A Threat To National Security?
If CSIS is responsible for collecting, monitoring, and analyzing intelligence on threats to Canada’s national security what is it doing monitoring domestic Aboriginal rights protests?
Aboriginal protests watched by CSIS
Canadian security officials kept a close watch on aboriginal rights protests across the country last summer, fearing violence and disruption, according to newly declassified government documents.
Intelligence reports obtained by National Post reveal for the first time how the Canadian government tracked “ongoing and planned protests” by First Nations and their supporters from British Columbia to the Maritimes.
Bet it’s a hell of a list they’ve compiled in the name of national security.
Where have we seen that particular tactic before?
I would love to get a hold of any dossier or information they have one me.
Operation Overwhelm is a go. Irene. Repeat, Irene.
From the link:
“…The intelligence reports show officials were particularly concerned about the National Day of Action held last June 29 to pressure Ottawa to address the grievances of Canada’s aboriginal peoples. Some chiefs had called for road and rail blockades on that day…
…The reports say the right to protest “is a cornerstone of Canada’s democratic society. ITAC is concerned only where there is a threat of politically motivated violence, or where protests threaten the functioning of critical infrastructure.”"
I would EXPECT that they would be paying attention. On the extreme end of the scale, people like Timothy McVeigh don’t operate in a vacuum. On the other end of the scale, if surveillance didn’t result in arrests, etc. then obviously it was determined that nothing unlawful was done.
And trying to avoid another Oka isn’t a bad thing, is it?
Oka was not a national security issue and neither are Aboriginal rights protests. You can’t see me but I’m sitting here shaking my head while looking in a westerly direction (I know your out there somewhere), have you paid no attention to recent events in western society in the name of “national security” Candace?
I for one agree wholeheartedly with the CSIS. It’s because we’re brown skinned, and brown skin to hardcore, rightwing people is the absolutely scariest thing in the world. We’re also poor, so we’re a people who live on two fronts: poor and brown. You see my point? Huh? Doncha? It’s class and race warfare to our lovely neocons, and they’ve learned in their history class that you don’t fight a war on two fronts unless you mean it.
If for example I were to trot downtown, and then when there start hollering and whooping ‘freedom’ to the masses, the business association would be frightened out of their minds, and they would be completely justified. I mean, take a look at me. I’m brown, and I’m almost poor (at the very least, completely broke). They would sic their RCMP overseers… (oops, Freudian slip) I mean officers on me so quickly, and I would be tased like a lame eighty year old man helpless in a hospital bed like nobody’s business.
I mean, I don’t mind being spied on at all. I don’t feel even the littlest bit of intimidation. It’s for our own good, after all. Papa knows best, right? It’s not like this program is called MK Ultra the sequel, right? I mean, it’s not going to esculate, and we’re going to start having our leaders jailed on bogus charges based on laws that are out of date and out of touch, and were racist to begin with. No, I don’t see this as some slippery road whereupon the government will start labelling activists as terrorists, just so they could steamroll over rights, and take land they haven’t been able to give to their rich and greedy friends, who are salivating at the thought of developing on said land. That won’t happen at all.
“Oka was not a national security issue and neither are Aboriginal rights protests.”
I’ll give you Oka as I don’t know enough about that situation other than someone died that shouldn’t have.
However, I would argue that blockading major highways or railways IS a national issue (maybe not security, depending upon how one defines national security). If it’s for a day only? Pain-in-the-ass but no threat. If it lasts as long as the Caledonia dispute? Different story IMHO.
You are assuming that ONLY aboriginal rights activists are having any attention paid to them, and only those with brown skin. You also missed the “and their supporters” which excludes any supporters that may have no geneological ties to the cause.
Looking at the Air India fiasco, don’t you think the families of the victims wished that there had been effective surveillance on Sikh separatist groups in Canada?
(a) Didn’t it already happen?
(b) With all the legalities/costs/etc around the settlement of land claims, I sincerely hope the gov’t is not so stupid as to repeat the mistakes of past. If they ARE so stupid, I will happily join you in protest to right the wrong. Me. A WASPy rightwinger. And I’ll be okay with the (personal) consequences because wrong is wrong.
Balb/SL – my last comment in response to Troy has gone into moderation…
Candace, I believe the so-called Oka Crisis was the result of the mayor of a town trying to expand a white-only golf course by chopping down a forest of pines on Mohawk land and bulldozing a Mohawk cemetery. In order to do so, he called in the provincial police who overreacted with heavily-armed SWAT teams, dogs, and helicopters based on expired injunctions. The whole things was so illegal that they should have been declared dangers to the peace, order and good government of Canada.
Just so we’re clear on this, that big raid in July that got all of the attention was the six raid by the police on the Mohawks at Kanehsatake over a period of more than six months. Previous to that, the Mohawks were unarmed, peaceful protesters prepared to be arrested if necessary. The escalation by the police into hundreds of officers with automatic weapons and attack dogs, however, resulted in the Mohawks taking steps to defend themselves.
I am not saying I agree with armed standoffs. I am explaining that the real threat to the peace were the police and that mayor.
Sorry Candace, none of that is national security, the blocking of a road, or a bridge, or a railway, simply does not present a threat to the nation.
This is the problem with governments and their spy agencies being allowed by the masses to redefine and broaden terms like “national security”.
You appear to have accepted a new and revised definition of ‘threat to national security‘, a definition that puts people like me under the watch of our national intelligence arm because we (apparently) pose a threat to the very existence of the nation.
How far are you willing to allow them to expand that definition?
Troy: Welcome to the blogroll.
Shmohawk: “I am not saying I agree with armed standoffs. I am explaining that the real threat to the peace were the police and that mayor. ”
Based on your explanation and the little bit of googling I’ve done, you’re probably right.
SL: “…the blocking of a road, or a bridge, or a railway, simply does not present a threat to the nation…”
What if that road is the Peace Arch and every border crossing along the BC border? Food supplies would be at significant risk, as would any number of things. That, to me, constitutes a threat to national security.
Hindsight being 20/20, I wouldn’t call the actions discussed in the article a threat to national security, but I can see where it was a concern prior to the (peaceful, non-destructive) events.
Gee, your slope got slippery in a hurry didn’t it? You forgot to include every port from Ucluelet to Parksville with sister blockades from Taholah to Seattle on the Washington side…. oh yea, and every possible BC/Alberta crossing point all the way to the Northwest Territories border and beyond; I’ve been there, ya can’t trust them either, they’re a bunch of sympathists (that’s the new watch word I learned on Conservative US talk radio last week) to !
Tell me, when was the last time you saw a blockade designed to completely cut off a community, let alone an entire province, from the outside?
If I remember my history correctly those sorts of tactics are used by governments, not rights activists.
“Gee, your slope got slippery in a hurry didn’t it?”
What, you expect me to agree with you all the time? I am, after all, a right wingnut
“Tell me, when was the last time you saw a blockade designed to completely cut off a community, let alone an entire province, from the outside?
If I remember my history correctly those sorts of tactics are used by governments, not rights activists. ”
Ouch.
But I haven’t changed my mind on the original point.
No, you haven’t – which means that you agree with the necessity of our national spy agency keeping a watchful eye on me, and hundreds of thousands like me, simply because we fall under the government category of “Aboriginal rights supporter” and as such pose a potential threat to the safety and security of the nation.
Irene !!
Irene !!
Irene !!
Being the other crazy right winger here – I admit to feeling more than a little peeved that the CSIS saw fit to track the aboriginal activists. Where do you draw the line? Human rights activists, black Activists, gay & lesbian, blind activists? Once the decision is made that any activists/supporters are open season to snoop on – are any of us really safe?
And what was so outrageous, in a democratic society, about a so-called national day of action/protest? At worse, it’s a blockade on a few roads, a few signs, a few demonstrations of a group exercising their democratic rights to protest rather than plotting or counseling armed insurrection against civilian populations.
I get more than a tad concerned when the CSIS believes its’ mandate can be legitimately expanded from watching the activities of known terror groups like the Tamil Tigers to supporters of Aboriginal rights or Aboriginal activists. Shall we return to the days of Hoover and have the CSIS dossier everyone and their grandmother? After all, didn’t Hoover consider Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. a legitimate threat to US national security?
Caledonia. I don’t know enough about the whole Caledonia situation to comment other than to say it appears, from a distance, to be one massive clusterf*ck all the way around.
When you have people destroying other’s property in the name of protest (right or wrong) you have a problem. It makes sense to me that future disruptions, and those participating, are paid attention by the authorities IN CASE they choose to create a similar situation. I seem to recall one person in particular (I forget who) wanting more than blockades last June. Should that be ignored? And if one person is willing to be vocal, how many are quietly considering similar actions?
I would rather the gov’t err on the side of caution, whether it be aboriginal supporters or the now-illegal Tamil Tigers. That being said, if a number of “days of action” remain violence-free then I would expect that attention to lessen significantly (if not totally).
And SL, depending on how broadly the gov’t casts its “aboriginal supporter” net, I might fall under it, too (I would be pretty surprised if a few postings counted, but based on my experiences with a certain ex-MP in my ex-riding, maybe not totally surprised).
I agree completely with shmohawk. Following the events at the time and the pseudocommission into it(horseshit cop coverup) it was a clear case of police misunderstanding. Calling the army out is illegal in anyones reasonable book, and the blurry lines show the cowardice of the Surete and Mullooney.
It’s an interesting clash of world views, with each side pretending that the other’s has no merit whatsoever.
From the Aboriginal side, a highway blockade is a perfect gesture. The starting premise is simple and accurate:
- we have a claim/claim in negotiation/treaty which establishes our right to this land, but which grants you guys (Canada) rights of access or passage in exchange for certain benefits.
- you are not honouring the terms of our contract.
- we are therefore denying you the access we negotiated until you meet your side of the deal.
It’s very simple. The landlord in putting a temporary lock on the door because you haven’t paid your rent.
Canada’s perspective: agreements are all very well, but you play exclusively by our rules until we decide whether or not we’re going to honour our agreements.
@balbulican
Actually, no. This small example is what symbolizes the First Nation and Canadian positions.
First Nations: we’ve played your game by the rules for the past ten, fifteen years, and we’re tired of you redrawing your goal posts. We’re protesting, in hopes of drawing public attention to this misunderstanding where none should exist.
Canada: alright, let’s go back to the table then, but first, here’s some minor cosmetic changes to how we’ve been bargining with you.
My point, Troy, is that what is called “terrorism” by the uninformed is simply one party suspending access, as negotiated, because the other party has reneged.
This wouldn’t feel so wrong if it was happening to other groups. I see Christian anti-abortion anti-drug anti-rap anti-non-jesus groups parading through Ottawa every once in awhile. Does CSIS have files on the ringleaders in those groups?
Does CSIS maintain surveillance on “Support-the-Troops-by-wearing-red-shirts-on-Fridays-and-buy-a-car-magnet-yellow-ribbon” folks when they congregate?
If not, then why not?
I watched an anti-choice rally go passed the office a while back and did not see the cops with digital still and movie cameras out in force making sure they had pictures of the leaders and those who marched with them — so I’m gonna guess, no, they don’t.