Rocco Galati, lawyer for the Canadian Islamic Congress, couldn’t have said it better.
“19 terrorists in 6 weeks have been able to command 300 million North Americans to do away with the entirety of their civil liberties that took 700 years to advance from the Magna Carta onward. The terrorists have already won the political and ideological war with one terrorist act. It is mindboggling that we are that weak as a society.”
You don’t need a law degree to understand his point, nor does it take long to see why the provisions of the anti-terrorism bill should be denounced by the U of T as a threat to university education. The case of Tony Hall should be reminder enough.
Just prior to the Quebec Summit of the Americas conference, the Lethbridge university professor was visited by a RCMP officer intent on reliving some of the finer moments of the Inquisition. He questioned Hall for 45 minutes about his criticisms of the proposed Free-Trade Area of the Americas and the native American rights conference he was organizing to coincide with the summit.
The RCMP officer also demanded the names of those helping to organize the conference. Hall refused. Under Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act, such a refusal could have landed him a year’s jail term. The bill allows people suspected of knowing something about “terrorism”—broadly defined as it is—to be hauled before investigative tribunals where they must answer every question. Failure means jail time.
“In all my professional life, I’ve never run into this kind of thing,” Hall said of the incident. “Why am I being questioned by national security for raising these issues? I’m just doing the job that is expected of me as a professor.”
The government insists the bill defines terrorism in such a way that people like Hall cannot be labelled terrorists for simply doing their job—which often means providing a dissenting voice from time to time. But Jean Chretien’s defense of the Hall incident is a clear reminder of how useless these government assurances are.
“The government wants people to express themselves,” the PM said when questioned in the House. “However, the police have the responsibility of ensuring that the security of citizens and visitors to Quebec City is assured.”
Take out “to Quebec City” and insert “from terrorism” and you have a good idea of what you’ll soon be hearing.
After the incident, Hall was joined by teacher groups in denouncing the RCMP actions and the chill they put on free expression. With C-36, the chill will turn into a full-scale deep freeze at Canada’s universities. The bill also allows the RCMP to monitor phone and email communications without warrant, and to jail people for life if they distribute information which has been deemed a state secret, even if the publication of such information is in the public interest.
Beyond the debate of whether these provisions will be used against academics—and likely they will, given Chretien’s above justifications—is the fear this will instill in our professors. In light of the erosion of tenure (more and more courses are taught by contract workers and TAs who can be dumped year to year) this bill will silence all but the bravest few—men and women willing to risk their jobs, their freedom, their chance for future advancement and their reputation.
And in the end, it will be our education that suffers. We pay large sums of money for one thing: the unfettered opinions and research of Canada’s top intellectuals. We won’t get that under C-36.
In the face of these concerns, U of T’s silence is unacceptable. Despite students and professors showing clear concerns through the numerous forums they have organized on this topic, the university itself has yet to speak publicly against this bill. It is time for the U of T to act to protect its students and its professors, and join with other voices of tolerance, freedom and justice to denounce this bill as the insult and threat it is.
