Four hundred heavily armed officers -- including snipers -- arrested seventeen young men, who were mostly under the age of 25 (one under the age of 18), for charges of plotting a terrorist attack on Canada. Of course, the scenario of a heavily armed fortress can be found every single day that the accused enter the courtroom. The scene of the arrest was definitely grand, which fueled reports from the media, culminating into such stupidity as showing the public the specific addresses of the suspects. Soon thereafter, the public was bombarded with sensationalist reports claiming that an "Islamist" terrorist conspiracy has been smashed and the police, government and the many political observers putting this up as proof that Canada is smack down the middle of this "war on terror".

Today, there has been a media ban, prohibiting all parties involved to refrain from speaking about the case; imposed after the public has been given ample time to condemn and demonize the accused. Despite what the media ban claimed to be aiming to achieve, a fair and just trial, it came far too late; under the sensationalist reactions of a shortsighted and hysterical media, the damage is already evident. The ban only now serves to cut the ability of the accused and their family to communicate their side of the story to a disinterested media. No longer are they able to counter and comment on the idiotic actions major news outlets took because if there is nothing to sensationalize, there is nothing to report on. The media took its jabs, made its millions and left the ring calling an end to an exchange which has not even begun.

Posting the specific street addresses of the suspects was completely irresponsible on the part of all news networks that did it - the pioneer being CTV. CTV officially cited that it was in the interest of public safety to know where these people lived. They also stressed that their addresses can be found in phone books anyway, overlooking the fact that there has never once been an instance of an accused party being condemned as criminals without the right to a fair trial. Also, the logic of making the addresses available to the public because they are available anyway in phonebooks eliminates the possibility of the families asking themselves to be unlisted (for good reasons). As well, the last names of the families are quite common and CTV is delusional if they think that people will look into their phonebook to contact every single one of them, to see which belonged to the family of the accused. The media did nothing but instil paranoia, in an attempt to justify their bout of sensationalism. They also threatened the safety of those residing in the homes of the "suspects" as they have been harassed and more.

Another issue of interest for the media at the time (for some, continues to do so), was the wife of one of the accused, Nada Amara. She was immediately attacked in the media for 'hateful' internet postings she made in 2004. She was not even given a chance to explain her side of the story once reports began to air. How many of us have made statements in the past which we do not agree with today? I know far too many people, including myself who have regretted what they have said, wishing to take harsh words back. Instead, the public was bombarded by an image of a woman who was overtaken with hateful rhetoric at a young age. Yes, an angry, emo teenager, that is far from being a recent phenomenon.

Of course, the capacity for public compassion and understanding has been diluted and distorted by a society which is constantly preoccupied with sensationalized reporting. I still remember when an event called "Muslim Youth Speak Out" was held by the University of Toronto Students' Union a couple of weeks after the arrests. One of the additions to the panel of Muslim speakers was Nada Amara. Before the event began the 'breaking news' from the Globe and Mail was broadcasted throughout Canada and her appearance was abruptly cancelled. The purpose of her appearance was to ask for help from the Canadian public, since the arrests left many families in financial difficulty while the primary breadwinners of each family were held in custody -- this was in addition to having their credit cards and bank cards confiscated by the RCMP.

ALL the major media outlets that came to the event were only concerned about Nada Amara’s message board statements in 2004. When she did not appear, only a single, 2-minute report was aired, which did not even focus on any of the main points brought up during the event -- primarily, what young Muslims had to say regarding the circumstances and all the insightful statements that were made by prominent and representative individuals for the wider Muslim community like Professor Jasmine Zine and Faisal Kutty from CAIR-CAN (Canadian Council On American-Islamic Relations). Instead, there it was again, Tarek Fatah and Irshad Manji -- unrepresentative individuals for the larger Muslim community -- jumping at the opportunity to strengthen their agenda and the media was more than happy to jump on their backs for a quick tour of the Muslim community.

Today, there is a far more serious concern regarding the treatment of terror suspects in Canadian prisons. There have been many complaints put forth by the lawyers of the accused which has been met by a lack of interest in the media. No comparison can be made to the way they drooled all over it when four hundred heavily armed RCMP officers arrested the suspects. None of this is surprising because they are just reflecting a common attitude of those in charge of Canadian security.

Martin Collacott, a senior fellow from Fraser Institute and a former federal foreign affairs official who was responsible for the coordination of counter-terrorism policy commented on the case. He argued that it is "fairly standard" to make claims of torture according to al-Queda training manuals and that is exactly what the prisoners are doing. Of course, only an incompetent individual would not detect the far from subtle insinuation that the group was guilty already of succumbing to al-Queda training and influence. To individuals such as himself, this is definitely a great rule of thumb when it comes to treating prisoners (guilty or not) who are pleading for help from torture or abuse. It is useful to argue that: anyone who makes such a claim must have received pointers from some training manual of a terrorist organization whose name and existence could be utilized to stifle any criticism of the state apparatus and to throw prejudiced opinions regarding anyone with an opposing viewpoint by the wayside - in this case, "Islamist Muslims", "Traditional Muslims" or whatever other vague term the media have come to love when spat out by people like Fatah and Manji who, again, are unrepresentative of the large portion of the Muslim community.

Therefore, according to Collacott, being locked in a room with three concrete walls and a door with a tiny slit that opens when food is given to the inmate, an 11 feet by six feet cell, no windows, with lights on 24-7 (sleep deprivation), only being allowed for 15-30 minutes a day (perhaps even less) does not merit any inquiry or investigation, nor should it be classified as cruel and unusual punishment designed to psychologically break down the "accused" for the years following up to the possible trial. Lock yourself in a room for a couple of days and block off your windows and see how you feel. Of course, there have been other charges as well which I do not want to get into here.

To accept this stance as the simple “routine procedure” of handling an inmate, despite claims of abuse is not only neglectful, cruel and a total disrespect to many people who have been imprisoned before in North America and beyond, mistreated and later released or died in prison, it is also hypocritical. It calls for selectively applying a policy to some as opposed to others (blatant double standard). We are supposed to make the connection that a training manual of a "terrorist organization" somehow justifies prisoner torture and abuse. The examples are endless and one only needs to point at recent examples which I will not go into here.

Is it possible that the RCMP and the government are wrong? Is it possible that the accusations are real? While both may be feasible, the former possibility cannot be overlooked, it has happened before. It was not long ago when 19 foreign students, mostly from Pakistan, were arrested in 2003 in Toronto. They were accused and arrested for plotting to blow up the nuclear reactors at Pickering or the CN Tower. It was claimed that an “al Qaeda sleeper cell” had been uncovered. In the end, all charges were dropped within two weeks of the arrest.

Even those who noticed the inherent flaws and prejudice this case has been plagued with have taken the reactionary stance of “better to be safer than sorry” to justify this unorthodox treatment of Canadian citizens. As a result, any avenue to ask questions regarding the case has been closed off. Questions such as: "How exactly did the group come into the possession of the Ammonium Nitrate Fertilizer? How did the RCMP conduct its sting operation? How did the media conduct themselves throughout all this? Are the 'accused' being treated humanely in prison?" and so forth have all been buried under the sensationalism that continues to be pumped out by the media. Even Stephen Harper, David Miller and many other leaders jumped at the chance of congratulating the RCMP for its successful capture of a dangerous threat to Canada, convicting the accused before a fair and just trial was even set. The RCMP and the media never failed to embrace personalities like Tarek Fatah who quickly utilized this issue in order to push his agenda and demonize a large part of the Muslim community that he does not represent whatsoever -- quickly throwing around vague and undefined terms (or when defined, the media had a particular spin on what it is which is far from fair) such as Islamists, Fundamentalists, Shariah, Muslim Extremists, Moderate Muslims, Democratic Muslims and so forth.

If the media had a genuine concern about the accurate portrayal of sentiments within the Muslim community, they would have approached more representative personalities such as those from CAIR-CAN or the mosques in the GTA area. Instead, in addition to message board posts made in 2004, they take one readily available personality who is always ready to spout a perspective the media have grown accustomed to and, sadly, the large part of the Canadian population finds easy to listen to regardless of what this man's standing is in the Muslim community. It is far from dialogue, far from relationship building, it is alienation. It is far from justice. The only beneficiaries of such hysteria, irresponsibility and outright stupidity are the state security apparatus and the party currently in power.

In the spirit of resistance,
Critical Mood