“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”
Though a pithy aphorism, fraught with simplistic reasoning, it does highlight one fact: the ambiguity that surrounds the idea of terrorism. Rarely has it been defined by government or the media, left solely to individuals to accept allusions of what it is according to each authority figure’s agenda.
Bill C-51, which extends the powers of CSIS, among other agencies, also extends the obfuscated idea of terrorism by including the concept of economic violence. In short, those organizations that seek to disrupt Canada’s economic policies could be considered to be terroristic. The government has assured us that lawful protesters are not being targeted in this legislation. It should be noted, though, that CSIS was present and advising the government during the Northern Gateway protests, underlining what the government views as economic violence.
But this concept of economic violence can also be applied to corporations. We have seen how corporations can threaten our economic stability here in Canada. The threats of lay-offs, of moving out of the country, so that they may pay lower or no taxes, is a form of economic violence. Further to that, they have extorted infrastructure developments and even facilities development, at an expense to taxpayers, undermining our own social developments, as funds that could have been directed to education and health care are no longer there. We, as the people, have responded to these threats, as we fear losing our jobs, but this was done at the expense of our futures.
If you do not think that this has happened in Alberta, or Edmonton even, look back to what happened when Ed Stelmach suggested raising the royalty rate in Alberta. Companies organized protests and threatened to leave the province and lay people off. In our hearts, we knew this would not happen, but still the government blinked, changing its policies to accommodate these companies, and now we are facing the economic realities of these decisions. The City of Edmonton built a building for Dell Computer’s call centre, under the promise of creating jobs, and Dell picked up and left within two years of moving there.
It is not that these businesses are evil, as they are obligated to look out for their own corporate interests, but these acts do meet the definition, in an extended sense, of what it means to be a terrorist within Canada. There is an actual definition of terrorism that is taught in university, paraphrased from Tom Flanagan's textbook, a former adviser to Stephen Harper. It is: an organization that uses violence or the threat of violence to a civilian population to encourage a change in public policy.
It is clear that if one were to apply this definition, businesses, especially those big multinational corporations, would fall into this new category. Obviously, this concept of economic violence is written tongue in cheek, but it demonstrates how the ambiguity of an idea may be twisted. Maybe, then, such legislation should strive to remove such obscurities, rather than creating more.
John Kennair is an international consultant and doctor of laws who lives in St. Albert.
