Who is Anonymous?

   On September 15-1995 United Artists released the movie “Hackers”. Under the pseudonym “Zero Cool”, the main character at age 11 is arrested and charged with crashing 1,507 systems in one day and, causing a single-day 7-point drop in the New York Stock Exchange. Upon conviction, he is banned from owning or operating computers or touch-tone telephones until his 18th birthday. The movie has the usual evil character, chase scenes and hero ending, what is relevant is how a group of young adults use their computer skills to permeate government and public institutions, create viruses , and break into high security agencies, (U.S. Secret Service) of course all in the name of justice.  Sound familiar?

     In 2008 what has been called a “Hacker Collective” a group of young adults known as “Anonymous” have been brandishing their own sense of what they call justice. Their motto is “We are Legion” which in strict Merriam-Webster terms, “legion means a group of fighters, a faceless army more powerful as a whole than each individual” (Merriam Webster Online Dictionary). Anonymous takes great pains to be unidentifiable and amorphous, which means that its members are impossible to isolate as a single entity because anyone can join at anytime. They have been called pranksters and criminals.  Some have dismissed them as nerds with too much free time while others have seen them as the “future form of internet-based social activism”. Their manner of attack is to use DDOS attacks abbreviated for Distributed Denial of Service  a kind of network stress test in which each attacker gives consent to have his or her computer linked to a bot. net. The force of all those computers working together that focuses on one site, overwhelms the targeted site’s server and consequently disrupts, or takes the site down, better known as crashing (BBC News).

     As for the literal operation of Anonymous, becoming part of it is as simple as going onto its Internet Relay Chat forums and typing away. There are numerous Twitter accounts which claim to be affiliated with Anonymous, and more websites that post and repost (known as mirroring). The real-life people involved in Anonymous could be behind their laptops anywhere, from an Internet café in Malaysia to a Michigan suburb. Anonymous appears to have no spokesperson or leader. One could participate for a minute or a day in a chat room, and then never go back again.

     Where surveillance technology has been used to target individuals unjustly, and invade the privacy of individuals’ under a doctrine of “national, social and domestic security”, its use is justified, but when the same technology is used to protest it is called terrorism.

Media reports from CNN world news, the British Broadcasting Corporation, just to name a few have reported that Anonymous has hacked into FBI conferences, the U.S. Department of Justice, Mastercard, Paypal and Visa as well as numerous other government web sites worldwide over the last two years.  Anonymous claims that they have numerous objectives,  such as opposing extradition, email surveillance, censoring internet access, and were quoted as saying “Anonymous is you. You will not be denied your right to free speech, free press, free association and your universal right to freely access information both in real life and on the internet” (Fantz, 2012). One can like the objective but not necessarily the means.

  DDOS attacks made Anonymous famous in 2010 when it targeted the sites of MasterCard, Visa and PayPal, their claim was that they were targeting the corporations because they had stopped doing business with WikiLeaks.  In 2010, WikiLeaks “leaked 77,000 secret U.S. military and intelligence documents that revealed new details about the war in Afghanistan, as well as nearly a quarter United States embassy cables that showed how the U.S. kept tabs on its allies and on the UN, and turned a blind eye to human rights abuses in states it supported” CBC News, 2010).   WikiLeaks editor and founder Julian Assange denied having any affiliation with the hactivists and that he had nothing to do with the attacks (Fantz, 2012).

     On April 1-2012 Britain’s home office, that was previously the target of Anonymous, announced that the government will be able to monitor the calls, emails, texts and website visits of everyone in the UK under new legislation set to be announced soon. Internet firms will be required to give intelligence agency GCHQ access to communications on demand, in real time (BBC News, 2012). But it would enable intelligence officers to identify who an individual or group is in contact with, how often and for how long. They would also be able to see which websites someone had visited.

     The spokesman for the government was quoted as saying that,

“It is vital that police and security services are able to obtain communications data in certain circumstances to investigate serious crime and terrorism and to protect the public,” and further that as set out in the Strategic Defence and Security Review we will legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows to ensure that the use of communications data is compatible with the government’s approach to civil liberties.” But Conservative MP and former shadow home secretary David Davis said it would make it easier for the government “to eavesdrop on vast numbers of people”. “What this is talking about doing is not focusing on terrorists or criminals it’s absolutely everybody’s emails, phone calls, web access…” (BBC News, 2012).

