muslims, politics, war on terror

Harper’s new ‘anti-terror’ laws threaten basic freedoms

Published by Ricochet on January 27th, 2015

As Parliament resumes this week, the Conservative government will be introducing yet another set of anti-terrorism provisions.

The CBC has learned from federal sources that the legislation will “provide national security agencies with explicit authority to obtain and share information that is now subject to privacy limits.” These are the laws being prepared by Public Safety Canada.

The laws were in the works even prior to last October’s shooting at Parliament. After that infamous day in Ottawa, preceded days earlier by an incident in Quebec, the Harper government emphasized the case for Bill C-44 (“Protection of Canada from Terrorists’ Act”), aimed at expanding CSIS’s mandate globally, among other things.

Then, just last month, Bill C-13 — otherwise known as the “Cyberbullying Bill” — received royal assent. Other than a few provisions addressing the issue in its name, Bill C-13 is mostly designed to give law enforcement more investigative powers. Canada’s Privacy Commissioner, Daniel Therrien, along with a host of civil liberty groups, have criticized these new pro-security developments. There’s not enough oversight to “watch the watchers,” so to speak.

The Harper administration hasn’t responded with much substance to these warnings. The House of Commons Public Safety and National Security committee has given Bill C-44 a few hours of consideration, and Therrien hasn’t been asked to testify in regards to the bill’s shortcomings.

The advent of online technology and the post-9/11 culture of fear have mixed to create a truly frightening global security apparatus with the power to eliminate much of human privacy. Surveillance has become a centerpiece of the “War on Terror,” which has killed far more civilians than “Islamic terrorists.” The West’s counterproductive post-9/11 policies continue to act as a recruiting tool for Muslim extremists around the world.

Canada, a part of the “5-Eyes” international security and intelligence alliance, seems to be going through a period of security and surveillance enhancements that, according to numerous watchdogs, lack overall accountability. It’s within this kind of climate that the Harper administration is tabling and passing more and more pro-security laws before the next federal election — all without extensive debate.

These companies, amazingly, have told the government that actual legislation isn’t really needed to compel them to add surveillance or interception systems for the monitoring of private users.

This kind of atmosphere isn’t just affecting the state itself, but also private telecommunication companies that Canadians use on a daily basis. The issue of lawful access to private communication metadata by state authorities is a hugely important topic that should be discussed thoroughly, given that it affects the very fabric of a democratic society. Yet it took an Access to Information and Privacy request from Michael Geist, a professor at the University of Ottawa, to show that the government has been trying to figure out a way to have telecoms install interception and surveillance apparatuses into their systems.

When former Public Safety Minister Vic Toews tabled Bill C-30, or the “Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act,” in early 2012, public outrage at its provisions caused the government to eventually withdraw the bill in February 2013. One highly criticized component of the dead bill was the mandating of Canadian service providers or telecom companies to install total surveillance systems and report their findings to the state when asked. A memo obtained by Geist shows that despite the bill’s failure to become law, the government is still talking to telecoms about installing interception systems to collect user communication, which would be disclosed to state authorities, who will be able to lawfully access such information without warrants.

Yet perhaps the most telling component of the document obtained by Geist is the telecom companies’ apparent nonchalance when it comes to the privacy of their clients. The memo notes that these companies, amazingly, have told the government that actual legislation isn’t really needed to compel them to add surveillance or interception systems for the monitoring of private users. That’s because, according to the memo, prepared for Public Safety Canada, “the telecommunications market will soon shift to a point where interception capability will simply become a standard component of available equipment, and that technical changes in the way communications actually travel on communications networks will make it even easier to intercept communications.”

In other words, don’t bother passing those laws because, soon enough, all ISPs will be procuring surveillance and interception systems from manufacturers by default. It’s hard not to be at least a bit shocked by how overly compliant these companies are when it comes to such matters. There’s been a substantial amount of publicity given to the fact that tech giants like Google and Facebook are giving their customers more encryption options in the wake of the Edward Snowden leaks — much to the displeasure of government “spy masters.” Yet, on the flip side, Canadian telecom companies are basically telling the government that in the future they’ll be working to make state surveillance much easier. Despite all the work done by brave whistleblowers around the world (of various political stripes), it’s still apparently easier to base politics on fear rather than on courage.

It’s easier to relegate these security and privacy developments into a mental corner and treat such matters as purely technical than to situate them in their broader, “War on Terror” context. These are not just cold, meaningless developments in technology that occur outside the world of human interaction. A state apparatus that can pry into the lives of its atomized citizenry is indicative of totalitarian tendencies, threatening not just the quality of democratic practice, but, given the proliferation and importance of electronic communication, liberty itself.

It’s within this overall context that mass spying and policing powers will be expanded in Canada, in addition to many other countries, who have also, subsequent to incidents such as the Charlie Hebdo massacre, fallen prey to the politics of fear.

Canadian telecom companies received a huge number of requests — about 1.2 million in 2011 alone — from federal agencies for private user information. There are no signs that such a pattern of surveillance will reduce itself over the coming years. It’s now in the hands of civil society to build off of the work done by whistle-blowers and to sway public opinion in favour of privacy, liberty, and freedom.

Photo Credit: Surveillance camera/CC

[https://ricochet.media/en/313/harpers-new-anti-terror-laws-threaten-basic-freedoms]

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