Five days after the Toronto arrests (and almost five years after September 11, 2001), security has once again become the primary focus of Canadian political, media, and public discourse. Details about the arrests, the allegations and charges associated with them, and the investigation are still far from complete. This hasn’t stopped the flow of analysis and speculation in the media; a quick Google search shows thousands of articles from across the world on the subject of Toronto’s ‘homegrown’ terror plot, and the story has been front page news in all Canadian newspapers this week. On television, the news channels have quickly assembled special reports, expert commentary, and mini documentaries, all geared towards exploring all angles of this weekend’s events.
The actual amount of raw data and confirmed information available about the arrests is limited, and many news reports are citing other news reports as sources, which means that speculation becomes circulated and given a rather alarming degree of legitimacy. Take a look at some recent articles about the arrests, and count the number of times the words ‘may’ and ‘might’ appear. For example, CBC’s headlines today include an article on how ‘CBC building in Toronto may have been target,’ and one on how the ‘Internet may have played role in bomb plot.’
It’s possible that these stories (particularly the latter) are entirely accurate. It’s possible that they are off-base, as more than a few articles have been this week. The point that needs to be kept in mind is that the veracity of the allegations does not need to be confirmed for them to have a very real impact on Canadian national security policy and the public discourse on security. Discourses on terrorism are as much driven by what might have been and what might be as what is or was, and this is especially true in the wake of an ‘incident.’ This is a difficult situation to work around. On the one hand, rampant speculation and innuendo can and does enhance public fear and insecurity, and create a political atmosphere where the pursuit of security opens a dangerous policy window; on the other hand, a free press is one of the cornerstones of a democracy, and active, open public discourse is needed to circumvent the ‘chilling effect’ that often accompanies terrorist events. What is needed is not less reporting, but better analysis and discourse from a variety of backgrounds and perspectives. In particular, we need to resist the urge to accept the position of the state as Truth (given that there has been no trial and no conclusive evidence presented at this point), and to challenge media outlets that adopt this discourse uncritically. The World Socialist Web Site has produced an article that touches on some of these points, and a weekend article by the Toronto Star also questions some otherwise taken-for-granted aspects of the investigation. CBC adds some critical analysis with a discussion of the potential for fair terrorism trials in Canada.
As it is impossible to comment on the veracity of the charges without further information (which is, of course, why we have a court system in the first place), I’d like to look at a few additional aspects of the political responses to the arrests:
US - Canada Border Security
The best example of the politicization of this incident can be seen at the Canada-US border, and in the discourses about heightened border security in the face of this ‘new threat’ from Canada.
When thinking about this subject, it’s important to note a few points:
By all accounts, the Toronto arrests were the culmination of a lengthy investigation involving a variety of agencies, and with the cooperation of American law enforcement. CBC has proposed a rough investigation timeline that goes back to the fall of 2004. Established post-September 11 policy in both countries emphasizes information exchange and collaboration, and we know that joint Canada-US investigations and intelligence-sharing has taken place in the past.
Also, the current understanding seems to be that the ammonium nitrate obtained by the 17 accused was a) provided by the RCMP as part of a sting operation, and b) not really ammonium nitrate, but a harmless substance (the real order of ammonium nitrate was switched out by police before delivery). So the actual capacity of this group to carry out any bombing was, if we are to believe the official position, kept in check by police action. While the RCMP does indicate that additional arrests might be pending, authorities have stated that there is no imminent threat associated with this situation.
If these points are accurate, we are left to wonder why American officials were so quick to heighten border security AFTER the June 2 arrests. Surely such precautions would have been more reasonable when there was still some potential for a ‘homegrown’ Canadian attack on the US? Is this move not similar to waiting until a storm has passed to open an umbrella? Given the cooperation between Canadian and American security intelligence agencies (something they proudly assert in public reports), and given the fact that the 17 men were unlikely to pose a substantial threat to the United Sates after their arrest and maximum security detention, it is difficult to comprehend how the border security escalation could be a response to an identifiable risk.
The CBC reports that the US is ‘beefing up’ traffic checks, adding ‘enforcement capabilities,’ and ‘increasing security’ at border stations, which are on ‘high alert.’ Forbes magazine notes that “U.S. Border Patrol Chief David Aguilar said patrol stations along the 4,000-mile border - especially those adjoining Ontario - are on high alert because of the arrests, although investigators say the suspects' alleged plot apparently involved only targets in Canada.” In the same Forbes article, security consultant, media fixture, and senior fellow of the Canadian Coalition for Democracies (check out their web discussion forum for a sense of how they approach these matters) David Harris is quoted:
"Canadians are determined to keep the border open at almost any cost, because so much of Canada's economy relies on U.S. trade," said Harris, who now is a private security consultant in Ottawa. "The general theory of the trade devotees is the border should be open all the time, at virtually any cost - but you can only enjoy your prosperity if you're alive to do so."
