Canada, Constitutional Law, Crime, Guns / Firearms, Murder, Politics, Violence, War on Terror

The View From Up North: Terror In Ottawa

Reflections from Canadian columnist Steve Dykstra on the recent Ottawa shooting.

By  
on

As most of the world knows, last week a gunman shot and killed a Canadian soldier as he stood at his post near the National War Memorial in Ottawa. Corporal Nathan Cirillo was standing on guard in honour of his fallen brothers-in-arms when Michael Zehaf-Bibeau shot him with a 30-30 rifle at close range.

Hunters use 30-30s to kill moose.

As ordinary citizens tried heroically to save our soldier’s life, Zehaf-Bibeau rushed over to Parliament Hill, only a few blocks away, bent on destroying more lives. He died in an exchange of gunfire with law enforcement officers, thankfully before he could do further serious harm.

What a horrible day for Canada and an infinitely more horrible day for Corporal Cirillo’s family and friends. Our thoughts and prayers remain with his loved ones.

I apologize, because when a young soldier loses his life, politics should be the last thing on anybody’s mind. But, Corporal Cirillo’s death immediately turned political….

All three party leaders gave speeches in the early evening on the night of the tragedy. Justin Trudeau gave a self-serving speech that looked to me (a Liberal supporter) that he was using a moment of national heartbreak to stump for votes in the next federal election. I was very disappointed. At a time when Canada really needed comfort and leadership, I thought all three party leaders fell vastly short when they addressed the nation. Canada deserved better.

Sponsored

The next day, Prime Minister Stephen Harper spoke in Parliament about the need for stronger tools to combat terrorism. He told the House of Commons, “In recent weeks, I’ve been saying that our laws and police powers need to be strengthened in the area of surveillance, detention and arrest. They need to be much strengthened, and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that work which is already underway will be expedited.”

All this led me to one question: what rights do Canadian citizens actually have?

It’s a disturbing question for me. Why? I took Constitutional Law in law school. I practiced law for nearly a decade (as a corporate lawyer) and I didn’t really have a clue about our rights with respect to police surveillance, detention or arrest until I talked to my brother, who is a federal prosecutor.

Do you know, for example, whether you must provide identification to the police if they ask? I bet ninety-nine out of a hundred lawyers can’t answer that definitively.

There are thirty-five million people in Canada. If I don’t understand my basic rights, how in the heck are people who haven’t gone to law school going to understand them? Thus, we had an incredibly powerful, tragic moment in our country’s history last week. One that scared the crap out of many citizens. “Those people” had come to our shores (even though Zehaf-Bibeau was born in Canada). We are inundated every day by news of ISIS and al-Qaeda and people who want to kill Westerners. The spectre of 9/11 hangs over our heads.

Sponsored

Fear, fear, fear.

Then the Prime Minister, in the wake of this tragedy, says we need to strengthen our ability to watch, detain and arrest potential terrorists.

Hell, yeah!

Except, wait, what does that mean?

Until I started writing this, I didn’t have a clue what powers the government has today. I now have a cursory understanding, but not enough to engage in meaningful debate. Thus, if given my legal background I can’t have an intelligent debate, how can the whole country make an informed decision about what legislative changes are acceptable in a free society?

Here’s an article that talks about a controversial way Great Britain strengthened its anti-terrorist laws. It says that Canada can currently detain a suspected terrorist for 48 hours upon reasonable suspicion. The article doesn’t describe reasonable suspicion of what. Is it reasonable suspicion the person is about to blow up a train station? Is it you’re Muslim and the cops caught you Googling “ISIS”?

I guess I could go look it up. But the vast majority of Canadians aren’t going to do that. They aren’t going to have the grounding to engage in an informed debate. They’re going to get bits and pieces — the odd television program, a newspaper article here or there. And, they’re going to listen to politicians taking advantage of their fear and lack of knowledge during an incredibly difficult time.

All I can say is, time to pump the brakes.

A wise man (okay, my brother) once said, a true hallmark of democracy can be assessed with this question, “Where would you rather be wrongfully accused?” Thus, would you rather be wrongfully accused in Canada or North Korea?

In a free and democratic society the police essentially cannot detain you for longer than it takes to write a traffic ticket unless they arrest you. That’s the case in Canada, except when it comes to suspected terrorists, who we can toss in jail without charging them for two days upon “suspicion.” That’s not my kind of democracy.

Great Britain can hold people for up to 28 days without charging them so that police officers can then gather the evidence to substantiate their “suspicion.” That puts the Magna Carta-loving Brits a lot closer to how Kim Jong-un does business than anything resembling a “free society.”

Even Mr. Harper’s former public safety minister, Stockwell Day, thinks the government should proceed carefully before making changes to the current laws. He said, “There are always limitations, and this is what we have to realize in a free and democratic society. Any time you increase your security, you decrease your freedom somewhere.”

Well put, and a vital point to remember. Increasing security is good. Decreasing freedom is bad. Finding the balance is tough — but critical.

Put another way, every time we chip away at a fundamental freedom by, for example, giving the police the right to detain someone for 48 hours without arresting them, it’s like pulling a loose thread on the Canadian flag. We could quickly see the iconic red maple leaf disappear if we tug the thread too much. Our civil liberties are what make us Canadians. If we let those unravel, the terrorists win.

Another thing, during their speeches, both PM Harper and Justin Trudeau made it clear that Canadians won’t be intimidated. Anytime you change your laws because of a terrorist attack, it’s an admission you’re intimidated. If Stephen Harper wasn’t intimidated, he’d say business as usual, right?

So that’s the Prime Minister talking tough and acting weak. Acting weak isn’t a great way to prevent future attacks.

The final point is we’ve had two incidents of “terror” in the last couple of weeks. If it was ten or twenty or fifty, I might have a different perspective. But, it’s two. Both incidence are tragic and terrible, but it’s still only two.

Let’s not overact. Let’s have informed debate, leaving fear and rhetoric aside. This is a great opportunity for citizens to really learn about civil liberties and, if after informed debate, we decide to strengthen security at the cost of some of our freedom, that’s democracy (maybe slightly diminished, but still democracy).

But, whatever we do, it must always be with the caveat: once that glorious maple leaf starts to unravel, it’s pretty hard to stitch it back together again.

That’s the View From Up North. Have a great week.

Steve Dykstra is a Canadian-trained lawyer and legal recruiter. He is the President of Keybridge Legal Recruiting, a boutique recruitment firm that places lawyers in law firms and in-house roles throughout North America. You can contact Steve at steve@keybridgerecruiting.com. You can also read his blog at stevendykstra.wordpress.com, follow him on Twitter (@IMRecruitR), or connect on LinkedIn (ca.linkedin.com/in/stevedykstra/).

Topics

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,