Tongue-Tied
Cara Chellew
December 30, 2009
Police fire tear gas at FTAA protesters. Quebec City, Canada
“The upcoming 2010 Winter Olympics may lead to protests with the potential for violence,” claims a heavily censored Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS ) report. Who will be causing this violence? Protesters armed with hand drums, colourful signs and the occasional rock or the army of heavily armed riot police well equipped with rubber bullets, tasers, and teargas? The July 25, 2007 report was released to the Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act. The report also goes on to describe aboriginal, environmental, and anti-poverty groups as domestic security threats in the same section as white supremacists and Sikh and Tamil extremists.
Over the past year it has become apparent that anti-terror legislation is being used to silence dissent in Canada. Whether or not the government officially considers protest to be an act of terrorism, anti-terror legislation Bill C-36 has kept British MP George Galloway from speaking in Canada about the Israel-Palestine conflict in March 2009. The Canadian government barred his entry claiming that he had provided financial support to Hamas, considered to be a terrorist organization in Canada. Galloway explains that his support of the Viva Palestina aid convoy was a symbolic gesture conducted by a number of individuals and organizations to support the Palestinians isolated and blockaded in Gaza. The broad definition of terrorism in Bill C-36 has effectively kept Galloway’s controversial views from the country.
Furthermore, the labeling of anti-Olympic activists as domestic security threats has given the government an excuse for spying on activists. This includes the unjustified search and interrogation of award-winning US reporter Amy Goodman who had been detained at the Canadian border while on her way to speak in Vancouver. On Wednesday November 26, 2009, border guards demanded her notes, went through her co-worker’s laptops, asked repeatedly if she was going to speak about the 2010 Olympic games, and issued control documents requiring that she and her companions leave the country a day and a half later. Speaking on Democracy Now! she describes the experience as, “…extremely jarring. I felt completely violated, I mean, personally and professionally. You know, and for journalism overall. Because this is not only a violation of freedom of the press, you know, the idea that, you know, the state is going into your papers, your documents, your sources, everything—but also a violation of the public’s right to know. Because if journalists feel there are things they can’t report on, that they’ll be detained, that they’ll be arrested, or they’ll be questioned, they’ll be interrogated; this is a threat to the free flow of information. And that’s the public’s loss, that’s democracy’s loss.”
Not only has freedom of the press been violated, David Eby the executive director of British Columbia Civil Liberties Association has revealed that the police are surveilling and questioning non-violent activists in the Vancouver area, violating their right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. In addition, the city of Vancouver has attempted to pass a by-law restricting the content of all signage. The proposed law requires signs either be licensed or “…increase the positive feelings or festive spirit around the Olympic games.” (Eby) Of course this by-law would violate individual freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The trend of labeling activists as security threats should be a warning that individual rights are not as secure as we believe them to be. Investigative journalist Naomi Klein writes that politicians and civil libertarians have been ‘duking it out’ over whether Bill C-36 could be used against political protesters. Anti- terror legislation Bill C-35 expands the definition of internationally protected persons to include foreign dignitaries. When Bill C-35 is coupled with Bill C-36, it describes interference with an internationally protected person to be an act of terrorism. Interference is defined as a “…violent attack on the official premises, private accommodation or means of transport of an internationally protected person that is likely to endanger [that person's] life or liberty” Thus, pushing against a chain link fence surrounding a security zone could be considered a “violent attack on official premises.” The threat to blockade a route to the Olympics could be considered an act of terror, punishable by up to 5 years in prison. In addition, anti-terror legislation currently allows for the arrest of individuals without charge for up to 72 hours on suspicion. We have seen some arrests a few weeks ago in Copenhagen targeting organizers of demonstrations days before the scheduled events. I suspect the same will happen in February during the Olympic games and again in June for the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto.
The ability to speak out against government policies without fear of reprisal is one of the benefits of living in a liberal democracy. Rights secured in the charter guarantee that the entire country is a free speech zone even when it is inconvenient or embarrassing to those in power. Labeling political activists as security threats and only allowing protests to occur in ‘free speech zones’ ought to be disturbing in a country that claims to be democratic.
Check out the bill by clicking the link below:
