Post 31—:
My question for this post is why gangs are not considered and treated as terrorists.
My dictionary defines a terrorist as one who engages in “the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion.” That seems simple and clear enough. For my purposes, I would probably drop the term “systematic” from the definition, for I doubt that gangsters do their shooting according to a systematic schedule, but they do according to a set of priorities that they may not have defined carefully—do gangsters define anything?—but by which they operate instinctively. Applying the word “instinctively” to gangsters seems to degrade them to animalistic levels, but that is not so far off the mark.
Do we need anything more? Since terrorism is an international problem, we should listen to the international political community. Unfortunately, it has not been able to reach agreement on a definition. Some experts have found over 100 definitions and, it appears, productivity and imagination are still cranking out more. The political community generally links terrorism to violence for political ends. That is not the case with gangs. They are not primarily politically inspired and I see no reason the definition should be exclusively political. One terrorism expert, Walter Laqueur, has concluded that the “only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.” That seems to come pretty close to the essence of gangs.
When you turn to the definition of gangs, especially the legal definition, you once again end up in the land of multiples. Alabama law has defined it more precisely than some as follows: a "street gang" is, "any combination, confederation, alliance, network, conspiracy, understanding, or similar arrangement in law or in fact, of three or more persons that, through its membership or through the agency of any member, engages in a course or pattern of criminal activity." That’s probably pretty good, except that it does not necessarily include violence. For my purposes I would like to take the Alabama version as my working definition of gangs with the addition of “frequent violence.”
But is it legitimate to subsume gangsterism under the umbrella of terrorism? Back in 1988, California enacted the Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act. Since that time, at least 28 other states have enacted similar legislation. (Sorry, but I have not found parallel info about the Canadian situation. Perhaps I should try harder?) Here gangsterism is subsumed under “street terrorism.” So, my proposal to bring them together is not unheard of. I stand by it.
Why these thugs are not treated like terrorists and their organizations classified as terrorist organizations is beyond me. If they were, the gangs would be illegal and their bank accounts could be frozen. I am not a lawyer and so do not know whether simple membership in a terrorist organization is illegal in Canada, but in my opinion, it should be.
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada explains what Canada should and/or is doing to counteract terrorism in this website: http://www.international.gc.ca/crime/terrorism-terrorisme.aspx. Check it out and see how much of it you think should or could be applied to gangs and gangsters. One of the things I fail to understand is the emphasis on the need for paying special attention to human rights in this framework, unless the reference is to the human rights of the targets.
In my humble opinion, gangs should be treated like terrorist organizations and gangsters like terrorists. Their organizations should be illegal as should membership in them, whether or not an individual member has personally committed any act of violence or not. Their assets should be seized and used to pay for the expenses of countering them.
I am not done yet with these monsters. In the meantime, I invite you readers to dialogue with me on this subject. Tell me where I am wrong. Insult me all you wish. But one thing I will not accept, namely to be told that the law, whether national or international, forbids the kinds of things I am suggesting. Law is becoming oppressive. It is increasingly used to protect terrorists and gangsters. That climate must be done away with. God is the ultimate law giver, but much of today’s positive law with respect to our subject goes counter to His law and has become a prison to the ordinary citizen. In the previous post I wrote about the need for revival. Well, positive law needs to be revived and refreshed to make it more hospitable to freedom and peace. In this process, our lawyers, these so-called “legal experts,” should be assigned a backseat and the “lay” citizen take control of the process.
Showing posts with label Canada. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Canada. Show all posts
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Friday, December 10, 2010
WikiLeaks and Government Transparency
Post 26—
In these days of Wikileaks, government transparency is once again on the front burner in the media. Article upon article and report upon report have been filed and published or televised. These leaks have caused governments both serious damage and embarrassment. By the sound and looks of it, will continue to do so for the immediate future. Of course, the US government, the world’s busy-body superpower, gets the brunt of it, but other governments feel embarrassed and threatened as well, including Canada. It also hits individuals. William Crosbie, Canada’s ambassador to Afghanistan, offered his resignation after his slamming the corruption of the Afghanistan regime was revealed.
The question is whether all this unrestricted exposure of government secrets benefits anyone, apart from the operators of Wikileaks themselves—and, of course, all those in the media business and, yes, I need to admit it, it gives bloggers something to write about! But Fen Hamson of Carleton University is not so sure. Crosbie, he argues, was doing his legitimate job, but his kind of comment is not the sort “that can withstand public scrutiny.” Public servants should have the confidence that, in the pursuit of their legitimate duty, their confidential statements and reports created in the course of policy development are kept confidential. How can governments engage in their business of policy creation, especially when it comes to rogue and other hostile nations, without the confidence of confidentiality? This kind of exposure of documents is “corrosive to Canada’s foreign relations and to international diplomacy in general.”
