Canada and the War on Terror: The Ottawa Shootings, What Really Happened?
Global Research, October 25, 2014
Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/ottawa-attack-isi/5409706
http://www.globalresearch.ca/ottawa-attack-isi/5409706
Prime
Minister Steven Harper and the Canadian federal government are using
the shooting rampage on Parliament Hill as a justification for imposing
surveillance and detainment measures that they were already implementing
and going forward with.
On
October 22, 2014 a solitary gunman named Michael Zehaf-Bibeau
(originally Michael Joseph Hall) from the city of Laval, Quebec went on a
shooting spree in downtown Ottawa, the capital of Canada.
Firstly,
it was reported that there were shootings in the Rideau Centre which
from the northern side of the Mackenzie King Bridge faces National
Defence Headquarters (NDHQ), the nerve of Canada’s Department of
National Defence (DND). This proved to be false or wrong. The gunman had
killed a reservist guard in front of the National War Memorial and then
made his way northward to Parliament Hill.
Secondly,
it was reported that there were multiple gunmen. As a result all
government employees were not allowed to enter or leave their respective
buildings throughout the interprovincial National Capital Region, which
includes the city of Gatineau. Although the police did the right thing
in taking precautions to make sure that there were no other gunmen and
declined to give explanations, the public was led to believe that there
were multiple shooters. This justified the lockdown and suspension of
mobility that took place for hours.
A
lot of important questions also remain unanswered. NBC News reported on
October 8, 2014 that US intelligence officials told it «that Canadian
authorities have heard would-be terrorists discussing potential
ISIS-inspired ‘knife and gun’ attacks» inside Canada. Canadian
officials, however, dismissed the report. Did US intelligence know
something that its Canadian counterparts did not know? Why the
contradictions?
Another
important question is the following: how could an armed gunman that had
already started a rampage make his way into the Centre Bloc of the
Canadian Parliament unchallenged? Anyone that has been to Parliament
Hill knows that there is a relatively large armed presence on the whole
area and, specifically, at the entranceway and doors which is comprised
of Canada’s national police force (the Royal Canadian Mounted Police),
the local municipal police (the Ottawa Police Services), and two special
federal forces (the House of Commons Security Services and Senate
Security).
Framing: Media Discourse and Government Policy Links
Also, if he was indeed in touch with terrorist groups, how was he communicating with them?
Complicating
the picture is the case of Martin Couture-Rouleau. Couture-Rouleau is a
French-Canadian who became a Muslim in 2013. He deliberately hit two
Canadian soldiers with his car in the St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec on
October 20, 2014. One of the soldiers would later die.
Couture-Rouleau
would be chased by the police and then gunned down after his
hit-and-run attack. Although the fatal hit-and-run murder in
St-Jean-sur-Richelieu is a criminal act, it has been presented as
terrorism and linked to Canada’s involvement in the fighting in the
Middle East.
The
two attacks respectively in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu and Ottawa have no
relationship whatsoever. While there was no visibly no coordination
between the two events, the media has presented them as a part of a
carefully planned (jihadist) plot. The hit-and-run attacks have been
added to the narrative of what happened on October 22 to construct the
image of an all-out battle. This is part of what sociologists call a
moral panic.
What
exactly motivated this gunman? It appears that Michael Zehaf-Bibeau was
not part of some intricate plot against Canada by the so-called Islamic
State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). He had a criminal record and
appeared to be psychologically deteriorating from increasing narcotics
usage. He was troubled by hallucinations and heavy drugs, and became a
Muslim relatively recently. According to information coming from people
who knew him, it appears that he was upset with «the government» for not
leaving him alone. This anger could be tied to the social workers and
parole officers in his life and a suffocating feeling of being caught in
a downward spiral.
Michael
Zehaf-Bibeau was staying at the Ottawa Mission, a homeless shelter,
between two weeks and a month. Before he went on his rampage, he told
other people at the homeless shelter to pray because the world was
coming to an end. In this context, it is also important to ask: how a
psychologically troubled man staying at the Ottawa Mission homeless
shelter could get a weapon?
