Fear

A kind of 9/11 did happen in Canada. The largest casualty toll of any terrorist attack in the West before 2001 was the 329 people who were killed in the terrorist bombing of Air India Flight 182, en route from Toronto to London, in 1985. Two hundred and eighty of the dead were Canadian citizens. Since Canada has only one-tenth the population of the United States, it was almost exactly the same proportionate loss that the United States suffered in 9/11.

It was immediately clear that the terrorists were Sikhs seeking independence from India, but here's what Canada didn't do: it didn't send troops into India to "stamp out the roots of the terrorism" and it didn't declared a "global war on terror." Partly because it lacked the resources for that sort of adventure, of course, but also because it would have been stupid. Instead, it tightened up security at airports, and launched a police investigation of the attack

The investigation was not very successful, and 21 years later most of the culprits have still not been punished. But Sikh terrorism eventually died down even though nobody invaded the Punjab, and nobody else got hurt in Canada. Sometimes not doing much is the right thing to do.

Not doing too much would have been the right response in 2001, too. It was legal for Washington to invade Afghanistan after 9/11, and public outrage in the U.S. made it almost unavoidable politically, but it was bound to end in tears. If the Afghan regime could have been forced to shut the al-Qaeda camps down without an invasion, that would have been the wiser course of action. The right goal was NOT to fall into Osama bin Laden's trap, and NOT to act in ways that spread suspicion and hostility in Muslim communities at home and abroad.

But it would probably still have been all right if they hadn't invaded Iraq....

And Dyer makes another point that is important for us to understand: there is no vast worldwide network of terrorists looking to do western civilization harm. Our chances of dying in a terrorist attack have not risen significantly since 9/11. They are still exceedingly small. That does not mean there is no danger, and that sensible steps can't be taken to minimize the risks, but any response must be measured, and must be taken with the knowledge that whatever we do, we must remain true to ourselves and to our basic nature as a free society. That means the men and youths arrested last weekend must be tried in our justice system and then dealth with according to the result of their trials.

The connection between action and appropriate reaction has been lost in the United States, where, since 9/11, pundits find themselves debating what degree of torture is acceptable in a democratic society. Where right wing commentators justify illegal wiretapping, imprisonment without charge, and the collective disgraces of Abuy Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and Haditha. Something snapped in the American psyche on September 11, and the Bush administration gleefully exploited that fear to further a right wing agenda that would have been impossible on September 10, 2001.

Will Harper exploit the fears of Canadians in the same way? Given his penchant for emulating U.S. Republicans, it is not that hard to believe he would.

There will be less regard for civil rights, more regard for excessive security, and quite possibly, a hardening of the appetite for the war in Afghanistan.

Events like this make it easy for political leaders to mobilize citizen anxiety. Mr. Harper has been handed a golden gift for a politician of the right -- the fear card. He is very likely to play it.

The liberally inclined were reluctant to believe we were high on the list of terror targets. That reluctance is now removed. The country of soft hearts will tilt in harder directions.

In our foreign policy, a shift had been under way since the Conservatives came to power. Ammonium nitrate will hasten the change and could very well seal the new deal. Before Mr. Harper's arrival, owing chiefly to our position on the Iraq war, we were situated in the moderate middle, playing our traditional, honest-broker, multilateral role. We were separated from the hard-line lean of the Anglo axis -- the United States, Britain and Australia. Because the war had gone so badly, it was an honourable separation. And because the Bush administration had become so widely discredited, all the more so.

But no longer. Mr. Harper never viewed our position as being quite so admirable. He wants full membership in the axis of Anglos -- and will likely get it.

Judging from his pronouncements when the Iraq war began, it is clear he favoured our participation. Public opinion subsequently curbed some of his hawkishness and during the election campaign, he came off as mellow-minded, steering well adrift of Bushian inclinations.

In power, he's felt free enough to brandish some of his ideology. He brought the Afghan war to the forefront, while leaving Darfur and Haiti to the side. He took the hard line on Hamas and the Tamil Tigers and junked Kyoto. He, wisely, gave a big budget boost to the RCMP and took other anti-crime measures. He brought Australian Prime Minister John Howard to Ottawa and his Tories cheered the Aussie mightily when he gave a full-scale endorsement of the ways of the U.S.

Having come this far, the Prime Minister can now go farther. Public support in this country for the war on terror will likely rise, giving him enough leeway to put himself firmly in league with the tough guys.

We've heard his "cut and run" jargon. Now there will be additions. Lines like, "Our freedoms are at risk" and "Our very way of life is under threat." They will be the rallying cries any time the government wants more support for policing, for security, for wars.

The beauty of it politically is that no one will be able to say with certainty that Mr. Harper is wrong because no one can predict with certainty that there won't be an attack. There have been no terror outbreaks in the U.S. since 9/11 but it hasn't stopped Mr. Bush from playing the fear card regularly and with good effect.

From Afghanistan, the news for Mr. Harper has been worrisome. Evidence accumulates to the effect that the war may well be unwinnable, at least in terms of dispelling the Taliban. But there will be little appetite for any rethink now, not with terror at our own door.

Over at Democratic Space, Greg Morrow asks the pertinent questions about the massive publicity this particular bust received, especially when one considers that CSIS claims to have broken up a dozen such rings over the past two years.

I can’t help but think about the political motivations behind this. And, since I currently live in the U.S., where you get daily reminders of the dangers of terrorism, I also can’t help think that this isn’t part of larger political project to rally support behind the Conservative government’s “get tough on crime” rhetoric (years of Liberalism have bred homegrown terrorists, right?), rally support behind the Afghanistan/War on Terror mission (which is a potential weakness, according to polls), to strike fear into Canadians (which always work well to get the public on the side of government), to dampen support for immigration (due to the Islam connection), to create sympathies towards the Prime Minister (he was going to be beheaded, don’t you know?), to align Canadians with American terrorism interests (see, we both have terror problems), and to demonstrate how the Conservatives are better equipped than the Liberals on national security (see how Conservatives get the job done?).

Despite having conducted similar operations (though perhaps not as large?) at least a dozen times over the past two years, this bust was broadcasted for all the world to see. Media advisories were put out to all the major agencies. CNN. Fox News, the whole bit. I even received an email through the government’s “Connect2Canada” email list detailing the operation. This overt connection to the government raises my suspicions even further. I suspect, purely speculation at this point, that the decision to publicize this bust — if not directed by the PMO — was certainly done so with their approval (as we know, Stephen Harper is holding a tight grip on all facets of government). In fact, it would be naive to believe that CSIS and the RCMP are so removed of government that the PMO wasn’t involved.

Indeed it would. And the whole episode has certainly energized the Conservative base. Already, we hear the cries to do something about the nasty non-Christians living among us, or to take this opportuntiy to start implementing a right wing agenda. They smell an opportunity in the fear of Canadians.

Real leaders lead their people through difficult times with inspiration and courage. Men of low character use fear as a means of control. Men like George Bush and Tony Blair. Let us hope Stephen Harper - despite the contrary evidence piling up - can resist the urge to do the same.

In the meantime,we can do our own part to ensure that the reaction of our government to this matter is appropriate. We can refuse to live in fear.