|
On the CBC tonight,
members of the mosque where Qayyum Abdul Jamal sometimes led prayer services
and taught reported that he made inflammatory and "extreme" comments.
Among other things, he said that Canadian forces were in Afghanistan to rape
Moslem women. He criticized any involvement with politics because
most politics involves corruption. He thought movies and television were filled with
sinful ideas and images.
He almost sounds like Dr.
James Dobson.
What was missing from
these several accounts of Jamal's teachings was any mention of violence, or
an advocacy of violence against Canadian targets.
It's not unreasonable to
believe that he wouldn't make such statements in public. But it is
also very striking that the CBC decided to broadcast this piece. Why
is the CBC trying to help the prosecution? Where is journalistic
objectivity? Where is even one astute reporter to point out that many
extremely conservative Christians and right wing militia groups in the U.S.
have been making similarly contemptible speeches for years, but we haven't
seen many of them rounded up? They have, for example, called critics
of the Iraqi war "traitors". They have called pro-choice activists
"murderers". They have had even harsher words for rock musicians and
film-makers.
One of the pieces of
evidence against the seventeen "terrorists" is their participation in
training exercises held in wilderness areas north of Toronto,
allegedly with real bullets.
In California, there is a
valley where gun enthusiasts can legally shoot off as many guns as
frequently as they wish. In fact, the range is polluted with tens of
thousands of casings-- and beer cans and fast food wrappers. They can
also go to rifle-ranges in almost any city in America, and they can carry
the loaded gun, concealed, to and from the range in most states.
Ah-- but they aren't
threatening to actually go out and kill anyone. Maybe. Or is it
just that we assume that white people carrying loaded weapons around are
okay, even if a few white people do end up committing murders, whereas
Moslems doing the same thing are presumed to be terrorists.
Did the U.S. make any
effort to infiltrate and control militia groups in the U.S. after Timothy
McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing?
The hype and hysteria
about this case is unbelievable.
The saddest part is that
even the reporters who occasionally toss in a phrase like "of course, they
haven't been convicted" act as if overwhelming proof has been offered that
there was a real plot and that these suspects were actually intending to
carry it out.
Peculiarly, some of the
members of this group are charged with belonging to a terrorist
organization, while it is admitted that they had no connection to Al Qaeda.
By inference, it seems they had no connection to any outside terrorist
organization at all. In this case, the government appears to be saying
they are guilty of belonging to a group of which they are guilty of
belonging to. I'm trying to figure out if the government is really
that stupid-- okay, I hear a chorus of people saying, no, no, they can't
be-- or if there is some angle on this that makes sense. How do you
prove in court that they belonged to a terrorist organization? By
showing that they were intending to act like a terrorist organization.
But then you will have to show that they actually were plotting to commit
terrorist acts. If you have proof of that, then you don't need the
charge that they belonged to a terrorist organization. You could
simply charge them with conspiracy.
I suspect that when the
dust settles, we will hear about some young, emotional Moslem men who said
stupid things and dreamed of joining the battle against the decadent culture
in which they lived, but didn't actually have any definite plans for
attacking anything or anyone.
I suspect we'll find out
that the ammonium nitrate for the bomb was not only provided by the RCMP,
but may even have been suggested.
Someone says to me, how
can you say that before all the facts are in? I say, you're right.
People shouldn't make those kinds of hysterical charges until they know more
facts about what actually is going on.
Just as public officials
should stop congratulating themselves and each other on having stopped a
terrorist attack when they have yet to prove that any such attack was really
being planned.
All contents © 2006 Bill Van Dyk
| 
