Silent Patriotism Is Not An
Option
By: Mohamed Elmasry,
President CIC
September 5, 2002
The world didn't begin on September 11, 2001. But for many Canadians, it sure
feels that way.
The massacres that happened on that day were wholly senseless. But no one
expects terrorism to make sense. However, our government's reaction
to the events of 9/11 did not make sense either -- and that was not expected.
Within less than four months of September 11, 2001, the federal government
managed to draft, refine, and approve one of the most
oppressive laws of any modern democracy -- Bill C-36. Against an unmistakable
background of American pressure, it was rushed through,
without consulting the Supreme Court, and without a free vote in the House of
Commons.
I have written extensively about how C-36 is affecting Canadian Muslims in
both spirit and practice; how it has resulted in widespread racial profiling,
the compromise of religious freedoms, the subjection of whole communities to
police harassment and intimidation, the breakup of families, the loss of jobs
and employment opportunities, loss of self-esteem among the young, etc.
But here I want to address one issue that hits particularly hard at the core
of our democracy -- the criminalizing of political dissent.
In September 2002, the RCMP invoked C-36, with the help of CSIS, to obtain a
search warrant to raid the residence of two First Nations activists in British
Columbia. The raid was carried out by the RCMP's Integrated National Security
Enforcement Team (INSET). You didn't know that Canada had such a group, did
you? INSET is a direct creation of C-36.
Throughout the 1960s, the social activist slogan QUESTION AUTHORITY was
popular among North American university students and many lived by it, often
very vocally. So why is it that Canadians and Americans, including those who
call themselves "children of the sixties," can only demonstrate their
patriotism with closed mouths?
Are we supposed to thank our lucky stars that civil liberties in this country
are still better than those of the developing world? Are we supposed to be
grateful to our government that it has not yet (in this century) opened
detention camps for political dissidents -- or for Canadian Arabs and Muslims?
And why is C-36 not being taught, debated, questioned, and researched in our
law schools? Aren't those schools supposed to form the best legal minds of
tomorrow?
A Canadian university journalism student was doing a term project on a
Canadian citizen being detained without charge as a "terrorist suspect" by the
government of his country of birth. The student interviewed the detainee's
lawyer in Toronto, who asked if she would like a telephone interview with her
client. No thanks, I might get into trouble with the law, said the student.
Fundamentalisms of different stripes are alive and well in our world. Osama
bin Laden wants to liberate his homeland from American influence by killing
Americans in the U.S. And George W. Bush bombs Afghanistan and Iraq as part of
his ongoing war on terrorism. After a while, it can seem that the differences
have blurred.
Washington certainly did a good job using 9/11 to sell Americans on the
doctrine that the Bush administration is "absolute and infallible." But why
are we Canadians also buying into it?
Could you imagine upper management in even a mid-sized American company
suffering no repercussions after allowing many of their valued employees to be
killed senselessly?
Of course not! American productivity and competitiveness will not allow it.
Share values would fall, and to save the company, the Board would
have to at least fire the CEO.
So why haven't George W. and his administration been grilled about where the
true fault for 9/11 lies? There should have been questions asked --
questions and more questions.
Isn't questioning government the lifeline of democracy?
And why did we Canadians yield to American political pressure of the moment
following 9/11? Why did we seem to become more American than
America and abandon our bill of rights in the rush to hunt down terrorists?
We've seen George W. invade Iraq and deposit some 150,000 troops there in
order to make the world safer for Americans. Since official hostilities
ceased, at least one American is killed every day in Iraq. Iraq was not a
threat to the U.S. before the invation, but George W. has now made it a
killing field for Americans. Does this make sense?
But such is the chopped logic of fundamentalism.
It's a dogma that's not supposed to make sense except to those who practice
it, their spin doctors, their followers, and to those opportunists who know it
doesn't make sense, but support it anyway for reasons of short-term self
interest..
Bin Laden's logic is horribly similar. It reads: If Americans are subjected to
the same suffering that their own government imposes on Muslims globally, then
their government can be coerced into treating Muslims better.
It is a naive, dangerous, wrong and evil dogma. And it is no more logical or
ethical than what George W. is preaching and practicing.
Why have those voices who were trying to understand exactly what happened on
and after 9/11 become silent and so quick to back down? Why
are Muslims, along with many others seeking the truth about 9/11, being
singled out as "non-patriotic"?
In its February 2003 report, CSIS identified violent fringes of the
anti-globalization movement as an ongoing "security concern" for Canada.
No wonder so many Canadian university students today are afraid to sign
petitions, any petition. Why bother? Why take the risk? These young
people were born long after the scourge of McCarthyism, but many study it and
fear they are now living in its reincarnation.
What makes the challenge of true patriotism even more difficult, however, is
that there is as yet no groundswell movement for the victims of repressive
legislations like C-36. Their numbers are still few and most have been
caricatured as "a bunch of foreigners," "terrorists," "terrorist
sympathizers," and of course as "anti-government trouble makers."
Our government had to send its new legislation redefining marriage to the
Supreme Court to determine if it is compatible with Canada's Constitution and
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but not Bill C-36. Isn't compromising the
civil liberties of Canadians as important as redefining marriage?
The best way for Canadians and Americans to free themselves from the shadow of
9/11 is to walk tall and, like that memorable T-shirt slogan
of the sixties, keep on "questioning authority" and demanding that governments
come clean.
Today, as never before, we can no longer afford to practice "silent
patriotism."
[Dr. Mohamed Elmasry, a professor of computer engineering at the University of
Waterloo, is national president of the Canadian Islamic
Congress. He can be reached at
np@canadianislamiccongress.com]
The opinions of contributors whose work appears on this
site, are solely those of the authors.