Let us compare "anti-terrorist" legislation

There seems to be a raging mania these days among governments for "anti-terrorist" legislation. I mean, is this what citizens all over the place are now going to have to get used to? Is this what people will be swapping info-bits on Indymedia about? "Well my terrorist legislation goes this way? How does yours go?"

But the thing is, who's going to be willing to talk about all of this?

What I think is now taking place in the corporate media (at least in North America), is an attempt to normalize an incredibly non-normal situation, so as to make sure that people continue to buy, & that the markets function smoothly, & so on.

I'll give you an example of this kind of effort. In the December 19th Globe & Mail, which is certainly "the newspaper of record" in Canada, there was a dinky, tiny, little article at the bottom of page 12 in the front section, squeezed between an enormous colour ad for Bell, that took up most of the page, and a smaller black & white ad for an "Estate Jewellery Sale."

The title of this miniscule article was "Senate approval brings Bill C-36 closer to law," & it was written by a reporter named Daniel Leblanc, who I guess is so obscure that his name didn't appear under the title, but in tiny italics at the article's end.

This article reads:

"Senate approval brings Bill C36 closer to law

OTTAWA

Ottawa's wish to pass its antiterrorism legislation before Christmas was granted yesterday.

The Senate voted 45-21 in favour, after the Liberal majority cut off debate on the legislation.

Having obtained royal assent, the bill needs only to be proclaimed by the federal cabinet to become law.

"This legislation reassures Canadians and our allies that Canada is serious about dealing with this long term threat to our peace and human security through effective laws that safeguard our rights and freedoms, including our most fundamental right to live in a secure and peaceful society," Justice Minister Anne McLellan said.

Muslim and Arab leaders, among others, have repeatedly said that the bill opens the door to police abuse, in particular against members of their communities.

But throughout debate on the legislation, the government and the RCMP insisted that the new police powers of surveillance, detention, and investigation will be used rarely and only by a small group of well-trained officers.

In addition, the government promised to monitor carefully the implementation of the Anti-Terrorism Act."

And that's the article, folks.

Bottom of page 12.

I dunno. What's scary here for me, I guess, is that I've been to three major, shall we say, actions, in three different cities in Canada in the past year. And, I'm, um, really sorry to disrupt the smooth tone of that reportage, but at each of these actions, I've seen different degrees of police...

Is the word "excess"?

I mean, I shouldn't even be writing about this, right? And least of all should I be providing also the address of a website that gives my name.

Except that actually, as a writer, I actually grew up in a society where I thought that there was such a thing as freedom of speech, & where I got used to putting my name to the things I wrote.

So: I want to talk about a stylistic convention in the above article, that is typical not only of the mainstream media, but of a more widespread resignation which virtually ensures that this legislation will be abused

This is the frequent use of a single word to make a very complex situation seem simple.

Here is how the article begins, immediately after the title:

“OTTAWA

Ottawa's wish to pass its antiterrorism legislation before Christmas was granted yesterday.”

This is strange phraseology. The article begins with the word "Ottawa" repeated: the first time in upper case letters, & the second in lower.

Well, okay, the first usage refers to "OTTAWA" as the place from which the article was filed.

But the second usage... Wow.

“Ottawa's wish to pass its antiterrorism legislation before Christmas was granted yesterday.”

Pardon?

Did we just drop into Cuckoo Land?

I mean, apart from the fact that this makes "Ottawa" sound like it's been having trouble "passing" an especially large & painful stool, or maybe even a gallstone...

"Ottawa's wish"?

I was in the city of Ottawa a month ago, & was among at least a couple of thousand people who marched to the Supreme Court, & then to barricades in front of a Congress Centre where G-8 finance ministers were meeting with officials from the World Bank & International Monetary Fund.

And I would venture to say that a majority of the people in that crowd were from Ottawa.

