Canadian Military Keeping Tabs on Peace Activists?
VANCOUVER - Steven Staples, a prominent Canadian peace activist, is accusing the Canadian military of subtle surveillance after the military sent an officer to take notes on him at a conference at Dalhousie University in 2006.The story came to light a few weeks ago after freedom of information requests finally revealed that briefings had been written for senior military officers.
Staples had been invited to give a presentation at Dalhousie University as a guest of the Halifax Peace Coalition and the Dalhousie Centre for Foreign Policy Studies on the topic of “The Americanisation of the Canadian Military.”
Ironically, the U.S. Pentagon has for years closely monitored peaceful anti-war and counter-military recruitment groups, collecting more than 2,800 reports involving U.S. citizens in an “anti-terrorist threat database”, according to documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union.
“It was clear that somebody had been tasked by the Canadian military to sit in on the session,” Staples said in an interview with IPS. “My problem is that the military initially denied it. Governments send staff to attend meetings all the time to prepare briefings — there is nothing wrong with that. It’s when they deny it and hide it that it becomes something more nefarious.”
After repeated information requests, it was revealed that the report was sent to 50 senior military officials, including two brigadier generals.
“It is interesting to understand the motivation of the surveillance, as the officer who wrote the report advised senior leadership to meet the arguments of people like me. When the military bureaucracy is trying to actively influence public opinion, to shift public policy, it is highly inappropriate on the part of a military in a real democracy, said Staples.
“It is inappropriate for the military to become a rogue entity and utilise their resources to monitor those who publicly hold contrary views. The Canadian military has even spied on groups such as the Raging Grannies and the United Church,” said Staples.
“It is my concern for the public to know that the military is behaving irresponsibly, because it places a chill on others. They have to think twice before speaking publicly in a critical way,” said Staples.
He added that General Rick Hillier is an inappropriate choice for head of the military and that Defence Minister O’Connor has also been inappropriate for his position in representing the public interest.
Staples says he will send a request for accountability of behaviour in the Canadian military which is consistent with government policy. Staples added that he has not pursued whether the Canadian Security Intelligence Service or other security agencies currently have anti-war activists under surveillance.
Dr. Michael Byers, research chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia, told IPS, “Steve Staples has been attracting this attention because he’s extraordinarily effective in critiquing Canadian policy concerning defence and security. It is not surprising that they pay attention — they should learn to listen to him now and then.”
Byers added that the military sending a representative could be seen as educational — if it was intended that way.
“But if it was surveillance, it could be the beginning of a slippery slope with the military playing an active role in shaping public opinion. Democracy has worked hard to separate military and political roles. The Canadian public should be more concerned about other manifestations of this disturbing trend. The military has been very sophisticated with their media strategy, and there have been far-reaching public relations [campaigns] by General Hillier for the mission in Afghanistan,” said Byers.
Byers added that the trend was disturbing because of where this type of policy could lead if it is not scrutinised. “If he is under surveillance, are his phone conversations being tapped or his e-mails being monitored because he is in an advocacy role?” asked Byers.
“I assume, even I’m being monitored, I’ve made my choice for the sake of freedom of expression. Perhaps whoever is on the other end listening might actually learn something. I don’t have anything to hide,” said Byers.
But military officials see things differently. Lft. Col. Jamie Robertson with the Department of National Defence told IPS, “Steven Staples’ talk was on the Americanisation of the Canadian military. We have public affairs officers and representatives from National Defence, which normally attend conferences and compile information. We will summarise what is happening at conferences, but we don’t engage in monitoring. That is not the job of the Department. As public affairs officers, we need to be aware of factual information and trends in the policy debate. In this instance, the debate has been politicised.”
He added that it is part of their mission to clarify factual information when it is misrepresented. “It is not the job of the military to conduct surveillance. We live in a democracy. It is not within the area of security. There is nothing wrong about debate and differing opinions. We have a robust media environment. We want to engage as openly as possible. Everyone is allowed to speak to the media on the Afghanistan mission. In this case, journalists are raising conspiracy theories that are completely of context,” said Robertson.