     Nick Pickles, director of the Big Brother Watch and Shami Chakrabarti director of Liberty in the U.K. stated that it was a “drastic step in democracy that will see Britain adopt the same kind of surveillance seen in China and Iran” (BBC News, 2012).  Chakrabarti went on to say that this was an absolute attack on privacy online and it is unclear how this will actually improve public safety”.  Internet Service Providers Association said “any change in the law must be “proportionate, respect freedom of expression and the privacy of users” (BBC News, 2012).

     Where the government has a responsibility to the people, transparency and accountability are key features of a democratic nation.  When we put these features in the context of security the government should take special precautions to maintain a balance between the rights, liberties and freedoms of individuals and to balance this against providing security nationally, socially and domestically.  Transparency advocates in the form of Anonymous and Wikileaks, although one takes a more radical approach, also has the ability to use technology to surveille the very government that is suveilling us in protest.

 (2012,   April 1). Email and web use ‘to be monitored’ under new laws.  British Broadcasting

Corporation. Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17576745

(2012, April, 8). Expect more online attacks, Anonymous hackers say. British Broadcasting

Corporation. Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17648852

Fantz, A. (2012, February 9). Who is Anonymous? Everyone and no one. CNN World News.

Retrieved from: http://articles.cnn.com/2012-02-09/world/world_anonymous-explainer_1_chat-room-internet-caf-anonymous-members?_s=PM:WORLD

Schwartz, M. (2011, October 25). Anonymous Threatens New York Stock Exchange Attack.

InformationWeek Security. http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/vulnerabilities/231900039

Neo-Liberalism and Security and Erosion of Democracy

     The origins of the social contract theory can be found in the writings of Plato but is best known under the writings of Thomas Hobbs, and later Jean Jacques Rousseau and John Locke. Thomas Hobbes wrote in his book “Leviathan” that in the days were there was no government the “strongest could take control and use their power at any time over others”. It was a time of insecurity, where life was often described as brutal and short. Hobbes’ theory maintained that the people mutually agreed to create a state, only giving it enough power to provide protection for their well-being and the people relinquished any right to that power as the price for protection and security.  Rousseau and John Locke each took the social contract theory one step further. Rousseau explained that the government is based on the idea of popular sovereignty. Thus the will of the people as a whole gives power and direction to the state in exchange for giving up part of their freedoms and liberties. John Locke also based his political writings on the idea of the social contract and stressed the role of the individual when the protection of the state is no longer viable the people not only have the right to revolt but are under obligation to if the state abuses their given power.

Mark Neocleous takes the view that liberty and security cannot be balanced and in fact protection and security has taken precedence. He elaborates on the prerogative which is “the power to act according to the discretion of the sovereign for the public good without the prescription of law, and sometimes even against it” (Neocleous, 2008, p.15). Further there are inherent problems with constitutionalzing the prerogative and that it was sometimes used by rulers for private ends and not the public good” (Neocleous, 2008, p.19).  Neocleous also refers to the doctrine of reason of state that “treats the sovereign as autonomous from morality, the state can engage in whatever actions it thinks right-contrary to truth, to charity, to humanity and religion so long as they are for the public good and the state may act beyond law and the legal limits of state power for the common good or for the preservation of the state” (Neocleous, 2008, p. 18).

     In this sense the state has not only used its power to support neo-liberal ideologies which has turned security into a commodity but has used its legislative power to erode democratic rights in the name of security.  As Henry Giroux (2004) notes, “neo-liberalism has become one of the most pervasive if not dangerous ideologies of the 21^st century. Its pervasiveness is evident not only by its unparalleled influence on the global economy but also by its power to redefine the very nature of politics itself” (Giroux, 2004, Para. 1). It is no longer politics for the people, but politics for the wealthy corporations.According to Giroux (2004) “neo-liberalism wages an incessant attack on democracy, public goods, the welfare state, and non-commodified values. Under neo-liberalism everything either is for sale or is plundered for profit (Giroux, 2004, Para.2).

