While the idea of security certificates may be new to many people, the issue which they deal with is by no means a new phenomenon. The issue of course is that of national security. National security is one of the most important things a national has to deal with since countries are responsible for protecting the nation and its citizens from harm. This issue has been in the forefront of so many people’s minds in recent years that is would appear as though Canada has never had to face a security issue in the past. From the way everyone from Paul Martin to The Mackenzie Institute to my high school math teacher goes on about security, you would think it’s the first time Canada has come across this problem.
Yes, Canada is a young nation, and as such it has not had to deal with the same types of problems countries in Europe and Asia have faced. It is true that Canada does not have the same level of experience. Having said that though, throughout its history, short as it might be, Canada has had to deal with a number of security scares. The placement of immigrants from Austria-Hungary into concentration camps in the First World War, the removal of Japanese Canadians during World War Two, and the internment of Jewish refugees from Germany are all examples of how Canada has taken extreme measures to deal with security scares. I use the term “security scare” quite loosely here because I’m not too sure who exactly is “scared” and whose “security” we are protecting. To be honest, in many of these cases I believe that the individuals under scrutiny had more reason to be scared for their own security than the country did as a whole.
If that list of past periods of uncertainty is not enough, there is still another period to add to it. Who can forget the Red Scare? Well unfortunately, too many people. The Red Scare refers to the period after World War Two during which ideological insecurity spread across Canada due to a mistrust of the Soviet Union. The Red Scare is closely related to the Cold War and the fear that the Soviet Union was gaining too much strength and that communism would soon spread throughout the world. The Soviet Union used spies in various countries to gain intelligence and the Canadian government decided to use extreme tactics to combat this. Any individuals who were communists or perceived to be sympathetic to the Soviet Union were met with suspicion and hostility. Ottawa used the War Measures Act to arrest, detain and interrogate suspects without going through the standard channels. As fear and panic increased, legitimate citizen dissent became confused with espionage and any individuals, organizations or groups who were involved with communism were seen as a threat. This led to the screening of thousands of individuals, amendments to the immigration policy and many immigrants were faced with deportation.
There were lesson we learned from this point in history about how to deal with security and the dangers that come from acting out of fear. The Red Scare raised questions about freedom and democracy within Canadian society. Can the use of such extreme tactics really be justified in a democratic nation? The Canadian government has been criticized for the way it handled the situation and its disregard for the basic liberties of the people it chose to pick out. It seems to me that the way the government chose to go about “securing” the country was questionable and based more on seeming ignorance than actual fact.
The Canadian Historical Association printed an information booklet entitled “Canada’s Red Scare 1945 – 1957” in early 2001 in an attempt to educate the public about this period in Canada’s history. This was just before 9/11 and the widespread, almost manic, public fear that soon spread. The historical booklet brought up the question of whether something such as the Red Scare could ever happen again. It leaned more towards the notion that while it is possible, its rather unlikely that a Red Scare would reoccur. Well as we all know, shortly after this publication two airplanes flew into the World Trade Centre and the rules of the game changed. I believe that it is all too likely that Canada will not learn from its past and based on its current use of Security Certificates, Canada will quite possibly make the same mistakes yet again.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Security Certificates 1970's-1991
After a series of restrictive policies specifically directed at various racial and ethnic groups, the Canadian government submitted to pressure to remove the overtly racist sections from the newest version of the laws on immigration in the 1970s. They also formalized the process for refugee claims although it wasn’t until the 1980s that oral hearings were created under the federal Immigration and Refugee Board. It seems the system was not well funded and became increasingly backlogged with hearings and processing of applications. A number of restrictive immigration bills which included provisions for security certificates were passed during the late 1980s and early 1990s including the Refugee Deterrents and Detention Bill. What a name. This Bill came about after an emergency recall of Parliament due to the arrival of a group of Sikhs claiming refugee status in Nova Scotia (?!?!?!?!). The immigration and refugee system continued to be very restrictive and slow moving, but the actual security certificate provision was rarely used. In 1984, the security aspects of this process were transferred from the RCMP to the control of CSIS (Canadian Council for Refugees, 1999).
The most well known account of the 1980s is that of Salvadoran journalist Victor Regalado, who was detained on a security certificate in 1982. The provision at the time said “that ‘inadmissible persons’ can include those ‘who there are reasonable grounds to believe will, while in Canada, engage in or instigate the subversion by force of any government.’” (The Globe and Mail: Jan 30, 1987. pg. A.3)
After a public outcry, Mr. Regalado was released on strict conditions but was eventually sentenced to deportation in 1987. He was allowed to stay in Canada while they found a country that would accept him, since the federal government apparently accepted that he could not be deported to his country of origin. The certificate was issued by Federal Solicitor-General Robert Kaplan and Immigration Minister Lloyd Axworthy, who could not be questioned about it in Court, because any answers would be a violation of the Immigration Act! The courts did not (and do not) have the right to examine the certificates, the information relied upon, or the Ministers who issued them. The federal court upheld the process, saying that the Ministers were not obligated to disclose any information pertaining to the detention, deportation, or risks posed by Mr. Regalado.
