know, I am of the “anyone-but-Conservatives” camp, and think that the Liberals have the best chance of winning an up-coming election.

The Harper administration has had such a horrible effect on me (his immigration minister Jason Kenney being a primary reason) that I simply wish it political death as soon as possible (and by any means necessary/possible). This thrusts Ignatieff into unique significance for some of us at least. Will he turn out to be the more nuanced/just leader that is needed in order to mend the bleeding wounds torn by the current administration? What will he do for immigrants, for human rights, for the environment, etc.? These are the questions we have to ask, and this is why his conclusions about the niqab in Canada should be made as public as possible.

Those of us who value whatever progressive inclinations Canada possessed before the Harper nightmare, however we feel about Ignatieff, want to know whether or not he will make an effort to step away from the post-9/11 climate that has been dominated by American belligerence.

I won’t speculate on how a Liberal administration under Ignatieff will do. Anyone can rant. However, if anything needs to be said, it is the fact that the anti-Bill 94 campaign is necessary, and that political parties/administrations move based on the pressures they feel from their respective societies.

Standard
muslims, politics, war on terror

Canada’s Disturbing “Solution” to Alleged Islamic Extremism

Published on:
http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/07/canada%E2%80%99s-disturbing-%E2%80%9Csolution%E2%80%9D-to-alleged-islamic-extremism/#more-20150

Not a terrible lot has been written about the global consequences of 9/11 on Western Muslim communities. For example, almost immediately after the deadly events of September 11th 2001, Canada adopted its own version of the Patriot Act: Bill C-36, the Canadian Anti-Terrorism Act. This piece of anti-terror legislation is so broad in its scope and language that legal experts had difficulty picturing exactly how such legislation can and will be applied.

That all changed after 2006, when several suspects in a high-profile case dubbed the “Toronto-18 Case” were convicted under the act. Of the eighteen men and youth arrested, several had their charges dropped/stayed while other pled guilty and are awaiting sentence. Of those convicted, one has been sentenced to life in prison. Indeed, there was a bomb plot planned, but the more sensationalist slogans like “beheading the Prime Minister”, so often proliferated by Canada’s corporate media, were nothing more than “big talk”. These events made Muslim communities in Canada doubly paranoid. On the one hand, they feared the dangerous stereotyping of their religious identity and practices by the “outsiders” that were sure to be a result of this case. On the other hand, they have been “forced” to keep an eye out for the “extremists” in there midst, as if scouting out lepers.

In an effort to tend to the latter (and overrated) paranoia, numerous community leaders and security agencies in Canada have come up with a solution to “de-radicalize” young “Muslim extremists”. The idea has now come into fruition thanks to the work of Sheikh Ahmed Amiruddin of the Al-Sunnah Institute in Toronto, Canada (his mosque is the Masjid El-Noor). Commonly known as the “Islamic Ideological Detox” program, Amiruddin has supposedly devised an effective twelve- step “de-radicalization” program aimed at turning angry Muslim youth away from the path of “extremism”. The initiative much resembles a kind of self-help guide for alcoholics in its structural make-up. By now, the Canadian intelligence agency, or CSIS (Canadian Security and Intelligence Services), has shown interest, as well as another Sheikh Robert Heft of “Paradise4Ever”, a Muslim organization that helps Muslim converts settle into their new faith-based lives.

As rosy and good-hearted as this all sounds, the very idea of a theology-based “de-radicalization” program is problematic. The worldview that underscored this “ideological detox” program is congruent with the tiresome post-9/11 tendency to put extremism at the centre of any potentially substantial discussion. The alleged and much touted subject of “Islamic extremism” becomes de-contextualized politically, and all suggested solutions point to the perceived problem as being completely borne out of religion. In fact, there is nothing “Islamic” about them at all. As stated by numerous studies around the world, the phenomenon of committing violence in the name of religion is usually borne out of political indignation. Robert Pape of The Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism has done more work than most on the subject of suicide bombing, and has concluded that imperial ambitions by world powers precipitate backlash, some of which take the form of terror in the name of religion.[see his new book here] Despite much (undeserved) publicity, Canada has exhibited only one case that remotely exemplifies such a case: members of the “18” were outraged by Canada’s participation in the Afghanistan war, among other things. The root of their anger was deeply political, and pertained specifically to policies carried out by their government. This is true for all NATO allies, especially the United States.

As individuals who were unfamiliar with the avenues of political activism (something their mosques and role models should have provided for and invested in), the “18” took matter into their own hands, and began to search for interpretations of the Quran and Sunnah (way of the Prophet Muhammad) which were akin to Osama bin Laden’s worldview. In other words, the political woes and the “jihadi rhetoric” that dually inspired the “18” should not be viewed as detached influences. The former reinforces and lends false credibility to the latter. The post-9/11 “West” is so obsessed with the apparently Islamic iconography used by “extremists” that they often forget to look at the bigger picture. Any solution that seeks to invest in so-called “terror-prevention” must realize this vital point. Unfortunately, Sheikh Amiruddin’s twelve-step “ideological detox” program falls terribly short of such a realization.

Another sinister characteristic of the “de-radicalization” program pertains to how exactly such a program would play out on the ground. The details have yet to be hashed out, but the way in which a program like this functions as a pre-emption to terror is worth discussing. Let’s pretend for the moment that so-called “Islamic extremism” is actually a problem in Canada. Presumably, members of a certain community will be asked to be “vigilant” about their fellow community members. If they notice any suspicious activity or behaviour by an individual/group, they will be asked to report, or “red-flag” the person(s) involved. Those reported will then be recognized and marked off by CSIS for later “treatment”. This logic in itself is questionable, with the obvious question being exactly what “behaviour” constitutes a need for suspicion. Moreover, how would such a program deal with dishonesty? If a person is reported by another individual simply out of spite and not for any substantial reason(s), what would the safeguard be? These unaddressed queries constitute concerns regarding civil liberties that will inevitably arise.

By now, the alleged problem of “Islamic extremism” has been positioned as a central concern in the 21st century. Of course, prevention of violence in the name of Islam is in everyone’s interest. However, Western democracies must realize that these problems will not be solved through Guantanamo-styled strong-arming, or through the on-going stereotyping of Muslims in society. It will be vital in the future to realize that if “extremism” is to be avoided, one must first de-fang those involved by giving them nonviolent and activist avenues to vent their anger. If such a program can be devised with the help of security agencies, participating governments must guarantee the rights and liberties of all those who are involved.

While the Anti-terror legislation came into being under the previous Liberal government, the civil liberties-bashing Conservative Harper regime has continued to hunt for “terrorists,” such as the Toronto-18 case. The regime, like much of Canada’s media, has tried very hard to inculcate a climate of fear. The government-media nexus has engaged in a campaign of demonization aiming to insert into the Canadian psyche that “deradicalization” is needed, and that an “Islamic Detox Program” will solve the problem. This ill-informed and racist position will produced unworkable and problematic policies. “Islamic extremism” is not the problem, despite what the current discourse suggests. Insofar as society wants to prevent “Islamic extremism”, the root of the problem must be hacked at: foreign and imperial ventures undertaken by Western regimes must stop at once.

Standard