    The state has used counter laws to expand on existing laws which Ericson states “is an obvious and relatively easy way for political authorities to try to maintain the upper hand in the politics of uncertainty. Counter law measures are also transforming criminal law itself in order to facilitate pre-emptive strikes against terrorists, welfare cheats, corporate fraudsters and anti-social under classes. Substantive laws are reformed and reinterpreted within a precautionary logic. Due process standards evaporate and sentencing structures are creatively devised to facilitate ease of prosecution, conviction and incapacitation (Ericson, 2007, p.25). On March 12-2012 under the Conservative leadership of Premier Stephen Harper the Omnibus Crime Bill C-10 was enacted in Canada. No where can we get a better example of counter law I. This legislation has amended and expanded on existing laws to criminalize the poor, the homeless, minorities, immigrants and refugees.  Neo-liberal opportunists build larger prisons and take over the management and operations of these institutions for profit. They use inmates for cheap labour while ignoring their rights. As Ericson (2007) notes myths are created that crime is on the rise which increases public fear and uncertainty, while the crime index and crime statistic show a decrease in crime. Laws have been expanded for sentencing, creating mandatory minimums in which judicial power and discretion has been eroded to a point that section 24(1) and sections 7-14, (legal rights) of the Canadian Charter no longer has any meaning.  Giroux notes that “under neo-liberalism the state aligns with corporate capital and transnational corporations while, gone are the days when the state assumed responsibility for a range of social needs” (Giroux, 2004, Para.3). Social needs can be defined as rights to education, language, mobility and the freedoms of speech, association, religion and et al. and where the state sees these liberties and freedoms in direct conflict with security, security will predominate.

     Where is democracy when the state cannot be held accountable to the people and they have turned over their responsibilities to corporations? “As the laws of the market take precedence over the laws of the state as guardians of the public good, the government increasingly offers little help in mediating the interface, between the advance of capital and its rapacious commercial interests” (Giroux, 2004, Para.5). According to neo-liberalism governments place is only to support the ideals of neo-liberalism and where security has become marketable commodity security takes precedence over liberties and freedoms. The forces of neo-liberalism dismantle what was historically guaranteed social provisions provided by the Keynesian welfare state a shift to neo-liberalism defines profit making as the essence of democracy and equates freedom with the unrestricted ability of markets to govern economic relations free of government regulation (Giroux, 2004, Para.4).

     As Locke stated when the state abuses their power the people have an obligation to protest, but what happens when freedom of peaceful assembly is mythically translated by the state as a threat to security?  Democracy has been eroded through counter laws where security has taken precedence over liberties and freedoms. Surveillance assemblages, from private policing, to monitoring devices, and surveillance technologies  means the public is constantly monitored and privacy is a privilege of the past. As Ericson notes “organizations, communities and individuals have bought into the neo-liberal program of neo-liberal programs of responsibility not only domestic security but social and national security by both purchasing surveillance technology and buying into expanded and amended laws that will not only pre-empt sources of threats but reduce uncertainties. Where surveillance technology can work for a state with neoliberal ideologies, technology may be used to protest when all other traditional forms have failed.

References

Giroux, Henry, A. ( August 7, 2004). Neoliberalism and the Demise of Democracy: Resurrecting Hope in Dark Times. Retrieved from: http://dissidentvoice.org/Aug04/Giroux0807.htm

 Ericson, R. V. (2007). Crime in an insecure world. Cambridge. Polity Press.

 Neocleous, M. (2008).  Critique of Security. Montreal & Kingston*Ithaca. McGill-Queen’s

 University Press.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Retrieved from: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/

Corporations -Neo-liberalism and the “Security Industry”

The aftermath of the Civil war (1861-1865) and the emergence of the industrial revolution resulted in enormous growth of corporations, but their expansion was limited by charters that regulated operations, limited capitalization and held shareholders liable for actions considered illegal under criminal or civil codes. When the Fourteenth Amendment (1866) was passed in the United States corporations legally pursued the right to be included and designated as a “person” and, to be protected under the provisions of the amendment, this designation was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The years in-between 1890-1910 saw three hundred and seven cases brought before the courts under this new amendment seeking redress, what some would argue was irony, was that two hundred and eighty eight of the three hundred and seven were brought by corporations wherein the judiciary applied 4^th amendment rights to capital and property while stripping them from people (Bakan, 2004). Eventually this new legal designation would permit corporations to engage in vastly more unscrupulous and illegal activities than they had engaged in, in the late 1800’s earning the elitist corporate owners the title of “robber barons”.