An article in the Gazette (Apr 28, 1987. pg. A.5) a couple months afterward is quite telling – “Despite public "misapprehension" about newcomers to Canada, junior Immigration Minister Gerry Weiner said yesterday he wants to see 1984's immigration level doubled before the end of the Conservative government's current mandate.” It later mentions “While Canadians are neither "bigots, nor xenophobic," there are fears expressed in public opinion polls that immigrants grab jobs while unemployment is still high.” Much of the literature at the time seems focused on ‘false’ refugee claims and “abuses of the system,” as well as getting the ‘right’ kinds of immigrants. These restrictive policies were being revised repeatedly by conservative governments in the context of an economic recession and frustrations being funneled towards certain newcomers to the country.
There were several detentions of Iraqi citizens on security certificates in 1991. The certificates seem to be used against blanket groups deemed risky, without much focus on the particular risks individuals present. And remember, they can never be used against a citizen of Canada, only people without Canadian citizenship status. The development of the certificates in the broader context of refugee and immigration policies is clearly mired in racist, xenophobic, and protectionist ideologies.
The most well known account of the 1980s is that of Salvadoran journalist Victor Regalado, who was detained on a security certificate in 1982. The provision at the time said “that ‘inadmissible persons’ can include those ‘who there are reasonable grounds to believe will, while in Canada, engage in or instigate the subversion by force of any government.’” (The Globe and Mail: Jan 30, 1987. pg. A.3)
After a public outcry, Mr. Regalado was released on strict conditions but was eventually sentenced to deportation in 1987. He was allowed to stay in Canada while they found a country that would accept him, since the federal government apparently accepted that he could not be deported to his country of origin. The certificate was issued by Federal Solicitor-General Robert Kaplan and Immigration Minister Lloyd Axworthy, who could not be questioned about it in Court, because any answers would be a violation of the Immigration Act! The courts did not (and do not) have the right to examine the certificates, the information relied upon, or the Ministers who issued them. The federal court upheld the process, saying that the Ministers were not obligated to disclose any information pertaining to the detention, deportation, or risks posed by Mr. Regalado.
An article in the Gazette (Apr 28, 1987. pg. A.5) a couple months afterward is quite telling – “Despite public "misapprehension" about newcomers to Canada, junior Immigration Minister Gerry Weiner said yesterday he wants to see 1984's immigration level doubled before the end of the Conservative government's current mandate.” It later mentions “While Canadians are neither "bigots, nor xenophobic," there are fears expressed in public opinion polls that immigrants grab jobs while unemployment is still high.” Much of the literature at the time seems focused on ‘false’ refugee claims and “abuses of the system,” as well as getting the ‘right’ kinds of immigrants. These restrictive policies were being revised repeatedly by conservative governments in the context of an economic recession and frustrations being funneled towards certain newcomers to the country.
There were several detentions of Iraqi citizens on security certificates in 1991. The certificates seem to be used against blanket groups deemed risky, without much focus on the particular risks individuals present. And remember, they can never be used against a citizen of Canada, only people without Canadian citizenship status. The development of the certificates in the broader context of refugee and immigration policies is clearly mired in racist, xenophobic, and protectionist ideologies.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Constructing 'Terrorism' Historically
I set out to write a post on the history of terrorism in Canada. Instead, I’ve written why it’s not possible to really write about that. There is no list of incidents because it all comes down to ideology - how you define a terrorist act is not something that everyone can agree on.
The dictionary tells me that terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. Many states would fall into that definition, but I don’t think the authors meant to include, for example Canada, when they wrote that. As with many terms, its definition is created by the person using the word. A few groups are happy to call what they do terrorism – their intent is to inflict terror – but many others have the term imposed on them by outside parties or governments who deem their actions unlawful. Was the FLQ an independence movement or was it a terrorist organization? What about the Minute Men? The Mohawk community from Kanesatake (who in 1990 attempted to protect sacred land near Oka, Quebec from development)?
The first use of terrorism has been traced to the French Revolution and the ‘Reign of Terror.’ Its first recorded use in Canada is just after Confederation. The institution of Canada was created and imposed on Turtle Island in 1867 after several hundred years of colonization and brutality. This period, of course, is not usually defined as terrorist in nature by mainstream writers. Instead they pinpoint the assassination of D’Arcy McGee, a federal minister, in 1868 as the first act of domestic terrorism to occur. But what could be more systematically terrorizing than the attempted annihilation and more coercive than the forced assimilation of the indigenous peoples of this land?!
