On the one hand, a state
can run like a corporation with owner/boss/manager group at the top
and the rest of us workers-without-a-union doing as we're told with
cameras and spies and informers making sure we don't stray outside
the boundaries set by the bosses. East Germany before 1989; North
Korea today; Islamic Califate of the future.
On the other hand, a
libertarian state with minimal official interference in individual
choices and activities is imaginable, something like today's internet
writ large.
Canada today falls between
the poles, obviously, but it's a sliding scale and there's always a
possibility that circumstances will move us to a place where we'd
rather not be. It's the fear of being shunted too far in the direction
of the authoritarian state that has us spooked regarding the current
security bill: C-51.
I’d be the first to
admit that my life cannot be considered private, let alone secret. I
went to see my optometrist yesterday and watched over his shoulder as
he added to the mass of information he already had on file about me.
The secretary at the doctors’ office this morning needed only to
glance at my Saskatchewan Health Card to bring up on her computer all
the information existing about my health, my visits, my address, age,
height, weight, etc. We are a data base-driven society, and in this
notorious compulsion for data gathering and saving, industry and
government are probably the most efficient.
And therein lie issues that are central to our age and about which we need
to debate and discuss--with reliable, non-partisan information--if we're to prevent being lulled into allowing unnecessary increases
in surveillance and policing, ostensibly to protect us. It’s bad
enough to send out a request on the internet for a quote on an item
and then find yourself deluged with offers and come-ons for all kinds of things from all kinds of places.
It’s infinitely worse to know that a surveillance apparatus has
filtered all emails coming into the federal government and
bureaucracy, pulling out any that suggest a possible leaning toward
an ideology or idea that the government of the day might consider
threatening to the security of the state.
How much do I need to know
about my neighbour in order to feel safe? Obviously, the temptation
to snoop increases as my fear of his possibly-harmful inclinations
increases. Hidden cameras, bugs, drones, something is necessary when
you suspect your neighbour of stealing your apples. Security systems
make us feel safer, but somehow or other, the need for heightened
surveillance surely tells us something about relationship failure.
A majority of Canadians
(by recent polling) is ready to let CSIS surveillance mandate be broadened, authority being given to a watchdog agency to act like policemen. It's not surprising
now that propaganda has been doing its best to give all of us the jitters
about ISIL/ISIS inspired attacks on us. But how many Canadians know
that Bill C-51 is vague to the point where, for instance, an advocacy
group demonstrating against a new bridge could be
targeted for “interference” by CSIS if the authorities of the day deem
that bridge a necessity for security reasons?
We will all be scrutinized
more closely after C-51; question is, do we care? The primary tool for
the establishment and maintenance of a totalitarian system is
comprehensive information about individual citizens. Bill C-51 slides the bar along just a
bit more to the right on the scale.
Let's think about this
carefully, pay attention to what Tom Mulcaire and so many others are
saying about the bill. According to Elizabeth May, one of our most
astute political leaders,
This bill needs way more
thought than the government is prepared to give it.