Defining Terrorism:
Can the public decide for us?
A “terrorist” is someone who uses violence and intimidation in an attempt to achieve political aims – Oxford Dictionary, 3rd edition, 2001.
Despite this straightforward dictionary definition, in practice (as we have seen with the Anti-terrorism Act (ATA)) defining terrorism and terrorist activities has been a rather contentious issue. Although terrorism is not a new phenomenon, the events that occurred on September 11th 2001 have unleashed a moral panic about terrorism and the likelihood of terrorist activities taking place in Canada and abroad. Left to the Canadian federal government, and played out between the House of Commons and Senate there has been no consensus on how broadly or narrowly we should interpret terrorism (Roach, 2007). But why is that? Is this failure due to some defect within the Canadian government? Or, is it a failure on the part of citizens? Unfortunately, given that terrorism is not confined to one particular place or one particular activity, I don’t think it is possible (at this point in time) to place all the blame on one party or the other. However, it does beg the question of whether citizens themselves should be responsible for coming up with a definition of terrorism and terrorist activity. Since, after all, it is the people not only the terrorists who will feel the consequences of anti-terrorism legislation (i.e. such as going through the onerous process of security surveillance at airports, or allowing the government to intercept their personal phone calls and so on).
Before we turn the definitional issue of terrorism over to an open public debate, it is important to understand what citizens actually have in mind when we talk about terrorism. For example, people could perceive terrorism activity as anything ranging from anthrax attacks, suicide bombings, chemical gas attacks, hostage situations to things such as computer viruses and even water contamination!(Lemyre, et al., 2007). Given the broad range of activity that could potentially be labeled terrorism, I think it would be useful to introduce an important caveat to indicate where we could first draw the line. For instance, these activities should only be deemed a form of terrorism if there was an intention of killing or maiming civilians in order to intimidate a population or compel governments to act (Roach, 2007). Obviously, a computer virus is not going to kill someone, but several well-known terrorists organizations who have previously been implicated in the killing of innocent civilians have used the internet to spread their messages(Weimann, 2004). So, does this mean that we should also classify secondary activities like internet use as terrorist activity even if it doesn’t involve the direct killing of innocent civilians? I will leave that for you to decide.
Moving on, and opening up a new can of worms, if we leave the issue of defining terrorism up to the general public there will inevitably be problems in distinguishing terrorism from other forms of criminal activity. One problem is that citizens are not directly involved in national security investigations that are conducted by the CSIS and more recently by the RCMP (Falconer, 2007). Therefore, unlike these intelligence and law enforcement agencies which are both privy to secret and confidential information (Falconer, 2007), citizens remain uninformed about important information sharing activities on specific terrorist suspects/ activities. Additionally, and more worrisome is that most citizens rely on the media and certain correspondents (such as an Anderon Cooper) to gain insight on the latest terrorists attacks. However, as we all should know the media is not impartial and may even leak government information (Falconer, 2007) to defame particular individuals. This happened in the Maher Arar case, in which Juliet O’Neil a journalist for the Ottawa Citizen wrote an article disclosing accounts of what Arar had said to his interrogators while being tortured (Falconer, 2007). So with some of the issues placed before us do you think we can rely and have confidence in the general public to make a truly informed and unbiased decision as to what constitutes a terrorist activity? I would have to argue no.
But, on a more constructive note I think we could resolve this issue of discerning what the public actually thinks of terrorism by using some sort of consultation mechanism. For instance I think we should continue to use and expand the use of consultation mechanisms such as the Cross-Cultural Roundtable on Security (CRS) which was recommended by the Senate special Committee on the Anti-terrorism Act (Roach, 2007, p12). For those who are not familiar with this mechanism, CRS was created to gain more insight on how individuals or rather, distinctive communities felt affected by Canada’s anti- terrorism framework (Senate of Canada, 2007). Presently, the CRS consists of fifteen members including representatives from different ethnic, religious, and minority groups across the country (Senate of Canada, 2007). Since there is an issue of balanced representation within the CRS (because it only has 15 members) I think this mechanism should be slightly modified to include people who have been subject to terrorism legislation like the ATA. In effect, I believe we should be consulting not just with members of distinctive communities in our society but with individuals like Maher Arar, Arar’s wife Monia Mazigh, Mohamed Momin Khawaja (who was actually the first person to be prosecuted under the ATA), and other individuals such as Suresh and Charouki (Roach, 2007) who may be able to provide us with a better understanding of why Canada’s national security legislation has unfairly targeted those within the Arab and Muslim populations. Although an Arar Commission has been set up to investigate into this as well, I think it would be more effective to bring together several people (as the ones stated above) who actually went through the “process” and let them offer their insights to both the government (maybe an independent review body) and the general public about what went wrong and what should happen next.
Seconday question:
Can we participate in activists groups without being labelled a terrorist?
Secondly, another prominent issue that needs to be addressed is whether the Canadian government can effectively develop national security/ anti-terrorism legislation that will not infringe on people’s freedom to associate with specific activist groups. Whether it be an environmental organization (Greenpeace, WWF), an animal rights group (including PETA – People for Ethical Treatment of Animals) or even a women’s rights groups (ARRC - Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada), civil society organizations must be shielded from the wrath of terrorist legislation both in Canada and abroad in order to protect people’s freedom to associate with others and express themselves. Given that terrorist activities are normally thought of as “weapons of the weak,” it is plausible that certain people within activist groups could be labeled as terrorists. For instance, this could be the case if you interpret “weak” as meaning people who do not have the financial capital/resources to further their cause independently and must resort to an activist group in order to voice their concerns and demand specific action be taken by the government. However, from my perspective the principle difference between a terrorist group and a civil society organization is the fact that the latter uses a moderate level of coercion/ civil disobedience rather deadly force to achieve their political aims. Put another way, civil society groups do not intend to kill people to further their cause. To give you a more concrete example let me compare ARRC with AOG (Army of God – which is considered an anti-abortionist terrorist organization). On the one hand, ARRC members further their cause by participating in liberal and pro-choice blogs or calling MPs to persuade them (rather than compel them by force) to protect women’s constitutional rights (ARCC, 2008). On the other hand, AOG has in several instances sent dozens of letters supposedly containing anthrax to doctor’s offices and abortionist clinics across the U.S. in order to make themselves heard (CBS news, 2004). Although the letters they sent only contained white powder and not anthrax, this situation gives a clearer indication of what acts go beyond mere civil disobedience. Unlike ARRC, the AOG not only threatened, but had the intention of harming these individuals in order to promote their cause.
Ultimately, at this stage understanding what the public knows about terrorism and how they would like terrorists to be handled is more important than developing a clear-cut definition of terrorism. Secondly, the issue of anti-terrorism legislation is not just about protecting the security of citizens, but more importantly about protecting other fundamental freedoms such freedom of association which has been guaranteed on paper (in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) but not so readily in practice.
Sources:
Kent Roach, "Better Late Than Never? The Canadian Parliamentary Review of the Anti-terrorism Act," Choices, September 2007
Julian N Falconer and Sunil S Mathai,"The Anti-Terrorism Act and the Arar Findings: Democracy Protected or Democracy Eroded?" National Journal of Constitutional Law, vol. 21 (2006/2007): 49-75
Senate Special Committee on the Anti-Terrorism Act. Retrieved Jan 23, 2008 from http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/Committee_SenHome.asp?Language=E&Parl=39&Ses=1&comm_id=597
Weimann, G. “How modern terrorism uses the internet.” (2005). Retrieved Jan 31, 2008 from http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr116.html
Lemrye, Louise, Turner, M, Lee, C.E., J, Krewksi, D. “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, 755-774, October 2006.
ARRC. What you can do to protect abortion rights.” (2008). Retrieved Jan 30, 2008 from http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/get_involved.html
CBS news. “Army of God” Anthrax threats.”(2001).Retrieved Jan 30, 2008 from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/11/09/national/main317573.shtml
1 comment:
I want to focus on your first point on defining terrorism. While I agree that the citizens of Canada should have a role in creating the definition, I do not believe that we need an objective legalistic definition. The Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) provided for highly intrusive tools for agencies to prevent terrorist acts (Roach 2007, 5). While powers such as investigative hearings and preventative arrests are visible intrusions, the act also authorizes less visible techniques in areas such as signal intelligence, terrorist financing (Ibid). These new techniques, coupled with more stringent national security information laws, represent a significant attack on personal liberties. Parliament, by adopting the ATA and related acts, endorse the view that terrorism related activities requires additional tools.
The irony is that while Parliament agreed that additional powers were needed, they could not agree on the definition of terrorism when given adequate time to study and debate. Roach describes to the difficulties of coming to a consensus both within the Senate and Commons committees but also between the two (pp. 8-13). I accept your argument that public consultation may be beneficial to the development of an objective definition; however I question the need for such a definition.
Roach’s article highlights 12 issues that the reviews considered, what is clear by his analysis is that there is a wide range of issues and concerns that needed to be addressed (Roach 2007). Fundamentally, the issues surrounding the definition of terrorism is that we cannot create a definition that accepts all terrorist acts/groups without accepting a few actions/groups that we do not want to extend the ATA powers to. I argue that it is not in the complexity of the issues, but in the shifting public perception of terror and the intensity of the ‘culture of fear’ (Falconer 2007) that makes it impossible for an objective, relevant, comprehensive definition of terror to exist. We can have two of the three, and in terms of preventing another terrorist attack, the last two are the most important.
As inferred above, we want a definition that will no extend ATA powers to non-terrorist activities. If we forgo the objective requirement, then we can use a process-centric definition. The process must be expedient, but be able to balance the need for the power requested with the principles of liberty. I fail to see why the Canadian judicial system could not be empowered to do such balancing, as they are the branch most suited for balancing rights with government action. An argument could be made that the judiciary’s ability to balance the two sides would be impaired by the time critical nature of the application. I believe that even under stress, the judiciary will come to a better decision than any current government agencies.
The judiciary cannot function without a guideline, and this is where your consultative process comes into play. When a judge, or a justice of the peace, is considering if an action/group should activate ATA powers, the factors that the judge considers should be decided by Parliament, though a consultative process. This allows society to determine what we can generally agree terrorism to be, but also give the leeway so that normal (acceptable) actions are not subject to ATA powers.
This may not be the optimal solution. On the other hand, given our current situation and that fact that we cannot afford the consequences of a failed alternative, this may be the best solution available to us.
'Works Cited List'
Kent Roach, "Better Late Than Never? The Canadian Parliamentary Review of the Anti-terrorism Act," Choices, September 2007
Julian N Falconer and Sunil S Mathai,"The Anti-Terrorism Act and the Arar Findings: Democracy Protected or Democracy Eroded?" National Journal of Constitutional Law, vol. 21 (2006/2007): 49-75
Post a Comment