Depending on your viewpoint, you could examine terrorism in Canada as
1. directed by the state against indigenous peoples and lands;
2. state terrorism by Canada in other parts of the world;
3. attacks directed against provincial, federal and private institutions in Canada; or
4. the activities of organizations within Canada in support of conflicts in other parts of the world.
Any others? These are the ones I came up with when thinking about the idea. Much of the mainstream focus in Canada is on groups deemed to be terrorist that are operating within its borders, or on possible attacks from some vaguely defined outside threat from ‘others.’
There’s a great t-shirt from Native Press in the US with the slogan “Homeland Security: Fighting terrorism since 1492” and a picture of several Native American folks with rifles. That’s not usually what we see in the media when talking about terrorism and security, though is it? There is some lit that talks about how the public’s attention is diverted from the history of oppression of indigenous people by the media characterizing attempts to resist (such as land reclamations or protests against environmental destruction) as ‘terrorist.’
I think it's important that we continue to examine and deconstruct how terrorism has been historically defined and by who, as well as how it's being used in the present context. You probably already have an idea of my politics, but to be clear, I’ll say I define myself as anarcho-feminist, and working from an anti-oppressive standpoint is important to me.
The dictionary tells me that terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. Many states would fall into that definition, but I don’t think the authors meant to include, for example Canada, when they wrote that. As with many terms, its definition is created by the person using the word. A few groups are happy to call what they do terrorism – their intent is to inflict terror – but many others have the term imposed on them by outside parties or governments who deem their actions unlawful. Was the FLQ an independence movement or was it a terrorist organization? What about the Minute Men? The Mohawk community from Kanesatake (who in 1990 attempted to protect sacred land near Oka, Quebec from development)?
The first use of terrorism has been traced to the French Revolution and the ‘Reign of Terror.’ Its first recorded use in Canada is just after Confederation. The institution of Canada was created and imposed on Turtle Island in 1867 after several hundred years of colonization and brutality. This period, of course, is not usually defined as terrorist in nature by mainstream writers. Instead they pinpoint the assassination of D’Arcy McGee, a federal minister, in 1868 as the first act of domestic terrorism to occur. But what could be more systematically terrorizing than the attempted annihilation and more coercive than the forced assimilation of the indigenous peoples of this land?!
Depending on your viewpoint, you could examine terrorism in Canada as
1. directed by the state against indigenous peoples and lands;
2. state terrorism by Canada in other parts of the world;
3. attacks directed against provincial, federal and private institutions in Canada; or
4. the activities of organizations within Canada in support of conflicts in other parts of the world.
Any others? These are the ones I came up with when thinking about the idea. Much of the mainstream focus in Canada is on groups deemed to be terrorist that are operating within its borders, or on possible attacks from some vaguely defined outside threat from ‘others.’
There’s a great t-shirt from Native Press in the US with the slogan “Homeland Security: Fighting terrorism since 1492” and a picture of several Native American folks with rifles. That’s not usually what we see in the media when talking about terrorism and security, though is it? There is some lit that talks about how the public’s attention is diverted from the history of oppression of indigenous people by the media characterizing attempts to resist (such as land reclamations or protests against environmental destruction) as ‘terrorist.’
I think it's important that we continue to examine and deconstruct how terrorism has been historically defined and by who, as well as how it's being used in the present context. You probably already have an idea of my politics, but to be clear, I’ll say I define myself as anarcho-feminist, and working from an anti-oppressive standpoint is important to me.
The Dawn of Justification for the Compromise of Human Rights
The History of Security Certificates from 2001-2008:
Security Certificates used to be used towards suspected spies, but now they are being used on suspected terrorists. Do they need to have enough information before they detain you? No, but they’ll hold you down while they’re in the months-long process of searching for more information to decide whether you are truly a threat or not.
Naturally, once the 2001 attacks happened in New York City, Security Certificates came into the forefront of the Canadian public’s attention; which is odd that we would need such a thing, given that we do not often hear of any pending attacks from Anti-Canadian foreigners.
After the attacks on The World Trade Centre, Bush has quoted, “America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people” (i.e. we don’t care for your opinion), “I will never relent in defending America - whatever it takes” and “I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people. If America shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch.” Clearly he thinks American citizens are feeble minded and helpless. According to him, we need to surrender our protection and security to ‘daddy’ and have him make decisions on our behalf, even if we’re forcibly handing over our rights under the guise of ‘National Security’.
Why quote what Bush says? Well it’s no surprise that Canada is following in America’s footsteps. They invade Afghanistan, we send troops. They feel their security is threatened and they need to take measures without boundaries, the same happens over here.
