Northern Slight AndThe Panic of 9/11
Marianne Beasley November/December 2002
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
On September 11, 2001, the elephant was roused from sleep by terrorist attacks on Washington, D.C., and New York City. Nothing in the world has been the same since—and for America's bedfellow to the north, the changes have been swift and striking. As accusations swirled that Canada was a haven for anti-American terrorist groups and that Canadian borders were too permeable, too insecure, the Canadian government took action, introducing the tough new antiterrorism law, Bill C-36.
Bill C-36 redefines terrorism according to the United Nations antiterrorism conventions and creates new offenses under the Criminal Code of Canada: it is now an offense to provide funding to any group designated a "terrorist" group, to facilitate the activities of a terrorist group, and to knowingly conceal or harbor a terrorist. The new bill also gives law-enforcement agencies stronger investigative tools, including greater freedom to use electronic surveillance, and the possibility of using "preventive arrest" to detain a person who police suspect is about to commit an act of terrorism.1
Images of the crumbling World Trade Center towers are still seared into our collective memory. Passengers feel a little more apprehension climbing on board commercial airliners. And Canadians, many of whom spent several days hosting and caring for airline passengers stranded in Canadian cities in the days following September 11, are not likely to soon forget the impact terrorism can have on the lives of ordinary people. Nobody in Canada would disagree that we need to be protected against terrorism, and that the government needs to pass laws that will protect us.
But within hours of the announcement of Bill C-36's proposed legislation, voices were rising in protest all around Canada. Many civil libertarians felt that protection against terrorism was being won at the expense of Canadians' civil liberties. And members of many minority groups, particularly Arab and Muslim Canadians, felt that the impact of these new laws would be disproportionately felt within their communities.
"Enacting Bill C-36 will result in a legacy that all Canadians will regret," wrote a large group of Muslim-Canadian organizations and other concerned citizens' groups, in an open letter to the prime minister. "Bill C-36 starts off on the wrong foot by using imprecise and overly broad definitions that will catch innocent people in the net meant for terrorists. Furthermore, the Bill's extraordinarily broad powers can be used in secret, resulting in the potential for a wholesale violation of civil rights."
The open letter, signed by such groups as the Canadian Arab Federation, the Canadian Muslim Civil Liberties Association, the Coalition of Muslim Organizations (representing more than 140 different groups), the World Sikh Organization, and the United Church of Canada, among others, goes on to warn that Bill C-36 could become an instrument of institutionalized racism. "The current social climate, coupled with religious and racial profiling, will result in religious and racial minorities suffering a disproportionate share of the Bill's significant impact. While those wrongfully charged, arrested and imprisoned may be vindicated in the fullness of time, the stigma, shame and humiliation that come with wrongful accusations will have devastating effects on families, reputations, friendships, businesses and jobs."2
In fact, some Islamic groups in Canada believe this has already begun to happen. Despite protests and concerns, Bill C-36 became law in December 2001. One month later, in January 2002, the Canadian Islamic Congress reported on its Web site that a young Ottawa family had suffered "abuse" as a direct result of the new legislation.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Ottawa police officers raided the family's home at about 7:00 a.m. on January 22, in a search that lasted more than five hours. The couple's two daughters, aged 3 years and 18 months, were frightened. According to the CIC Web site, when relatives arrived to take the children away, "police even insisted on searching the crying children's jackets and boots before they were allowed to leave. The officers confiscated computer and telephone files, as well as Islamic religious books."3
Faisal Joseph, the CIC's legal counsel, is quoted as saying, "As a result of the new antiterrorism legislation Canadian Muslims are today considered guilty until proven innocent, by some authorities. . . . We are aware of several factual incidents whereby Muslims are being wrongfully interrogated, and victimized on the basis of unsupportable innuendo and faulty suspicions. This is typical of a police state. Our Muslim community does not deserve to live in fear of these abuses in their own country."4
The Ottawa Citizen, reporting on the same incident, said that during the search "officers confiscated a computer hard drive, various religious books and downloaded call records from the home telephone. Officers also listened to, but didn't confiscate, several audiotapes containing Islamic stories for the children," but no charges were laid at the end of the search. An RCMP spokesperson confirmed that a search warrant was issued, but refused to comment further as the investigation was ongoing.5 The family, who did not wish to go public with the incident, were apparently told by the RCMP that while they were not personally under suspicion, they knew someone who was suspected of terrorist involvement.6
This is exactly the kind of incident that Bill C-36's detractors fear. Nobody wants to leave Canada wide open for terrorist activity, but many Canadians fear that the government has gone too far in the opposite direction, throwing out cherished Canadian civil liberties in the quest for security.
The government argues that the bill's opponents are being unreasonable. "The additional powers of preventive arrest and investigative hearings in Bill C-36 . . . have . . . been carefully designed to ensure they meet the requirements of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms," a Department of Justice information Web site claims. The Justice Department goes on to point out that "the current provisions in C-36 are in keeping with and, in some ways, significantly more restrained, than those proposed by other countries," including the United States and the United Kingdom.
In yet another open letter to Prime Minister Jean Chr