     The term “White –Collar” crime/criminals replaced the robber barons and  gained notoriety in 1939 where  it was coined by Edward Sutherland, then president of the American Sociological Society, (ASS), (and for obvious reasons the society soon changed their name to the American Sociological Association), (ASA).  Sutherland specifically associated the term “white collar crime” with corporate CEO’s, business managers, executives, politicians and professionals, (lawyers, doctors) to distinguish their offences from the confidence games of the underworld. Sutherland’s research established that many prominent corporations had been found guilty of multiple violations of civil and criminal statutes that ranged from fraud, malfeasance, unsafe working conditions misrepresentation, and product tampering (Geis, 2007).

                             The advent of globalization, technological advances, neoliberal politics and political graft contributed to the expansion of corporations becoming the dominant industry of our time.  Joel Bakan notes that transnational and multinational corporations are viewed as “soulless leviathans-uncaring, impersonal and amoral, that cause enormous hidden harms as they try to devour as much power as possible at anyone’s expense  “(Bakan 2004, p.17).  Ericson uses the image of the leviathan as representing the uncertainties created by the neo-liberal state that “begins to resemble the biblical social imaginary of leviathan as sea monster leaving death and destruction in its wake” (Ericson, 2007, p. 154). Neocleous (2008) offers a view of the unification between state and corporations as operating in collusion with each other, the leviathan having two heads representing the separate destructive forces of the corporation and the state  but the underlying “agenda feeds on and feeds the very ideology of the propagated by the security state” (Neocleous, 2008, p.159).

     Often the metaphor of a few “bad apples” has been used to describe the illegalities of a minority of corporations that have been brought to public attention often through whistle blowers, investigative reporting and even admittance of wrongdoing from CEO’s, but promptly put on the back pages attributing illegalities to the metaphor not the corporation.  Ericson notes that corporate liability for harm is treated as a problem of white collar crime, of employees acting against the corporation rather than as corporate crime, the corporation acting against a range of social interests and the public good” (Ericson, 2007, p. 151).

     Neo-liberalism was ushered in under the formation of the Mont Pelerin Society, who received a “lot of support from wealthy contributors and corporations to polemicize on the neoliberal values and beliefs of the society” (David Harvey Interview, 2006). Neo-liberalism is premised on the belief that individual liberty and freedom are the high point of civilization and can best be protected and achieved by an institutional structure made up of strong private property rights, deregulation, privatization, free markets and free trade. Further the role of the state is to refrain from interference in the economic market but should use their political influence and power to protect and preserve private property rights and the institutions of the market. In this sense the protection of individual liberty and freedom requires extensive securitization, which can only be undertaken by corporations. (David Harvey Interview, 2006).

     It is in this context of neoliberal politics that a “security industry” emerged. Under the leadership of Tony Blair the National Security Strategy of 2002 focused on the global economic policy as part of the project of national security and is founded on the idea that “if you can make something that others value then you should be able to sell it to them” (Neocleous, 2008, p. 142). Blair further stated that “Security is life’s most precious commodity who can doubt either the value of security or the belief that it could and should be sold”. Security products are tailored in such a way in which the security industry integrates its consumers into a wider culture of (in) security (Neocleous, 2008, p. 142).

If security is thought of as a commodity to be consumed and sold, corporations sell on the basis of public fear and uncertainty. Anthony Giddens,  “proclaimed that the greater the uncertainty the greater the opportunity for innovation and profit” (Ericson, 2007, p. 5). As Mark Neocleous (2008) points out in devastation there is opportunity. This sentiment was echoed after 9/11 when “one of the things supposedly devastated on that day was the established notion of security” (Neocleous, 2008, p.142).

     When it was announced that Iraq was “open for business” in 2003 billion dollar contracts were awarded to major American corporations such as Bechtel and Lockheed Martin, Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) who were granted non-competitive contracts in the billions of dollars  for the restructuring of the country and a corporate invasion was said to have occurred (Neocleous, 2008).  The “introduction of 100 orders altered Iraq law in order to implement a capitalist economic model, these orders were upheld with the passage of the constitution in 2005 ensuring the development of a private sector, this commitment to capitalism is now a constitutional requirement and have been justified in the name of security” (Neocleous, 2008, p.147).

     By imposing “neo-liberal logic across the globe the Americans can justify their actions by calling it “international security” in this end billions of dollars that was intended for the rebuilding of Iraq has been siphoned off to companies trading in something called ‘security” (Neocleous, 2008, p. 147)

     Neocleous (2008) notes that a “large amount of research has shown that the financial arrangement for reconstruction projects have been “highly dubious, less than transparent and possibly illegal. Much of the money for reconstruction has never left the U.S. and much of the Iraqi’s own money has been paid to American firms on highly generous terms. For example “15 million was paid to Custer Battles a firm to provide security for civilian flights at Baghdad airport during a period in which no civilian planes were flying” (Neocleous, 2008, p.146). There have been accusations of corporations overcharging, vast amounts of money has gone missing or has been unaccounted for and audits of corporate spending have been labelled classified and never released (Neocleous, 2008).  Contracts have gone unfulfilled, unquestioned with no accountability directed at the corporations. For these actions corporate stock prices, profits and massive revenues were greatly increased much of it under the guise of securing the nation and building international security.  If corporations are charged with the selling of security that is state approved then who polices the sellers?

     The damage and harm caused by corporations in pursuit of profit, as history reveals is not a new phenomenon, with a neo-liberal agenda and the international global market the uncertainties of catastrophic harm and the unscrupulous sale of security requires new methods of international accountability and criminalization. Ericson offers “in the sphere of corporate security, revolution and criminalization is taking place at the level of surveillance assemblages, or counter law II”(Ericson, 2007, p. 139). “.  Where the uncertainty of corporate threats and harms exist, an assemblage of security for risk management may reduce the uncertainties. In areas of medical liability, air space safety, financial threats and environmental destruction, regulators, professional associations, insurers, electronic monitoring devices, threats of lawsuits, or criminal prosecution, inspections, audits and private policing (Ericson, 2007) are pieces of the assemblage that operating together may affectively act as the policing of sellers and risk managers to reduce social, economic and environmental catastrophes caused by corporations.

The Anti-Terrorism Act in the Post 9/11 Context

The event of September 11^th marked a catastrophic change not only in the United States but in every Western State including Canada. The terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Centre had a ripple effect, spreading to the entire world and terrifying people all over the world. Following these attacks, people of the world were devastated and governments faced a never before seen crisis that required new laws to govern this new form of terror. Countries like the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada had passed anti-terrorism legislation that defined terrorism and how to respond and prevent such attacks.

The United Nations Security Council responded immediately after the attack on the United States and created the new Counter Terrorism Committee (CTC). On September 28-2001 the U.N. security council had enacted resolutions 1373, and 1267 to form global legislation that imposed permanent and general obligations on all member  states, to enact legislation to ensure that terrorism was a serious crime, and to counter terrorist activities including taking steps to criminalize the financing of terrorism, freeze funds, deny all forms of financial support for terrorist groups, suppress save havens, and cooperate with other governments in all forms of detection, arrest extradition and prosecution of those involved in terrorist acts (Roach, 2011). A Ninety (90) day deadline was imposed on all state members of the United Nations to pass anti terrorism legislation. Canada responded by enacting The Terrorism Act Bill C-36 commonly known as the Anti-Terrorism Act, on December 18-2001, just in time to meet the United Nations Deadline.

The United States was also a key factor in Canada’s haste to enact Anti-Terrorism legislation, with economic and border crossing issues at stake in continuing relations between the two nations. There were fears on the part of the Canadian government that border back logs (200 million crossing a year) and the two billion in trade that crosses the border every day would be placed in jeopardy if Canada increase the security budget and mechanisms of surveillance (Roach, 2007).

The resolutions of the United Nations Security Council was criticized by not taking into consideration that intelligence information that was to be passed between nations in efforts to prevent terrorism was an inexact science that may put innocent  citizens at risk for wrongful identification (Roach, 2011).

     The government of Canada decided that the only effective method to prevent terrorist attacks was to give law enforcement the abilities to identify and stop terrorists before they acted.  The Bill was first introduced in the House of Commons by the Justice Minister Anne McLellan on October 15^th, 2001 and the Anti-terrorism Act (ATA) amended the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and a number of other Acts. Simply speaking, ATA created new offences that made it a crime to,

1.   Collect, provide or make available funds or property used to carry out terrorist

      activities

2.   Participate in, contribute to or facilitate terrorist activities;

3.   Instruct anyone to carry out terrorist activities; and

4.   Harbor or conceal a terrorist.

(Mosley, 2002, p.162)

 Some had argued that the shock and fear infested in the society at the time after the September attacks assisted in pushing the government to implement Bill C-36 without thinking about the consequences of this new law.
A new Part II.1 of the Criminal Code addressed the need for exhaustive criminal measures against terrorism. Some individuals argued that the new ATA might be aimed to combat terrorism, but it also violated the rights of certain individuals. The new Act gave the authorities especially the police force the power to investigate suspect terrorist cases without worrying about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 83.3 of the ATA provided that with the consent of the Attorney General, a police officer could detain a person if there was reasonable grounds of a terrorist activity to be committed and reasonable grounds to suspect the arrest of a person was necessary to prevent the terrorist activity to be carried out. If a person was detained for that purpose, he or she must be brought before a judge within twenty four hours if a judge was available at the time; if not, then “as soon as possible” to an “available” judge. This raised the question of security of the state versus the rights of individuals.