Michael
Zehaf-Bibeau, however, has been portrayed to varying degrees as an ISIL
member, which is being used to support the narrative that Canadians are
under immediate threat from the ISIL by societal actors that
sociologists call «moral entrepreneurs». The goals of moral
entrepreneurs is to change societal norms, values, laws, and
regulations. In this case the moral entrepreneurs want to sell a
security agenda.Although the gunman that attacked Parliament Hill was a French-Canadian (who had adopted both the last name of his Arab-Canadian stepfather and his mother’s maiden name) that spent most of his life being a Roman Catholic (starting off as a devout Christian and then falling out of practice over the years), he has been portrayed or framed differently. From the start there was a tacit drive to give him an Arab and Muslim persona. Even when his identity was discovered, his Arab-Canadian stepfather was portrayed as his biological stepfather. The adoption of his stepfather’s Arabic last name was tacitly presented as a marker of his Muslim identity, even though he was a Christian when he adopted the Arabic last name alongside his mother’s maiden name due to legal reasons.
Very telling was how the media initially described Zehaf-Bibeau. He was referred to as a «Canadian-born man.» This is very deceptive language and discourse that needs to be critically analyzed. When someone is called «Canadian-born» it means that they are not really Canadian, but are merely born in Canada. Referring to a Canadian citizen in these terms conceptually strips them of their Canadian identity and otherizes them as a foreigner that does not belong to the collective.
The Media Reaction
Many
Canadians are proud of their media’s reaction and have contrasted it to
the sensationalism of US media. Although the media in Canada was much
calmer than how the US media would have reacted under similar
circumstances if the same incident took place in the United States, it
was still emotionally charging the atmosphere with a sense of siege on
Ottawa. Headlines and news broadcasts included titles like «Ottawa under
attack.» Ottawans were liberally afraid that the ISIL was attacking
Canada’s shores.
Speculation
about a Middle East connection kept being raised throughout the day. By
the time that Prime Minister Harper spoke in the evening, it was clear
that he wanted was to link the events to the Middle East and the
terrorism panic to justify his national security agenda. “Canada will
not be intimidated”.
The
media coverage, the massive lockdown in Ottawa’s downtown core, and the
national measures taken by the federal government created an atmosphere
of panic in Ottawa and across Canada. Under this type of atmosphere,
people can act unpredictability or abnormally and they are willing to
make concessions to the government that they would not normally agree
with making. In other words, when societies are gripped by fear many of
their members are willing to forfeit their civil liberties and let them
be stripped by the authorities.
The New Normal and the Striping of Civil Liberties
When
the Rideau Centre was stormed by three armed robbers in 2003 and half
the local police force’s fleet was sent after two of them who had
escaped, the same panic did not exist nor did the media give it as much
urgency or attention. Arguably the danger to safety was much greater
then, even though an important national institution was not being
attacked.
Legally
speaking, Martin Couture-Rouleau and Michael Zehaf-Bibeau are
murderers. Instead of treating criminals, the politicized and
psychologically-charged terms of «terrorism» and «terrorist» are being
applied. All the laws to deal with these criminals are in place in
Canada, but new legislation is instead being made that also has the
potential to be used against legitimate dissenters who oppose government
policy.
Moreover,
the police are being militarized under the new security paradigm of
fighting terrorism. The day after the attack on Parliament Hill, on
October 23, the severity of the police reaction to a homeless man
crossing a yellow police line is testimony to the change in security
habitus and tensions among the police in Ottawa. The measures that the
Harper Government wants to normalize also include control and censorship
over the internet, the unconstitutional and illegal act of taking
citizenship away, and removing the mobility rights granted by the
Canadian Charter of Right and Freedoms. The last measure has already
begun with the confiscation of passports.
All
Canadians have the right to leave and enter Canada freely, unless they
have committed a crime. The government wants to have the legal authority
to confiscate passports on mere suspicion without evidence. In the case
of Martin Couture-Rouleau, he was detained and had his passport taken
away when he wanted to go to Turkey in June or July 2014. The police
could not arrest him and had to let him go, because of his views. «We
could not arrest someone for having radical thoughts. It’s not a crime
in Canada,» RCMP Superintendent Martine Fontaine explained in an October
21, 2014 press conference.
The
position of the RCMP says a lot about where the Harper Government wants
to go with its new security paradigm. It wants the ability to arrest
people for their views.
Revoking Citizenships?
Even
more dangerous is the flirtation with the idea of revoking citizenship.