So what does Harper say about suspected terrorists and Security Certificates? “Whether the best thing is to send them right out of the country or simply detain them until we get full information, we can look at either; but know this is a problem that does need to be fixed. Particularly post 9/11, we can’t take these kinds of security risks." (Feb 2004). And I once again quote "SIMPLY" detain them UNTIL WE GET FULL INFO. To them it is simple to take someone out of their home and family life and throw them in a cell for months on end. Let's take this quote to heart.
Once again, just like Bush, “by any means necessary”. If it means detaining you for months with lack of sufficient information, then that’s what has to be done.
Question: what happened to the whole ‘warrant’ idea… having enough proof in order to obtain a warrant before searching someone’s personal space and arresting them? In this case it’s more like, “We have an inkling…but will arrest you until sufficient information may or may not be found”.
The quote by Harper above about Security Certificates was in 2004. Let’s fast forward to 2007. They've decided they can't just decide to send a 'National Threat' 'back home' IF that person will face death or torture. So instead, they'll SIMPLY be detained.
Whereas before the detained did not have a right to a lawyer, The Supreme Court decided (more like suddenly became enlightened with a dose of common sense) that detaining individuals without allowing someone to advocate on their behalf is a violation of human rights. Yet still, while the lawyers are exposed to the ‘evidence’ – the detained, their family nor the public can know what that terrorist-related ‘evidence’ is.
A summary is given to the individual, but the “summary must include sufficient information to enable the individual to be reasonably informed of the circumstances giving rise to the certificate, but it does not include anything, in the opinion of the judge, that would be dangerous to national security or the safety of any person if disclosed”. Adil C. claimed that his 400 page report that he was given while detained, cited nothing in relation to him and Al-Qaeda.
Source for more info: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/ns/seccert-eng.aspx
Security Certificates used to be used towards suspected spies, but now they are being used on suspected terrorists. Do they need to have enough information before they detain you? No, but they’ll hold you down while they’re in the months-long process of searching for more information to decide whether you are truly a threat or not.
Naturally, once the 2001 attacks happened in New York City, Security Certificates came into the forefront of the Canadian public’s attention; which is odd that we would need such a thing, given that we do not often hear of any pending attacks from Anti-Canadian foreigners.
After the attacks on The World Trade Centre, Bush has quoted, “America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people” (i.e. we don’t care for your opinion), “I will never relent in defending America - whatever it takes” and “I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people. If America shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch.” Clearly he thinks American citizens are feeble minded and helpless. According to him, we need to surrender our protection and security to ‘daddy’ and have him make decisions on our behalf, even if we’re forcibly handing over our rights under the guise of ‘National Security’.
Why quote what Bush says? Well it’s no surprise that Canada is following in America’s footsteps. They invade Afghanistan, we send troops. They feel their security is threatened and they need to take measures without boundaries, the same happens over here.
So what does Harper say about suspected terrorists and Security Certificates? “Whether the best thing is to send them right out of the country or simply detain them until we get full information, we can look at either; but know this is a problem that does need to be fixed. Particularly post 9/11, we can’t take these kinds of security risks." (Feb 2004). And I once again quote "SIMPLY" detain them UNTIL WE GET FULL INFO. To them it is simple to take someone out of their home and family life and throw them in a cell for months on end. Let's take this quote to heart.
Once again, just like Bush, “by any means necessary”. If it means detaining you for months with lack of sufficient information, then that’s what has to be done.
Question: what happened to the whole ‘warrant’ idea… having enough proof in order to obtain a warrant before searching someone’s personal space and arresting them? In this case it’s more like, “We have an inkling…but will arrest you until sufficient information may or may not be found”.
The quote by Harper above about Security Certificates was in 2004. Let’s fast forward to 2007. They've decided they can't just decide to send a 'National Threat' 'back home' IF that person will face death or torture. So instead, they'll SIMPLY be detained.
Whereas before the detained did not have a right to a lawyer, The Supreme Court decided (more like suddenly became enlightened with a dose of common sense) that detaining individuals without allowing someone to advocate on their behalf is a violation of human rights. Yet still, while the lawyers are exposed to the ‘evidence’ – the detained, their family nor the public can know what that terrorist-related ‘evidence’ is.
A summary is given to the individual, but the “summary must include sufficient information to enable the individual to be reasonably informed of the circumstances giving rise to the certificate, but it does not include anything, in the opinion of the judge, that would be dangerous to national security or the safety of any person if disclosed”. Adil C. claimed that his 400 page report that he was given while detained, cited nothing in relation to him and Al-Qaeda.
Source for more info: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/ns/seccert-eng.aspx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)