Don Stuart, a law professor at the Queen’s University argued that “the massive new criminal law powers placed in our permanent criminal laws by Bill C-36 were not necessary to respond to the outrage of September 11^th. More resources for intelligence and investigation were needed but not new laws.” (Stuart, 2002, p.175) Criminal law scholar, Herbert Packer, in his Limits on the Criminal Sanction also noted that we often rushed to criminalize behaviors without pausing to consider whether criminalization would be an effective way to counter the problematic behavior. He argued that we can actually confound a problem and create new problems when we use criminal law because we fail to consider that criminal laws must be enforced, and that people have a right to a high degree of due process in criminal laws.

In relation to the class material, Counter Law 1 was illustrated, as 911 was seen to be as the state of exception; even though the Anti-terrorism Act was highly controversial with the Canadian Charter, it was ultimately accepted. For example, in the case of Maher Arar, Canada signed the Safe Third Country Agreement with the United States, allowing the rejection of refugee claimants at the border and return back to United States for investigation (Roach, 2007).. Bill C-36 was passed to allow the arrest of terror suspects without a warrant, which lead Maher Arar to face torture.  Also, indefinite detention for “suspected terrorist” was found constitutionally valid in Immigration law, because detention was for immigration purposes, not criminal purposes (Dauvergne, 2007). During Post September 11, Counter Law 2 was illustrated as a large scope of surveillance was focused on ethnic minorities. In addition, Police officials, Canadian airports, Immigration Officials and Border Guards were all increasing and tightening up their modes of surveillance. These organizations share and distribute information to one another, so as a result the surveillance assemblage was strengthened.

The consequences for Canada post 9/11 was a combination of economic fears and costs, stabilizing relations with the United States by increasing security and surveillance at all major points of departure and entrance (airports and border crossings), and balancing national and international human rights conventions with national security measures. As was argued Canada’s quick enactment of anti-terrorism measures may have resulted in a loss of sovereignty and independence in trying to please the American government. Additionally infringement of charter rights brought much criticism and speculation over Canada’s ability to balance rights and freedoms with individual and national security.

References

 Dauvergne, C. (2007). Security and Migration Law in the Less Brave New World. Social and Legal

Studies. Vol.16 (4). P.533-549

 Ericson, R.V. (2007). Crime in an insecure World. Cambridge. Polity Press.

Mosley, R. G. (2002). Preventing Terrorism Bill C-36: The Anti-terrorism Act

            2001. In Daubney, D., Deisman, W., Jutras, D., Mendes, E. P., & Molinari,

            P. A. (Eds.) Terrorism, Law & Democracy: How is Canada changing

            following September 11? (1^st ed., pp. 147-172). Montreal, QC: Les Editions

            Themis Inc.

Packer, H. L. (1968). The limits of the criminal sanction. US: Stanford University Press.

 Roach, K. (2003). September 11: Consequences for Canada. Montreal, &Kingston, London & Ithaca.

McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Roach, K. (2011). The 9/11 Effect Comparative Counter  Terrorism. Toronto. Cambridge  University

Press.

Stuart, D. (2002). The Anti-terrorism Bill (Bill C-36): An Unnecessary Law and

            Order Quick Fix that Permanently Stains the Canadian Criminal Justice

            System. In Daubney, D., Deisman, W., Jutras, D., Mendes, E. P., &

            Molinari, P. A. (Eds.) Terrorism, Law & Democracy: How is Canada

            changing following September 11? (1^st ed., pp. 175-191). Montral, QC: Les

            Editions Themis Inc.

