Although not quite comparable to the UK and US, for Canadians' the threat of terrorism entices very low levels of angst. Is it because it hasn't happened on our soil that the perceived threat of terror fails to beguile severe moral panic into the fabric of our society? Or more because Canada's neutrality rather oppresses feelings of discomfort that may realistically exist deep in the minds of those living closest to prospective targets? After reading, "Public Perceptions of Terrorism…." it was seen that although the nature of terrorism is complex, the Canadian sentiment desists from showing great public concern regarding the possibility of being the next target of terrorism (758). Resulting from the national survey of perceptions of terrorism and terrorism preparedness that was conducted in Canada in 2006, Canadians reported terrorism as a low to moderate threat to Canada, hence de-prioritizing it from the list of important risk management and public policy issues to be tackled on the federal government agenda (761). This however makes it increasingly more difficult to engage the public as an active partner in terrorism risk management (757). While laws, and policies are made a result of public pressure or as a reactionary measure to real life events, when it comes to terrorism, prevention will always be the best policy. With this mind frame at hand, this paper will discuss how depending just on the "indifferent" attitudes of Canadians to inform policy making and risk management strategies may hinder the government from creating policy that adequately protects against terrorist attacks. Inadvertently, discussing how prevention over reactionary approaches to terrorism will bode well in the long term for Canadian society by exploring examples of terrorism in London, Madrid and the USA. Finally, counter arguments will be discussed and responses to the counter arguments will be made further questioning the reliability of such a public opinion poll in informing government policies. Overall, it will be concluded that if the government wants to take public opinion about the likelihood or the risk of terrorism into account when constructing anti-terrorism policy, they cannot rely solely on public opinion polls but have to engage the public more aggressively in creating proper anti terrorism legislation for Canada.
Indifferent attitudes of the Canadian public were seen in the 2006 Survey that appeared in the Article, "Public Perceptions of Terrorism Threats…..in Canada". When people feel that the threat of terrorism is low, this can be seen as a good and bad thing. Good because the policies in place at present are satisfying the public, but bad because the policies are soo satisfying that the public feels no need to change them. This is where the problem arises. As a result of the issue of terrorism threats being regarded as relatively unimportant to Canadians, the government runs the risk of creating policies less than adequate to deal with prospective attacks on our soil, if it is to inform its antiterrorism policy and debates on these surveys. In recent years, increasing acknowledgement of terrorism as a global threat has established preparedness as a priority in public health planning in North America (756). So the Canadian "indifferent mentality" with regards to perceptions of risk to terrorism stands in sharp contrast to the rest of the western worlds obsession with human security and nation state protection. Policy makers need to do more to engage the public in discussions about risk management because it is simply not enough to take a public opinion poll which is not necessarily representative of the Canadian perspective, at face value and to react or not act in response to the outcome of such polls.
This is simply because, if complacent policies are made, (complacent because government and public are so satisfied that they feel no need to change the policies) then public engagement and perception of threat will automatically be lowered, this does not mean that the policies are optimal, but are revered as effective. This being said, the question that arises is, how can the public engage itself in informing public policy regarding anti terrorism if the public does not see terrorism as a threat? Well, there are many low cost, but effective ways to engage the public more aggressively in risk management and policy informing. Many a-times people do not place importance on issues or see them as harmful because they are unaware of the deapth or complexity of the issues. Therefore, the public may think, because the policy or legislation currently is effective, evading any problems, terrorism will probably continue to be a non threat to our society because we are prepared to deal with such issues. However, it is safe to say that a government can never have perfect policy, thus continuously asking its people to get involved in informing policy is the best way to ensure that legislation in place is in fact the most optimal. Thus, the government should look for ways to engage and educate their citizens in so that they may feel compelled to delve into the intricacies of the issue. One of the major questions that follows when one suggests action on the part of the government to get people involved in policy making, is how much is this going to cost? And, is it worth it, if the issue at hand is not worrisome to the public? To this, I would respond, yes, it is worth it as sometimes the reasons why concern is not portrayed is because the issue is not well understood. Any simple public opinion poll does not represent the majority of society and our views on terrorism.
Additionally, there are ways that the government can engage the society in being more active and learning about the deep rooted issues within anti-terrorism policy that exists in Canada. One way would be to engage our robust population of university students across Canada so that youth may have a strong say in their actual worries about terrorism, apart from just computer viruses and privacy issues that seem to pervade youth mindsets according to this same survey (768). The number of young minds in university at present is sitting at approximately close to 300,000 students of which many of them are student leaders engaged in civil discourse about a wide array of different issues. This being said, using these bright students as a resource, giving them the opportunity to participate in debate and discussion with officials and experts on this topic, they will be able to understand their own views and insight on the issue and then articulate it both policy makers and society as a whole. It will educate the growing population while informing the current government in a low cost manner of what criticism and concerns exist in society of the current legislation. Together students and faculty, with the help of student unions can get the attention of parliamentarians from around the country, to provide feedback in a number of different ways- for example, writing letters, holding debates, rallies etc, to show policy makers where young adults stand on the issue of anti terrorism policy.
