(The Sub-Saharan Informer, Aug. 21, 2009)
By Tesfaye Hailu
The recent debate in the Ethiopian House of People’s Representatives as well as in the media on the fairness of the anti terrorism law, or the lack thereof, resonates a Canadian political history lesson in me.
In 1970, Pierre Trudeau’s Liberal Government was confronted with one of the most difficult political dilemmas still painfully remembered in Canada as the October Crisis, which was triggered by a radical separatist group called Front de libératon du Québec (FLQ). The FLQ was responsible for a series of terrorist attacks, notably the kidnapping of a British trade commissioner and a Quebec provincial cabinet minister (the latter was ultimately assassinated by the terrorist group).
As a result, the Trudeau government invoked the ‘‘War Measures Act’’, which suspended civil liberties, and called in the army to patrol the cities of Montreal, where the terrorist acts mainly took place, and Ottawa, the nation’s capital. Majority of Canadians supported the Act. However, as it’s often the case, not everyone was pleased with it. And the most distinguished non-politician to unabashedly oppose the drastic measure was a public broadcasting (CBC) journalist. Below are excerpts from his conversation (confrontation would be more like it) with PM Trudeau that I selectively picked on the ground of sheer relevance to my opinion piece.
Journalist: Sir, what is it with all these men with guns around here?’ …
PM: ‘‘What’s your worry?’’
J: ‘‘I'm worried about living in a town that’s full of people with guns running around.’’
PM: ‘‘Have they done anything to you, have they pushed you around or anything?’’ …
J: ‘‘Doesn’t it worry you, having a town that you’ve got to resort to this kind of thing?’’
PM: ‘‘It doesn't worry me. I think it’s natural that if people are being abducted that they be protected against such abductions …’’
J: ‘‘And one of the things I have to give up for that choice is the fact that people like you may be kidnapped.’’
PM: ‘‘Sure, but this isn’t my choice, obviously. You know, I think it is more important to get rid of those who are committing violence against the total society and those who are trying to run the government through a parallel power by establishing their authority by kidnapping and blackmail. And I think it is our duty as a government to protect government officials and important people in our society against being used as tools in this blackmail.’’
J: ‘‘No, I still go back to the choice that you have to make in the kind of society that you live in.’’
PM: ‘‘Yes, well there are a lot of bleeding hearts around who just don’t like to see people with helmets and guns. All I can say is, go on and bleed, but it is more important to keep law and order in society than to be worried about weak-kneed people who don’t like the looks of ...’’
J: At any cost? How far would you go with that? How far would you extend that?
PM: ‘‘Well, just watch me!’’
J: ‘‘Well, if you extend this and you say, ok, you’re going to do anything to protect them, does this include wire-tapping, reducing other civil liberties in some way?’’
PM: ‘‘Yes, I think society must take every means at its disposal to defend itself against the emergence of a parallel power which defies the elected power in this country and I think that goes to any distance. So long as there is a power in here which is challenging the elected representative of the people I think that power must be stopped and I think it’s only, I repeat, weak-kneed bleeding hearts who are afraid to take these measures.’’
Opinions now vary among Canadians in favour or against the fateful event that took place nearly four decades ago. Critics of the Act condemn the whole saga as an overreaction and a pretext for the use of excessive force. Supporters, on the other hand, applaud it as the right corrective measure that delivered a clear message and valuable lesson to terrorists that their acts would never be tolerated in Canada.
I do not wish to romanticize the Canadian War Measures Act for the obvious reason that innocent people had become victims of arbitrary search warrants and arrests. However, I also feel that the Act may be getting a bad rap as ‘‘hindsight is 20/20’’, and it’s easier to look back and poke holes on it.
In fact, on sober second thought, I tend to subscribe to the notion that the Act was a necessary lesser evil that averted further potential crisis. Had the threat of terrorism not been dealt with firmly and decisively under Trudeau’s watch, who knows what kind of Canada would have emerged after the dust settled?
True, the Act did not lift the cloud of separation from Quebec. But it’d be fair to assert that it has contributed to the healthy outcome of ballots, not bullets, becoming the subsequent weapon of choice. (In 1995, Quebecers went to the polls to decide their destiny, and a slim majority won by opting to remain in a united Canada.)
To reiterate, as I followed the debate on Ethiopia’s anti-terrorism law with great interest, I couldn’t help but think of the relatable Canadian historic chain of events. Not only did Canada, the ‘‘peaceable kingdom’’, felt compelled to fight terrorism with its 1970 War Measures Act, but also with Bill C-36 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, which was introduced (now expired) in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack on United States. And who, with clear understanding of terrorism and in good conscience, can oppose a law intended to protect citizens from the 21st. century’s worst evil?
After all, it’s far from a classified secret that Ethiopia is under threat from an ‘‘axis of evil’’:
a) A lunatic warlord to the North and his adherents who – backed by proponents of a proxy war on Ethiopia – are hell-bent to destroy the country.
b)
c) A group calling itself Ginbot 7 that is in unholy alliance with old-fashioned separatists, and who jointly and disgracefully bow at the altar of their Northern godfather and political crime guru. These politically bankrupt and ideologically insolvent groups – similar to Canada’s FLQ – see seizing power by any means un-necessary as their last great hope and terrorism as the only means to that ultimate end.
d) Out of the closet terrorists such as Al-Shabab who make no bones about their desire to unleash terror and cause chaos in the country with the final goal of imposing their brand of religious and ideological dogma on Ethiopians.
e)
Add to this the fact that terrorism is now globalized and weapons of mass destruction can easily fall in the hands of the aforementioned and other enemies, there is more than enough reason for caution.
So, considering the clear and present danger, kudos to government officials and legislators who, in due course, read the writing on the wall, and took a bold decision to act responsibly and appropriately. Further, it’s encouraging to notice that ‘‘the best defence is a good offence’’ basketball adage may come into play in the imminent showdown between peace loving citizens led by their government vs. the evil forces of terrorism.
That said, some of the concerns raised on the potential spillover effects of the anti terrorism law on law-abiding citizens is not something to be entirely ignored. Indeed, extreme caution needs to be exercised so as to minimize, when possible avoid, the law’s unintended harm to innocent bystanders.
At the same time, it’d be extremely naïve to selectively and overly dwell on the potential pitfalls of the new legislation, thereby undermine the spirit and letter of the law. On a more serious note, it is irresponsible to play politics – as some opposition party members and journalists, definitely not all, appear to do – by unfairly painting the law as something initiated in bad faith and inherently harmful when that is evidently not the case.
This leads me to the conclusion that the late Pierre Trudeau’s approach may come in handy in defending the new anti terrorism law in Ethiopia. First, there, of course, are those who need to be educated on the destructive nature of terrorism and the responsibility to act before it’s too late.
Second, there are the ‘‘weak-kneed bleeding hearts’’ who sanctimoniously evoke civil liberty concerns, while naively ignoring the ‘‘security of person’’ – a right guaranteed by the UN Declaration of Human Rights, but terrorism literally deprives. No matter how innocent this second group’s intention might be, truth should be told, ‘‘… go on and bleed but it is more important to keep law and order’’, and thereby assure the security of citizens.
Lastly, there are special interests who deliberately undermine the state’s authority to keep the peace. And it is this last group in particular that ought to be explicitly warned that the state will ‘‘take every means at its disposal’’ to defend its citizens’ safety and the national security. Further, if clarity is sought after as to how far government is willing to go to carryout its duty, something along the line of Trudeau’s famous ‘‘Just watch me!’’ should be adequate to convey the intended message.