Security/In-Security a National Threat to Democracy

By: Krobel2011

Notwithstanding Canada’s latent entrenchment of liberties, freedoms and rights, (The Canada Act 1982), Canada has purported to be a Western nation based on democratic ideologies of equal treatment, fair representation, and respect for individual freedoms, rights and liberties. With the influx of what is politically perceived as threats to Canada’s national, social, corporate and domestic security, mechanisms of increased surveillance and the creation of legislation has been imported as Canada’s new democratic ideology.  As Richard Ericson argues in his book, “Crime in an Insecure World” (2007), there has been a trend in Western countries to intensify security measures as a result of neo-liberal political ideologies of uncertainty and possible harm to our nation. This trend according to Ericson has resulted in criminalizing all possible, conceivable suspected harms from individuals or other nations (Ericson, 2007).

Historically Canada has been faced within these areas of security threats that required governmental intervention and counter measures. In 1918 an influenza epidemic claimed 50,000 lives Canada wide, and twenty one million worldwide. In World War ll Japanese immigrants were forced into internment camps, not only attributable to racism, but in large part as a perceived threat to national security. In the 1950’s Canada feared possible threats and aggression from the former Soviet Union, and agreed to a continental defence with the United States against this threat, today this alliance is known as the North American Aerospace Defence (NORAD) agreement.  In the 1960’s through to 1970 a radical separatist group,   known as  the Front de Libération du Québec (FLQ) engaged in acts of terrorism, bombings, (over 200 since 1963), and in 1970 the  kidnapping and murder of a Canadian and British parliamentary members in what became known as the October Crisis. This incident forced former Premier, Elliot Trudeau, to invoke the War Measures Act (1918).  The Act not only suspended basic civil rights and liberties it allowed police searches and arrests without warrants, prolonged detentions without charges and denied the right to see a lawyer.  The Air India bombing in 1985 killed 329 people and was reported by CBC News as Canada’s worst mass murder (The Bombing of Air India Flight 182, 2006).

Global relations, transnational expansion of corporations, technological advancements and a neo–liberal agenda along with historical events have been contributory to an escalation in securitization. The government response in justifying their actions is to claim that they are taking precautions for potential or imagined harms. Ericson (2007) notes that there is an intensification of security measures which has been justified by the governmental social imaginaries of the increased risk of harm. From cyber threats to governmental propaganda of the wars on, terrorism, crime and drugs, the state has created what Ericson refers to as social imaginaries, “a shared understanding among people about their existence relationships, expectations and commitments to one another and provide a capacity for government to act and legitimize their actions” (Ericson, 2007, p.3).  Mark Neocleous (2008) notes “the contemporary social and political imagination is similarly dominated by the lexicon of security and the related idea that we are living in an increasingly insecure world. Everywhere we look a ‘need’ for security is being articulated as in the UK a group of farmers aiming to halt what it sees as a perceived decline in UK food production calls itself “Food Security ltd.” Potential extinction of tigers sees the Wildlife Conservation Society, Fund and Smithsonian National Zoological Park demand that tigers need “homeland security”  (Neocleous, 2008,p.2-3). Neocleous further states that “Security consciousness is the new dominate ideology, and every day is Security Awareness Day” (Neocleous, 2008, p.3).

In 2006 the Institute of Population Health, Ottawa, Canada conducted a national survey of terrorism-related risk perceptions.  A total of 1,502 adult Canadians were interviewed by telephone on their perception of terrorism threats both to Canada and as a threat to themselves. The findings of the institute revealed that the respondents “reported that terrorism was a low to moderate threat to the Canadian population, with 13.3%  indicating that terrorism posed a high risk, the percentage was  even lower as a  threat to themselves” (Lemyre, Turner, Lee & Krewski, 2006, p. 755/757).  The authors also reported that this perception was much higher in the United States post 9/11. Canadian perception of threats was often due to media reports foremost as being credible, “whereas elected politicians and government officials were referred to least” (Lemyre, Turner, Lee & Krewski, 2006,p. 755).  These findings not only have implications for risk management assessment, and mechanisms of securitization implemented by the state, it also brings into question the legitimacy of governmental actions as this would imply that state capacity to act is limited and questions the states reliance on social imaginaries that are postulated to the public.