Furthermore, to engage the greater public, outside of youth, local MPP's and Ward Councillors can play a huge role in facilitating risk management discussions around the country. MPP and Councillors have the power and ability to bring important issues of discussion onto the table in their community through council meetings. These meetings are a powerhouse for information. The general public comes to listen and engage in the topical discussions led by the local government leaders and representatives. In a situation like this, if the MPP's or Ward Councillors made an effort to make anti-terrorism legislation a point of debate and discussion, people would be more compelled to react and respond. However, if no compelling interest is shown by community leaders, then it would make sense that the lay person not involved in policy making or analyzing, would not be so interested in this type of a discussion because they are not being giving the motivation or encouragement to question the policies that already exist.
Therefore, the power to educate and engage rests in the hands of both education officials, and community leaders. The mindset that needs to exist in our society is one of prevention over reaction. However it is true that without some sort of indication that preventative techniques or strategies are much better than reactionary strategies, perhaps the government will be content with the current policies of Anti Terrorism. Both of the aforementioned methods of involving informed public opinion are cost conservative and thus not much money needs to be reassigned to this realm of policy work, hence not compromising finances from social welfare and other necessary aspects of society in order to educate and engage our public in informed decisions or understandings of anti terrorism laws.
Relating this back to the fact that this survey should not be the focal point of information for policy makers, it might perhaps be the case that the people surveyed had a skewed understanding of the threat of terrorism and furthermore, what exactly needs to be done to ensure that the threat of terrorism, indeed becomes nothing more than a “ moderately perceived threat”. What does this mean? Well, the worst case scenario would be to have a terrorist attack happen on our soil, and be ill prepared to handle it. This means that even in times when the public does not feel something is an imminent harm, proper preventative methods and policies need to be made to ensure that in such a case, harm reduction on our civilians would be the focus. Proper consultation needs to be conducted in order to ensure that people know the current policies and that they are aware of the potential of the threat of terrorism, even if it does not seem immediate. The non-threat that the respondents feel now, should not in fact be taken to face value. This is simply because, the more content society gets about policies, the more governments feel that they are doing the best they can to protect their people. But the catch 22 rests in the fact that feeling safe, or unconcerned, doesn't mean that the policies in place now are the most optimal- if anything- this type of attitude dissuades government officials from working harder to further analyze and critique their policies on anti-terrorism with public input, to perfectly ensure that the policies are optimal and practical enough to deal with any unforeseen situations.
More specifically, when countries are too comfortable with their policies, they become complacent, and this can be perceived as the best time for an attack to occur. This is because the policies will be long standing, and be based (if such information like that found in this survey is used) on nonchalant public opinion. This raises two main problems. First that as a result of the publics disinterest in further perfecting the current standing policies, ample time is given to the prospective terrorists to study and understand the laws and anti terrorism policies that exist in any given country, and attempt to figure out the mindset and plan of action that the government has to counter the terrorist attacks. In fact, post 9/11 talks with policy analysts, revealed that the US believed they were equipped with the proper measures to deal with such an attack. Some also believed that the risk management activities that were already in place were adequate because the public did not seem to perceive terrorism as a huge threat to their nation. Thus, it could be concluded that the government was content with the policies currently in place and thus did not engage the public in further dissection of existing policies to ensure that they were optimal until the attack actually happened. In no way am I suggesting that the attack was whole heartedly preventable, but, could more security and better aftermath strategies have been ironed out before an attack of such a large scale- definitely. This is exactly why issues that do not seem immediate, such as terrorist attacks in Canada, need to be brought to the publics attention so that more people are aware of what the current policies are and will be enticed to further clarify and perfect the current standing policies.
Second, the issue that this article fails to deal with is the fact that terrorism happens in many forms. It is not always an outsider attacking the infrastructure of a nation, it can be in house leaders of fundamentalist groups that help progress the terrorist attacks within a nation. In such a case, having public be educated about the policies that exist, and ensuring the public in itself knows that this is an important issue to tackle and reform to ensure the policies are optimal is important. If anything the aggressive involvement of the public in reforming the policy or overseeing it to assure its practicality and efficiency will act as a symbol of strength and dedication to protecting state security for the in house terrorists if they were to attack within their country. Additionally, with the rise of suicide bombers in the world, it is increasingly important to engage the public in understanding the issue and informing policy on it. I am not saying that enlisting moral panic is the best way to ensure policies are sound, but definitely, ensuring the public is informed about what is happening around them, and understanding how to protect individual and nation state safety is important, even if it means subconsciously causing panic at some level so that the public acts to reform policy if they so feel necessary.
