by omni
Thursday, Nov. 07, 2002 at 12:19 PM
This story starts with planes flying into buildings on the other coast, in
another country. It was just over a year ago, and in the heady months that
followed, our elected representatives in Ottawa rushed to approve
anti-terrorism legislation intended to protect Canada's national security.
In recent months, two Vancouver Island activists found themselves on the
wrong side of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police unit created to enforce
that legislation.
Hello friends,
We will finally be in BC Supreme Court to argue the main points against
the ill-gotten RCMP Search Warrant on Wed. Nov. 13. Although we were
granted permission earlier to cross-examine the RCMP member who swore out
the Information to Obtain the Search Warrant, we have decided to not
proceed with this cross-examination because we believe nothing useful
could be further garnered from such a procedure, and, we believe that the
arguments we have against the Search Warrant are strong enough to stand on
their own. I remain extremely optimistic about the outcome.
Below is a recent article from a Victoria, BC alternative news weekly that
is very well-done, and I thought you'd be interested in reading it. It
offers a pretty good perspective on the RCMP so-called anti-terrorism
actions.
For those of you living in or around Vancouver, here is the information on
the hearing:
Wed. Nov. 13
9:30 AM
BC Supreme Court
Vancouver, BC
I would love to see friendly faces in the court on that day, and it's
expected to be quite an interesting hearing, for those of you
legally-minded.
Thanks once again for all your support, it has truly helped me deal with
this harassment.
Love and Light,
David Barbarash
-----
Monday Magazine
Oct. 24, 2002
Anti-terrorism police harass island activists
Under the new federal anti-terrorism law, dissent becomes a suspicious
activity
By ANDREW MACLEOD
This story starts with planes flying into buildings on the other coast, in
another country. It was just over a year ago, and in the heady months that
followed, our elected representatives in Ottawa rushed to approve
anti-terrorism legislation intended to protect Canada's national security.
In recent months, two Vancouver Island activists found themselves on the
wrong side of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police unit created to enforce
that legislation.
"How can indigenous people be considered terrorists on our own homeland?"
asks John Rampanen. Early in the morning on September 21, the RCMP's
anti-terrorism force, the Integrated National Security Enforcement Team
(INSET), followed an anonymous tip and raided Rampanen's family's empty
home in a Port Alberni suburb. They were looking for unauthorized guns.
The INSET team didn't discover anything at the home, says Rampanen, but
later when they found him and his family at his parents' house, they made
"veiled threats towards the safety of our children." He plans to lodge a
formal complaint about the threats.
While Rampanen sees the need for the police to investigate such serious
allegations as posession of illegal weapons, he says, "It baffles me that
they would be so aggressive in their approach."
As a member of the West Coast Warriors, an aboriginal activist group,
Rampanen has figured prominently in high-profile confrontations at Cheam
on the Fraser River and at Burnt Church in New Brunswick. He also delivers
drug and alcohol education programs to first nations communities.
The warriors don't shy from confrontation, he says, but they aren't
terrorists and it doesn't make sense for them to be under the scrutiny of
INSET. "It's been over three weeks now, and I still don't understand."
David Barbarash, a spokesperson for the Animal Liberation Front, had two
computers, computer disks, videos, photos, files, papers and other
documents seized from his home and office in Courtenay on July 30, by
INSET officers. He says he understands only too well why INSET might take
an interest in activists.
"It used to be people could take these kinds of actions and they'd be
labeled protesters," he says. "At some point in time there was a move to
criminalize dissent. What's happening now, post-September 11, is it's
shifted again. Now we're not even criminals, we're terrorists."
The July raid on Barbarash's property stemmed from an ALF action in Maine
three years ago. A group there broke into hunting clubs, spray-painted
messages on walls, broke windows and stole stuffed animal heads which they
later "returned to their natural environment to rest in peace." Damage was
estimated at $8,700.
He acknowledges that the ALF actions were criminal, but stresses the group
doesn't physically harm anyone and that what he calls "economic sabotage"
has a long, dignified history that can be traced back to the Boston Tea
Party and further.
As with other animal rights actions, Barbarash received information from
sources he says he does not know, and has no way to contact, and
communicated their message to the media.
"I'm not committing any crimes, I'm simply voicing my support for these
kinds of activities," he says. "I don't see why our resources should be
spent in this way, as if this is some kind of terrorist activity. I think
it's outrageous."
According to RCMP background information about INSET, funding comes from
the federal government's $64-million budget meant, over five years, to
"strengthen Canada's ability to detect, deter and respond to existing and
emerging national security threats."
After INSET's creation in June, the CBC reported that in the
organization's four field offices - in Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa and
Montreal - there are no agents who speak Arabic.
The RCMP, of course, will not comment on specific cases. Nor would
spokespeople in Vancouver or Ottawa describe the kinds of files INSET
investigates or even how many they've been assigned. In fact, the
spokesperson in Vancouver was so badly informed she couldn't say for
certain whether there were three or four INSET teams.
"Lets face it," says Barbarash. "This is Canada. There isn't a lot of
terrorism. $64 million is a lot of money to investigate something that
doesn't really exist."
So instead of infiltrating al-Qaeda sleeper cells, he says, INSET officers
are being used to investigate more mundane criminal matters.
"When they're going after people like me who just speak to the media, it's
pretty pathetic," he says. "They've got to justify their expense account
somehow."
But there is a darker side to how INSET seems to be used, he adds, one
that should be worrisome for all Canadian activists.
"It's very ominous to me that a national police force is being used to
disrupt people's lives and political activity when they are no threat to
national security," he says. "I think they're being used essentially as a
political police force."
The problem, says Murray Mollard, executive director of the British
Columbia Civil Liberties Association, stems from an overly broad
definition of "terrorism" introduced in Bill C-36, the federal
government's anti-terrorism legislation.
Included in the definition is any action that "causes serious interference
with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system,
whether public or private."
"What is that?" asks Mollard. "It's almost anything. What is 'serious?' I
don't know . . . Everything flows from the definition."
As has been pointed out many times, one person's terrorist is another's
freedom fighter, making it difficult to write a clear definition of
terrorism. However, says Mollard, the definition from C-36 "will include
things that it is not." He worries that widely accepted forms of civil
disobedience, such as environmentalists blocking logging trucks, will also
fall under the label of terrorism.
"There's always concern among civil libertarians where if the state gives
itself an inch, it'll take a mile," he says. "Constraint is always the
best policy from our point of view."
He says questions need to be answered about who oversees INSET, how broad
a mandate the unit has, what the constraints are on its activity, and
whether there's a "threshold" on how serious a crime committed in a
foreign country has to be before INSET will pursue it. There's also the
question of how to decide when a case is criminal and when it's a matter
for the anti-terrorism squad.
Benoit Desjardins, an RCMP spokesperson and corporal in the Ottawa
headquarters, could say little more than what is posted in a backgrounder
on the RCMP website, a document that tosses around terms like "terrorism",
"national security" and "potential threats" without defining them.
"I know the answer will be case by case," says Desjardins. "If anything
touches national security, the information will be passed to the INSET . .
. What happened with September 11 made people quite aware of what should
be passed to INSET."
But what is "national security?"
"I guess national security, it's more like capacity to affect Canadian
security, it could be safety of people. To me it would have to show a
threat to Canadians."
Later, he calls back with what he says is the RCMP's working definition:
"National security is the defence and maintenance of social, political and
economic stability of Canada."
According to Mollard, the confusion and the vagueness of terms is
frustrating, but not surprising.
"There's never been a piece of legislation that was so rushed through," he
says. "When you create legislation at a moment of heightened emotion and
anxiety, you're not always creating the best legislation."
www.angelfire.com/empire/meltdown/