{"article":{"id":21857,"heading":"  &quot;How can indigenous people be considered terrorists on our own homeland?&quot;","author":"omni","created":"2002-11-07 20:19:51","modified":"2002-11-07 20:19:51","last_modified":"Fri, 08 Nov 2002 03:19:51","article":"<p>Hello friends, <br><br>   We will finally be in BC Supreme Court to argue the main points against <br>  <br>   the ill-gotten RCMP Search Warrant on Wed. Nov. 13. Although we were <br>  <br>   granted permission earlier to cross-examine the RCMP member who swore out <br>  <br>   the Information to Obtain the Search Warrant, we have decided to not <br>  <br>   proceed with this cross-examination because we believe nothing useful <br>  <br>   could be further garnered from such a procedure, and, we believe that the <br>  <br>   arguments we have against the Search Warrant are strong enough to stand on <br>  <br>   their own. I remain extremely optimistic about the outcome. <br><br>   Below is a recent article from a Victoria, BC alternative news weekly that <br>  <br>   is very well-done, and I thought you'd be interested in reading it. It <br>  <br>   offers a pretty good perspective on the RCMP so-called anti-terrorism <br>  <br>   actions. <br><br>   For those of you living in or around Vancouver, here is the information on <br>  <br>   the hearing: <br><br>   Wed. Nov. 13 <br>  <br>   9:30 AM <br>  <br>   BC Supreme Court <br>  <br>   Vancouver, BC <br><br>   I would love to see friendly faces in the court on that day, and it's <br>  <br>   expected to be quite an interesting hearing, for those of you <br>  <br>   legally-minded. <br><br>   Thanks once again for all your support, it has truly helped me deal with <br>  <br>   this harassment. <br><br>   Love and Light, <br>  <br>   David Barbarash <br><br>   ----- <br><br>   Monday Magazine <br>  <br>   Oct. 24, 2002 <br><br>   Anti-terrorism police harass island activists <br><br>   Under the new federal anti-terrorism law, dissent becomes a suspicious <br>  <br>   activity <br><br>   By ANDREW MACLEOD <br><br>   This story starts with planes flying into buildings on the other coast, in <br>  <br>   another country. It was just over a year ago, and in the heady months that <br>  <br>   followed, our elected representatives in Ottawa rushed to approve <br>  <br>   anti-terrorism legislation intended to protect Canada's national security. <br>  <br>   In recent months, two Vancouver Island activists found themselves on the <br>  <br>   wrong side of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police unit created to enforce <br>  <br>   that legislation. <br><br>   \"How can indigenous people be considered terrorists on our own homeland?\" <br>  <br>   asks John Rampanen. Early in the morning on September 21, the RCMP's <br>  <br>   anti-terrorism force, the Integrated National Security Enforcement Team <br>  <br>   (INSET), followed an anonymous tip and raided Rampanen's family's empty <br>  <br>   home in a Port Alberni suburb. They were looking for unauthorized guns. <br><br>   The INSET team didn't discover anything at the home, says Rampanen, but <br>  <br>   later when they found him and his family at his parents' house, they made <br>  <br>   \"veiled threats towards the safety of our children.\" He plans to lodge a <br>  <br>   formal complaint about the threats. <br><br>   While Rampanen sees the need for the police to investigate such serious <br>  <br>   allegations as posession of illegal weapons, he says, \"It baffles me that <br>  <br>   they would be so aggressive in their approach.\" <br><br>   As a member of the West Coast Warriors, an aboriginal activist group, <br>  <br>   Rampanen has figured prominently in high-profile confrontations at Cheam <br>  <br>   on the Fraser River and at Burnt Church in New Brunswick. He also delivers <br>  <br>   drug and alcohol education programs to first nations communities. <br><br>   The warriors don't shy from confrontation, he says, but they aren't <br>  <br>   terrorists and it doesn't make sense for them to be under the scrutiny of <br>  <br>   INSET. \"It's been over three weeks now, and I still don't understand.\" <br><br>   David Barbarash, a spokesperson for the Animal Liberation Front, had two <br>  <br>   computers, computer disks, videos, photos, files, papers and other <br>  <br>   documents seized from his home and office in Courtenay on July 30, by <br>  <br>   INSET officers. He says he understands only too well why INSET might take <br>  <br>   an interest in activists. <br><br>   \"It used to be people could take these kinds of actions and they'd be <br>  <br>   labeled protesters,\" he says. \"At some point in time there was a move to <br>  <br>   criminalize dissent. What's happening now, post-September 11, is it's <br>  <br>   shifted again. Now we're not even criminals, we're terrorists.\" <br><br>   The July raid on Barbarash's property stemmed from an ALF action in Maine <br>  <br>   three years ago. A group there broke into hunting clubs, spray-painted <br>  <br>   messages on walls, broke windows and stole stuffed animal heads which they <br>  <br>   later \"returned to their natural environment to rest in peace.\" Damage was <br>  <br>   estimated at $8,700. <br><br>   He acknowledges that the ALF actions were criminal, but stresses the group <br>  <br>   doesn't physically harm anyone and that what he calls \"economic sabotage\" <br>  <br>   has a long, dignified history that can be traced back to the Boston Tea <br>  <br>   Party and further. <br><br>   As with other animal rights actions, Barbarash received information from <br>  <br>   sources he says he does not know, and has no way to contact, and <br>  <br>   communicated their message to the media. <br><br>   \"I'm not committing any crimes, I'm simply voicing my support for these <br>  <br>   kinds of activities,\" he says. \"I don't see why our resources should be <br>  <br>   spent in this way, as if this is some kind of terrorist activity. I think <br>  <br>   it's outrageous.\" <br><br>   According to RCMP background information about INSET, funding comes from <br>  <br>   the federal government's $64-million budget meant, over five years, to <br>  <br>   \"strengthen Canada's ability to detect, deter and respond to existing and <br>  <br>   emerging national security threats.\" <br><br>   After INSET's creation in June, the CBC reported that in the <br>  <br>   organization's four field offices - in Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa and <br>  <br>   Montreal - there are no agents who speak Arabic. <br><br>   The RCMP, of course, will not comment on specific cases. Nor would <br>  <br>   spokespeople in Vancouver or Ottawa describe the kinds of files INSET <br>  <br>   investigates or even how many they've been assigned. In fact, the <br>  <br>   spokesperson in Vancouver was so badly informed she couldn't say for <br>  <br>   certain whether there were three or four INSET teams. <br><br>   \"Lets face it,\" says Barbarash. \"This is Canada. There isn't a lot of <br>  <br>   terrorism. $64 million is a lot of money to investigate something that <br>  <br>   doesn't really exist.\" <br><br>   So instead of infiltrating al-Qaeda sleeper cells, he says, INSET officers <br>  <br>   are being used to investigate more mundane criminal matters. <br><br>   \"When they're going after people like me who just speak to the media, it's <br>  <br>   pretty pathetic,\" he says. \"They've got to justify their expense account <br>  <br>   somehow.\" <br><br>   But there is a darker side to how INSET seems to be used, he adds, one <br>  <br>   that should be worrisome for all Canadian activists. <br><br>   \"It's very ominous to me that a national police force is being used to <br>  <br>   disrupt people's lives and political activity when they are no threat to <br>  <br>   national security,\" he says. \"I think they're being used essentially as a <br>  <br>   political police force.\" <br><br>   The problem, says Murray Mollard, executive director of the British <br>  <br>   Columbia Civil Liberties Association, stems from an overly broad <br>  <br>   definition of \"terrorism\" introduced in Bill C-36, the federal <br>  <br>   government's anti-terrorism legislation. <br><br>   Included in the definition is any action that \"causes serious interference <br>  <br>   with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, <br>  <br>   whether public or private.\" <br><br>   \"What is that?\" asks Mollard. \"It's almost anything. What is 'serious?' I <br>  <br>   don't know . . . Everything flows from the definition.\" <br><br>   As has been pointed out many times, one person's terrorist is another's <br>  <br>   freedom fighter, making it difficult to write a clear definition of <br>  <br>   terrorism. However, says Mollard, the definition from C-36 \"will include <br>  <br>   things that it is not.\" He worries that widely accepted forms of civil <br>  <br>   disobedience, such as environmentalists blocking logging trucks, will also <br>  <br>   fall under the label of terrorism. <br><br>   \"There's always concern among civil libertarians where if the state gives <br>  <br>   itself an inch, it'll take a mile,\" he says. \"Constraint is always the <br>  <br>   best policy from our point of view.\" <br><br>   He says questions need to be answered about who oversees INSET, how broad <br>  <br>   a mandate the unit has, what the constraints are on its activity, and <br>  <br>   whether there's a \"threshold\" on how serious a crime committed in a <br>  <br>   foreign country has to be before INSET will pursue it. There's also the <br>  <br>   question of how to decide when a case is criminal and when it's a matter <br>  <br>   for the anti-terrorism squad. <br><br>   Benoit Desjardins, an RCMP spokesperson and corporal in the Ottawa <br>  <br>   headquarters, could say little more than what is posted in a backgrounder <br>  <br>   on the RCMP website, a document that tosses around terms like \"terrorism\", <br>  <br>   \"national security\" and \"potential threats\" without defining them. <br><br>   \"I know the answer will be case by case,\" says Desjardins. \"If anything <br>  <br>   touches national security, the information will be passed to the INSET . . <br>  <br>   . What happened with September 11 made people quite aware of what should <br>  <br>   be passed to INSET.\" <br><br>   But what is \"national security?\" <br><br>   \"I guess national security, it's more like capacity to affect Canadian <br>  <br>   security, it could be safety of people. To me it would have to show a <br>  <br>   threat to Canadians.\" <br><br>   Later, he calls back with what he says is the RCMP's working definition: <br>  <br>   \"National security is the defence and maintenance of social, political and <br>  <br>   economic stability of Canada.\" <br><br>   According to Mollard, the confusion and the vagueness of terms is <br>  <br>   frustrating, but not surprising. <br><br>   \"There's never been a piece of legislation that was so rushed through,\" he <br>  <br>   says. \"When you create legislation at a moment of heightened emotion and <br>  <br>   anxiety, you're not always creating the best legislation.\" <br><br>  <br><br> <\/p>\n","contact":"","link":"http:\/\/www.angelfire.com\/empire\/meltdown\/","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/plain","summary":"  This story starts with planes flying into buildings on the other coast, in\r\n  another country. It was just over a year ago, and in the heady months that\r\n  followed, our elected representatives in Ottawa rushed to approve\r\n  anti-terrorism legislation intended to protect Canada's national security.\r\n  In recent months, two Vancouver Island activists found themselves on the\r\n  wrong side of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police unit created to enforce\r\n  that legislation.","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/","filesize":null,"article_url":"\/news\/2002\/11\/21857.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[]}