“Our job is not to shape public opinion, but to provide factual information to Canadians. It is part of our mission. They have a right to know what we are doing. These allegations are absurd. We are incumbent on fixing the record by being aware of the public environment. Canada’s mission needs to be seen in the context of a coalition of 21 Nations and that it is sanctioned by the U.N. The information provided is often selective. This is an important mission,” said Robertson.
© 2007 Inter Press Service
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/244868
Arar fiasco, the sequel
TheStar.com - comment -
August 10, 2007
When Justice Dennis O’Connor released his massive report into the role Canadian officials played in Maher Arar’s arrest in the United States as an Al Qaeda terror suspect and his removal to Syria to be tortured, the Canadian government blacked out significant sections of the report. Ottawa argued publication would endanger national defence, security or alliances.
That claim has now been shown to be nonsense, at least in part, thanks to O’Connor’s insistence that the public hear more of the story.
Censored material from O’Connor’s report released in Ottawa yesterday on order of Justice Simon Noel of Federal Court does indeed confirm that Canadian officials swapped information of dubious value with the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. But that is hardly explosive news, at this late date, or likely to shatter our security ties.
What the profoundly embarrassing material does confirm, is that Canadian officials knew from the get-go that Arar, a Canadian, was in real danger of being tortured, even though the Syrians regarded him as a small fish. Yet Canadian politicians raised no great hue and cry while Arar languished in a Syrian prison for the better part of a year.
Canadian Security Intelligence Service operations director Jack Hooper wrote a memo 15 days after Arar’s arrest and two days after his removal to Jordan, then Syria, saying “the U.S. would like to get Arar to Jordan where they can have their way with him.” And within two months CSIS knew that the Syrians saw Arar as a “nuisance,” not a “major case.” Even so, it was 10 months before then prime minister Jean Chrétien’s office wrote Syria demanding Arar’s release, which soon followed. An innocent man facing torture deserved better.
Meanwhile the newly released material confirms that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police also traded in information allegedly extracted under torture.
In one case, the RCMP applied for a telephone intercept warrant without revealing to the presiding judge that its information might be tainted. It was based on a confession by another suspect, Ahmad El Maati, who later recanted, saying it was obtained by Syrian agents under extreme coercion. Even so, the RCMP portrayed the information as “accurate” and reliable.
During his exhaustive probe O’Connor found that the RCMP wrongly characterized Arar as an extremist, and that he posed no threat to national security. Ottawa has paid him $10 million compensation.
Far from endangering Canada’s security, these latest revelations, simply further embarrass the Canadian government, spy service and police, if that were possible in this shabby affair.
All this should encourage retired Supreme Court Justice Frank Iacobucci, who is conducting a largely closed-door review of the actions of Canadian officials in the cases of El Maati and two other citizens who say they were mistreated abroad as terror suspects, to make public as much of their story as possible in his report.
And if that embarrasses the Canadian authorities, so be it. They have a lot to be embarrassed about.
end of Star article
……………………………………………………………………..
Maher Arar received 10.5 million dollars from Canada in an acceptance by Canada that he had been mistreated and his rights violated. The US has not accept any blame in this case.
While something went very wrong and an innocent man was tortured, Canada has accepted responsibility and has done what it could to rectify the wrong.
The US denies any responsibility.
And that makes all the difference. Because it is expected that mistakes and bad judgement will occur, but how to deal with it when something goes wrong…that will make the difference.
My impression is that Canada like the US is finding it more difficult to enlist people who will make good soldiers. And many Canadians are beginning to question whether Canada should be in Afghanistan.
I’m trying to figure out the word “Ironically” at the start of paragraph 3. I’m not sure what’s ‘ironic’ about another military engaging in the same surveillance and intimidation tactics as the US military.
