The Federal government capitalized on the fear and hysteria following the events of September 11, 2001, in order to push forward with repressive measures that probably would not have been possible before. Among these measures are three pieces of legislation that dramatically alter the terrain in which the global justice movement operates:
On their face, these pieces of legislation target immigrants, refugees and their allies, and organized workers. However, it is not unless the three statutes are cross-referenced, that it becomes obvious that the state has also launched an assault on the global justice movement by declaring some of its most well-known tactics to be "terrorist activities."
In addition to extending diplomatic immunity to participants in "International Organizations" such as the G-8, the World Bank, or the World Trade Organization; these laws grant the RCMP the power to take "any appropriate measures" to control the area surrounding these meetings. If this is not sufficient to keep protestors away, the Public Safety Act gives the government the authority to declare a "military security zone" of unlimited size around the site of the meeting, for up to one year.
Since many of the demonstrations that have characterized the global justice movement have taken place outside of international meetings, the RCMP and military have been given the green light to set up highly militarized zones to prevent any serious disruptions. And thanks to the Anti-Terrorism Act, any individuals who block the transportation route of an "Internationally Protected Person" - i.e. all meeting delegates and their staff - will be committing a terrorist act. Moreover, anyone who merely threatens to block the transportation route, or who finances a group that makes such a threat, will also be subject to the incredibly repressive investigatory and sentencing powers contained in the Anti-Terrorism Act. It cannot be a coincidence that those organizing the upcoming protests at the G-8 conference in Kananaskis have called for a blockade of the only road into the compound. How should organizers, and the global justice movement as a whole respond to these developments?
In the uncertain days following September 11, 2001, many activists correctly predicted that the state would respond by attacking civil liberties and making it even more dangerous to take to the streets to challenge capitalist globalization. The debate over appropriate tactics that had raged for some time within the movement, suddenly took on a new significance, as organizers assessed the new terrain in which they were operating.
The Ontario Common Front, for instance, had serious discussions over how -and even if- the demonstration planned for October 16th in Toronto should be carried out. Ultimately the organization opted to call for a "safe and disciplined" snake march. The march went ahead despite intense police intimidation and provocation, and demonstrated that militant action is still possible. Unfortunately the Common Front campaign has been the exception rather than the norm, as global justice demonstrations in Canada have drawn fewer people and the movement has been unable to meet the challenges posed by the war at home and abroad. Well-founded concerns about crackdowns on dissent have played a role in this failure.
The anti-terrorism legislation is frightening. It is intended to be frightening. Although the state has given itself an impressive arsenal of tools to place a chill on dissent, a broad-based mass movement could create a context in which it would not be possible, politically, for the state to use those tools. Continuing to organize in smart and militant ways, approaching strategy as a political rather than a moral question, is absolutely necessary. It is only through exerting our power through collective action that we can challenge the war at home, and the agenda of global capitalism that underlies it.
Jackie Esmonde is a member of the New Socialist Group.