Hamson is right, I believe. He goes further. These leaks are likely to have the adverse effects of governments creating more obstacles to the flow of information and make public access to it even more difficult, expensive, and time consuming. Probably more will be kept classified in the closet for a much longer time and more strictly controlled. Thanks, Assange.
But, as always, there is the other side of the coin. Please note that my question about benefits of such leakage is about “unrestricted exposure, ” not about all exposure of government documents, even secret ones. Yes, the Assange leakage shows allies spying on each other and members on the United Nations. Western democratic governments lecturing the rest of the world on corruption and human rights, turn a blind eye to these practices on the part of their “client states.” Secret backroom deals that are not meant to see the light of day and lobbying for causes and policies of doubtful benefit to some other nations are often conducted behind cloaks of secrecy.
Chris Waddell, also of Carleton, explains that governments often use national security as an excuse to hide the above kind of behaviour in order to “avoid embarrassment, to avoid having to explain the rationale for their policies and to say one thing publicly and something else privately.” He suggests that in general it is better for citizens to know more about the development of their government’s policy than to know less. We would be “better off if there were less of all three of those things” in the above paragraph.
I agree with arguments on both sides of the coin. But I would argue that the side we examined first should be much less common than it is. In our imperfect world, it would be impossible for governments to conduct legitimate business without secrets. At the same time, the tendency of the second side of the coin is all too prominent and makes a joke of transparency, a hallmark of democracy. This Calvinist blogger votes on the side of transparency, much more of it. At the same time, at the end of this article Iland up on the side of condemning the indiscriminate leakage perpetrated by Assange as too reckless and not having counted the cost and potential damage to peoples and their policies.
I close this post with a quotation that constitutes the closing of an article by the famous Canadian ethicist, Margaret Somerville of McGill University: “As I continued to read and think even more about WikiLeaks, I found it easier to know what was the ethical path to take with respect to it and its perpetrators. I believe that, overall, WikiLeaks involves grossly unethical conduct, some of which is also illegal.” (“Wiki-Leaks, Wiki-Leakers, and Wiki-Ethics,” Comment, 10/12/2010.http://www.cardus.ca/comment/article/2405/) I highly recommend reading this article for its first-rate professional ethical discussion.
The discussion to be continued.
(This post has made grateful use of Randy Boswell’s “Do Leaks Defend or Thwart Democracy?” Vancouver Sun, December 4, 2010, p. B3. Thank you, Boswell.)
In these days of Wikileaks, government transparency is once again on the front burner in the media. Article upon article and report upon report have been filed and published or televised. These leaks have caused governments both serious damage and embarrassment. By the sound and looks of it, will continue to do so for the immediate future. Of course, the US government, the world’s busy-body superpower, gets the brunt of it, but other governments feel embarrassed and threatened as well, including Canada. It also hits individuals. William Crosbie, Canada’s ambassador to Afghanistan, offered his resignation after his slamming the corruption of the Afghanistan regime was revealed.
The question is whether all this unrestricted exposure of government secrets benefits anyone, apart from the operators of Wikileaks themselves—and, of course, all those in the media business and, yes, I need to admit it, it gives bloggers something to write about! But Fen Hamson of Carleton University is not so sure. Crosbie, he argues, was doing his legitimate job, but his kind of comment is not the sort “that can withstand public scrutiny.” Public servants should have the confidence that, in the pursuit of their legitimate duty, their confidential statements and reports created in the course of policy development are kept confidential. How can governments engage in their business of policy creation, especially when it comes to rogue and other hostile nations, without the confidence of confidentiality? This kind of exposure of documents is “corrosive to Canada’s foreign relations and to international diplomacy in general.”
Hamson is right, I believe. He goes further. These leaks are likely to have the adverse effects of governments creating more obstacles to the flow of information and make public access to it even more difficult, expensive, and time consuming. Probably more will be kept classified in the closet for a much longer time and more strictly controlled. Thanks, Assange.
But, as always, there is the other side of the coin. Please note that my question about benefits of such leakage is about “unrestricted exposure, ” not about all exposure of government documents, even secret ones. Yes, the Assange leakage shows allies spying on each other and members on the United Nations. Western democratic governments lecturing the rest of the world on corruption and human rights, turn a blind eye to these practices on the part of their “client states.” Secret backroom deals that are not meant to see the light of day and lobbying for causes and policies of doubtful benefit to some other nations are often conducted behind cloaks of secrecy.
Chris Waddell, also of Carleton, explains that governments often use national security as an excuse to hide the above kind of behaviour in order to “avoid embarrassment, to avoid having to explain the rationale for their policies and to say one thing publicly and something else privately.” He suggests that in general it is better for citizens to know more about the development of their government’s policy than to know less. We would be “better off if there were less of all three of those things” in the above paragraph.
I agree with arguments on both sides of the coin. But I would argue that the side we examined first should be much less common than it is. In our imperfect world, it would be impossible for governments to conduct legitimate business without secrets. At the same time, the tendency of the second side of the coin is all too prominent and makes a joke of transparency, a hallmark of democracy. This Calvinist blogger votes on the side of transparency, much more of it. At the same time, at the end of this article Iland up on the side of condemning the indiscriminate leakage perpetrated by Assange as too reckless and not having counted the cost and potential damage to peoples and their policies.
I close this post with a quotation that constitutes the closing of an article by the famous Canadian ethicist, Margaret Somerville of McGill University: “As I continued to read and think even more about WikiLeaks, I found it easier to know what was the ethical path to take with respect to it and its perpetrators. I believe that, overall, WikiLeaks involves grossly unethical conduct, some of which is also illegal.” (“Wiki-Leaks, Wiki-Leakers, and Wiki-Ethics,” Comment, 10/12/2010.http://www.cardus.ca/comment/article/2405/) I highly recommend reading this article for its first-rate professional ethical discussion.
The discussion to be continued.
(This post has made grateful use of Randy Boswell’s “Do Leaks Defend or Thwart Democracy?” Vancouver Sun, December 4, 2010, p. B3. Thank you, Boswell.)
Friday, September 3, 2010
Tamil Refugees (1)
Welcome back. I was afraid I may have lost some of you after you read the previous entry. Though I do not intend to “go on the air” daily, I thought I better waste no time after that rather scholastic presentation. But, you’re back and I’m happy the damage was not irreversible. That blog was just something I had to do to make my location in the scheme of things clear for the sake of the academics among you. Now we’re ready to move into the real world.
The last month, much of Canada, but especially BC, was up in arms about the arrival of a shipload of nearly 500 Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka. Totally uninvited or approved. This was the second such shipment from Sri Lanka. During summer 2009, a ship offloaded a mere 76 onto Canadian soil. Apparently each passenger paid someone $45,000 for the journey. The 2009 folks, according to an editorial in The Province , a Vancouver-based daily, are still “awaiting processing by Canada’s inefficient refugee-claims system.” The editorial agreed with the Federal Government’s claim that the group most likely included a number of “Tamil Tiger terrorists” who are planning to continue their Sri Lankan terrorist campaign from a base in peaceful Canada. The writer concluded that it is obvious organized criminals are taking advantage of “Canada’s too compassionate refugee and immigration laws.”
As to solutions, it was suggested that laws be tightened and the claim process sped up so that candidates don’t spend years in limbo. The people smugglers should be put behind bars for many years to “take the profit out of their terrible trade.” So far, this editorial. There are rumours of more ships on the way!
The paper published my response to their editorial, the first in the lineup, that reads as follows:
==============
Your short editorial on the Tamil Boat Show is right on. Hohum, another boat full of…, yes, of what or whom? It is clear by now that we have developed a sucker reputation with people coming to our country by hook or by crook. They fully expect to be accepted by a timid, weak-kneed refugee administration that is supported by a citizenry so compassionate, it can’t think its way straight through such invasions.
If I’m not mistaken, we are bullied into these situations by UN provisions we have “voluntarily” signed on to under “moral” pressure from a UN majority. It is cheap and easy for that majority to pass such provisions, for few will ever face this mess. No one in their right mind would even think of going there.
Let’s accept this boat and make it clear to the world that it is the last. It is time for Canada to stand up, sign off from that convention and do her own thing. Be compassionate, absolutely, but that is different from being a sucker.
===================
The Vancouver Sun’s Stephen Hume weighed in with a mighty shout of “Racism!” That was the only reason for people’s objections to their acceptance in Canada. His accusation brought a wild angry chorus of people deeply insulted by this charge. The f… word and its synonyms, always on the tip of most “sophisticated” Vancouver tongues, was used more than I have ever seen in any newspaper.
What do we have here? Would you agree with the sentiments in my letter? Am I a racist? Throughout my 30 years in Africa, I have several times been praised for the opposite. I want us to consider a few points without necessarily coming to a clear or final conclusion. Clear final conclusions are difficult to come by when there are so many unknowns in an equation.
First of all, we have a problem at the UN, where a majority votes in favour of measures that will never affect them. Western votes represent a minority there. Few of those voting in favour of the current refugee regime will ever be inundated with refugees. Canada has for too many years played the good boy or the saint on the block and submitted to the regime. She feels obligated to accept such shipments. I believe that Canada must be compassionate and not be afraid to err on that side. However, she must insist on realistic conditions that do not include terrorists. She must sign off from this UN convention and re-establish her independence. It is cheap for Hume to ignore a factor that government cannot ignore. He was not privy to confidential government information on this subject at the time.
Hume is right that a number of “developing nations” take the brunt of the refugee burden and that Canada’s load is comparatively miniscule. Tanzania, e.g., took in more than seven Western countries combined in 2006! Similar statistics hold for other non-Western nations. But most of these are the neighbours of countries that generate the refugees, where they naturally congregate. From what I have read, the suffering in many of these camps is heart rending. It is often from there that refugees find their way to the West, either by individual effort or by sponsorship. But that is not the case with our Tamil friends.
Well, I leave it at this for today and will continue with the subject in the next post. Sleep well. Give special thanks to God you’re not a refugee or that your country does not generate such folk.
The last month, much of Canada, but especially BC, was up in arms about the arrival of a shipload of nearly 500 Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka. Totally uninvited or approved. This was the second such shipment from Sri Lanka. During summer 2009, a ship offloaded a mere 76 onto Canadian soil. Apparently each passenger paid someone $45,000 for the journey. The 2009 folks, according to an editorial in The Province , a Vancouver-based daily, are still “awaiting processing by Canada’s inefficient refugee-claims system.” The editorial agreed with the Federal Government’s claim that the group most likely included a number of “Tamil Tiger terrorists” who are planning to continue their Sri Lankan terrorist campaign from a base in peaceful Canada. The writer concluded that it is obvious organized criminals are taking advantage of “Canada’s too compassionate refugee and immigration laws.”
As to solutions, it was suggested that laws be tightened and the claim process sped up so that candidates don’t spend years in limbo. The people smugglers should be put behind bars for many years to “take the profit out of their terrible trade.” So far, this editorial. There are rumours of more ships on the way!
The paper published my response to their editorial, the first in the lineup, that reads as follows:
==============
Your short editorial on the Tamil Boat Show is right on. Hohum, another boat full of…, yes, of what or whom? It is clear by now that we have developed a sucker reputation with people coming to our country by hook or by crook. They fully expect to be accepted by a timid, weak-kneed refugee administration that is supported by a citizenry so compassionate, it can’t think its way straight through such invasions.
If I’m not mistaken, we are bullied into these situations by UN provisions we have “voluntarily” signed on to under “moral” pressure from a UN majority. It is cheap and easy for that majority to pass such provisions, for few will ever face this mess. No one in their right mind would even think of going there.
Let’s accept this boat and make it clear to the world that it is the last. It is time for Canada to stand up, sign off from that convention and do her own thing. Be compassionate, absolutely, but that is different from being a sucker.
===================
The Vancouver Sun’s Stephen Hume weighed in with a mighty shout of “Racism!” That was the only reason for people’s objections to their acceptance in Canada. His accusation brought a wild angry chorus of people deeply insulted by this charge. The f… word and its synonyms, always on the tip of most “sophisticated” Vancouver tongues, was used more than I have ever seen in any newspaper.
What do we have here? Would you agree with the sentiments in my letter? Am I a racist? Throughout my 30 years in Africa, I have several times been praised for the opposite. I want us to consider a few points without necessarily coming to a clear or final conclusion. Clear final conclusions are difficult to come by when there are so many unknowns in an equation.
First of all, we have a problem at the UN, where a majority votes in favour of measures that will never affect them. Western votes represent a minority there. Few of those voting in favour of the current refugee regime will ever be inundated with refugees. Canada has for too many years played the good boy or the saint on the block and submitted to the regime. She feels obligated to accept such shipments. I believe that Canada must be compassionate and not be afraid to err on that side. However, she must insist on realistic conditions that do not include terrorists. She must sign off from this UN convention and re-establish her independence. It is cheap for Hume to ignore a factor that government cannot ignore. He was not privy to confidential government information on this subject at the time.
Hume is right that a number of “developing nations” take the brunt of the refugee burden and that Canada’s load is comparatively miniscule. Tanzania, e.g., took in more than seven Western countries combined in 2006! Similar statistics hold for other non-Western nations. But most of these are the neighbours of countries that generate the refugees, where they naturally congregate. From what I have read, the suffering in many of these camps is heart rending. It is often from there that refugees find their way to the West, either by individual effort or by sponsorship. But that is not the case with our Tamil friends.
Well, I leave it at this for today and will continue with the subject in the next post. Sleep well. Give special thanks to God you’re not a refugee or that your country does not generate such folk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
