Op Ed: Censorship from Parliament Hill
Censorship from Parliament Hill
(title not finalized)
The fatal shooting of Corporal Nathan Cirillo on 22 October at the Canadian National War Memorial in Ottawa has unified Canadians and brought a deep outpouring of sympathy from across the world. However, the shootings have also raised troubling questions about Canada’s national security, and the failure of government and law enforcement agencies to effectively prevent such incidents.
Responding to these attacks, Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party are attempting to strengthen national security through increasing governmental powers in the areas of “surveillance, detention and arrest”. One possible piece of legislation would make it illegal to claim online that terrorist acts are justified.
Though these laws are well-intentioned, they are ultimately unconstitutional.
Free speech, under Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is protected as a “fundamental freedom”. Naturally, the Internet, which is the greatest tool of self-expression in the modern age, is a part of that.
Though tragedies like the one which occurred on 22 October are certainly unjustifiable, it is nevertheless a matter of principle that people should be allowed to hold and express whatever views they believe in. Tolerance of dissent is a cornerstone of democracy; in fact, tolerance is one of the critical principles which distinguishes Canada from extremist ideologies.
Those who are more pragmatically inclined argue that an exception must be made here when lives are on the line. They contend that criminalizing online defenses of terrorism effectively identifies potential terrorists and prevents their message from being spread. After all, it seems reasonable to sacrifice a certain amount of freedom of speech in order to protect Canadians’ right to life and security.
This, however, is not the case; freedom of speech and right to life are fundamentally separate, and therefore not interchangeable. Furthermore, this proposition would seek to persecute anyone who expressed sympathy with terrorist aims - a troubling notion that bears little resemblance to our justice system, which assumes innocence until guilt is proven.
The definition of what constitutes terrorism is itself problematic. While those responsible for the attacks on 22 October are certainly reprehensible, other groups and other actions are part of a vaguer gray area. For instance, under Canadian laws, Nelson Mandela would have been considered a terrorist for his organization’s acts of violence and sabotage; indeed, Conservative MP Rob Anders expressed this view as recently as 2013.
In 2012, the Harper government also listed extreme environmental groups as terrorist threats.
The National Energy Board, CSIS, and RCMP have also spied extensively on a wide range of anti-oil sands organizations, including Idle No More, Sierra Club, Dogwood Initiative, and the Council of Canadians. Under the proposed laws, they could also be censored as part of anti-terrorist measures.
A real counter-terrorism strategy must address the root cause. Whenever terrorist incidents involving radical ideologies are involved, people are quick to blame it on Islam and the Muslim identity - but research shows that having a strong Muslim identity is not the problem. Rather, the reason Muslim individuals become radicalized is because they perceive that their culture or way of life is under threat. The reason some individuals have this perception is due to societal blaming of the radical acts of a few Muslims on Islamic culture as a whole. Thus, extremism, violence, and the resulting prejudices, and backlash form a vicious cycle.
To break this cycle, instead of criminalizing certain opinions, which would only serve to make at-risk communities feel further marginalized and discriminated against, the government should encourage cultural openness and diversity. Canada, of all nations, should be embracing multiculturalism - we claim that it is one of our best characteristics. It is important that all communities are aware that they are respected members of society, and that they have the freedom to express themselves and the right to represent themselves in the political process.
Ultimately, if issues of discrimination and cultural alienation are not addressed, any attempt at censoring the Internet is merely a superficial policy and a violation of fundamental rights.
