Skip to main content
The Globe and Mail
Support Quality Journalism.
The Globe and Mail
First Access to Latest
Investment News
Collection of curated
e-books and guides
Inform your decisions via
Globe Investor Tools
Just$1.99
per week
for first 24 weeks

Enjoy unlimited digital access
Enjoy Unlimited Digital Access
Get full access to globeandmail.com
Just $1.99per week for the first 24weeks
Just $1.99per week for the first 24weeks
var select={root:".js-sub-pencil",control:".js-sub-pencil-control",open:"o-sub-pencil--open",closed:"o-sub-pencil--closed"},dom={},allowExpand=!0;function pencilInit(o){var e=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1];select.root=o,dom.root=document.querySelector(select.root),dom.root&&(dom.control=document.querySelector(select.control),dom.control.addEventListener("click",onToggleClicked),setPanelState(e),window.addEventListener("scroll",onWindowScroll),dom.root.removeAttribute("hidden"))}function isPanelOpen(){return dom.root.classList.contains(select.open)}function setPanelState(o){dom.root.classList[o?"add":"remove"](select.open),dom.root.classList[o?"remove":"add"](select.closed),dom.control.setAttribute("aria-expanded",o)}function onToggleClicked(){var l=!isPanelOpen();setPanelState(l)}function onWindowScroll(){window.requestAnimationFrame(function() {var l=isPanelOpen(),n=0===(document.body.scrollTop||document.documentElement.scrollTop);n||l||!allowExpand?n&&l&&(allowExpand=!0,setPanelState(!1)):(allowExpand=!1,setPanelState(!0))});}pencilInit(".js-sub-pencil",!1); // via darwin-bg var slideIndex = 0; carousel(); function carousel() { var i; var x = document.getElementsByClassName("subs_valueprop"); for (i = 0; i < x.length; i++) { x[i].style.display = "none"; } slideIndex++; if (slideIndex> x.length) { slideIndex = 1; } x[slideIndex - 1].style.display = "block"; setTimeout(carousel, 2500); } //

That the Harper government will attempt to squeeze every ounce of political benefit from being seen as tough on "terror" lends urgency to the search for an answer to the question posed by the ancients.

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" – Who will guard the guardians? – the Roman poet Juvenal wrote about men enforcing morality on women although they were themselves corrupt. But the phrase has evolved to ask how to check unbridled political power.

It is a question for the ages, especially for democratic societies where rights, including privacy, are central to human dignity.

Story continues below advertisement

Another right is what Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms describes as "security of the person." After all, personal and community safety is the reason that we give the state a legal monopoly on violence. With that monopoly, we expect the state to secure our safety, and therefore contribute to our freedom.

Finding a balance between the rights of privacy and the need for safety is often a judgment call. That's why in some areas of the law, we insist that those who have a monopoly on force exercise aspects of their power (wiretapping and warrants, for example) with the approval of a judge – a "guardian" if you like.

Now, along comes Prime Minister Stephen Harper's terror-fighting government, already known for being "tough on crime" through a series of criminal-code changes, most of which are demonstrably useless (as with mandatory minimum sentences, which are now being abandoned in the United States) or mostly for show.

If this government were not known for counterproductive, punitive approaches to crime – the latest being the refusal to reconsider solitary confinement and a new measure to delay parole eligibility for certain murder sentences – the population might not worry much about proposed new measures to combat domestic "terror." They could trust those with power, at least to some extent.

Instead, we see a government that cannot resist milking a genuine problem, in this case Islamic jihadis, for political gain.

When the anti-terror bill was introduced in the House of Commons last Friday, where was the Prime Minister? Certainly not in Parliament, but rather in Richmond Hill, Ont., at one of those now-familiar Conservative Party rallies featuring a gigantic flag, party supporters, a scripted address and almost no questions for the Prime Minister. The link between the bill and partisanship could not have been more evident.

So it goes with the television spots, paid for by you, the "hard-working taxpayers," to advertise the Canadian military. In the context of terrorism and Canadian forces in Iraq, these ads have now replaced the ones about the government's Economic Action Plan. As the national economy goes south and the military/terror story rises, the advertisements are changing, and not by accident.

Story continues below advertisement

In explaining the terror bill, Mr. Harper drew a link between the Islamic State and the two lone-wolf attackers who killed Canadian soldiers in Ottawa and Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Que., last October.

There was no such link, of course, but in this troubled world, with so many jihadi groups with different agendas and names, it is hard for all but experts to define them. It is much easier to lump everything together under the name "terror," or even worse, to say we are "at war" with "terror."

Canada already has a series of laws that security and police representatives can and do use against terrorist threats. If additional powers are needed, it falls to the government to explain precisely which ones and why, and for parliamentarians to ask the best questions they can without being accused of being "soft on terror," or some such silly slogan.

And if additional powers are indeed necessary, such that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service becomes significantly more powerful (its budget has been cut by the Harper government), then the oversight and monitoring of its activities should commensurately be upgraded.

Such an upgrade would not create a new level of "bureaucracy," as the Conservative talking points allege. There already is a CSIS oversight committee, although some of the people appointed to it by the Harper government, including the infamous Dr. Arthur Porter, have not inspired universal confidence.

Whether this oversight committee should be strengthened, or whether there ought to be other means to "guard the guardians" in the security world, are necessary and legitimate questions for Parliament, rather than political rhetoric at party rallies.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies