By Zile Singh

Immigration in normal course is an essential economic aspect. In abnormal conditions, it takes the form ofAsylum and Refuge. When immigrants, whether normal, asylees or refugees involve themselves in a systematic use of violence, intimidation and hate-speech to achieve some political goals, either in the country of their adoption or in the country from where they fled,then it takes the form of terrorism affecting the atmosphere at home and damaging their country’s relations with other friendly countries. We should also no forget State-sponsored violence and terrorism against those fled which contributed to the two terrorism cases highlighted here.  In this background, two heinous acts of terrorism come to mind. 

First, thirty-nine years go on June 23, 1985, a bomb exploded on Air India Fight 182 mid-air enroute from Toronto to London, England killing all 329 passengers aboard, most of them Canadians – men, women, seniors and children. After a long drawn and the costliest investigation and judicial trial, the Canadian authorities had to cut a sorry figure to apprehend   the culprits except sentencing one individual who made the bombs used in that terrorist attack.  The memorials in Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa, and Montreal to remember the victims will forever stand as a reminder of the innocent lives lost. Without the conclusiveness of the case, one is apt to reach a conclusion that the perpetrators were immigrants because Canada as a country had no intension or interest to add such a black chapter in its history. In fact, with this act of international terrorism and some other such activities to date in that direction by immigrants, the bilateral interests of Canada and India have been hurt to a large extent. Off and on, the travel rights of ordinary citizens have also been affected badly. 

Second, on September 11, 2001, thousands of innocent lives were lost when the twin towers- 110 stories each, the tallest buildings in the world at that time, housing the World Trade Centre in New York were bombed by those immigrants whom the United States had given a legal status, human rights and the citizenship.  The US nation and the whole world was awe stuck. As a repercussion,a twenty-year long war against terrorism by international forcesin Afghanistan where the mastermind of the attack was hiding, did not yield any concrete result.  The terrorists are again at the helm of affairs with a government full of hardliners including globally wanted terrorists. Both these sad incidents show the role of immigrants, whether normal, asylees or the refugees from other countries in Canada and the US. Not only US and Canada, many other countries across the globe have suffered such set back on account of immigrant population. 

Almost all the countries have given some sort of rights and freedoms to their citizens.  Some have put some reasonable restrictions in certain circumstances whereas some have granted absolute rights and freedoms.The United Nations has enacted scores of international legal instruments to prevent terrorist acts.  On December 6, 2018, speaking at the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Coordination Meeting the UN Secretary-General said, “Policies that limit human rights only end up alienating the very communities they aim to protect, and which normally have every interest in fighting extremism. He also added “Such policies can effectively drive people into the hands of terrorists and undermine our efforts on prevention.”  

The main aim of terrorism is not only to kill or harm a particular person or a group of persons but to create an atmosphere to undermine the sovereignty and integrity of another country. The acts of terrorism are one of the most serious threats to international peace and security and bilateral relations in the twenty-first century and a challenge to all States and to all humanity.

So, is it fair and necessary to provide the same human rights to terrorists as are being provided to other law -abiding and peace- loving citizens of a State? Or is it fair to accept the people who were yesterday running the guns, today they are harbouring the hardcore groups without any perceptible change in their ideology?  It becomes even more serious matter when it has been confirmed that the terrorist activities are not just within their own State borders, but these activities are trans-borders.  A question also arises when   an Asylee or a Refugee   turns a terrorist against his own State from where he fled.   In that case should it be understood that the State which granted him the asylee/ refugee status has become a safe heaven and breeding ground for his unwarranted activities? Also, is the ‘municipal or civil law’ of a country is above the ‘international law’ to justify violence and threats under the garb of rights and freedoms?International law does not permit a threat by the citizens of one State to the integrity of another State. 

Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 states, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”  Article 2 states, “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in the Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, religion, colour, sex, language, political or another opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”.  The expression “everyone is entitled.” may mean that there cannot be any exception.  However, an exception is necessary in case such freedoms and rights affect the rights of others, internal harmony and the relations with friendly countries. A citizen cannot give priority to his personal agenda over the interests of the country of his neutralised citizenship. Some States have stipulated some reasonable restrictions on absolute rights and freedoms.  Unfortunately, some have not. Crime is crime,overt or covert.  Those who pursue violent activities must be punished regardless of political sympathy or ethnicity on the ground that commitment and threat of violent actions create an atmosphere of fear undermining the human rights of others.  

A view whether terrorists should have the same rights and freedoms as ordinary law-abiding citizens or not are opposite to each other.  The first view favours the terrorists.  The second view favours the government(s).   In countering terrorism, no doubt, there will be the repression and violation of the human rights of the terrorists but such acts on behalf of the government(s) shall be justifiable as they are being taken in the larger interest of the society and the State.   Thus, the rights of a terrorist need to be curbed in order to advance peaceful international relations and cooperation. Human rights cannot justify undermining national security,and territorial integrity of another sovereign state.  States must keep a balance between counter-terrorism measures and human rights. Threats to other countries’ interests and properties are nothing but terrorism. 

Punishment to the terrorists has been stipulated under a number of UN Conventions with specific cases of terrorism such as airplane bombing, hijacking, taking of hostages, prevention, and punishment of crimes against internationally protected persons.  It is the duty of the State(s) to examine the relations of terrorists with other internationally recognized terrorist organizations operating in other countries.  Their activities are to be examined in all forms and manifestations and whether the so-called terrorists are drug runners and money launderers.  Mutual cooperation among States in exchange of relevant information and apprehension of terrorists is of paramount importance.  Though in 2005, a Strategy to Fight Terrorism was endorsed by 192 UN Member States, a lack of political will of some States and their determination to suppress it are largely responsible in the increase of interference by the subjects of one country into the affairs of other country. Acts of violence and hate-speech or abetment to crime are in any circumstances unjustifiable whatever the consideration of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious, or other nature that may be invoked to justify them. State sponsored violence and interference by one country into the affairs of other’s  is condemnable by the comity of nations. The world is an interdependent global village.  Pack a punch will not do. It takes two to tango.

Zile Singh is a well respected Columnist, Writer and a Vipassana Meditater. He has a Post-Graduate Diploma in Human Rights.  He can be reached at zsnirwal@yahoo.ca