As a born-in resident of the nation-state known colloquially as America, I recognize my thumb lies not on the pulse of the Canadian citizenry. But even so, I can postulate that being firm allies of United States global hegemony, Canucks are mighty jealous of the War on Terror and are itching to join the ranks of living in a domesticated police state. How so, the reader may ponder? On a daily basis, television and newspapers slovenly pay admiration to how the good ole’ U.S. of A is respected and admired the world over. Compliments include how it’s founding document serves as a model for contemporary mob rule; better known as democracy. And how the nation’s engine of free market innovation has done wonders for mankind’s standard of living. Big gulps, baseball, and the Ford Mustang – these are the epitome of desire across the globe.
If there is one thing Canada is most enamored over, it’s Washington’s mighty fist waging a perpetual war against individuals; no matter their geographic location. This preeminence has invited a slew of terror-based attacks in recent years. For reasons unintelligible to the political class, it turns out foreigners dislike when other governments meddle in their affairs or wantonly kill their family members. U.S. Intelligence experts label this concept “blowback.” Anyone else would call it common sense; but that just a testament to the lengths public policy makers go to professionalize their occupation. After each attempted strike comes a glorified clampdown on civil liberties along with a hefty dose of fodder thrown to the war hungry in Congress. What follows is in obligatory plot for the demise of some rogue government. The public cheers on the escapade as their rights are gutted like a whimpering animal.
The people of Canada are obviously jealous of the wonderful freedoms Americans are afforded. I know this because any other conclusion drawn is immediately derided as “unpatriotic” or “aiding the enemy.” So when the Royal Canadian Mounted Police recently foiled an allegedly al-Qaeda-linked plot to bomb and derail a passenger train, it appeared as if an ambitious new War on Terror was about to unfold. As luck may have it, Parliament was in the midst of a “debate” (codeword for unintellectual logrolling) on an anti-terrorism bill being pushed by the Harper administration. The timing was impeccable: the legislation, titled Bill S-7, whizzed through both chambers. Oh, how Canada must be proud of this parliamentary sense of urgency. Finally, it’s one step closer to joining its sister nation in ramping up surveillance of the spinning cogs. If Canadians were holding out hope for sociopathic bureaucrats to monitor their private correspondence, having their genitals assaulted by the hands of an overweight airport guard, or witnessing the militarization of local law enforcement, they need worry no more. Paradise may soon be at hand.
Bill S-7, while not authorizing the deployment of sexually-deprived goons at airports, re-establishes provisions that allow for preventative detention and compelled attendance at investigative hearings without that pesky requirement of charging the suspect with a crime. The common law tradition of Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat has been uprooted in favor of safety. Like most measures, the citizenry lifted no finger over passage.
To the ire of the Harper administration, some inquisitive gadflys are suspicious of the timing. These insubordinates have caught a whiff that something is not quite right. After all, the conservative Prime Minister has been championing a return of the new police powers for well over a year. The lawyer for suspect Raed Jaser is asking an obvious but heavily maligned question: why did Ottawa decide to act now, particularly in the midst of suspected terror attack in the United States? Even the most half-witted among us recognizes the sheer coincidence in the whole affair. One of the two suspects was under the RCMP’s watch for almost one year prior to arrest. State officials claim that his behavior had become erratic, hence the need for confinement. No evidence has been offered on what those manners were exactly. Perhaps we will never find out; but no matter, Harper and co. got their men and their anti-terror bill.
The same type of probing questions have been asked recently in the Boston marathon fiasco. The strange details that emerged in the aftermath of the attack lead to questioning of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s and Central Intelligence Agency’s role in the plot. Shortly after the incident, it was revealed that the older of the two accused bombers, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was on the radar of both intelligence agencies for at least two years. According to the Russian newspaper Isvestia, the eldler Tsarnaev attended a workshop for dissident residents of North Caucasus sponsored by the Jamestown Foundation in the summer of 2012. The Foreign Ministry of Russia has accused the Jamestown Foundation of inundating the region with anti-Russian propaganda. It’s long been expected that the Foundation is closely affiliated with the CIA, especially given its initial founding was supported in part by former Director William J. Casey. Even the New York Times has documented the starring role U.S. intelligence plays in staging some terrorist acts. Such chicanery was well known prior to the report; but for the paper of Establishment record to report the reality is quite a feet. The surly quack economists and femi-fascists who occupy the editorial page were likely displeased.
On que, those who scrutinized the initial conclusions of the alleged terror attacks were given the tar-and-feather treatment. The scenario repeats itself ad infinitum; the same government criticizers who decry tyranny are quick to jump down the throat of anyone questioning officialized narrative in the wake of terror-inspired attacks. Progressives accept anything that increases state power. But some in the more conservative or libertarian sects have inoculated themselves to deductive reasoning in the realm of domestic, panic-inducing violence. They act as rabid mammals; lashing out when poked with the stick of thoughtful consideration.
Perhaps it’s my own failing for being frustrating every time the asking of “cui bono?” elicits the snarls and teeth gnashing of those who hold their intellect on high. What’s known as conspiracy theorizing is just the application of what Albert Jay Nock called Epstein’s law: the tendency for man to satisfy his wants in the most convenient manner possible. If the state is built upon a foundation of unceasing lust for authority, would it not follow that instances of uncontrolled chaos make for opportunities to usurp power? The question is as simple as the answer. It’s asking is not an indictment of heinous crime. Just a perusal into the dark depths of thought that may reveal uncomfortable truths.
The coincidences we see in life can mostly be dismissed as occasional phenomena. In some cases, they implore further consideration. When it comes to the state, even the slanting of an eye is suspect. The platitudinous rhetoric of politicians demands no trust; only the utmost scrutiny of intention. The United States has been mired in civil liberty depravity for over a decade – longing for a reversed course is a naif’s quest. The remaining hope for the north is that Ottawa’s new vested authority is used sparingly, if at all. Of course such a notion will likely be wishful thinking. But here’s anyway to hoping the government stays focused on punishing authors of “hateful poems” instead of locking up the uncharged and otherwise innocent. At least imprisoned authors will have more free time to write.