Already unconstitutional precedents are being set for removing it among
the so-called Western coalition of countries that consistently pay lip
service to democracy and then stand shoulder to shoulder with
dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan, and Qatar. For
example, the British Parliament took steps to remove British-born Asma
Al-Assad’s British citizenship in 2012 simply on the account of the fact
that she was Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad’s wife.
The
Canadian legal system does not treat everyone equally and all people
are not equal in the court system. Non-citizens are disadvantaged
compared to Canadian citizens. In this context, the threat of stripping
citizenship away is being viewed instrumentally as a way of
circumventing the domestic laws and rights protecting citizens. Without
these rights the government can indefinitely detain someone without
charge, put them on trial in special security courts where they will not
even be told what the evidence against them is, and be prevented from
accessing a lawyer. This has been the case of some non-citizens living
inside Canada that have been held on security certificates for years.The idea of taking citizenship away is also a political issue being used to politically cater to segments of different societies in various countries that have xenophobic views and dislike certain strata in their societies for various reasons.
Ignoring the Roots of the Problem
There
is an old saying that society gets all the criminals it deserves. What
is meant by this is that many criminals arise out of a structural
problem in society.
It
is no coincidence that Michael Zehaf-Bibeau once asked to be detained
to fight his cocaine and crack addiction. Both attackers were drug users
and had psychological problems that needed to be helped. In the case of
the gunman in Ottawa, he tried reaching out for help and felt a toxic
feeling of hopelessness and not belonging.
Instead
of looking overseas or blaming outside forces, Canada needs to look
inside. The roots of the problem include the declining social services
of Canada that have progressively faced government cutbacks and
austerity measures. By blaming the ISIL and the internet the government
is also refusing to acknowledge this failure and the marginalization of
many members of Canadian society that are not getting the help they
need.
The Slippery Slope and the Harper Government’s Dirty HandsThere is a call for Canadians to be vigilant against an inflated terrorist threat from the ISIL. This is why Prime Minister Steven Harper and his government are doing their best to portray the events in Canada as an extension of the front in the Middle East. Redefining criminals as terrorists is helping reinforce this perception. Canadians and the citizens of other countries, however, should be vigilant over their rights and freedoms that took centuries of struggle to obtain.
Changing the criterion for the granting of citizenship is a whole different topic, but its removal is a dangerous and slippery slope. Although the claims are that these type of measures are for the greater good or public safety, the historic record has shown that the suspension of civil liberties has been used for ulterior motives.
As a final note, the same people inflating fears of terrorism in Canada have also supported it overseas. It should never be forgotten that Prime Minister Steven Harper and his cabinet supported the «terrorists» they now claim to oppose. The Harper Government tacitly encouraged Canadians to go fight in places like Libya and Syria for the sake of assisting Washington’s foreign policy of regime change. Canada even armed the militants linked to Al-Qaeda in Libya with drones and weapons in 2011 and allowed private security firms (mercenaries) to assist them. This should not be overlooked when people question how such a state of affairs has arisen.
ADDENDUM
Important details have emerged that strengthen the case against the Harper Government as intellectually dishonest opportunists.
(1) The Toronto Star originally reported on October 20, 2014 that multiple witnesses confirmed that Martin Couture-Rouleau’s hands were in the air in surrender when he was shot. Here is a passage from the article:
«Witnesses who spoke with the TVA network Monday afternoon said they saw a man emerge from the flipped vehicle that was lying in a ditch on the side of the road. The man had his hands in the air and was walking toward police when at least one officer opened fire on the suspect. The witnesses said they heard up to seven gunshots.»Later the article would redact this and be re-edited.
(2) A Canadian investigative journalism webpage (FreeThePressCanada.org), noticed that before the scene was secured in Ottawa at 10:54 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) that the US news network CBS reported the following:
«The gunmen has been identified by U.S. officials to CBS News as Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, a Canadian national born in 1982.»This was many hours before Canadians were even told the gunman’s identity or that he was alone. The CBS article would even be edited to remove Zehaf-Bibeau’s name or any mention that the US government was aware of it. Although security can be cited for this, it can also be looked at politically as part as a means of keeping the public in suspense and allowing a state of shock to reverberate across Canada so that the Harper Government can justify its foreign policy and security initiatives.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment