Criminalising Civil Disobedience

There have been a handful of relatively unsophisticated attacks by people associated with terrorist groups, but nothing on the scale asserted by the Sunday Times.

"Whatever strengths the Sunday Times has, most critics, including internal ones, agree that its comment pages are too predictably right wing and its news pages are in danger of echoing that agenda." "Is the Sunday Times telling the truth?", column on reporting of London protest by Roy Greenslade, November 8, 1999 edition of the Guardian.

In the first paragraph of the report, CSIS claims that, "Security agencies at Seattle…were caught off-guard by the large number of demonstrators…that effectively shut down the Conference." Apart from the dramatic overstatement, CSIS reveals a general security lapse in monitoring events in the months leading up to the WTO Ministerial in Seattle. Open source reports exist in abundance indicating that non-governmental organisations were aiming for a large turnout in Seattle. It was widely known by September 1999 that up to 50,000 protestors were planning to converge on the host city. In fact, as early as April 23, 1999 the Wall Street Journal reported 50,000 demonstrators were expected in Seattle. Just why CSIS and other security agencies were "caught off-guard" is not explained. The more troubling aspect of the report is that CSIS is making a sophomoric attempt to criminalise the democratic tradition of civil disobedience. Dangerous tactics employed with deadly intent by some fringe groups have on occasion had fatal consequences. These groups are well known to security forces in North America. They are not a significant factor in the rainbow coalition of globalisation critics. Yet without providing a single shred of evidence, CSIS tars by association all who question globalisation. If CSIS succeeds, it is no great stretch to appreciate how civil disobedience, once defined as a terrorist threat or criminal conspiracy, would become a legitimate target. It is interesting to note that CSIS views the "anti-globalist movement" as "a body that manages to survive and thrive without a head." The report expands on this observation, saying, One of the most impressive innovations has been the method of organizing, arranging, and directing the operational and administrative activities associated with the demonstrations - accomplished effectively without the obvious influence of central authority, command, or control. In many ways, the system is very similar to that advocated by anarchists… Being smart is not a quality enjoyed exclusively by anarchists. More importantly, it is implied that the method of organisation, command, and control involves something more sinister. According to another recent CSIS publication, "Many organized crime groups tend not to have centrally controlled or rigid organizational structures. An organized crime activity can be highly organized despite the fact that those engaged in the activity are acting in fluid groups and forging alliances with other groups." [emphasis added] From a terrorism perspective, the situation is no less interesting than the imputed linkage to organized crime. Canada's principal terrorism-related laws are the Security Offenses Act (1984) and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act (1984). The Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act does not explicitly define terrorism but it applies to "threats to the security of Canada." Such threats include "activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political objective within Canada or a foreign state." There is therefore a short distance to travel, if one can persuade the political level that there is a threat of serious violence arising from anti-globalisation groups. Parenthetically, it is noteworthy that US criteria for designating a Foreign Terrorist Organization do not take into account the motives behind the violence; the US only considers the nature of the action. This is part of an intentional US policy of criminalizing the actions of groups that use violence indiscriminately and target civilians, regardless of their political or religious motives. This means that US policy is not based on extremely sensitive and subjective judgments: it is an approach based on the belief that terrorist type actions are not legitimate means to wage even legitimate struggles. CSIS, however, is unable to make the essential link to an indictable offence under the Criminal Code, or to the pursuit of profit, which is a legally defining feature of organized criminality in Canada. Not troubled by that small problem, CSIS moves from characterizing their focus as "some violent extremists whose presence raises security concerns," to depicting the whole of the demonstrators as "parading malcontents," and "the antagonistic audience". Having damned the lot, CSIS focuses on fringe "extremists and militants" who espouse violent action. However, CSIS is hard pressed to cite instances of violence, going so far as to write at Page 1 Page 3 Page 4 ISSN 1492-7187, TRADE POLICY MONITOR, September 2000, copyright © THUNDER LAKE MANAGEMENT INC., all rights reserved. Profile Services Search Trade Analysis Updates Contacts Trade News Policy Street Link To Us Site Search For services and information, contact Thunder Lake Management Inc. Copyright © 1998-2003