Still, intensified security is justified through governmental claims of social and global uncertainty of harm that leads them to take precautionary measures in, what Ericson claims is nothing more than criminalizing those who are both suspected and those who have actually engaged in harms (Ericson, 2007).  This measure of criminalization occurs by the government engaging in two distinct but cohabitating measures. First is by either by creating “new legislation or where new uses of existing law are reinvented to erode or eliminate  any principles, standards and procedures of criminal law that get in the way pre-empting imagined sources of harm  Ericson (2007) refers to this as  counter law I”(Ericson, 2007, p.24).  As a form of counter law I  Britain legislated the Anti Social Behaviour Act (or Order) in 2003  giving police unlimited powers to “clean up the streets” with issues of vandalism, prostitution, graffiti, dispersing of groups of more than two, landlord evictions and parental control over children. Those opposed to the legislation claimed it would result in criminalizing the young. (BBC News, 2004).  As Ericson (2007) notes this “form of counter law would criminalize without the formalities of criminal law principles, standards, and procedures (Ericson, 2007, p.160).

The G20 summit also created legislation on the pretence of the risk of harm by reinstating the Public Works Protection Act, under which regulation 233/10 was passed in the Ontario legislature without debate, and immediately made the perimeter fence surrounding the G20 summit site “public work”, falling under the Public Works Protection Act. (Ontario refuses to apologize for secret G20 law, 2011).  The Star reported that the Canadian Civil Liberties Association had learned that streets and sidewalks within the perimeter of security zone have been designated under the Public Works Protection Act and allowed police to use the 1939 Act to enforce security. Importantly, this Act gives dire powers to the “guards” of the public work: power to search without warrants, obligation of visitors to state name and purpose of the visit, power to deny entry. Most of these powers contradict current constitutional safeguards. (Ontario refuses to apologize for secret G20 law, 2011).

     The second measure is what Ericson (2007) refers to as counter law II or surveillance appendages, and  takes the form of observational infrastructures, such as surveillance cameras, private policing, monitoring and “facilitate direct behavioural control and self-policing without recourse to legal regulation” (Ericson, 2007, p.24). Ericson uses the image of “Big Brother” who is always watching and references George Orwell’s film “1984” to “make the point that citizens are monitored as a means of social order and conformity” (Haggerty & Ericson, 2000, p.606).  Technological devices, the increase in private policing has been an aid to principles of counter law I is justified by the state as a necessity in risk management.

     Observational monitoring has become the norm in today’s society. It can hardly be argued that in the course of our daily activities that we are not being watched by the cameras in shopping centers, private establishments, while driving and with the advent of hand held devices our actions can be captured at any given time. New laws or reinventing existing laws are facilitated by surveillance appendages which are justified as part of the tools to get the job done. But in getting the job done there is an erosion of our liberties, freedoms and due process rights. As Bigo and Guild (2007) maintain “there has been widespread discussion of the relationship between security and human rights which has been accompanied by the rapid development of technologies of surveillance and increasing control of large groups of people who are under suspicion with no direct proof” (Bigo & Guild, 2007, p.99).

Through these measures there has been a gradual destruction of our privacy and our democratic rights. We have become a nation of In-Security in two respects. First we have been immersed into surveillance and security measures that threaten the democracy that Canada was built upon, and secondly extensive involvement in security has left us feeling “Insecure” as the government has garnered its own brand of threats to our due process rights and freedoms.

 References

Bigo, D. And Guild, E. (2007). “The Worst-case Scenario and the Man on the Clapham  Omnibus”, Bigo, D. And Guild ,E. (Eds). Security and Human Rights. Portland: Hart Publishing. p.99-121.  +

Ericson, R. V. (2007). Crime in an insecure world. Cambridge. Polity Press.

Haggerty, K.D. and Ericson,R.V. (December 2000). The Surveillant assemblage. British

Journal of Sociology. Vol. 51, No. 4. P. 605-622.

Lemyre, L., Turner, M., Lee, J.E.C., & Krewski, D. (October 2006). Public Perception of Terrorism Threats and Related Information Sources in Canada: Implications for the Management

of Terrorism Risks. Journal of Risk Research. Vol.9 No. 7, p. 755-774. DOI: 10.1080/13669870600924477. Retreived from:

http://www.sfu.ca/media-lab/archive/2011/428_spring/readings/Risk%20Perception/34_Lemyre,Turneretal.Public%20Perception%20of%20Terrorism_2006.pdf

Neocleous, M. (2008).  Critique of Security. Montreal & Kingston*Ithaca. McGill-Queen’s

 University Press.

The Bombing of Air India Flight 182. 2006, September 25. CBC News. Retrieved from:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/airindia/bombing.html

Ontario Refuses to apologize for secret G20 law. 2011, April, 29. The Star. Retrieved from:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/981858–ontario-refuses-to-apologize-for-secret-g20-law