Bill C-51

MediaNewsPolitics

The change of government didn’t stop the steep decline of press freedom in Canada according to Reporters Without Borders. Canada now ranks 22nd in the RWB index, four spots below last year. The international press freedom watchdog urges Trudeau to act on his vocal defense of free media.

Every year, Reporters Without Borders publishes a report on the state of press freedom in 180 countries. They base their rankings on questionnaires submitted to media professionals, lawyers and sociologists in each country, and on the number of acts of violence and abuse towards medias and journalists.

In 2015, Canada was eighth on the list. One year later, thanks to the ever-increasing hostility of the Conservative government toward the media, it had plunged to the 18th spot.

Many expected Trudeau to change this bleak course when he took office, considering how he advocated for a strong and free press during the campaign. While the government’s relations with media may appear more cordial, the Prime Minister has so far failed to live up to that expectation. Canada has slipped down four more spots, now ranking right between Samoa and the Czech Republic.

The top of the index is once again filled by Scandinavian countries, with Norway in the lead. Costa Rica follows in 6th place. At the other end of the scale, North Korea surpassed Eritrea as the very worst place in terms of press freedom. Turkmenistan and Syria are close behind.

RWB says Canada’s poor score this year is partly due to the fact that a number of journalists have been put under police surveillance in Quebec, including La Presse’s Patrick Lagacé. The organization also cited a court ordering Vice journalist Ben Makuch to hand over all communications between himself and an RCMP source as it highlights Canada’s lack of specific legal framework for journalism.

RWB also highlighted the charges brought against The Independant’s journalist Justin Brake for trespassing while he was covering the protests against the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project in Labrador. Plus the NGO expressed disappointment at the PM’s failure to repeal C-51, which is widely considered as a huge setback for press freedom and individual rights. RWB already tried to bring all these concerns to Trudeau’s attention in an open letter written in November.

Canada is not the only country with a less than stellar performance. The US went dropped from 41st to 43rd, a relatively small slip, considering Donald Trump severely restricted media access to all kinds of information and his outright calling the press “an enemy of the american people.” It might suggest that the Obama administration’s difficult relationship with the press and war on whistleblowers might have had more far-reaching effects than it seems.

In fact, RWB maintains that press freedom is in more danger than ever, all across the world.

“We have reached the age of post-truth, propaganda, and suppression of freedoms – especially in democracies,” The report declared in its cheerful introduction. It attributes the worsening state of affair to a conjuncture characterized by the rise of strongmen and the erosion of democracies in Europe and America alike. As for Canada, RWB recommends that the government repeals C-51 and put forward concrete measures to ensure confidentiality of journalistic sources.

* Featured image from Reporters Without Borders official site

NewsPoliticsWeb & Tech

Thousands of people lined up on the McGill campus Wednesday night waiting hours for a chance to be part of a videoconference with Edward Snowden.

(No, not the guy from Wikileaks, that’s Julien Assange and the only thing they have in common is an outstanding warrant against them for leaking information that the American government wanted kept secret. Snowden revealed that the government agency he worked for, the NSA, was spying on ordinary people on a scale that is neither legitimate nor legal. Basically, he proved that the US and many other countries, including Canada, engaged in mass surveillance. This means the government collects things like your phone records, your videos, your internet data, regardless of whether you are suspected of criminal activity or not.)

You might have missed the videoconference because you were among the thousands of understandably irritated fans left outside after both auditoriums were filled. Maybe you decided to go home after almost getting trampled for the third time in the line-up. Maybe you stayed home to watch the Cubs win.

We can’t recreate for you the distinct Rock Show feel of the overexcited line of people randomly cheering and periodically lurching forward in a panic to get inside, nor the barely concealed distress of the moderator as the video entirely cut off after random people started joining the video call.

The event did not run smoothly by any stretch of the imagination. Less than half of the people who lined up got inside the building. The conference was more than an hour late and the organizers managed to make the Google hangout public, which let to technical difficulties of frankly comedic proportions.

The fact that AMUSE/PSAC, the association representing 1000 members of support staff (most of them also students) at McGill was on strike and picketing arguably didn’t help matters. They became the prime target of the people’s frustration.

However, Edward Snowden himself came to their defense. He encouraged the people present to “hear them out” and reminded the audience of how hard being a dissident could be.

Mishaps aside, the conference happened and Snowden managed to say a lot of interesting things during it. Here are a few of them.

“Surveillance technologies have outpaced democratic control.”

Mass surveillance was a lesser problem when it wasn’t so easy. Not so long ago, it took a whole team to track one person’s activity. Now it’s the opposite. One lone government official can easily track the activities of many people.

The safeguards against the abuse of this power have not developed as quickly. This means that Intelligence agencies have less accountability than ever, while their powers keep growing thanks to evolving technologies.

“This inverts the traditional dynamic of private citizens and public officials into this brave new world of private officials and public citizens.”

This, Snowden says, is perfectly illustrated by the recent revelations about the SPVM spying on Patrick Lagacé. It was revealed earlier this week that the SPVM and the SQ have put the La Presse reporter and at least six other journalists under surveillance in an effort to discover their confidential sources. Snowden called it a “radical attack on the operations of a free press” and “a threat to the traditional model of our democracy.”

But the actions were authorized by the court. For Snowden, this is a sign that the “law is beginning to fail as a guarantor of our rights.”

Intelligence officials have overtly admitted that they would interpret the word of the law as loosely as they could to fit their interests, regardless of the actual intent of the law. In practice, this translates to using anti-terrorist measures to spy on environmental activists or getting access to a journalist’s internet data through a bill meant to fight cyber-bullying.

 “How do we ensure that we can trust intelligence agencies and officials to operate the law fairly? The answer is we can’t.”

We can’t trust intelligence officials to respect the spirit of the law; in fact, we can’t even trust them to respect the law itself, argued Snowden. Intelligence gathering programs have broken the law more than once, he reminded, often without consequences.

“What we can do,” he continued, “is put processes in place to ensure that we don’t have to.” He believes the key of these processes is an independent judicial authority able to oversee intelligence gathering operations and prosecute them when needed.

“Canada actually has the weakest intelligence oversight out of any major western country.”

“Now they’re not the most aggressive,” he conceded, “they don’t have the largest scale, but…. no one is really watching.”

The powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Agency (CSIS) have drastically increased in the last 15 years.  Law C-51, in particular, allows them to decide under any motive – however far-fetched – who constitutes a threat to national security and can thus be spied on. “The current Prime Minister did campaign to reform [C-51] and has failed to do so,” reminded Snowden.

The resources to oversee the CSIS, meanwhile, have decreased. The office of the Inspector General, which used to be a major part of it, was simply cut by Stephen Harper. This left the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) as the sole entity reporting to parliament on intelligence agencies. Its members are politically appointed.

CSIS is not the only intelligence gathering agency. The Canadian Border Security Agency, Global Affairs Canada and the National Defense Department all have the power to infringe on the rights of people, including the right to privacy, in certain circumstances and there is no credible authority overseeing them.

Retired Deputy Director of Foreign Intelligence Kurt Jensen pleaded for changing this situation in an article published last January. “Remember the old adage of who will watch the watchers? In Canada the answer is no one,” he wrote.

Since then, the government has started a process to review the oversight of intelligence gathering operations. Public hearings about the matter have started in September. Incidentally, this week, a judge ruled that the CSIS has been unwittingly conducting illegal mass surveillance since 2006.

The conference ended on an inspirational note, with Snowden addressing the students:

“We can have a very dark future or a very bright future but the ultimate determination of which fork in the road we take won’t be my decision, it won’t be the government decision, it will be your generation’s decision.”

LawNewsPolitics

There have been rumours that the Conservative majority in the Senate could block Prime Minister Trudeau’s plan reform the unpopular Anti-Terrorism Act of 2015 (“the Act”), known to most as Bill C-51. In an October 26, 2015 article by the Ottawa Citizen’s Ian MacLeod, the Conservative majority in Canada’s Upper House mentioned their plans to act with reason, common sense, and good faith to prevent any changes to the act that would make the majority of Canadians “uncomfortable.”

The subtext being that our Senate, consisting of 47 Conservatives, 29 (technically former) Liberals and 7 Independents, would be more than happy to save Trudeau from having to honour his election promise to reform the Act, an act that is perceived by many as prioritizing Islamo and Xenophobia over Charter rights in the name of national security.

Trudeau’s proposed amendments include the following:

  • The creation of an all-party joint committee of the House of Commons and Senate responsible for monitoring all activities of any government organisations such as the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the RCMP, responsible for enforcing Canada’s anti-terrorism laws.
  • New legislation forbidding CSIS from violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Under the Act and articles 12.1 (3) and 21.1 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, CSIS can violate the Charter to take measures to reduce a threat to national security if they get a warrant from a federal judge.
  • Clearer definitions of things like “terrorist propaganda,” currently defined under the Act as “any writing, sign, visible representation or audio recording that advocates or promotes the commission of terrorism offences in general… or counsels the commission of a terrorism offence.”
  • Ensuring that lawful protests and advocacy aren’t dubbed terrorist threats under national security law.
  • Requiring a mandatory review of the Act every three years.

These reforms, for the most part, seem to be what the country has been calling for: a reasonable approach to national security. The question is: can the Senate block a bill that would reform the Act and start the implementation of these promised changes?

In theory, yes, the Senate can. In practice, it’s not bloody likely. In order to fully understand this, we need to look at the Senate itself.

The Senate, also known as the Upper House, consists of members appointed by the Governor General of Canada on the advice of the Prime Minister. It was created as a house of “sober second thought,” protecting our country from the tyranny of the masses as represented by the elected members of the House of Commons.

The Canadian Senate chambre (image: Johnath / flickr, Creative Commons)
The Canadian Senate chambre (image: Johnath / flickr, Creative Commons)

In order for a bill to pass, it must go through the House of Commons (the House). After introduction, multiple readings, discussion, and debate, the House votes on the bill. If the bill passes, it goes to the Senate, which in turn does its share of debating, discussing, and voting. If the Senate passes the bill, it goes to the Governor General, who puts his final stamp, known as the Royal Assent on it, thus turning the bill into law.

In the beginning, no one had any problems with the Senate determining the life or death of legislation. As people became more educated and realised the magnitude of their democratic rights, the Senate’s popularity waned and with it, the legitimacy of its right to kill a bill.

Canadians are very aware that they have no say in who ends up in the Senate beyond voting for the Prime Minister who appoints Senators through the Governor General. As a result, the Senate has in turn evolved so that most laws are now given the Senate’s consent whether a majority of Senators agree with the law or not.

The Senate is HUGELY unpopular, especially in light of last March’s auditors’ report, the results of which displayed gross expenditures so scandalous HBO’s John Oliver did a three and a half minute segment on it on Last Week Tonight. The NDP has been pushing for the Senate’s abolition for years, while others have been demanding that if it’s not abolished, it should at least become an elected body like the House.

Given the Senate’s unpopularity, it is highly unlikely they will block attempts to reform C-51. The last time they blocked controversial legislation was when they killed Brian Mulroney’s attempt to re-criminalize abortion in 1990.

The Senate’s very existence is hanging on by a thread. It’s more likely that our Senators’ plans to act with reason, common sense, and good faith in the face of the proposed amendments to the Act are really just words of wisdom for our new Prime Minister.

NewsPolitics

Theories trying to explain just what went wrong with the NDP campaign have been as prevalent on my Facebook newsfeed this past week as posts about how cool Trudeau is and analysis of the new Star Wars trailer (it’s awesome, btw).

There are three main arguments being put forward. Each has its merits:

It’s Because of the Niqab!

Party insiders, defeated (and elected) MPs and now even leader Tom Mulcair himself have laid the blame squarely on the niqab. Specifically, they blame the race-baiting tactics employed by Harper and reinforced by Gilles Duceppe for their defeat.

Since NDP Orange Wave seats came largely at the expense of the Bloc Quebecois, Duceppe was able to mobilize xenophobic members of their former base and make the NDP look weak, or at least weaker than they looked before, in fortress Quebec. When people in other parts of the country saw this happening, the Anyone But Conservative crowd collectively decided that if the NDP couldn’t hold Quebec, voting Liberal was the only way to ensure a Harper defeat.

Awkward Bearded Man in a Suit Trying to Smile

Every politico worth their salt knows and loves The West Wing, so the easiest way to explain this theory of defeat is to reference the show, in particular the episode The Two Bartlets. NDP strategists took a street fighter and a damn good parliamentarian and forced him to run as Uncle Fluffy.

When Tom Mulcair railed against Bill C-51 while being rained on at a demonstration in the streets of Montreal a few months before the campaign started, it was magic. Angry Tom was in his element. The Harper Government ripping apart the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is definitely something to get angry about.

mulcair c-51 rally

It worked. Too bad NDP strategists opted to take a different road for the campaign. Tom Mulcair in a suit, the same suit each time it looked like, talking in measured tones and cracking a forced smile.

They also chose to make the campaign about him. Focusing on the ensemble of talented MPs and candidates with Tom at the centre leading the charge would have been a much better strategy. You should only make it all about the leader when the leader exudes charisma.

Running a Jack Layton campaign only works with Jack Layton as leader. Focusing on a leader who isn’t all that charismatic and not being used to his full “angry” potential when one of your opponents is Justin Trudeau is just bad strategy.

Sharp Right Turn Alienated the Base

While the NDP started off the campaign strong with a principled stand to the left opposing and promising to repeal Bill C-51, they soon tried move themselves to the mushy middle. On the economy, they overshot their goal and found themselves to the right of the Liberals.

Sure, it may have seemed like the only option at the time. The NDP saying it was going to run deficits would have caused some to say “look at those socialists, can’t manage money.”

True, the Liberals can get away with promising deficits in a way the NDP cannot, but surely some strategists in Mulcair’s inner circle knew that and could have predicted Trudeau would make an economic play to the left. Mulcair’s zero deficit promise helped further alienate a good chunk of the party’s social democratic base.

I say further because Mulcair had already damaged relations with the base a few weeks before by refusing the nomination and candidacy of candidates who had been critical of Israel during the bombardment of Gaza a year earlier.

So What Was It?

Which one of these theories is correct? They all are.

The niqab debate did hurt the NDP much more than it hurt the Liberals. It was the spark that pushed the party to third place in the polls.

However, if the base had been solid instead of pushed to the sidelines, those who had all but given up on the New Democrats wouldn’t have been saying “you see, I told you so!” Instead they would have been devoting every second of their spare time to counter Harper and Duceppe’s poison pill on social media, on the phones calling voters and door-to-door.

Likewise, if Mulcair had been allowed to be Angry Tom, he could have got mad at the race baiting and explained clearly, as he did with C-51, why it was wrong. If the campaign wasn’t just about him, his co-stars, the candidates, could have taken some of the heat off on a much larger level.

It’s possible the NDP would have still finished in third place, but it would have been a much stronger caucus, one that may have eliminated the Bloc, too. It may have even been strong enough to hold Trudeau to a minority.

So What Happens Now?

Along with calls for Mulcair to resign, I have seen total disbelief that he hasn’t done so yet and that the party hasn’t forced him to. It makes more sense, though, if you look at NDP history.

On one hand, this is the most catastrophic defeat the party has ever suffered. On the other, with 44 seats in the House of Commons, this will be the NDP’s second largest caucus since the formation of the party, beating Ed Broadbent’s 1988 total by one seat.

Then again, Mulcair was elected leader, over the misgivings of some of the party faithful, on the promise that he could win. Not just do better than Ed Broadbent, but continue what Jack Layton started and form government. On that promise, he failed to deliver in a spectacular fashion.

Mulcair Layton

I think the best course of action would be for Mulcair to announce his resignation as leader, to take effect when a new leader is elected. I hope he stays on as an MP, as he is a strong presence in the House of Commons. He’s a pitbull, but not a Prime Minister.

The NDP should elect a charismatic, preferably bilingual, social democrat as leader. Alex Boulerice springs to mind, so does Nikki Ashton. Now that vote sharing with the Liberals won’t be an option, maybe even Nathan Cullen, with some French lessons, could work.

If Mulcair does decide to stay on, though, and the party doesn’t force him out, he should admit all the reasons why he failed this past election and make changes accordingly. Otherwise, what happened to him and the NDP last Monday could end up being a preview of worse to come.

NewsPolitics

Prime Minister-Designate Trudeau,

Hi, first off I would like to congratulate you on your sweeping victory. Canadians clearly had enough of Stephen Harper and his policies and put their trust in you to rectify the wrongs our soon-to-be former leader wrought on our country.

To be completely honest, I did not vote for you. In fact I urged others to vote for the NDP rather vocally. While I have found myself supporting that party in the past, this time it was due almost exclusively to their promise to repeal C-51, Harper’s so-called anti-terror legislation, completely.

I am aware that you voted for this legislation, helping it become law. At the same time, you promised to make changes to it, which was not enough to get my vote. However, you and the Liberal Party got enough votes from my fellow Canadians that now we are left with your promise as our only way to eliminate at least some of this disastrous piece of legislation.

Some Positive Signs

You’re off to a good start. I have to admit that so far you seem to be sticking to your promises. You even made it clear that reforming C-51 is a priority. In particular, I like that you are considering making changes to the vagueness surrounding the “terrorist propaganda” section.

As someone who frequently writes opinion pieces online, I would hate for one of my pieces supporting, say, Idle No More, to land me in jail for five years and result in this site being taken down. While you may not be inclined to apply C-51 in such a way, the fact that a government that was so inclined could do so is completely horrifying.

It is equally frightening that attacking the economic interests of Canada or another country can be considered terrorism. Urging economic boycott is one of the most effective tactics activists have in their arsenal. Also, while I know you don’t agree with me about the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, and have tweeted as much, at least you can agree that my writing a post supporting then shouldn’t land me in jail for half a decade.

Adding parliamentary oversight and sunset clauses is also a very good idea, so is having public consultation. But why not go further?

Canadians Don’t Need It. You Don’t Need It

I don’t think there was any need for C-51 to begin with, as what happened in Ottawa was closer to a school shooting than an act of terrorism. We should have been looking at mental health and gun issues instead of passing sweeping anti-terror legislation. But after hearing you talk about the need for balancing our security with our rights and freedoms during a debate, I realize you’re probably not going to change your mind on this.

Though, after laying a wreath for Corporal Nathan Cirillo this year, you didn’t repeat your claim that what happened in Ottawa last year was an act of terrorism. It gives me hope. Now that you don’t have to fight Harper in an election, maybe you are starting to realize that all of his claims were not only full of it but counter to what the Canadian people want.

c51 sign
Anti C-51 rally in Toronto (image openmedia.ca)

Since you want to be the Prime Minister of all Canadians and not just those who voted for you, I hope that you will take advantage of an opportunity that now presents itself. Instead of trying to reform C-51, surprise everyone and repeal it. I know there were some things in there you feel are worth keeping. Why not simultaneously pass your own security law with them included?

You have a majority government, you can do this. You can honour the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and get this Harper stain off of your administration before it has a chance to set in. You also will live up to your election promise of balancing security and rights in the process. You’re already planning on repealing C-24, why not get rid of its companion legislation at the same time?

Petition Already Underway

In case you needed more incentive to do the right thing, there is already a petition underway, courtesy of the people at OpenMedia.ca asking you to kill C-51. While the public may have been behind the bill initially, that quickly changed as they found out what was really in this piece of legislation.

You and your party learned this, too. In fact, it almost cost you the election. As I’m sure you’re aware, you won the election in spite of having voted for C-51, not because of it.

Now is the time to listen to the public and do the right thing. Opponents of C-51 didn’t remain silent during the campaign and there is no sign that we will now that power is changing hands.

Now, Prime Minister-Designate Trudeau, is the time to be on the right side of history. I have faith and hope that you will do the right thing and get rid of Harper’s omnibus disaster C-51 once and for all.

Yours truly,

Jason C. McLean
Montreal

* Top image: Election night screengrab

NewsPolitics

For ten years, Stephen Harper has used the same electoral strategy:

1. Campaign from the centre, hold a kitten, don’t say much
2. Let opponents destroy each other
3. Govern from the far right
4. Repeat

It was a strategy that served him well and even gave him a majority government. He had no reason to change it, until a few weeks ago.

For the first time in a long time, it looked like the Conservatives were going to lose, badly. Harper’s own efforts to scare his opponents into accepting Bill C-51 had made this possible.

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau took the bait. NDP leader Tom Mulcair didn’t and fought hard against it. This encouraged many progressives to abandon the Liberal brand and get behind the next Orange Wave.

A mostly united left in a country that is predominantly centre-left is a real threat to Harper. He recognized it and decided to send his campaign manager back to Ottawa and bring in Lynton Crosby, known to many as the Australian Karl Rove.

Crosby didn’t waste too much time:

Post-Crosby Conservative mailout (via Twitter)
Post-Crosby Conservative mailout (via Twitter)

Canada is now getting a federal George Bush-style campaign of fear.

The Niqab Debate is Back On

A few months ago, before the campaign was even launched officially, people were talking about the Niqab. It all stemmed from the case of one woman who wanted to wear hers while taking the oath of citizenship but was denied because of a rule imposed by Harper’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

When the rule was overturned, the Conservatives wanted to bring it back, the NDP didn’t and the Bloc Quebecois, under the leadership of Mario Beaulieu, tried to make it their wedge issue against the NDP.

It stayed in the public eye for about a week and then most people forgot about it. The Bloc changed leaders and started attacking the NDP from the left on pipelines.

Fast forward to the week leading up to the first French language debate. The Bloc, reeling in the polls, brought the non-issue back up and in the debate, Harper pounced on it.

Stephen Harper and Thomas Mulcair in a heated exchange during the French language debate (Radio-Canada/YouTube)
Stephen Harper and Thomas Mulcair in a heated exchange during the French language debate (Radio-Canada/YouTube)

In a heated debate, Mulcair got off a great one-liner: “Stephen Harper is trying to hide his failed economic policy behind a Niqab.” Elizabeth May echoed that statement. Bottom line, this is a distraction pure and simple.

Mulcair is right. Very few women actually wear the Niqab in Canada. I have seen maybe three people wearing Niqabs in my life and I live in Montreal. Only one woman fought for the right to wear one during a citizenship ceremony. Also, during the French debate, “What is a Niqab?” was the top Goolge search in Canada.

But yet, this non-issue is somehow THE issue for the moment.

You’re Either With Us or You’re With the Guy Who’s Already Serving a Life Sentence

When the Conservatives brought in Bill C-24, making it possible to strip citizenship from anyone convicted of “terrorism” or “treason” who could be considered the citizen of another country as well, most people, to put it mildly, weren’t impressed. Harper had just created second-class citizens and seeing as C-51 made it possible to define anyone the government didn’t like as a terrorist or terrorist promoter, it was now possible to have political opponents deported.

Harper`s new strategist Lynton Crosby
Harper`s new strategist Lynton Crosby

C-24 fell to the backburner quickly, but now that Crosby’s in charge of the campaign, the government decided to apply the law. They picked Zakaria Amara, one of two leaders of the so-called Toronto 18, a group of home-grown terrorists who planned to detonate several bombs in Toronto.

A dual citizen of Canada and Jordan, Amara was stripped of his Canadian citizenship on Friday. He was informed of this via a letter sent to the prison in Quebec where he is currently serving a life sentence. That’s right; our government boldly declared that someone serving life is no longer a citizen, though he will be staying here as long as his sentence lasts.

For him, that punishment means, wait for it, absolutely nothing. He’s still behind bars and will be for a while. Sure, if he gets paroled while he is still alive, he could be deported to Jordan, or, theoretically, Jordan could ask for his extradition before his sentence is up. After all, we are now holding a Jordanian citizen in one of our prisons. It was so much simpler when he was just a Canadian arrested and convicted under Canadian law.

It was a purely symbolic move. One designed to bring support to C-24 and the Harper government. Forget “sure it restricts freedoms, but it gets the bad guys,” this is more like “sure it restricts freedoms, but it allows us to turn the bad guys we’ve already caught into a political prop.”

Will It Work?

So, the big question is: will a right-wing wedge issue and fear-based campaign actually work federally in Canada? I don’t think so and seriously hope not.

I hope that the predominance of the Niqab debate is just spin from a mainstream media desperate for divisive issues. While I trust the Bloc’s statistic that 90% of Quebecers they surveyed are against permitting the Niqab at citizenship ceremonies (for now), I wonder how many of those people care enough about the issue to make it a primary voting concern.

If voters consider all the facts including the amount of women who actually wear the niqab in Canada, the fact that there are procedures in place at citizenship ceremonies to ensure proper identification and the fact that denying someone citizenship does nothing to protect them against coercion (in fact, it has the opposite effect), then the only way they can vote for a niqab ban is if their own cultural prejudices trump everything else. I seriously hope that’s not the case with my fellow Canadians.

I also hope that we can all see through the charade of picking someone who is already doing life and making him the poster child for an ill-conceived law that does not affect the guilty and harms honest Canadians who only want their voices heard.

I don’t think my countrymen and women are that fucking dumb. I don’t think Canadians will fall for a Karl Rove strategy. But I guess we’ll all find out on October 19th.

* Fetured image: feelguide.com

NewsPolitics

I was born in Canada and I have no other country that I could theoretically be considered a citizen of. I guess that means I’m safe. Unfortunately, there are quite a few people who do not fit this bill. Even if you were born in Canada, if you could conceivably claim citizenship in another country, you are now a second-class Canadian citizen under the law, thanks to Harper`s Bill C-24, the so-called “Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act,” which passed on June 11th.

Now, anyone convicted of “terrorism or treason” could have their Canadian citizenship revoked if they are a dual citizen or there is a chance they could become the citizen of another country. That means if your grandparents were born somewhere else, you could conceivably get citizenship in that country and the law applies.

C-24 Makes C-51 a Whole Lot More Real

If you qualify as a second-class Canadian, you may not be too worried. You’re not planning on committing treason or carrying out a terrorist act and neither are your friends.

Well, now that C-51 is law, it’s not clear just what constitutes terrorism and what doesn’t. The current government is free to label activists they don’t like as terrorists, as is any future government until the law is repealed. Economic boycott, a respectable and effective tactic, could also fall under terrorism according to C-51.

Working in tandem, C-24 and C-51 make it possible for a recent immigrant or someone born here to lose their citizenship for doing something that has been legal up until now and should always be.

Ironic Nightmare Scenarios

Imagine, if you will, a Canadian citizen who could theoretically live in another country. They take part in, say, an Idle No More solidarity action. Harper and company decide to label that terrorism.

This person then gets labelled a terrorist or terrorism promoter under C-51 and then loses their citizenship under C-24. Effectively forced to leave Canada for defending the one group that actually has a right to be here but are treated as second-class citizens already.

Now imagine a Jewish Canadian who participates in the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement criticizing Israel. If the government decides to label this economic terrorism, C-51 would make this person a terrorist.

Now, given that Israel grants a right to return to all Jewish people, this person would be considered someone who could go and live there and therefore could lose their Canadian citizenship under C-24. So, they could be forced to live in the very country they are urging a boycott against.

C51DraftImg3

What C-24 Really Is

Above all, C-24 is an intimidation tactic. As long as the risk of being deported or left in limbo for speaking your mind is present, protesting the government or their friends just won’t seem worth the risk to many.

Revoking citizenship for actual crimes or actual terrorism is one thing. Making the consequences dire for expressing an opinion not in favour with the current powers that be is truly frightening.

Change through the political process is important, but without a grassroots opposition that is free to mobilize, it is irrelevant. When you take away the right to protest and oppose, you’re basically left with a fully democratic, open and transparent dictatorship. Yes, people get to change the dictator every four years (or sooner in a minority situation), but when they’re in power, only parliament and mainstream media pundits can oppose them, not the general public.

This should not be a partisan issue or even a left-right thing. Dictatorship is bad no matter who the dictator is.

I wouldn’t want to live under a Harper dictatorship any more than one run by Mulcair, Trudeau, Gilles Duceppe or even Elizabeth May, though the last one, I have to admit, would at least be entertaining. As long as these two laws stay on the books, that’s pretty much what we’re getting.

I don’t use the “d” word lightly, in fact this is the first time I have used it in relation to Canadian politics. But then again, I don’t take C-51 and C-24 lightly, either, and neither should you or, for that matter, anyone.

AudioPodcast

Panelists Jordan Arseneault and Cem Ertekin discuss the potential ramifications of Bill C-51 becoming law, summer protests in Montreal and what artistic events they’re looking forward to. Plus the Community Calendar.

Host: Jason C. McLean
Producer: Hannah Besseau

    Panelists

 

Jordan Arseneault: Séro.Syndicat // Blood.Union, It Could Get Worse, freelance journalist, FTB contributor

Cem Ertekin: FTB news editor

Sit-in protest segment by Cem Ertekin

FTB PODCAST #6: C-51 Becomes Law, Summer Protest in Montreal & Community Calendar by Forget The Box on Mixcloud

Microphone image: Ernest Duffoo / Flickr Creative Commons

Host: Jason C. McLean
Producer Hannah Besseau
Sit-in protest segment by Cem Ertekin

NewsPolitics

Bill C-51, the Harper Government’s so-called anti-terror legislation, is now the law of the land in Canada. It passed the House of Commons last month and yesterday it passed the Senate. While supporters of the bill argued that it will make Canadians safer, this Canadian felt a whole lot safer before this thing was law.

Now Anyone Can Be Labelled A Terrorist

One of the most jarring elements of this legislation is that it makes what it calls the “promotion of terrorism” punishable by five years in prison and websites being taken down. The problem is that it doesn’t define what is and what isn’t terrorism.

This is really frightening to anyone who expresses an opinion or advocates actions that are contrary to the interests of the current or future governments. Supporters of Idle No More and environmental activists whom the Harper regime has already tried to affix the terrorist label to have a reason to be scared, but they’re not the only ones.

While it does say that “lawful protest” is not terrorism, anyone ticketed under Montreal’s Municipal Bylaw P-6 knows that what’s lawful can be redefined in defiance of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in a moment’s notice by pretty much any level of government.

Civil disobedience is our right as Canadians. It’s also a good way to keep the pressure on until unconstitutional laws get overturned in court. That could be considerably more difficult with the prospect of being labelled a terrorist or promoting terrorism hanging over your head.

Another chilling part of C-51 is how it labels threats to the economic interests of Canada, or another country, acts of terrorism. This might make you think of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement aimed at Israel. Given that the Harper regime is already letting it leak that they may use hate speech laws against BDS activists, the prospect of going after them with C-51 isn’t that much of a stretch.

But, as one surprisingly honest RCMP officer admitted, the law could be used to target anyone who uses economic pressure tactics like boycotts:

Economic protest is not only one of the most effective tools out there, it is also a non-violent tactic which is everyone’s right to use. When you equate boycotting a company or a country with doing physical harm to actual humans, you are taking the personification of corporations to a whole new level which it should never be at.

No Need Except Political

The saddest thing about this Bill is that there is no need for it to begin with. The Ottawa shooting was not an act of terrorism.

So when you hear Justin Trudeau argue that the bill is flawed but needed, you can deduce that he only means it is needed for political purposes, to help him secure votes on the right. When he promises to make changes to C-51 if elected, it’s simply a ploy to keep some votes on the left.

It was a clever plan that seems to have backfired on him and the Liberals. There are even protesters at his rallies now saying that he’s the same as Harper because of his stance on C-51.

This is working out very well for the NDP. The anti-Harper vote is starting to galvanize behind them. Admittedly, at one point, leader Tom Mulcair was quoted saying that the party opposes the bill but he would only make changes to it if elected. That has changed, rather dramatically, with the NDP and its leader emphatically saying they will repeal it completely if they form government:

Mulcair is now listening to his party’s base and the Canadian left in general. He knows he needs to do so to become Prime Minister. But this is going beyond the left-right axis. Even Conservative supporters have realized that this law is bad news and needs to be done away with.

Unfortunately, that feeling didn’t carry over to any Conservative senators. It also escaped some of the now former Liberal senators, though most of the ex-Liberal Senate Caucus did vote against the bill to their credit. The Canadian Senate had one chance to prove itself useful and it failed miserably.

Honestly, if they had stopped C-51 from becoming law, all the Mike Duffys in the world wouldn’t be able to stop my appreciation. Unfortunately, they didn’t.

228 People On My Shit List

Between the House of Commons and the Senate, 227 people voted in favour of C-51. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, interestingly enough, was out of the country at the time of the vote in the HOC, so he wasn’t counted, but I’m going to count him anyway, because I’m sure how he would have voted.

So 228 people, 228 elected officials, for whatever reason, decided to vote to enact a needless law that stripped away some of our basic rights and freedoms. 228 people voted to put their own political interests ahead of the rights of the people they were elected to represent.

c51 protester

It’s never a good idea to take things personally. But, in this case, I can’t avoid it. As someone who enjoys expressing my opinion which at times conflicts with the aspirations of the current government and may promote causes which are potentially damaging to the economic interests of the friends of the powers that be, I am horrified that 228 people think it’s okay to label me as a terrorist or terrorist promoter.

This is beyond politics. This is beyond what is acceptable in a democratic society. This is one of the most un-Canadian things I have ever encountered.

C-51 doesn’t need to be amended. It needs to be repealed immediately. Thrown away, spat on, stomped on and otherwise abused until it is no longer part of our present or history.

For those not frothing at the mouth like I am, or those who want to do something positive to get rid of this monstrosity (I’ll join you soon enough, promise), OpenMedia.ca has a helpful guide of potential next steps for those opposed to C-51.

For those 228 fellow Canadians who supported a law which scares me to the core, I have two words: FUCK YOU!

* Images by Obert Madondo, Creative Commons via Flickr

News

Social media has been set ablaze following the news that Bill C-51, the Conservatives’ so-called “anti-terrorism” legislation, has passed. The Conservative government intends to use their new legislative weapon to ban any BDS movement on the grounds of hate speech. I won’t elaborate on that question here, since Jason quite eloquently did so in a previous article.

Obviously anti-semitism and BDS aren’t synonymous. Many Israelis and Jews throughout the world are against the occupation and colonization of the West Bank and the illegal blockade of Gaza – does that make them any less Jewish? If anything, it would make them more human!

But what this whole debate underlines, once again, is that you can’t consider yourself Jewish if you don’t prostrate yourself completely at the feet of almighty Israel that can do no wrong – you aren’t Jewish unless your every action is a perfect emulation of Israel’s moves.

Support of Israel and Neo-Nazis in Ukraine

In this parallel universe that Harper, Netanyahu and Irwin Cotler, among others, have created, your “Jewishness” is defined by your support for Israel. Thus as long as you support Israel, all is fine and well. As long as you support Israel, you can even support, let’s say, the Neo-Nazis in Ukraine, even arm them and give them training. You can send strategic advisors to the aid of notorious anti-semites such as Andriy Parubiy or Andriy Biletsky and yet still be anointed with the title of “biggest friend of the Jewish people.”

Militants of neo-fascist Ukrainian party Svoboda.
Militants of neo-fascist Ukrainian party Svoboda.

The hypocrisy of the Harper government has reached new heights within the past few weeks, especially after this government’s megalomaniac decision to directly intervene within Ukraine’s internal affairs. Defence Minister Jason Kenney decided to quell the rumours of the potential affiliation of Canadian troops with Neo-Nazi elements by issuing a statement refuting those claims.

But in issuing that statement, Jason Kenney proved his complete lack of understanding about the Ukrainian conflict or, at least, his intellectual dishonesty. It’s interesting to see that Jason Kenney seems to know how to separate a “Neo-Nazi” from a “Non Neo-Nazi” better than the Ukrainians themselves.

The sphere of influence of Neo-Nazi terrorist outfits in Ukraine is larger and more powerful than ever and indistinguishable from the state apparatus. Neo-Nazi elements are present within every single major party represented within the Ukrainian parliament, within government, and within the National Security Council, which is the main actor through whom Canadian military officials are coordinating their operations in Ukraine.

Re-Defining Anti-Semitism

I guess being the best friend of Israel, gives you those sorts of benefits… Fighting against Islamic fanaticism on one side of the globe and supporting Neo-Nazi fanaticism on the other – that’s Stephen Harper’s foreign policy in a nutshell.

boycott_divestment_sanctions_560

Anti-semitism has become a word that has been thrown around so much that it’s become merely a tool nowadays – a rhetorical figure of speech to quash contrary points of view. Unfortunately, because of its over usage and conflation with any criticism of Israel,  the word has become devoid of its original essence, which is the hatred of the Jewish people, perpetuated by millennial racial stereotypes.

A year ago, this Conservative government organized the grandiose gala of anti-semitism in Ottawa and, with figures from across party lines, jointly denounced the “new anti-semitism:” a monstrous and preposterous new epidemic afflicting the world – the criticism of Israeli crimes against humanity.

This is the whitewashing of anti-semitism for political purposes, at its best. This type of whitewashing succeeds at doing exactly what it supposedly condemns: creating a racial stereotype and thus facilitating racism – in this case anti-semitism. In the universe of this new era of anti-semitism that comes in the drapes of criticism of Israel, Jews are seen to be a monolithic group: all support Israel, all support the illegal blockade of Gaza, and since Netanyahu said it a few months ago, every single Jew is against a two-state solution. As Steven Blaney said – at the time referencing the Qu’ran as justification for bill C-51 – “violence starts with words, hatred starts with words.” May I add violence starts with misleading racial stereotypes and hatred grows through the perpetuation of those racial stereotypes.

Nazi propaganda pumped racial stereotypes and conglomerated Jews as one and the same. That is how hate speech was born then and how it is born now. In defining Judaism as supporting Israel, the Harper government and all those that abide to such a logic are instigating hate speech, promoting a false racial stereotype and should be convicted under the hospice of their new draconian hate speech laws.

תיקון עולם

NewsPolitics

On Wednesday, as most Canadian politicos were either basking in the afterglow of the Orange Wave which swept Alberta or nursing their hangovers, the House of Commons passed Bill C-51, the Harper Government’s so-called anti-terror legislation. This wasn’t a surprise by a longshot, but it is, nonetheless extremely unfortunate.

All the major parties voted as the said they would. The Conservatives voted for it, the NDP and Greens against, and the Liberals, living up to half of their promise to help make it law and then change it if they come to power, voted yea.

Much has been said about how this Bill is fundamentally flawed and over-reaching. Many pundits, including myself, have raised concerns that C-51’s definition of terrorism was left vague so the bill could be used as a weapon against the government’s political opponents such as environmentalists, First Nations, BDS supporters and others.

One thing that really hasn’t been talked about, though, is that even if C-51 was on-target and not a typical Harper Omnibus distraction, there still wouldn’t be need for it at all.

A Tale of Two Tragedies

I will never forget the Dawson shooting. My old CEGEP turned into a crime scene. Anastasia DeSouza was gunned down, an innocent, random victim of one man’s violent delusion. Her murderer, Kimveer Gill, killed himself after being shot in the arm by police, though this is one of those rare times when I think deadly force by police would have been justified.

At the end of the day, two people were dead, one an innocent victim, one very much the exact opposite. Several people were injured and survivors were left traumatized.

It was a terrible tragedy. In the aftermath people were calling for tighter firearms regulations and improved services for people suffering from mental illness. No one, though, was screaming terrorism, because it wasn’t. It was the act of one man.

Ottawa shooting Harper

What happened last October in Ottawa was also a tragedy. Corporal Nathan Frank Cirillo died senselessly, the victim of one man’s delusion. His killer, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, was justifiably killed by Parliament Hill Sergeant at Arms Kevin Vickers.

At the end of the day, two people were dead, one innocent, one guilty. Others were injured and survivors were traumatized. I don’t laugh at Prime Minister Harper hiding in a broom closet (though I do question the RCMP’s exit strategy for a head of state), he’s human and was a victim of this event, too.

Despite its similarities to the Dawson shooting and other horrific attacks carried out by troubled lone gunmen, the reaction to the Parliament Hill shooting was different. It was instantly labelled as a terrorist attack.

A few thousand people, or even just a few people, killed by a coordinated assault planned by a group is a terrorist attack. It doesn’t justify something like the Patriot Act, in my opinion, but at least the shoe fits. A lone gunman going on a spree is a spree killing, even if the spree is cut short after one or a few victims.

