|
Who Determines What Constitutes a Threat to National Security It Is Up To Canadians, Not the Police, to Decide What Constitutes a Threat to "National Security"Threat assessments issued by Canada's intelligence agencies are replete with messages which target speech and association deemed to pose threats to national security. The Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada has gone on record to oppose the use of the threat of foreign interference in elections and/or "our democratic institutions" and/or our "way of life," to justify the violation of Canadians' right to speech and association. By any modern definition fit to be called democratic, the people have the right to oppose state interference in their right to speak and associate freely. An anti-China motion currently before the House of Commons and current "assessments" by the intelligence agencies of "threats to national security" show that the approach of the Liberal Government and of the Conservative Party, which considers itself the government in waiting, is to authorize police powers to monitor and surveil political speech and activities in search of "foreign interference." We are to believe that opposing "foreign interference" will sort out the vicious inter-imperialist rivalry over markets, sources of cheap raw materials and labour, and zones for the export of capital and influence in Canada's favour. Will giving the U.S. imperialists' war machine and their aggressive NATO military alliance absolute control over 5G and 6G technology sort out the problems facing humanity or, for that matter, the fundamental problems that ail our utterly unrepresentative electoral system? The answer is No!
The preoccupations of the intelligence agencies and security forces dominate the discourse so as to hide the fact that the state has been put in the service of the U.S. imperialist rivalry with China and that the U.S. war economy covets the great advances China has made in putting artificial intelligence (AI) to practical use. This deepens the crisis in which the electoral and political processes are mired and does nothing to create confidence that they can achieve a mandate resulting from the political participation of Canadians. Police monitoring of political discourse in a search for malicious foreign actors is not going to solve the problem of the "fake news" these foreign actors are said to generate. Implicating the civilian population and political parties in cooperating in their spying activities is not going to end the discourse and disinformation which is carried out on a massive scale through the communications networks which have already come into being and those that are coming into being today. Far from it, to foster the belief that "hostile foreign states" and non-state actors are the problem, the intelligence agencies themselves churn out "fake news" and conduct a large number of disruptive activities through their communications networks. The recent example of what India has been up to worldwide, including in Canada, is a case in point. The already revealed and as yet unrevealed activities of the intelligence agencies into which Canada has been integrated, which do the exact same things, is another. The claim of the security agencies that their surveillance of political discourse is not aimed at "lawful advocacy and dissent," is silly talk. We are told that "lawful advocacy and dissent is a healthy part of democracy," as opposed to "clandestine or deceptive foreign interference." But the criteria for deciding who and what can be investigated and targeted for surveillance operations and what will be considered "lawful" is all kept hidden in the name of national security! Investigations and surveillance are to find "threats which may, on reasonable grounds, be suspected of posing a threat to the security of Canada," we are told. In other words, political expression and speech will be targeted in surveillance operations to safeguard national security. The claim is that it is not by upholding rights that we defend national security, but by their violation. One of the threats to national security the intelligence agencies have cited in the past is the "discrediting of liberal-democratic institutions in order to advance alternative governance models." What is wrong with advancing alternative governance models? By what definition can it be said that "advancing alternative governance models" is a threat to Canada's security? Who determines the definition? By what process?
It is not acceptable, by any definition or any norms save those of a police state, that, based on intelligence reports and discussions with "elected officials," CSIS can be permitted to take "reasonable and proportionate measures" to interfere with the right to speech and association. Such police activity is indefensible in a country which calls itself democratic and claims that it is the people, not the police agencies of the state, which determine what views are in the interest of Canada's progress and advancement, and which views are not. To accuse other countries of tyranny and dictatorial rule, neither of which are defined in a manner that means something rational in today's conditions, does not hide that the shoe fits their own foot.
This article was published in   Website: www.cpcml.ca Email: editor@cpcml.ca |
According to the
Liberal government and the cartel parties with seats in the House of
Commons, the only problem facing our electoral system and democratic
institutions is interference by hostile foreign states and hostile
non-state actors. This is considered a matter of national security and,
presumably, national unity as well. The problem, identified by
Canadians time and time again, that our electoral system -- called a
representative democracy -- and our "democratic institutions" do not
represent the views of the majority of the population, is not acted on.
The fact remains that this electoral system is designed to keep the
people disempowered and to perpetuate a ruling caste which pays the
rich.
Surely, the very
definition of democracy gives the people the right to decide what
governance models suit their needs. How can that right be taken away
from people in the name of national security, using the justification
that it is the police, not the people, who are responsible for the
preservation of the institutions of democracy? If the security agencies
are concerned about who poses the threat to our democratic
institutions, we suggest they turn their eyes to the very ruling party
government and cartel parties whose everyday actions are 