Recent events in Washington have pushed an old question into the spotlight: How should we deal with domestic terrorists? Robin Sears writes:
There is no more sensitive dilemma in a democracy than limits to free speech and political conviction. The United States is again seized with the question, except this time the terrorists are on the right. FBI counterterrorism teams will probably return to the massive surveillance they performed on Black activists and American Communists. In Canada, we need to assess how to manage the threats posed by white supremacists and Nazis as well.
In Germany today, the challenge also comes from the right. A special forces group in the German army was found to be home to hundreds of extremists, some of whom seemed to have hoarded massive arms dumps, and apparently planning the murder of leading politicians. Their intelligence community has been harshly criticized for their failure to uncover this.
Similarly, the FBI has always been accused of treating white terrorists far more lightly than Black activists. In Canada, the same was true until recently. CSIS’s predecessor, the RCMP Security Service, spied on Tommy Douglas, along with many other politicians and trade union leaders. Even today CSIS has refused to release what files they held on one of Canada’s most revered political icons.
There was a time when the terrorists were on the left side of the political spectrum:
West German Chancellor Willy Brandt’s Ostpolitik — his effort to deepen diplomatic relationships with the Soviet Union to be able to win recognition of West Germany by Moscow and to attempt to stabilize relations during the Cold War — was condemned by the German right, and by Washington.
As a balancing act Brandt had imposed a loyalty oath, or “radical decree” on the German public service in 1972. It unleashed a storm of controversy within his party and within Europe. It was compared to Hitler’s loyalty oaths. Privately, Brandt was deeply stung by the attacks, but he argued passionately that a democratic state needed the tools to prevent subversion.
German terrorists like the Red Army Faction — also known as the Baader–Meinhof Gang — were murdering judges and business leaders, and openly calling for the deliberate infiltration of Marxist activists into German public institutions. Both Baader and Meinhof had been public servants. Brandt argued to friends that pledging not to attempt to overthrow democracy must be a baseline commitment for anyone serving the German people.
Loyalty oaths are just plain stupid -- and complicated. Today, most democracies have legislation to deal with foreign terrorists, but not domestic terrorists. Any such legislation could easily run afoul of rights and freedoms.
But we should give some thought to the problem.
Image: audible.com
8 comments:
I guess it comes down to old-fashioned intelligence work. You identify known menacing individuals. With social media these days that's pretty easy. Pick those who best meet the profile. Keep an eye on them and learn who they associate with to identify the rings or organizations. Get the group's records. A few search/ wiretap warrants. Grab phone records, credit card statements, etc. There is no privacy any more.
Can you imagine what the RCMP would have made of the FLQ in today's conditions?
Once you know what time each of them visits the bathroom in the morning, it's pretty easy to infiltrate their organization. Look at what we've seen. Most of these guys are awfully dumb. I expect the FBI has lovely dossiers on every Proud Boy who has ever shown up at a protest or rally. They're constantly recruiting. This is not the mafia, just a gaggle of disgruntled nitwits blinded by base instincts and ideology. Look how easily Trump managed to whip them up.
I agree that the people who stormed the capital were extremely dumb, Mound. They should be easy to track. But there could be actors who are a lot smarter than these morons. Dealing with them could be difficult.
I'm leery of anti-terrorism laws for several reasons. First, I don't get the logic behind imposing greater punishment for crimes involving ideological or political motives. Murder is murder whether the motive was spurned love, revenge or revolutionary fervour.
Second, security services, including the police, tend to be sympathetic to right-wing causes, indeed current and former law enforcement officers participated in and facilitated the recent US Capitol insurrection. As a result, anti-terrorist surveillance and countermeasures tend to be aimed at environmentalists and people protesting global capitalist organizations like the WTO and G20 summits, not at right-wing agitators like the yellow vest guys. Police entrapment efforts are also directed at Muslim immigrants like Esseghaier and Jasper, rather than at domestic right-wing hotheads in Soldiers of Odin or Atomwaffen Division.
Third, the police decision to charge people with terrorism-related offences and the Crown's decision to proceed with them tends to reflect systemic racism. Mathieu Bilodeau, for example, wasn't even charged with terrorist offences after shooting up a Quebec mosque despite ample evidence that he wanted to terrorize the Muslim community.
In my view, there are more than enough laws to go after terrorists of all political stripes. What's lacking is the will to recognize and go after right-wing terrorists.
Cap
I understand your reluctance, Cap. There is a real danger that anti-terrorism legislation will simply bolster the surveillance state. My chief concern is dealing with the outright lies which are used to radicalize terrorist sympathizers.
Apropos of how the people in charge really don't feel that right wing nitwits are anything to worry about, three Proud Boys hassled Mi'kmaq women protesting outside Halifax City Hall in 2017 in broad daylight. The women were saying the statue of Lord Edward Cornwallis, one of the most grossly incompetent British generals of the late 1700s who as governor of NS had offered bounty on Mi'kmaq scalps, should be taken down.
Yer Proud Boys were identified. Two were members of Her Royal Majesty's Royal Canadian Navy, stationed personnel in Halifax, from Saskatchewan and Ontario. After the citizen uproar about them, the Rear Admiral in charge here futzed around, hemmed, hawed, tried to change the subject, but was finally forced to issue a minor reprimand. Apparently, trained personnel are hard to find, so he didn't want to dismiss them from the Forces, was the upshot. Nobody in officialdom really cared about the actions of these idiots, racists in the ranks, so a slap on the wrist is all that happened. Well, that's all right, then, the comfortable bigots thought, as they settled back in their comfy chairs and watched another fantasy Law and Order episode on TV. God save the Queen.
Nobody can tell me our police or security services spend any time whatsoever chasing racists and ultra right wing dopes, because they sympathize with them at heart, in my opinion. You aren't going to whip up any enthusiasm in our security forces' ranks to go after people with whom they often agree. Do we think the Mounties at an individual level are pro-First Nations after the shocking videos of assault and deadly shooting they have happily engaged in? Tell me another one. How about Wetsuweten and heavily armed RCMP paratroopers assaulting women and elders? Jason kenney's heroes! Or police arresting, literally little old ladies in Burnaby protesting the TMX pipeline expansion terminal. Those grannies are plotting to undermine society! And blocking the roadway besides. WE CANNOT HAVE THAT! On the other hand, parade like dorks and act like thugs while hurling racial epithets and waving flags for white man supremacy, and our police yawn and go home for supper. Nothing to see here, move along.
Remember, Proud Boys started in Canada, as the brainchild of the execrable neo-fascist Gavin MacInnes less than five years ago. Anti Racist Canada documented it all right here on Prog Blog. We beat the Americans to the punch on the formation of this group of real deplorables. Proud Boys expanded to the US and now has the distinction of assaulting the Capitol. I wouldn't be surprised if the FBI file on the US faction of these idiots is a slim and slender tome. And has MacInnes ever been brought up short by officialdom in Canada? Not a chance. You must be joking. Free speech, guys, free speech. Unless you're a potential left wing Commie grandmother trying to undermine our glorious way of life by waving a Stop The Pipeline placard. Then you get arrested and meet a judge who gives you at minimum a fine and a lecture.
Makes you sick.
Bill Malcolm
You've set out the problem, Bill. The issue is about confronting the problem with wide-open eyes.
If there are laws to deal with non citizens when it comes to terrorism we ought to have laws to deal with "citizen" terrorism. A murder is a murder, but killing during a drug war, murdering one's spouse, killing during a robber is very different from killing while trying to over throw your own government. Now of course comes the sticky part: what constitutes "overthrowing your own government". Is it free speech or terrorism? How do we judge what is inside a person's head.
When I was in grade 10 the parental units became Canadian citizens as did I. There was another teenager and he and I were spoken to by the Citizenship Judge separately and then we took an oath of alligence to Canada. when I went to work for the federal government of Canada in 1971, I took an oath to the Government of Canada.
Having been one of those "godless socialists" and protesting, it never was with the intent to over throw our government, change things, yes, but not over throw and there is a difference. You can make changes and you can do it without killing or mob violence or rioting. Some times change takes a long time, but I've found change brought by violence, will some day be gone again. What was once considered "radical", to day is common place. Things such as government health care, pension plans, human rights acts, the rights of children, the rights of seniors, the right for women to vote, etc.
When I look back over my life, I remember MLK's march in Washington and then I look at what happened 6 Jan. Who achieved the lasting goals?
Good question, e.a.f. Surely, results speak for themselves.
Post a Comment