Canada won’t be cowed by terrorism, or by a draconian response to its threat
|
Version 0 of 1. Two weeks ago on a train in Toronto, a young man named Raj Paleja was making his way home, quietly searching eBay for watch repair kits. A man in blue, boisterous after a sports event, was interacting with other passengers, making them laugh. When Raj heard a different man proclaim, “Isis is on the train”, he was startled. Then the first man, the man in blue, ran with the joke, telling everyone: “Isis is on the train.” He sat near Raj, told another passenger that he could speak “his” language, and launched into a stream of “Durka Durka Durka Curry” gibberish. Raj suddenly realised, as the only non-white person on the deck, that he was the target of this harassment. This happened in Toronto, one of the most multicultural cities in the world, in Canada, where an inclusive mosaic multicultural policy is a point of pride. The other passengers laughed. Let’s keep Raj’s experiences in mind as we go on to analyse recent events. Let’s remember that, by merely invoking Isis, a man in blue convinced a carriage full of people to silently collude with him in the racist harassment of a fellow citizen. On Wednesday a gunman opened fire at the national war memorial in Ottawa, fatally wounding Corporal Nathan Cirillo. He then ran towards Parliament Hill, and was somehow able to breach security and enter parliament. Shots were fired inside, and the gunman was killed by the sergeant-at-arms, a ceremonial parliamentary figure. This killing came two days after a Quebec man and radicalised convert to Islam, Martin Couture-Rouleau, drove his vehicle into two soldiers, injuring one and killing the other. The Parliament Hill killer has since been identified as Michael Zehaf Bibeau, a labourer with a minor criminal record, alleged jihadist sympathies, and suspected mental health problems, also from Québec. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in an address to the nation, indicated a dearth of further knowledge when he said: “In days to come, we will learn more about the terrorist and any accomplices he may have had.” The uncertainty of the situation was belied, however, by the following inflammatory rhetoric: In comparison, Harper’s minimal statement after Justin Bourque shot and killed three Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers in Moncton, New Brunswick, in June, made no mention of terror. Yet Bourque’s actions bore the hallmarks of a conservative and conspiratorial anti-state worldview reminiscent of Norwegian killer Anders Breivik. There was no appeal to Canadian solidarity in the face of an attack on “our country, our values, on our society”; there was no affirmation to “remain vigilant against those at home and abroad who would harm us.” Harper is no stranger to Manichean politics, or to repackaging unpopular security measures in the wake of tragic events. For example, Bill C-13, the so-called cyberbullying act, shamelessly exploited the death of teenager Rehtaeh Parsons and other victims of cyberbullying to reintroduce components of its unpopular online surveillance bill, C-30. Shock doctrine and the rhetoric of terror are easy bedfellows. In the US, after 9/11, the Patriot Act extended state surveillance powers; Guantánamo Bay inmates were tortured and held without charge; and ideals of free speech, association rights and freedom of religion were compromised. “Make no mistake about it,” said George W Bush in 2005, “this is a war against people who profess an ideology, and they use terror as a means to achieve their objectives.” In the UK, in the aftermath of the 2005 London bombings, Tony Blair said: “Let no one be in doubt. The rules of the game have changed.” In came the Terrorism Act of 2006; increased police stop-and-searches; the security service’s involvement in the torture of British Muslims abroad; and MI5 intimidation of young British Muslims travelling overseas. The deaths of Nathan Cirillo and Patrice Vincent are tragedies. The Canadians who perpetrated them are ideologically poisoned. And intelligent, measured government reaction is necessary. But let there be no mistake: we won’t let this society be divided into “us and them”; we’ll stand up to anyone who uses the language of terror to racially harass the citizens and residents of this country; we’ll be vigilant against government assaults on our civil liberties. Harper’s right: we will not be intimidated. Additional reporting by Jesse Coady |