Balance freedom and security
‘You can’t have one without the other’
Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one, said Benjamin Franklin.
The day after an attack “clearly linked to terrorist ideology,” in the words of Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney, the temptation is to lash out, attempt to pin blame and demand that somebody, somewhere must do something.
I found myself wondering on Twitter why we seize the passports of terror suspects? Why not let would-be martyrs leave Canada and then rescind their passports?
But, in the words of another great American, former WWE wrestler and Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura: “You have to accept the rule of law, even when it’s inconvenient, if you’re going to be a country that abides by the rule of law.”
Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent died at the hands of Martin Couture Rouleau, a 25-year-old Muslim convert, who was fatally shot after running down Warrant Officer Vincent and another soldier in a commercial plaza in SaintJean-sur-Richelieu, Que.
The RCMP revealed Tuesday Mr. Rouleau had had his passport seized and was one of 90 suspected extremists being investigated because they intended to join fights abroad, or who have returned to Canada having already done so.
A glance at Mr. Rouleau’s Facebook page reveals someone who was clearly sympathetic to the goals of the Islamic State in Iraq and AlSham (ISIS).
“Allah has promised the disbelievers the fire of hell, wherein they will abide eternally,” said one posting.
“Armies carrying black flags will come from [Afghanistan]. No power will be able to stop them and they will finally reach Jerusalem, where they will erect their flags,” said another.
The problem for the security forces monitoring Mr. Rouleau is that holding opinions that reasonable people may find noxious is not against the law. The government passed the Combating Terrorism Act last year, reviving provisions introduced in the post 9/11 Anti-Terrorism Act that had fallen into abeyance, because of a five-year sunset clause. The act reinstated the use of investigative hearings and preventive arrest in relation to terrorist activity.
But even these provisions require a level of evidence that, one hopes, was absent in this case.
“There’s no indication as yet that the authorities had any knowledge in advance. If this was a lone actor launching an impromptu attack, with mental illness in the background, then it’s very difficult to prevent or predict,” said Wesley Wark, a visiting professor at the University of Ottawa.
Stephen Harper called the attack “a despicable act of violence that strikes against our values as a civilized democracy” in the House of Commons. The prime minister said security agencies are seeking ways to bring charges against individuals who want to harm Canada and that his government is looking at ways to give them more tools to bring charges.
A new security bill that would boost protection for intelligence sources and give security services greater powers to track terrorists abroad is expected to be tabled in the House this week.
But the values of a civilized democracy that Mr. Harper talked about require that the legislative response is proportionate to the threat. We cannot, for example, succumb to the urge to detain suspects without charge.
The courts have been clear that investigations need to meet a certain threshold of evidence.
The success of our democracy is predicated on a healthy balance between our freedom and our security. Ultimately, the twisted logic of the jihadis is undermined by a fair but hard-minded justice system.
“By and large, I think we’ve done pretty well as a society. Freedom and security are not a dichotomy, you can’t have one without the other,” said Christian Leuprecht, a security expert at the Royal Military College and Queen’s University.
He said the balance between the two is not fixed and the government may, from time to time, attempt to reset it.
But to do so, that government would need to explain clearly why it was shifting one or other element.
“Terror incidents are still rare. Our society remains pretty resilient to these ideas taking hold.
“The security forces are the last resort, rather than the line of first defence,” he said.