Should Canadians Redefine National Security Through Public Debate?

June 16, 2012

Contents

Food for Thought: When will the Harper government facilitate democratic debate?
In the News
Further Readings
Global Context

Food for Thought: When will the Harper government facilitate democratic debate?

Canadians are losing their ability to fully and meaningfully participate in public debate.

Postmedia reports,

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service has created a set of standard definitions for commonly used terms to guide staff through the super-delicate task of labelling the individuals they’re watching.

It adds,

The one-page list of definitions describes a “terrorist” as someone who “has or will engage in, assist, commit or conduct a politically, religiously or ideologically motivated act of serious violence against persons or property.”

An “extremist,” on the other hand, is someone who “holds an extreme belief or interpretation of an idea, ideology, cause or issue, who may incite others to hold similar views and/or advocates extreme measures, including the use of violence, to draw attention to or advance a desired goal.”

Meanwhile, a “supporter” is an individual who “supports a particular organization, cause, issue, idea or ideology and who purposefully diverts or redirects attention and or resources (ie. time, funds, propaganda, etc.) towards this organization or cause.”

Such a person differs from a “sympathizer,” who “may be inclined to favour a particular organization, cause, issue, idea or ideology, but who will not purposefully divert or redirect attention and or resources (ie. time, funds, propaganda, etc.) towards supporting this organization or cause.”

Attempts to clarifying these sensitive, and often loaded, terms might have been long overdue. However, the exclusive process through which these definitions were established leave many questions unanswered.

What would this blogger prefer? Would a little more public input be too much to ask? Perhaps a public debate on how people perceive and would like to define concepts such as terrorism, extreme ideologies?

What does ‘extreme ideas’ mean? What are the assumptions behind CSIS’ definition of ‘extreme ideas’? What exactly constitutes an ‘ extreme belief’? In a period of social unrest, provoked by what seems authoritarian government policies [i.e. audio-surveillance at airports and border crossings without public consultations, Quebec's anti-protest law 78, highly contested Omnibus Bill C-38] who defines extreme ideas, extreme beliefs? Whose purpose do these definitions serve?

Most concerning is that such definitions only apply hierarchically, leaving those who have appropriated the terms of debate outside the framework of the very discourse being imposed. When do these terms, for instance, apply to authoritarian government measures against its citizens? What are the self imposed mechanisms of government accountability when dealing with policies that Canadians do not approve of? When are citizen protests democratic, and when does legitimate expressions of dissent become acts of extremism? Why do these definitions lead to more questions than answers?

It is deeply troubling that government officials can, without any debate, label legitimately concerned citizens and environmentalists ‘radicals,’ ‘extremists,’ and ‘terrorists’. Are there mechanisms in place for alternative perspectives to democratically express themselves? Are there mechanisms in place that ensure public concerns are respectfully and meaningfully addressed by those who claim to represent us?

Within the current political framework, there are no alternative perspectives. There is the Conservative government’s way or the radical way. But governments are not elected with absolute rights to impose an agenda shared only by a few. Citizens do not vote to have unjust policies and legislations imposed upon them against their will.

Governments are supposed to be facilitators of democratic communication between different interest groups. A democratic, elected government should not act as an interest group itself.

When will Canadians reclaim the terms of public debate on issues that matter to us all? When will the Conservative government allow for the democratic space we are all entitled to? When will the Harper government respectfully meets its democratic government mandate and facilitate a public debate for Canadians to express and share ideas without being marginalized, ridiculed, and demonized?

To govern by obeying is to affirm every day that the sovereign is not the state. It is the people, who express themselves not only every five years by the vote, but each day they speak and put forward their needs, expectations and collective requirements. [Evo Morales Source: Bolivian Democracy: ‘governing by obeying the people’]

http://www.apexglobal.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CTE-1024×1024.jpg

We may be tempted to conclude that there is at the very least a tension between national security and democratic freedom. Some might even say that they are opposing forces. You can have unconstrained freedom or you can have unconstrained security, but you can’t have both at the same time. And yet, to paraphrase a famous quotation, it is said that those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

I would like to suggest a different way of looking at national security and its relationship with democratic values. I prefer to think of national security as an integral part of democratic freedom. Those who say you have to choose one or the other are presenting you with a false dichotomy.

What do we mean by national security? The term is deceptively simple. We use it often, almost without thinking. And we rarely pause to think what we mean by these words. Not everyone agrees on the definition. Many people focus on only the protective aspects of security. What may be less obvious is that it also encompasses protection of our key values and institutions: those enshrined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, respect for the rule of law, and of course, democratic institutions such as Parliament, the judiciary and the executive branch of government…

Source: False dichotomy: Democratic values or national security by John Sims

Excerpt from Public Safety Canada: Building Resilience Against Terrorism: CANADA’S COUNTER-TERRORISM STRATEGY

In Canada, the definition of terrorist activity includes an act or omission undertaken, inside or outside Canada, for a political, religious or ideological purpose that is intended to intimidate the public with respect to its security, including its economic security, or to compel a person, government or organization (whether inside or outside Canada) from doing or refraining from doing any act, and that intentionally causes one of a number of specified forms of serious harm.

…

Although not of the same scope and scale faced by other countries, low-level violence by domestic issued-based groups remains a reality in Canada. Such extremism tends to be based on grievances—real or perceived—revolving around the promotion of various causes such as animal rights, white supremacy, environmentalism and anti-capitalism. Other historical sources of Canadian domestic extremism pose less of a threat…