By Gary Kinsman
This posting is not intended to provide detailed analysis of Bill C-51 but instead is my reflections on the organizing against it.
Bill C-51 will intensify important aspects of the national security regime in ‘Canada.’ I have been impressed by the breadth of liberal and social democratic opposition to Bill C-51 and the ways it has undermined some of the initial public support for this Bill through its focus on Harper’s attack on civil liberties and freedom of speech. At the same time I have been profoundly uneasy with the limitations of this rhetoric, at the lack of depth of this opposition, and also at its lack of recognition of the long history of national security attacks on indigenous peoples, the left, the unions, immigrants, people of colour, feminists, lesbians and gays and queer movements, the global justice movement, anti-poverty activists, the radical wings of ecology movements, and those identified as Islamic and Arab in the context of the ‘war on terror.’
These national security attacks did not start with Harper and their roots go back to the formation of policing as part of the colonization of the indigenous peoples. Attacks on people of colour and those identified as Arab and Muslim go back way before 9/11. Indigenous land defenders, direct action anti-poverty activists, global justice activists and environmental activists have been accused of being ‘terrorists’ long before Harper became Prime Minister. Activists have been targeted for social and economic disruptions that threaten the ‘national interest’ in the past. This is nothing new here although Bill C-51 makes national security policing directed against these actions more formalized, clear and public. As well at times this broad but moderate anti-Harper opposition while criticizing Bill C-51 seems to focus on the need for more limited forms of national security surveillance and policing that will not go after ‘legitimate’ forms of protest but will focus instead only on forms of protest and subversion that are not legal or ‘legitimate.’ In my view to be effective opposition to Bill C-51 must have deeper roots and must go further in its critique and actions.
In this context I was very pleased to attend a fantastic event last Monday night in Toronto with about 200 other people facilitated by No One Is Illegal Toronto which was called “C-51 Can’t Stop Us! Fighting Colonialism, Islamophobia and Surveillance.” The event included recognition of the earlier and continuing histories of national security policing practices against indigenous communities through a talk by Judy Da Silva from Grassy Narrows, as well as the experience of those placed under national security certificates when Mohammad Mahjoub spoke about his experiences. This was followed by activists from various movements and communities calling for breaking and defying Bill C-51 through continuing to organize – and deepening our organizing — for social and environmental justice and profound social transformation. Syed Hussan, of No One Is Illegal, read a powerful manifesto/poem calling for the breaking of Bill C-51. It was attending this meeting that provided me with the inspiration to write these words.
When addressing security surveillance and policing it is always necessary to ask which nation is being defended and whose security? ‘Canada’ is not a unitary entity but is instead criss-crossed with struggles over colonization, racialization, class, gender, sexuality, the environment and more. The national security of ‘Canada’ is defined by those with social, political and class power who define their interests as the ‘national interest.’ It is their security that is being defended in national security. As was pointed out at the meeting on Monday night it is our various movements for social and ecological justice that challenge their national security. ‘We’ – in our various movements and struggles – are the ‘national security risks’ that they are fighting against and it is imperative that we reject the ideology and practice of national security and do not become complicit in it. We need to resist their ‘national security’ since their ‘security’ is based on our insecurity, oppression and exploitation and we can only move towards profound social transformation if we break through national security surveillance and policing. Their national security is a threat to the security and progress of our movements and communities.
A central feature of national security ideology and practice is that it is always based on the exclusion of some groups of people identified as ‘other,’ or as the ‘enemy’ within, from the very fabric of the ‘nation-state.’ At the same time other groups are included at the centre of this nation-state. While national security often violently excludes it is also productive of the character of social power in the nation-state.
In relation to indigenous peoples their nations were expelled from the fabric of the Canadian nation-state as the centre of this nation-state was produced as white and settler-colonial in character. During the Canadian war on queers from the 1950s through to the 1990s (and continuing in some ways today) lesbians and gay men were expelled from the fabric of the nation and defined as ‘national security risks.’ This played an important part in the construction of the relations of the closet and living a double-life that was forced on many queer people. The other side of this was producing heterosexuality as the sexuality at the centre of the Canadian nation-state and as the national, safe and secure sexuality.
In the national security campaigns against those identified as Arabs and Muslims in the context of the ‘war on terror’ these groups are again expelled from the fabric of the nation and at the centre is constructed a white, christian-derived ‘civilization.’ This is based on racialization and exclusion. Against global justice protestors and activists opposed to the tar sands this is based on throwing them outside the confines of the ‘nation’ and constructing a pro-capitalist and pro-oil industry culture at the centre of the nation-state. We begin to see how national security participates in producing colonialism, racism, and capitalism at the centre of ‘Canada’ and why breaking it is creating openings for indigenous, anti-racist, and anti-capitalist struggles and movements.
This also brings us to the limitations of those who oppose Bill C-51 but would still define people who engage in militant or direct action based struggles as ‘illegitimate.’ To accept this division between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ protestors is playing by their rules. It is like struggling with one hand tied behind our backs since it rules out forms of organizing that in many ways can be the most effective in bringing about social transformation. The tactics they lay out for us as ‘legal’ and ‘proper’ are the ones that often have little impact on them and contain and constrain our struggles. It is often only by breaking from their approved routes that our struggles move forward.
We also need to remember the histories of struggles that have won gains for us in the past and present. The right to form unions was won through tactics that were illegal and not approved by state agencies. Gandhi’s non-violent civil disobedience struggles in India were based on systematically breaking the colonial law and at times included the systematic destruction of British private property. The Black civil rights movement in the US won victories through systematically breaking laws in non-violent civil disobedience which was combined with the threat to those in power coming from the more militant black power movement and the riots against racism, unemployment and police repression that took place in many cities. Indigenous activists have often had to break the colonizer’s laws to defend their rights and land and have had to defend themselves from armed police and military attacks. Right now students in Quebec, who have built movements that have kept tuition fees lower so there is more access to post-secondary education, are engaged in major strikes against the austerity policies of the Quebec government. They are often using tactics that are ‘illegal’ according to the police and other state agencies and are facing police violence and repression. To say that only ‘good’ protests are allowed is to refuse to learn from history and is to deny our movements some of the most effective strategies and tactics for winning victories.
For all these reasons we need to deepen opposition to Bill C-51 through putting national security itself, and its associated surveillance and policing, in question in a much more profound way. And we need to commit to breaking C-51 through continuing our movements and struggles if it is passed (which seems very likely!). We also need to keep in mind that the central targets of Bill C-51 are indigenous land defenders, activists organizing against the tar sands and associated pipe-lines, and Muslim and Arab identified people. In response to Bill C-51 we need to intensify our solidarity and support for these groups and struggles.
Some of my work I am drawing upon here is:
Gary Kinsman, Dieter Buse, and Mercedes Steedman, eds., Whose National Security? Canadian State Surveillance and the Creation of Enemies, (Toronto: Between the Lines, 2000).
Gary Kinsman and Patrizia Gentile, The Canadian War on Queers: National Security as Sexual Regulation, (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2010).
Steve Paikin interview with Gary Kinsman, “An Eco-Terrorist Threat to Canada?” http://theagenda.tvo.org/blog/agenda-blogs/eco-terrorist-threat-canada