Harris has urged Canada to tighten its immigration policies - it welcomes some 250,000 new immigrants and refugees each year - and work with the United States on bolstering border controls with such high-tech devices as such as sensors and infrared cameras.”
Note that, despite any evidence that the Toronto plot(s) involved any direct threat to the United States, it is being used as a mobilizing event in order to push border security and immigration control political agendas. The Toronto Star notes in an editorial that American politicians have been quick to jump at the chance to ‘perpetuate the myth’ that Canada is a ‘gateway to potential attackers’ attempting to target the US. The Star makes the very obvious link between this discourse and the pending changes to border crossing identification policy, although they stop short of actually saying that those wishing to institute tightened border controls have a vested interest in describing Canada as ‘soft on terrorism.’ The National Post’s Sheldon Alberts discusses the calls for increased border security, including the building of a fence. The article notes that a preoccupation with the Canadian ‘homegrown terrorist threat’ is working in the favour of US lawmakers advancing policies that call for heightened security measures. And the Star quotes US Re. Peter King as saying that "There's a large Al Qaeda presence in Canada ... because of their liberal immigration laws, because of how political asylum is granted so easily," This despite the absence of any direct connection between Canadian immigration policy and terrorism – and absolutely no connection between immigration policy and the alleged actions of the 17 suspected ‘homegrown terrorists.’
I submit that the calls for increased border security following this evidence of a Canadian ‘homegrown’ terrorist threat have nothing to do with countering terrorism, and everything to do with advancing a security narrative that embraces even the slightest examples of threats in order to expand a politically profitable social control apparatus.
Air India Review
The use of the Criminal Code sections created under C-36 come at an important time in the policy review process. In a recent announcement regarding the Terms of Reference for the forthcoming Air India Commission of Inquiry, the Government of Canada indicated that part of the Commission’s mandate would involve a full review of Canada’s anti-terror legislation, with an eye to considering alternative models (read: expansions). This announcement caused some concern, as the new Anti-Terrorism Act (the focus of any legislative review) had not been tested, save for one criminal charge that has not yet gone to trial. Without evidence that the current legislation was adequate, it was feared that steps would be taken to expand and add upon it, perhaps following in the footsteps of recent British anti-terrorism bills. In the wake of this weekend’s arrests, and the use of C-36 charges, the review process has the potential to become more complex. It will be possible to argue that Friday’s arrests represent the culmination of a successful investigation, and that no additional legislative changes need to be made (particularly since none of the more extraordinary components of C-36 were used in the process); others will undoubtedly argue that toughened legislation is required to ensure that future threats can be countered.
Other policy areas that will be affected by the political atmosphere surrounding the Toronto arrests – and areas of ambiguity associated with the prosecution of the suspects - include:
The relationship between the goals and guidelines of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the imperatives of the Anti Terrorism Act: A number of the suspects are technically minors, and Canadian law treats minors differently than adults when it comes to criminal trials; however, the as-yet untested C-36 sections of the Criminal Code have never been applied to minors before (having been used only once previously, in a case that has not gone to trial), and it there is very little discussion of the prosecution of ‘terrorist minors’ in any of the legal or academic literature.
Security at the Parliament Buildings: Given the allegations that the Hill and the PM may have been targets, the debate about securing Parliament (which has been going through periods of dormancy and peaks of discussion since 2001) has taken on a new intensity. I suspect that the allegations associated with an attack on Parliament will not need to be proven (which could take a year or more) for steps to increase Parliamentary security to be taken.
Security Certificates: As mentioned in previous posts, the creation of the KIHC facility, coupled with the Harkat bail decision and appeal and the pending court dates regarding the detention of the ‘Secret Trial Five,’ represent an extremely important moment for Canadian national security. The de facto indefinite detention associated with Security Certificates has been condemned by just about every human rights group in existence, and the popular movement in support of due process and fair trials for the men currently being held has been gathering momentum over the last few months. The Security Certificate process is entirely separate from the ATA, and the underlying issues have nothing to do with the Toronto arrests. In fact, it is impossible for someone to be a ‘homegrown Canadian terrorist’ and the subject of a Security Certificate, which can only apply to foreign nationals. However, it is almost certain that the upcoming hearings will be, at best, overshadowed by the Toronto story. At worst, the Security Certificate issue and the ‘Homegrown Terrorist Threat’ will be conflated under a broad security narrative, which will add an additional layer of murkiness to an already complex legal process.
And of course, regulation for ammonium nitrate, a subject that has been bouncing around for years.
Will we be writing about ‘Post-June 2’ Canadian national security policy at this time next year? It remains to be seen, but by all indications the Toronto arrests, regardless of the eventual decision of the courts, are seen by many as catalysts for political action.
- Mike L
The actual amount of raw data and confirmed information available about the arrests is limited, and many news reports are citing other news reports as sources, which means that speculation becomes circulated and given a rather alarming degree of legitimacy. Take a look at some recent articles about the arrests, and count the number of times the words ‘may’ and ‘might’ appear. For example, CBC’s headlines today include an article on how ‘CBC building in Toronto may have been target,’ and one on how the ‘Internet may have played role in bomb plot.’
It’s possible that these stories (particularly the latter) are entirely accurate. It’s possible that they are off-base, as more than a few articles have been this week. The point that needs to be kept in mind is that the veracity of the allegations does not need to be confirmed for them to have a very real impact on Canadian national security policy and the public discourse on security. Discourses on terrorism are as much driven by what might have been and what might be as what is or was, and this is especially true in the wake of an ‘incident.’ This is a difficult situation to work around. On the one hand, rampant speculation and innuendo can and does enhance public fear and insecurity, and create a political atmosphere where the pursuit of security opens a dangerous policy window; on the other hand, a free press is one of the cornerstones of a democracy, and active, open public discourse is needed to circumvent the ‘chilling effect’ that often accompanies terrorist events. What is needed is not less reporting, but better analysis and discourse from a variety of backgrounds and perspectives. In particular, we need to resist the urge to accept the position of the state as Truth (given that there has been no trial and no conclusive evidence presented at this point), and to challenge media outlets that adopt this discourse uncritically. The World Socialist Web Site has produced an article that touches on some of these points, and a weekend article by the Toronto Star also questions some otherwise taken-for-granted aspects of the investigation. CBC adds some critical analysis with a discussion of the potential for fair terrorism trials in Canada.
As it is impossible to comment on the veracity of the charges without further information (which is, of course, why we have a court system in the first place), I’d like to look at a few additional aspects of the political responses to the arrests:
US - Canada Border Security
The best example of the politicization of this incident can be seen at the Canada-US border, and in the discourses about heightened border security in the face of this ‘new threat’ from Canada.
When thinking about this subject, it’s important to note a few points:
By all accounts, the Toronto arrests were the culmination of a lengthy investigation involving a variety of agencies, and with the cooperation of American law enforcement. CBC has proposed a rough investigation timeline that goes back to the fall of 2004. Established post-September 11 policy in both countries emphasizes information exchange and collaboration, and we know that joint Canada-US investigations and intelligence-sharing has taken place in the past.
Also, the current understanding seems to be that the ammonium nitrate obtained by the 17 accused was a) provided by the RCMP as part of a sting operation, and b) not really ammonium nitrate, but a harmless substance (the real order of ammonium nitrate was switched out by police before delivery). So the actual capacity of this group to carry out any bombing was, if we are to believe the official position, kept in check by police action. While the RCMP does indicate that additional arrests might be pending, authorities have stated that there is no imminent threat associated with this situation.
If these points are accurate, we are left to wonder why American officials were so quick to heighten border security AFTER the June 2 arrests. Surely such precautions would have been more reasonable when there was still some potential for a ‘homegrown’ Canadian attack on the US? Is this move not similar to waiting until a storm has passed to open an umbrella? Given the cooperation between Canadian and American security intelligence agencies (something they proudly assert in public reports), and given the fact that the 17 men were unlikely to pose a substantial threat to the United Sates after their arrest and maximum security detention, it is difficult to comprehend how the border security escalation could be a response to an identifiable risk.
The CBC reports that the US is ‘beefing up’ traffic checks, adding ‘enforcement capabilities,’ and ‘increasing security’ at border stations, which are on ‘high alert.’ Forbes magazine notes that “U.S. Border Patrol Chief David Aguilar said patrol stations along the 4,000-mile border - especially those adjoining Ontario - are on high alert because of the arrests, although investigators say the suspects' alleged plot apparently involved only targets in Canada.” In the same Forbes article, security consultant, media fixture, and senior fellow of the Canadian Coalition for Democracies (check out their web discussion forum for a sense of how they approach these matters) David Harris is quoted:
"Canadians are determined to keep the border open at almost any cost, because so much of Canada's economy relies on U.S. trade," said Harris, who now is a private security consultant in Ottawa. "The general theory of the trade devotees is the border should be open all the time, at virtually any cost - but you can only enjoy your prosperity if you're alive to do so."