The main problem is this. The US military and apparently also the militarizes of America’s allies view any political activity in opposition to the use of the military, the practices of the military and their recruiters, or in opposition to the continually increasing budgets of the military as a threat to them.
In purely organizational terms, I suppose that’s understandable. But in the context of the military of a democracy that is supposedly based on the concept that the democratic civilian government is in control of the military, in that context this is way out of line.
If there really is civilian control of the military, then the corollary to that is that the military needs to be completely absent from the political process such that the democratic processes of a society can work on their own to determine what policies the civilian government wants to give to the military.
When the military crosses that line, and starts spying on, and then later possibly acting to intimidate and influence the political process to its own ends, then that is destructive to the very notions of democracy and of civilian control of the military.
And just the act of spying on and surveilling a peaceful and legal political group is by its very nature intimidating. And tends to influence the political process just from those acts. In this case, the knowledge that the military is monitoring everything that is said and planning a response to the benefit of the military.
Of course, for at least 15 years I’ve been doubtful that we still have civilian control of the military in the US. Watch closely what happens on any issue when there’s a dispute, the Pentagon seems to get its way …. always. But its sorry to see our Canadian neighbors following the same path.
so much for “good government” eh Canada?
yes, but being the Canadian Military, he person they sent to monitor the meeting was an illiterate 10 year old with a crayon
“The Americanisation of the Canadian Military” is a starting point to raise ones voice in protest; another topic of concern which might yet emerge is “The Americanisation of Canadian Politics”, especially when the US decide that the Russians at the North Pole bring them too close to the borders of America and are then deemed “to be a threat to the liberty of the most democratic country in the world”.
The American “protection” of Canada against a Russian “invasion” will, if it happens, be a long term invasion. So what is the point of leaving borders unprotected…?
Sensible governance would recall the Canadian military from both Iraq and Afghanistan and deploy them in CANADA in defence of the nation.
Canada’s freedoms, & resources are vulnerable to global predators from both the north and the south.
I guess few of us are surprised to learn that our crass leaders are very SCARED of two things:
1. The TRUTH.
2. That uncontrollable, widespread PEACE may one day break out.
It must be hell at ‘The Top’, -busily trying to keep those two horrible, scary things tightly in their iron grip!
Not just the U.S. but many of the other great “democracies” of the “free world,” like Canada, are watching, monitoring and investigating peace activists who dare say a word.
Just when you thought our progressive neighbor to the north would be safe for activists. Not so! They are capitalist just as we are. They have oppression just like we do.
Peace, it’s true, would ruin the designs of the U.S., Canada and the so-called “free world.” If we resist we can win, and freedom and civil liberties can be finally realized.
Free speech for peace activists!
malatesta “so much for “good government” eh Canada?”
While not defending Canada’s actions, I’m proud my country apologized and voluntarily paid compensation to Arar. Can you imagine the US apologizing for anything, let alone paying compensation unless forced to do so by a court ruling?
I hope Canada will step up to the plate and take similar action — at least an apology — in the Staples case.
be very wary of harper and his boys. he has got his head firmly up bush’s ass. watch out if he ever gets a majority, his hidden agenda will come to the fore. canadians have no idea of this N.A. union that is being negotiated behind closed doors. our media has made no mention of it. the americans are drooling over our natural resources. i.e. 25% of the worlds fresh water. we all know what happens when the americans want something.
It’s time for the Canadian people to take back Canada from the neo cans, Canada’s version of the US neo cons, and the sooner the better, as in the next federal election at latest– maybe with a little help from a no confidence vote on Stephen Harper’s head up W’s booty gang.
Jan Steinmam, I agree with you. My comment reflects my inherent distrust of government in general. It seems that no matter how benign the initial intention of government, somehow it eventually consolidates power, favoring a few, and ends up being an elitist oligarchy, completely out of touch with, and yet feeding off of, the general population. Witness the US now.
I hope the good people of Canada can prevent the fascist infection, taking hold of the US right now, from spreading. Canada may be a place of refuge when a police state ensues in “Merica”.