While Zehaf-Bibeau may have had thoughts of jihad in his head and chose targets based on his take on world politics, he was still just a disturbed man acting without outside coordination. Michael Zehaf-Bibeau was as much a member of ISIS as Kimveer Gill was the Angel of Death he claimed to be on a website.

Political Reasons Only

Justin Trudeau was interviewed on Vice News a few weeks ago. Shane Smith asked him about his party’s confusing position on C-51. Trudeau said that despite C-51’s faults, “there are a number of things in that legislation that increase security for Canadians, that do make us safer at a time when people are worried about terrorism.”

I’d honestly like to know what those things are. How does anything in a bill, inspired by an event that is not terrorism, but the act of a disturbed individual, protect Canadians against the bogeyman of terrorism?

It can’t, but that’s not the point. The point, at least for Trudeau, is “at a time when people are worried about terrorism.”

It’s politics, pure and simple. Polls, albeit sketchy polls, showed support for the bill at the time. He went for it. So did the Bloc Quebecois. When C-51 came up for a vote, though, the Bloc voted against it. I guess they saw that the bill was now opposed by many. If there ever was a time for the Liberals to flip-flop and not suffer for it, it was Wednesday.

There are so many ways Trudeau could have sold a reversal on this that even the cleverest Dipper wouldn’t be able to use it to hurt his party. While I’m not a Liberal supporter by any stretch of the imagination, I would have welcomed it. The more voices against this bill, the better. I even wrote to Marc Garneau, my current MP, asking him to convince his boss to change his tune.

Colossal Miscalculation

Being the anti-Harper candidate doesn’t just mean looking younger and fresher and having somewhat more progressive social policies. It means opposing crap bills with no purpose like C-51.

Instead, Trudeau stuck to his badly aimed guns. The opposition to this monstrosity of a piece of legislation now clearly belongs to Tom Mulcair. The NDP leader is a moderate centrist at best, but, thanks to a little bit of rain on his hair and some serious Liberal bungling, he has the chance to come across as a street fighter, standing on a soapbox railing against oppression and invoking the War Measures Act and Duplessis’ Padlock Laws. He’s Angry Tom who’s angry for a very good reason.

trudeau voting for
Justin Trudeau voting for C-51

C-51 may have cost Justin Trudeau any chance he had in the upcoming election. That is, if people remember a few months from now that he sided with Harper on a bill which has no purpose but potentially horrible repercussions. If they do, he can forget about the left. As for the right, why would they vote for Harper Light when the real deal is also on the ballot?

This colossal miscalculation on the part of the Liberals doesn’t necessarily mean a new era, though. Stephen Harper is still one of the craftiest politicians out there. Even if the anti-Harper vote crystallizes into a shade of orange, some of what once was red may turn blue and join their right-wing brethren to fight the feared wave.

The real trick is convincing all, or most, Canadians, whether they lean right, left, stay in the centre or don’t really care about politics at all, that taking away our basic rights to express ourselves for manufactured purposes is just plain wrong.

* Featured image: openmedia.ca

NewsPolitics

The stage is now set for round two of the charter debate. It’s sort of like a Star Wars sequel, only in this one it’s the bigots and the political opportunists that strike back. Maybe in some ways it’s the Empire, if you mean by that the dominant oppressive forces that are in play in Quebec and broader Canadian society nowadays.

During the infamous debate about the charter, I wrote that Pauline Marois, with her quest into the heart of darkness of Quebec, had given Harper and the Conservative Party a priceless electoral blueprint. In fact, contrary of common knowledge, the Conservative movement and the Sovereignist movement have a lot more in common than the rest of the electoral pack.

With C-51 it looks as if, unfortunately, that my prediction has been vindicated. Xenophobia sells in Canada in general and in Quebec in particular. The snake oil of security and secularism in disguise has become but another means to divert attention away from unpopular neo-liberal shock doctrine while reinvigorating the omnipresence of the state.

For all that the libertarian prophecies of neoliberal and neoconservative think-tanks, their rhetoric of “no government is good government” and that “government is the problem,” C-51 is nothing more than a power swap in favor of more state power. It’s an 18th of Brumaire coup that allows neoliberal forces to consolidate their coercive power.

C-51 is ultimately a brilliant strategic move. It enables this Conservative government to do two things. First and foremost, they can use it to sideline any in depth debate about the economic model that they have imposed on Canadians from coast to coast to coast since their tenure in power, a model that is tatters. You just have to take a look at Alberta. Secondly, it allows them to crush any resistance that might have already been brewing, to kill in the egg social and environmental movements such as Idle No More or more recently ShutDownCanada.

In the House of Commons, Liberals and Conservatives alike called for non-partisanship and for consensus, even though consensus cannot happen in the absence of debate. That, though, is the objective. The incidents that took the lives of two Canadian Army officials, in Ottawa and in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, gave the Conservatives the perfect opening to apply their shock doctrine.

In the wake of those events the country was in shock. It was time to pass legislation that couldn’t be passed before, and this is where C-51 comes into play. This bill is the armed-wing of the economic policies that have been put forward by this Conservative government.

C-51 will outlaw any tentative to unseat or destabilize the Conservative economic agenda. Further with the Liberal Party voting in favor of it, it seems that at the end of the electoral cycle win or lose, if the Liberals win, Stephen Harper still wins.

In this context “Islamic Radicalism” and “Terrorism” are merely facade. Needless to say, when toddlers kill more Americans than terrorism, it puts the whole debate into perspective. It’s a means, a destructive means towards a destructive end. Quell the opposition to the petrostate once and for all.

The good news coming out of C-51 is that we are all or can possibly be defined as “domestic terrorists” within the months to come. We should wear that badge with pride and oppose this bill vehemently in the streets and the courts. Let the battle begin! #iamaterrorist.

A luta continua!