For my own part, I used to live in Ottawa. I know that city very well, as a city. Not a big city, mind you. But it's a city with two universities, one English, one mainly French, & with small but fairly thriving artistic & literary communities.

"Ottawa wishes"?

No, Ottawa doesn't fucking well "wish" for anything as a unitary entity, & least of all for legislation...

But you see, this is the most insidious part of the whole thing.

In Canada, the resignation is so ingrained, at least among those who -- as both writers & readers -- observe the conventions of the mainstream media, that someone can actually make this kind of sweeping, even encompassing generalization, & get away with it.

With the assumption, of course, that "Ottawa" itself exists as a kind of unitary agency of "wishing."

Well, that, of course, is sort of like "Washington says... " or "London says..." or "Moscow says..." with in each case the city name serving as a kind of short-form for a ruling government, that does, in fact, through its legislation, speak with a single voice.

But "Ottawa wishes"?

And doesn't just wish for any old thing, mind, but "to pass its antiterrorism legislation before Christmas."

Evidently, the article is referring to “the Liberal majority” that, in both the House of Commons and the unelected upper chamber of “sober second thought,” used sheer numbers to shut down debate on legislation that – by granting terms for widespread surveillance, & for “detention without charge” for up to 72 hours, potentially changes the whole legal landscape of Canada.

This is a great advance indicator that basic democratic rights are likely to be respected, isn’t it.

But to be very blunt, I've seen something pretty close to this kind of “preventive detention” anyway in the past year: from April 20th-22nd in Quebec City; on October 16th in Toronto; & on November 16th-17th in Ottawa.

I mean, I know & know of people who were told they were being arrested; who were taken into custody & in some cases held in pretty unpleasant & humiliating circumstances; & who were then let go, sometimes in the middle of the night, without being charged.

And, um, if that isn't a form of "detention without charge," done in order to keep some people from continuing to participate in a demonstration, I'm not sure what else it should be called.

Now my point here is that this practice seems to shade into a pretty grey area of Canadian criminal law as this law existed before Bill-C36. But I've still seen it done. And if you want, you can see my own photographic evidence of an Ontario Provincial Police "snatch squad" in action in Ottawa, on November 17th. It's in the visual essay "Route N-16 to Ottawa" which is on the website. But I've talked to people to whom much worse was done in Quebec City. And if the police were repeatedly willing to stretch the limits of the law then, is it not also reasonable to anticipate that they'll soon be stretching the limits of a new law that does allow them to detain people without charge, who are involved in allegedly "obstructing" some sort of "essential service."

If I'm not mistaken, this is called a "slippery slope."

But it comes also with the suggestion that, what with the placement of that article at the bottom of Page 12 in Canada's "newspaper of record," & the apparently taken-for-granted assumption that “Ottawa” speaks & even “wishes” as a unitary entity... most people don't really care.

I mean – I know the Liberal government has been in power for eight years, & is guaranteed at least three more.

And I know there is no credible opposition on the horizon, with the mainstream parties of both the left and the (farther) right self-destructing.

And of course this government is run by that same Jean Chrétien who practically throttled a much smaller demonstrator who got in his path on Flag Day in 1996; who joked about students being pepper-sprayed in 1997 when they tried to protest the visit of an Indonesian dictator; and who described protesters going to Quebec City in April: “They say to themselves, ‘Let’s go spend the weekend in Quebec City, we’ll have fun, we’ll protest and blah, blah, blah.”

Why am I feeling uneasy with the claim that “throughout debate on the legislation, the government and the RCMP insisted that the new police powers of surveillance, detention, and investigation will be used rarely and only by a small group of well-trained officers. In addition, the government promised to monitor carefully the implementation of the Anti-Terrorism Act.”

This is the same government that cut off debate on this very piece of legislation!

"Ottawa wishes" & Ottawa's alleged "wish" was -- according to the article -- "granted."

Man, this is psycho stuff.

Who or what is "Ottawa"?

And how does the journalistic mainstream get away with this kind of thing?