Furthermore, it is important to look at London for example, and the terrorist attack in their tube system as well as the attack on Madrid train system to better understand the importance of engaging the public in preventative legislation reformation(756). Both of these two places believed as a result of the subtle attitudes of their public that their policies were solid and strong enough to deter terrorist attacks. However, regardless of UK’s obsession with CCTV and other modes of surveillance, one of the most busiest and prestigious cities in the word was targeted successfully. After these attacks only did the reactionary approach come into play and a reformation of the policies currently in place occurred, with the help of public input and organization. This relates back to the previous point, that such a public opinion poll in Canada will more so deter us from making optimal policy if the public is content or unconcerned about current risk of threat. Canada is no angel country, in that we too have made mistakes in our history and it would be wrong to believe that we were untouchable as a country that we do not feel enough of a threat of terrorism that would de-motivate us from ensuring strong plicy is in place to deal with issues of terrorism if need be. Moreover, even policy makers in London, Madrid and the States, must have felt that as a result of their public being complacent, and not critical of their terrorism policies, that the current legislation and risk management plans were sound and effective. The idea of prevention was possibly overridden by the idea of content and satisfaction from the public opinion.
It can be assumed that one of the main opposing arguments to encouraging public engagement to better inform anti terrorism policies will always be, that there is no need to spend time and money on fixing something that people do not perceive to be broken. Additionally, that if the general public were so concerned about the threat of terrorism, then they would take it upon themselves, as in past revolutions to bring it to the attention of the government. However this argument does not bode well in this context because the question here is not of just the indifferent attitudes being present in the Canadian population, more so it is an issue of if the public was more informed and engaged in debate about the issue, would they perhaps have a different opinion of the threats that exist around us? In the same way, fixing things only when they are broken relates back to a reactionary work plan as opposed to a preventative mindset. We should learn from London, Madrid and USA and their experiences, and ensure that our public always thinks that terrorism is an important issue to tackle, even though it might not feel in direct target of possible attacks.
Further to this, it must be noted that conducting telephone interviews of people might not be the best way to get an opinion on such an important topic- that too when the interviews were only of approx 1500 people, representing only 0.0000455% of our whole population (33 million) and including the opinions of those only over 18 (755). Having ignored many survey calls myself, I know that if I do pick up a telephone interview, and I am on a short time schedule, my answers may not be as accurate as they would have been had it been a more formalized method of consultation. Telephone interviews are too informal and are generally perceived by the public, especially the working public, to be too unimportant to hold weight as a formal public opinion poll. Additionally, agreeing to do a 35minute telephone interview where the questions could be very well skewed by the way the conductor of the interview asks the question, or how the participant understands the question is also problematic. These are two factors that inadvertently can taint the outcome of this type of public opinion poll. Additionally, the interviews were only conducted in the official languages of Canada, so French and English, leaving minorities who are unable to understand the questions properly to a disadvantage of answering something incorrectly because they simply did not understand. There are a whole plethora of problems with telephone interviews when it comes to understanding an issue of this importance. Such a topic deserves more of a formal consultation, and engagement process because multiple choice questions sometimes just do not reveal the best most intricate and complex answers that can effectively change or question current policy.
Thus taking into consideration the possible flaws of the survey, the point of not using just "indifferent" attitudes to inform solely the decisions of policy makers in anti terrorism legislation must be reiterated. Aforementioned I have discussed how harmful not knowing enough about or engaging in debate about this issue can be, and how reactionary methods of dealing with terrorism are outweighed by preventative methods. Overall it can be seen that if the government wants to take public opinion about the likelihood or the risk of terrorism into account when constructing anti-terrorism policy, they cannot rely solely on public opinion polls but have to engage the public more aggressively in creating proper anti terrorism legislation for Canada. In the same way, the public needs to be informed fully before deciding on whether or not they feel threatened by the risk of terrorism, as only after being educated about current policy can the public actually engage in an opinion poll that benefits and informs accurately the policy makers.
__________________________________
Louise Lemyre, Michelle C. Turner, Jennifer E. C. Lee, and Daniel Krewski, "Public Perception of Terrorism Threats and Related Information Sources in Canada: Implications for the Management of Terrorism Risks," Journal of Risk Research, vol.9, no. 7 (2006), pp. 755-74. [link]
No comments:
Post a Comment