Harris has urged Canada to tighten its immigration policies - it welcomes some 250,000 new immigrants and refugees each year - and work with the United States on bolstering border controls with such high-tech devices as such as sensors and infrared cameras.”
Note that, despite any evidence that the Toronto plot(s) involved any direct threat to the United States, it is being used as a mobilizing event in order to push border security and immigration control political agendas. The Toronto Star notes in an editorial that American politicians have been quick to jump at the chance to ‘perpetuate the myth’ that Canada is a ‘gateway to potential attackers’ attempting to target the US. The Star makes the very obvious link between this discourse and the pending changes to border crossing identification policy, although they stop short of actually saying that those wishing to institute tightened border controls have a vested interest in describing Canada as ‘soft on terrorism.’ The National Post’s Sheldon Alberts discusses the calls for increased border security, including the building of a fence. The article notes that a preoccupation with the Canadian ‘homegrown terrorist threat’ is working in the favour of US lawmakers advancing policies that call for heightened security measures. And the Star quotes US Re. Peter King as saying that "There's a large Al Qaeda presence in Canada ... because of their liberal immigration laws, because of how political asylum is granted so easily," This despite the absence of any direct connection between Canadian immigration policy and terrorism – and absolutely no connection between immigration policy and the alleged actions of the 17 suspected ‘homegrown terrorists.’
I submit that the calls for increased border security following this evidence of a Canadian ‘homegrown’ terrorist threat have nothing to do with countering terrorism, and everything to do with advancing a security narrative that embraces even the slightest examples of threats in order to expand a politically profitable social control apparatus.
Air India Review
The use of the Criminal Code sections created under C-36 come at an important time in the policy review process. In a recent announcement regarding the Terms of Reference for the forthcoming Air India Commission of Inquiry, the Government of Canada indicated that part of the Commission’s mandate would involve a full review of Canada’s anti-terror legislation, with an eye to considering alternative models (read: expansions). This announcement caused some concern, as the new Anti-Terrorism Act (the focus of any legislative review) had not been tested, save for one criminal charge that has not yet gone to trial. Without evidence that the current legislation was adequate, it was feared that steps would be taken to expand and add upon it, perhaps following in the footsteps of recent British anti-terrorism bills. In the wake of this weekend’s arrests, and the use of C-36 charges, the review process has the potential to become more complex. It will be possible to argue that Friday’s arrests represent the culmination of a successful investigation, and that no additional legislative changes need to be made (particularly since none of the more extraordinary components of C-36 were used in the process); others will undoubtedly argue that toughened legislation is required to ensure that future threats can be countered.
Other policy areas that will be affected by the political atmosphere surrounding the Toronto arrests – and areas of ambiguity associated with the prosecution of the suspects - include:
The relationship between the goals and guidelines of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the imperatives of the Anti Terrorism Act: A number of the suspects are technically minors, and Canadian law treats minors differently than adults when it comes to criminal trials; however, the as-yet untested C-36 sections of the Criminal Code have never been applied to minors before (having been used only once previously, in a case that has not gone to trial), and it there is very little discussion of the prosecution of ‘terrorist minors’ in any of the legal or academic literature.
Security at the Parliament Buildings: Given the allegations that the Hill and the PM may have been targets, the debate about securing Parliament (which has been going through periods of dormancy and peaks of discussion since 2001) has taken on a new intensity. I suspect that the allegations associated with an attack on Parliament will not need to be proven (which could take a year or more) for steps to increase Parliamentary security to be taken.
Security Certificates: As mentioned in previous posts, the creation of the KIHC facility, coupled with the Harkat bail decision and appeal and the pending court dates regarding the detention of the ‘Secret Trial Five,’ represent an extremely important moment for Canadian national security. The de facto indefinite detention associated with Security Certificates has been condemned by just about every human rights group in existence, and the popular movement in support of due process and fair trials for the men currently being held has been gathering momentum over the last few months. The Security Certificate process is entirely separate from the ATA, and the underlying issues have nothing to do with the Toronto arrests. In fact, it is impossible for someone to be a ‘homegrown Canadian terrorist’ and the subject of a Security Certificate, which can only apply to foreign nationals. However, it is almost certain that the upcoming hearings will be, at best, overshadowed by the Toronto story. At worst, the Security Certificate issue and the ‘Homegrown Terrorist Threat’ will be conflated under a broad security narrative, which will add an additional layer of murkiness to an already complex legal process.
And of course, regulation for ammonium nitrate, a subject that has been bouncing around for years.
Will we be writing about ‘Post-June 2’ Canadian national security policy at this time next year? It remains to be seen, but by all indications the Toronto arrests, regardless of the eventual decision of the courts, are seen by many as catalysts for political action.
- Mike L
No comments:
Post a Comment