I believe that governments should tolerate the actions of dissident
groups, but only to a certain point. When dissident groups commit acts
of violence, they have made themselves terrorists and the government
should do all that it can to remove them and provide the most severe
punishment available under the law for their members.
There are two major schools of thought on the issue of dissident
groups. The first believes that the government should tolerate the
actions of dissident groups as long as they stay within the boundaries
of dissidence or civil disobedience. The underlying assumption of this
view is that "we should tolerate dissent groups because it is in fringe
subcultures that we find new ideas and concepts which cause a nation to
continue to grow and thrive, both economically and socially." [3] The second opinion on the matter is that dissident
groups should not be tolerated, no matter if their activities are
peaceful or violent. This is the opinion espoused by the Soviet Union
and most other dictatorships. It stems from the belief that needs of the
individual should be secondary to the needs of the state and that
dissent has no legitimate place in society.
At first the actions of the growing separatist movement in Quebec was
tolerated. Though the movement threatened the security of the nation in
some senses, it was well within the category of lawful advocacy, protest
and dissent as set out by the Canadian Security Intelligence Services
Act (CSIS Act) and protected by the Fundamental Freedoms of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
On October 5, 1970 however, the FLQ (Front du Liberation de Quebec),
a group of separatist extremists crossed the line between civil
disobedience and terrorism when they kidnapped James Cross, the British
Trade Commissioner. Five days later they kidnapped a second man, Pierre
Laporte, Quebec's labour minister. The FLQ made demands for the release
of both men including ransom money, transportation to Cuba, the release
of "political prisoners" who were in actuality FLQ members previously
jailed for terrorist bombings, and the reading of the FLQ Manifesto over
national television networks. Faced with the growing crisis in his
province Robert Bourassa turned to the federal government for help.
Pierre Elliot Trudeau took decisive action for the good of the country
and, for the first time in peacetime, he invoked the War Measures Act,
which revoked the civil rights of Canadians. He stated that the use of
the act was justified because the October Crisis was "the beginning of a
widespread conspiracy to overthrow the government." The act made FLQ
membership a crime and banned political rallies. Police swept across the
province arresting anyone suspected of belonging to the FLQ and
conducting thousands of searches. Though in the end Pierre Laporte was
killed, James Cross found and the four hundred plus arrests resulted in
less than 20 convictions, the decisive actions of the government broke
the back of the FLQ and restored peace to a dissident movement that
continues to this day.
A similar circumstance was faced by the West German government in the
late 1960's and through the majority of the 1970's, though the
government's rather lenient approach to the situation stands in stark
contrast to the Canadian government's reaction. The Baader-Meinhof Gang,
founded by Andreas Baader and Ulrike Meinhof, were a group of dissident
students who believed that their government was repressive and fascist.
This belief alone was nothing more than dissidence and was tolerated by
the government. However, in 1968 with the protest bombing of two
department stores in Frankfurt the Baader-Meinhof Gang became publicly
known by their chosen name, the Red Army Faction (RAF), a group of urban
guerrillas and terrorists.
The terrorist acts of the RAF were widespread, but despite numerous
arrests the government failed to stop the attacks. In the late 1970's
their activities reached a head. There was a long series of hostage
takings, kidnappings, murders and bombings. Finally, in June and July of
1972, police captured and tried numerous members of the RAF, including
its top members. But the violence did not end. RAF leaders in custody
were still able to contact their comrades on the outside and the
violence continued with barely a pause. In October 1977, Palestinians
hijacked a Lufthansa jet in a bid to win the freedom of the jailed
leaders of the RAF, their allies. It was finally brought to the ground
in Mogadishu, Somalia and stormed by the elite anti-terrorist unit GSG-9
from Germany. Andreas Baader, Gudrun Ensslin and Jan-Carl Raspe, all top
members of the RAF who had been jailed on previous offences, saw this as
the end of their organization and took their own lives in prison. The
RAF though continued to live on into the 1980's and the 1990's until in
1998 a communiqué from the RAF to Reuters announced that the RAF had
been officially disbanded.
Clearly the inaction of the German government prolonged the terrorist
activities, while the actions of the Canadian government stopped the FLQ
before their activities could cause more serious harm. If the German
government had cracked down on the RAF in its infancy, it is unlikely
that the violence would have lasted more than a year, saving both lives
and money.
While most governments take a strong anti-terrorist stance, when it
is dissidents within their own societies that have become violent the
problem becomes even more complicated. The line between terrorism and
dissidence can often blur to grey, especially when more than one faction
of a dissident group is involved. Democratic governments have to ride a
fine line in dealing with dissident movements. They do not want to
appear authoritarian, but they must take care not to appear too liberal
in dealing with terrorists and criminals either, as this can open the
door to a host of other problems. Canada's response to the FLQ presents
what is quite possibly the best approach to groups of that nature. The
government response to the FLQ was swift and firm, but it was also fair
and just according to the laws of the country. Dissent is a normal and
essential part of government and for as long as that dissent never
crosses into violence it must be allowed. Restricting the right to
dissent restricts our rights and our very nature.
Footnotes
[1]: Canadian Security Intelligence Services Act. SectionII (back)
[2]: Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice (back)
[3]: Collier, B., "Re: Dissent"
E-mail to Jaimie Cummins
[E-mail 2000, Feb. 22] (back)
Works Cited
Bay, Christian. "Civil Disobedience: The Inner and Outer Limits."
Dissent and the State. Ed. C.E.S. Franks. Toronto: Oxford
University Press, 1989.
Eaton, Dianne and Garfield Newman, Eds. Canada: A Nation
Unfolding. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited, 1994.
Federation of American Scientists. (No Date). "Liberation Movements,
Terrorist Organizations, Substance Cartels and Other Para-State
Entities." Intelligence Resource Program. [Online 2000, Feb.
25]
Franks, C.E.S., ed. Dissent and the State. Toronto: Oxford
University Press, 1989.
Garigue, Philippe (No Date). "Quebec -- History".
Britannica.com. [Online
2000, Feb. 25]
Huffman, Richard (2000, Jan. 2). This is Baader-Meinhof. [Online 2000, Feb. 15]
Jai Cummins is a native of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and is
writing for a political economics class. She received a 100% on this
paper.