False Security: The Radicalization Of Canadian Anti-terrorism

by Craig Forcese, Kent Roach

On 20 October 2014, a terrorist drove his car into two members of the Canadian Armed Forces, killing Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent. Two days later, another terrorist murdered Corporal Nathan Cirillo before storming Parliament. In the aftermath of these attacks, Parliament enacted Bill C-51 — the most radical national security law in generations. This new law ignored hard lessons on how Canada both over- and underreacted to terrorism in the past. It also ignored evidence and urgent recommendations about how to avoid these dangers in the future.

For much of 2015, Craig Forcese and Kent Roach have provided, as Maclean’s put it, the “intellectual core of what’s emerged as surprisingly vigorous push-back” to Bill C-51. In this book, they show that our terror laws now make a false promise of security even as they present a radical challenge to rights and liberties. They trace how our laws repeat past mistakes of institutionalized illegality while failing to address problems that weaken the accountability of security agencies and impair Canada’s ability to defend against terrorism.

Genres: Canada

600 pages, Paperback

Published September 18, 2015

Reviews

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

False Security: The Radicalization of Canadian Anti-terrorism, by Craig Forcese, is an interesting look at Canada's recent enactment of new laws pertaining to combating terrorism, policing the state, and playing off complex judicial and political rights and freedoms with security. In October 2014, Canada experienced sociologically disturbing terrorist attacks - one in Quebec, where a radicalized citizen ran over Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent and another serviceman, killing the former. In October as well, a lone-wolf terrorist shot and killed reservist Corporal Nathan Cirillo, on ceremonial sentry duty. The man then stormed the Canadian Parliament building while caucus was in session, and was killed in a firefight with Police on the Hill. These two attacks were minor in terms of casualties, but shook Canada to its core for the symbolism of it. The Canadian government responded by ramming home new pieces of legislation, Omnibus Bills C-13, C-44 and C-51, and made changes to the Passport laws in the 2015 budget, all in an attempt to ensure Canada's state security agency CSIS, and the Federal RCMP had better tools to combat terrorism in Canada.

These changes were widely criticized in Canada for a number of reasons. Many see them as Draconian and Authoritarian, as they allow for the collection of massive amounts of data from Canadian citizens, and those traveling to Canada. CSIS is also chagrined by the laws, worrying that they will be perceived as an Orwellian agency. Muslim Canadians fear repression. The laws themselves seem convoluted, simplistic in some respects, rushed and critically flawed. Forscese looks at these new bills, and the acts they contain, in great detail, offering a strong critique on their nature, and constructive criticism on how they can be improved.

Forcese is concerned about a number of things in the new laws. The most important is their impact on Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the foundational Charter in Canada pertaining to the basic rights and freedoms offered to all Canadian citizens and permanent residents, regardless of affiliation. Concerns include Canadian's right to return home, which has been disrupted already by security services in Canada cooperating with international allies. Multiple Canadians have been mischarged with terrorism offences in the post-911 era due to judicial blunders - up to and including arresting people with the same name. Controversy has surrounded cases like that of Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen arrested on terrorism charges. He was radicalized by his parents, killed an American soldier in combat in Afghanistan as a minor, and was arrested and sentenced as a minor. He was held in Guantanamo Bay, unable to face trial in Canada even though he was a minor, and held for over a decade, his legal status in limbo.

Forcese criticizes these methods as arbitrary, and contrary to Canada's Charter. He states that Canada must deal with its own citizens fairly and judicially, even if they commit terrorist offences - that is the definition and purpose of a legal code. Forcese also looks at the nitty-gritty's of the law, and is critical of many aspects, including how Canadian security agencies like CSIS, the CSE and the RCMP will share information, store information and protect witnesses. Canada also has a history of witness protection issues. During the Air India bombing trials, a key witness in the Tamil community in Montreal was shot and killed after stating she would testify in the trial. The wording and intent of the laws and acts are examined in great detail, and some issues exist with definitions such as "terrorist activity," for example, which seems to contradict Canadian's right to free expression.

Forcese is also critical of the controversial usage of Canada's immigration laws as anti-terror methods. This issue is more complex than it seems, as it makes a lot of sense in some respects to deal with some aspects of this issue within the immigration and travel sphere. Canadian fighters have gone overseas to conflicts in order to fight for and against ISIS, with Al-Qaida, and Al-Shabaab as well. The Canadian government struggles with this issue for a few reasons. There is a danger to letting individuals travel overseas for this reason, as they could gain experience to use against Canadian targets and citizens, embarrass Canada internationally, and anger Canada's allies. However, letting them stay is also a danger. Both October 2014 attacks were initiated by individuals who were refused a Passport as it was feared they were travelling to join militant groups as foreign fighters. It also brings to question Canadian's freedom to travel. How can the government of a nation be so sure that its citizens will travel to fight? Is it legal in Canada to deny the ability to travel to its citizens, regardless of reasoning, even though those rights are guaranteed in the Charter? This is an issue with many shades of grey, and in Canada, many shades of judicial and legal precedent and experimentation. Forcese looks at the details of this issue, offers strong critique, but ultimately concludes that is looks like the Canadian government will use judicial precedent as the ultimate factor in future litigation.

Forcese is heavily critical of the lack of social outreach factors within the new legislation as well, and indeed offers this as his strongest critique. Canada is a nation of immigrants, and has been since its colonization hundreds of years ago. Racial, religious and social tensions are not new, as the Fenian raids, FLQ action, Air India bombings and so on, attest. Forcese is critical of Canada's approach at integrating and working with communities to bridge these tensions and move toward constructive dialogue, and ultimately, cooperation. Forcese wishes that more was done to ensure close stakeholder management was written into Canada's bills, to ensure cooperation was a key factor in Canada's anti-terror and security strategies.

Forcese is not critical in a petty fashion in False Security. Their are clear gaps in Canada's anti-terror legislation which may infringe on Canadian citizens Charter rights, disrupt the cooperation of Canada's policing and security agencies, alienate immigrant communities, turn away perfectly reasonable immigrants, punish innocents mistakenly, and so on. Forcese examines these shortcomings with a critical eye, all the while supporting the notion that Canada needs strong anti-terror laws to ensure it is secure. These laws, however, need to comply with Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ensure democratic and judicial oversight, and protect witnesses, victims, innocents, and accused alike, as this is the guiding principle of Canada's judicial traditions. The various Omnibus Bills in Canada are needed, but are new. Forcese sees gaps in the legislation, and seeks to offer constructive criticism on how they can be corrected to ensure they do not go too far.

So how was this book, in my opinion? I enjoyed it quite a bit. Canadians are struggling with two concepts: of an open, multi-cultural state, welcome to all comers, and one that is secure and safe for its citizens. These concerns are writ large in the Omnibus bills of recent years, and Canada's past legislation as well. I enjoyed the critique this book offered to bills that have been widely criticized on all fronts, because it was constructive in tone, and looked at the legislation in great depth. My one large complaint was that depth was often vast, and I struggled personally at times to understand the concepts in some of the later chapters, as the legislation was examined in greater legal detail, and the wording and phrasing of the bills scrutinized and compared to other legislation and Crown rulings. However, the book overall was highly readable, and important to Canadians on the whole for the clear and concise insight it offers. This book is easily recommended to Canadians looking to beef up their knowledge of our ongoing inward look at the judicial and legislative processes in our nation, as well as our struggle with identify, global affairs, and global terrorism. It offers an excellent perspective on Canada's internal legislative process (complex at the best of times) and offers a neutral but critical look at a debate that is often heated and biased.

[Jonathan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thorough is the word. Perhaps a bit too concerned with its thoroughness. It's a slog at times, but densely-packed and thoughtfully explores the Canadian intelligence and legal structures devoted to counter-terrorism.
For those seriously concerned about the policy needed to combat counter-terrorism. Not for idle opponents of the War on Terrorism or a quick introduction.