publication date: Jul 9, 2012
|
author/source: Terrance S. Carter and Nancy E. Claridge
Canada's Minister of Public Safety, the Honourable
Vic Toews, announced on February 9,
2012, the release of Canada's first counter-terrorism strategy,
Building Resilience Against Terrorism:
Canada's Counter-terrorism Strategy (the "Strategy").
The Strategy assesses the nature and scale of the threat of
terrorism, and sets out basic principles and elements that underpin the government's
counter-terrorism activities. With an overarching goal of countering domestic
and international terrorism in order to protect Canada, Canadians and Canadian
interests, the Strategy is meant to prioritize the government's
counter-terrorism efforts and promote an open discussion with Canadians on
threats faced.
Environmentalism
lumped with white supremacy, domestic bombings
As explained below, environmentalism is targeted as an
example of domestic issue-based extremism, next to "white supremacy" and the
Oklahoma City bombings in 1995, as well as the Norway terrorist attacks in
2011.
The Strategy frames Canada's counter-terrorism activities
under four pillars: Prevent, Detect, Deny and Respond. These elements prevent individuals from engaging in
terrorism, detect the activities of
individuals who may pose a terrorist threat, deny terrorists the means and opportunity to carry out their
activities, and respond
proportionately, rapidly and in an organized manner, to terrorist activities to
mitigate their effects.
The Strategy states that countering terrorism demands
innovative approaches and a global effort. It highlights the importance of
cooperation with Canada's international partners, all levels of government,
security intelligence and law enforcement agencies, industry stakeholders and
civil society. It includes mechanisms for monitoring the government's efforts
and reporting to Canadians on the Strategy's progress, including an annual
report.
Interestingly,
the Strategy states that the threat to Canada from terrorism has three main
components, one of which is domestic issue-based extremism. More particularly, it
names environmentalism as one source of low-level violence by domestic
issue-based groups in Canada. In this regard, the Strategy states:
Although not of the same scope and scale faced by other countries,
low-level violence by domestic issue-based groups remains a reality in Canada.
Such extremism tends to be based on grievances - real or perceived - revolving
around the promotion of various causes such as animal rights, white supremacy,
environmentalism and anti-capitalism. Other historical sources of Canadian
domestic extremism pose less of a threat.
Although very small in number, some groups in Canada have moved beyond
lawful protest to encourage, threaten and support acts of violence. As seen in
Oklahoma City in 1995 and in Norway in 2011, continued vigilance is essential
since it remains possible that certain groups - or even a lone individual - could
choose to adopt a more violent, terrorist strategy to achieve their desired
results.
Senate, federal budgeteers join in attacks
Lately
Canada is seeing an increased negative focus on environmental organizations.
For example, in the recent Senate debates beginning on February 28, 2012,
Conservative Senator Nicole Eaton alleged interference of foreign foundations
in Canada's domestic affairs through their funding of Canadian charities. The
charitable sector has raised concerns about increased scrutiny of foreign
funding of charities in Canada, particularly with regard to environmental
organizations and the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project.
Additionally,
the federal Budget 2012 introduced enhanced compliance and disclosure
requirements for charities and registered Canadian amateur athletic
associations regarding political activities. In this regard, Budget 2012 states
that "[c]oncerns have been raised that some charities may be exceeding these
limitations and that there is currently no requirement for a charity to
disclose the extent to which it receives funding from foreign sources for
political activities." These comments were in reference to media coverage
concerning the Senate debate.
Hazy logic unfortunate, unnecessary
It is
unclear why environmentalism has been targeted in the Strategy, or how it is
logically connected to white supremacist organizations or terrorist activities
like the Oklahoma City bombings or the recent attacks in Norway. But it will no
doubt create an unfortunate and unnecessarily pejorative characterization of an
important part of the charitable and not-for-profit sector in Canada.
For
example, the Globe and Mail reports
that documents obtained under an Access to Information order revealed that
federal security services have identified Greenpeace
and People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals ("PETA") as the kind of "multi-issue extremist" groups that pose a
threat to Canadians. This included a CSIS report that highlighted PETA's
opposition to the Canadian seal hunt and reported its plan to launch a website portraying
the mascot of the 2010 Vancouver Olympics as "bloodthirsty seal killers." And
they noted PETA's threat to boycott Canadian maple syrup.
Deliberate blurring of boundaries for
questionable purpose
Likening
environmentalists and animal rights groups to home-grown terrorists and mass
murderers raises the question of whether the government is blurring the lines
of counter-terrorism in order to target otherwise legitimate opponents and
justify questionable surveillance campaigns. Canada's new strategy is clearly
an issue that the non-profit sector in Canada will need to carefully monitor,
and vigorously oppose when it restricts the ability of charitable and
not-for-profit organizations in Canada to pursue their legitimate goals.
Terrance S. Carter is the
managing partner of Carters Professional
Corporation, and counsel to Fasken
Martineau DuMoulin LLP on charitable matters. Nancy E. Claridge is Partner at Carters Professional Corporation.
The authors would like to thank Kristen
D. van Arnhem, Student-at-Law, for assisting in the preparation of this
article.
