Last month, Michael Zehaf Bibeau fatally shot a soldier stationed at the Canada War Memorial in Ottawa. After fleeing the scene, he raced for the capital, where Kevin Vickers, a Canadian House of Commons sergeant-at-arms, killed him in a gunfight. The shock of this unprecedented attack on Canadian soil resonated throughout the country and around the world. Unquestionably, there is a security problem in Canada that must be resolved to ensure the safety of its political officials.

But new legislation intended to do just that is now on the table in Canada. The Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, or Bill C-44, will radically increase the power of spy agencies in the country. C-44, introduced by the Canadian Parliament just five days after the attack, would “lower the threshold for preventative arrests” by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), authorize Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC), Canada’s NSA-equivalent, to eavesdrop on foreign countries and increase protections for intelligence informants. On the surface, this legislation may seem necessary to protect Canadian citizens from terrorist threats. Unfortunately, the bill is extremely damaging to citizens’ rights, especially the right to privacy.

This isn’t the first time the Canadian government has been accused of overstepping their bounds. Last year, documents released by whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed CSEC’s capability to spy on Canadian citizens through airport Wi-Fi networks and phone metadata collection. Though phone metadata collection doesn’t record the content of conversation, it can include both parties’ phone numbers, location data, call duration, time of the call and other unique identifiers.

This type of overarching surveillance is a direct violation of a person’s basic privacy rights. Allowing the government to indiscriminately spy on its citizens denies them of their ability to function in a free society. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) set the precedent for a constitutional ‘right to privacy’ in the US, a model that most liberal democracies have warped in recent decades.

The overreach by the Canadian government is, indeed, frightening and even irrational. A fascinating piece by Tom Henheffer, Executive Director of the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, claims that in 2010 more Americans were killed by lightening strikes than terror attacks. Like the American PATRIOT Act, C-44 was drafted under the pretense of national security following a series of terrorist attacks. Already a controversial subject, privacy activists are harshly criticizing the bill that both violates their right to due process and leaves the government less accountable to the people.

Canada should, at all costs, avoid straying from this model and devolving into a surveillance state that stifles its citizens’ free speech. Afraid to speak out against the government or read controversial texts, the state loses out just as much as its citizens do. More specifically, taking away someone’s privacy kills his or her creativity. Concerned that the government is watching, people are unwilling to challenge the status quo and research or visit sites that may red flag their online activity. Likewise, people become less willing to create controversial content, worried the government is tracking their every keystroke. Glen Greenwald’s expertly presented TED Talk shows on how destructive the surveillance state can become when free speech is muted.

Recent history reveals that ramping up the development of a surveillance state greatly affects the rights of average citizens despite the minimal benefits they reap from such programs. Instead of following in the footsteps of the United States, Canada must rise to the occasion and avoid falling into the same rights-redacting spiral.

The question ultimately becomes one of cost-benefit analysis. Is the cost of sacrificing Canadian citizens privacy rights outweighed by the benefits of a safer state? The answer is a resounding no. Surveillance isn’t efficient or effective. A study by the New America Foundation showed that less than 2% of terrorism-related charges used metadata in any useful way to secure a conviction. Canadian citizens lose freedoms and liberties granted to them by their government in exchange for a system that monitors and catalogues their every call and move. The tradeoff just isn’t worth it.

There are appropriate ways Canada can protect its borders and bolster national security without violating its citizens’ rights. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) announced the development of a new surveillance fence that will extend over 400 miles. Aimed at preventing transnational crime, especially cigarette fraud and other narcotic activities, the fence will include overt and covert surveillance methods, which will deter and prevent crime without drastically affecting the average citizen’s privacy and wellbeing.

Preventing terrorist attacks within any country is a political impossibility. As such, benefits to be reaped from individual privacy greatly outweigh the diminishing returns of a totalitarian surveillance system that keeps its tape recorder running continuously. The state should function as the people’s protector; hasty prevention tactics that impede on citizens’ rights, however, should not be tolerated or implemented. The loon can and should still peer down on its people, but not without undertaking the proper procedures to do so.

Rather than focusing on large-scale metadata collection that is inefficient and unwarranted, the Canadian government should instead look into increasing the country’s border security while simultaneously improving public safety services across the country. By moving away from metadata and large-scale online data collection that casts a wide net, the Canadian government will find a cost-efficient way to balance national security and citizens’ rights concerns appropriately.

The post The Loon Sees All: Why Privacy, Not Surveillance, Matters in Ottawa appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Jack Anderson

The view from abroad is that President Obama has further lost credibility to represent the interests of the American public. Obama will find it extremely difficult to get his chosen ambassadors appointed by a Republican Senate, which won’t help diplomatic efforts overseas. His upcoming trip to China, Myanmar and Australia will be rough. He is meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, then attending the East Asia Summit and the US-ASEAN Summit in Myanmar, followed by talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the G-20 Summit in Australia. He needs to publicly get bipartisan support on foreign policy issues now in order for this trip to be effective. Without re-establishing his weight in Washington, Obama will be in no position to display leadership on East Asian or Eurasian issues. Recent leaks, such as his secret letter to Ayatollah Khameini and Robert O’Neill coming forward as “The Shooter,” serve to further undermine his leadership credentials. In short, Obama will be the biggest loser talking to a lot of winners. Those conversations will not be easy, and if interactions in Washington are any indication, then negotiations are not Obama’s strong suit.

Alessandro Marazzi Sassoon

Now that the GOP controls the Senate, it is likely that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will push the FCC to strike down Net Neutrality. The issue, which was hanging in the balance before the election, may now sway in the favor of Internet Service Providers (ISPs), which want to make profits from tiering internet service. Technically, the FCC has the deciding power on policy. Additionally, three of its five commissioners are Democrat-appointed; however, the legislative power the GOP now controls can significantly alter the debate. The end of net neutrality would continue to make the United States an outlier among developed countries in maintaining the open and democratic nature of the Internet. The glimmer of hope is that President Obama has officially endorsed the position of defending Net Neutrality championed by Fight For the Future (FFTF) this past week.

Benjamin Jury

Climate change deniers rejoice: Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the new Chairwoman of the Senate Committee for Energy and Natural Resources, claims that “emissions that are being put in the air by [a]volcano [in Iceland]are a thousand years’ worth of emissions that would come from all of the vehicles, all of the manufacturing in Europe.” The causal link between climate change and increasing unrest around the world is still a hotly-debated topic, but new research in the field shows at least tangential connections between the two. With the Peru and Paris UN Climate Change Conferences fast approaching, division and denial of climate change by ranking members of the US Senate will unquestionably delay any universal agreement on climate change for the near future.

Nathaniel Haas

In the spirit of finding a silver lining in light of Jack, Alessandro, and Ben’s pessimism, one issue of both national and international importance that will move forward because of the midterms is comprehensive immigration reform. The reasons why are two-fold. First, GOP obstructionism — which blocked reform in 2013 and also shut down the government — will not be tolerated by a 2016 electorate that will feature a younger and more diverse and liberal electorate than the anomalous and abysmally low 2014 midterm turnout. Republicans’ feet are now being held to the fire, and they will likely succumb to pressure to produce legislation. It will be more moderate than the bill they killed in 2013, and likely not include a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million illegal immigrants who currently reside in the United States, but it will likely include important visa and border security reforms. The second reason to be optimistic on immigration is simple: as his second term winds down, President Obama is no longer in reelection mode, he is in legacy mode. He knows that failing to take executive action on immigration over the summer, like he promised, was a grave mistake, and that Latinos are an ever expanding and powerful political bloc who won’t blindly follow the Democrats. Look for executive action in the near future on a pathway to citizenship. It will both cement Obama’s legacy, and pave the road for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Luke Phillips

I actually feel a lot more positive about the recent elections than do my colleagues, which probably has something to do with the fact that I’m a moderate Republican and a whole ton of moderate Republicans just got elected. Oh well, I never claimed objectivity anyways. I think the new class of Republican Congressmen and Senators will actually prove more willing to work with President Obama than did their Tea Party predecessors who swept Congress in 2010. The Tea Party Caucus and its allies, committed as they were to rigidly ideological conceptions of the purpose of government and the sacredness of austerity, could essentially do nothing but block legislation. Their libertarian leanings do not easily reconcile with anything inside the Beltway. But the new class of moderate main-street Republicans has less ideological baggage, less vehement antipathy against the President and a much more powerful incentive to work with Democrats on such critical issues as immigration reform, the Keystone Pipeline and the TPP. Obama, for his part, can expect a lot more support from GOP moderates, and has no choice but to trust them–his legacy needs action if it is to transcend his currently shattered reputation. I see, then, an active, stable and forward-moving two years leading up to the 2016 elections, and we are all the better for it.

The views expressed by these authors do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post The Correspondents Weigh-In: 2014 Elections appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Yemen is a nation under siege. The state is rife with conflict between the Sunni-majority Sana’a government and the Zaydi Shi’a minority insurgency known as the Believing Youth or the Houthis. The group takes its name from military commander and founder of the group, Hussein al-Houthi, who was killed in a 2004 skirmish with government forces. Both anti-American and anti-Zionist, the group has grown tremendously in numbers; some experts estimate Houthi membership by both armed and unarmed supporters to be close to 100,000 men and women.

Houthi discontent with the Yemeni government truly gained steam in 2004. The opposition group suffered tremendously under former President Ali Abdullah Saleh, himself a Zaydite. In 2011, simmering Houthi frustration boiled over during the Arab Spring, as protests spread across the country demanding the resignation of President Saleh. After forcibly resigning due to injuries sustained by a rebel missile attack on the presidential palace, the US backed a governmental transition that replaced Saleh with current Yemeni president Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi.

The group began its conquest of northern Yemen, successfully consuming the capital and several northern governorates in the country. Discontent grew over the Houthi’s lack of representation in national politics, as well as cuts to fuel subsidies in the Houthi-majority north. The opposition group exploited the lack of military strength in Yemen’s capital of Sana’a and seized the city with almost no resistance. Since then, the Houthis have assumed a supervisory role over government operations, handling the pay of government officials and reviewing documents from the state-owned Safer oil company.

The Houthis clearly have widespread influence politically as well. The group disapproved of Ahmed Awad bin Mubarak’s appointment to the Prime Minister post. Protests in the capital last Thursday forced him to decline the post, and hours later, two separate suicide bomber attacks in Sana’a killed at least 67 people.

Yet, there may be hope for stability, since Islamist and Shiite rebel leaders both approved of President Saleh’s appointment of Khaled Bahah, Yemen’s ambassador to the United Nations, as the new prime minister of the country. While still early in its development, the bipartisan support of Bahah is promising for putting Yemen on the right track in the coming years.

Instability in Yemen is in no neighboring state’s interest. Saudi Arabia, which borders Yemen to the north, is increasingly worried about the effect a pro-Shi’a coup could have on the religious balance of power within the region. Though Iran officially denounced any support for the take over, the mistrust caused by the Houthi overthrow will have lasting effects on diplomacy and peace in the Middle East.

Al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula (AQAP) will also prove problematic for creating lasting peace for Yemen in the short term. As a Salafist Jihadist group with growing power in the south of the country, AQAP may exploit religious differences and labels to create a civil war in an attempt to clinch power in Sana’a. The growing secessionist movement in the south also plays well into the hands of Houthi leaders, who could easily split the country to avoid sectarian strife in their newly acquired country.

The struggle for Sana’a has displaced over 30,000 civilians already, and continued attacks and instability in the capital and throughout the country will undoubtedly double or triple the number of people trying to escape bloodshed.

While the Gulf Cooperation Council condemned the Houthi overthrow of Yemen’s capital, they put forward no tangible strategy to eliminating and degrading the group’s power in Sana’a. Without guaranteed stability in Yemen, Saudi Arabia may be the next target for extremist groups able to penetrate the oil-rich country from Yemen in the south and Iraq in the north if the Islamic State continues to march south.

Regional actors must recognize their responsibility to protect the Arab world’s poorest country and realize the importance of restoring order to Sana’a before international terror organizations beat them to the punch.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post Paradise Lost: The Struggle for Sana’a appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

In India, old habits of LGBTQ legal and cultural intolerance die hard. Just last week, Delhi University made waves in its decision to allow students interested in post-graduate programs to indicate a third gender (transgender) on their applications. Many see this as a promising first step towards breaking down the patriarchal culture that reinforces so-called traditional gender roles.

Yet, even after a successful appeal to decriminalize sexual activity “between consenting adults of the same gender”in Delhi’s High Court in 2009, India’s Supreme Court reversed the ruling four years later as both a shock and disappointment to LGBTQ rights activists in the world’s largest ‘democracy’. The controversial Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code –which is still in effect –criminalizes acts of intercourse “against the order of nature” punishable by hefty fines and imprisonment up to 10 years.

Despite legal setbacks, there remains hope within the political sphere. Ashish Shelar, the leader of India’s largest political party (the Bharatiya Janata Party) acknowledged the repeal of Section 377 as a “pressing need”and promised to raise the issue with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. India’s Health Minister Dr. Harsh Vardhan too seems to recognize the importance of changing the country’s attitude towards LGTBQ rights. In a recent interview, he acknowledged that “everybody has human rights and it is the job of the government to protect them.”

Yet many critics are skeptical that any substantive changes will occur considering the political necessity of appeasing the country’s conservative voting bloc. India’s inability to reconcile a shifting global culture on the role of LGBTQ issues represents a significant bottleneck in the country’s progress as an emerging economy and world power. Nearly 70 years after the partition of India, the country remains torn between archaic pre-colonial laws and modern Western culture.

Hijras, as members of an ancient community who identify as transexual or transgender, also suffer from discrimination and have just recently been recognized as citizens with “every right to enjoy their human rights.” However, with various statutes still limiting the community’s ability to celebrate important rituals (such as a castration ceremony for those entering the community), significant barriers remain in place to full acceptance and flourishing in Indian society.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has taken an important step in addressing some of the major issues crippling Indian society, including the acceptance of rape culture, the unequal treatment of women –particularly in the lack of public bathrooms available to girls in schools –and the common practice of sex-selective abortion in India.

Modi has presented himself as a crucial piece of the puzzle of LGBTQ recognition in India. By seeking to equalize the legal and social standing of women in Indian society, Modi opens the door for conversations about other issues important to other minority groups in the country, including the LGBT and Hijra communities. Without question, Modi has the overwhelming support of the nation’s executive business leaders according and his BJP party handily won the majority of seats in the parliamentary election.

Modi must capitalize on the momentum of his first 100 days before so-called political necessities force him to fall short on his visionary proposals to improve life in India in both the social and economic realms. Modi’s focus on the security of women is essential for India to progress into a country, but other issues, like the treatment of LGBTQ individuals and prevalence of corruption and bribery, cannot be put on the back burner. Living in fear and despair is a constant struggle for LGBT people in India, and no truly substantive change can come from the country without recognition of these issues.

India is growing by leaps and bounds economically, and the country’s prospects for the future in world trade are immense. But without addressing key issues at home, such as women’s and minorities’ rights, India is cutting its nose off to spite its face. Focusing on fixing the domestic troubles of the country will pay off major dividends in the long term. The political party that recognizes and implements these changes first will undoubtedly get the worm.

The views expressed by these authors do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post Deconstructing the Binary Caste in India appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Syria, Iraq and Ukraine have been reduced to shambles. You’ve seen it all over the news: terrorist turned caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and his Islamic State watch as their influence and power spreads like wildfire across the Levant, while pro-Russian opposition groups wreck havoc throughout the Ukraine, shaking the establishment of the Iraqi and Ukrainian governments at their cores. Millions of refugees and internally displaced persons across the regions suffer from inadequate resources and fear they may never return home again amidst oppositional invasions and airstrikes in cities like Mosul and Snizhne. Thousands of miles away from the comfort of our living rooms we wonder how these states descended into chaos so rapidly in the past few years and why attempts at reigning in their power prove ineffectual at best.

Yet, the leadership in two of these regions has emerged from the entropy unscathed, and, by some accounts, more powerful than ever despite the chaos unfolding within their borders. Bashar al-Assad began his third presidential term last week despite condemnation of Syria’s elections by the European Union, the United States and UN General Secretary Ban Ki-Moon as unfair and illegitimate. According to a recent Gallup poll, Vladimir Putin has enjoyed an 29% increase in his national approval rating this past year, no doubt in response to Russia’s invasion of Crimea and destabilizing role in Eastern Ukraine.

Meanwhile, Syrian political groups remain mired in intense intra-group conflict over how to handle their current domestic situation. With the current split system between Bashar’s Damascus and the opposition-led Aleppo government, little hope remains for any semblance of legitimate rule.

In Iraq, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has been blacklisted and blamed by leaders in the Gulf States and Iraq’s own general public for failing to quash the rebel fighters edging their way towards Baghdad. Mired in gridlock as Parliament members attempt to form a new government, the hope for order and stability in Iraq seems fleeting for the near future.

How do Putin and Assad continue to reign with such unchecked power given the fierce opposition by their own citizens –as seen in the Pussy Riot protests and by free speech advocates being arrested for “violating public order”–and, by and large, the Western world? Without question, Russia’s star has risen astronomically in the global political arena over the past year. Damascus, thanks to the generosity of Putin’s government, has greatly increased its military power with Russian-made jets used to hunt down oppositional militias. Al-Baghdadi and his troops have captured the Al-Omar gas field in central Syria, increasing their economic power and threatening the very core of the Iraqi energy sector. Though by no means exclusively, ‘iron fist’politics, tangible gains in national interest and popularly supported cronyism are the three driving factors in the success of Bashar, al-Baghdadi and Putin.

Dominant leadership has proved crucial to the success of Putin’s Russia. Since 2000, his charismatic authoritarianism has pushed the country to the forefront of the political arena. By setting a precedent of swift, no-holds-barred action against opposition groups during the Second Chechen War, Putin enjoys popular support as a leader who demonstrates potency and has a clear vision for the future. Bashar too continues to hold absolute rule despite the scattered battlefields across the country, authoritatively quashing rebel groups with brutal barrel bombs and leaving millions displaced or in flight from their homeland. Al-Baghdadi’s Islamic State has also risen as an effectual political and military model that wins citizens’support thanks to welfare services and public works projects, despite grave ideological differences within the group’s vision of a caliphate and fundamentalist fueled sharia law.

All three leaders also boast a clear grand strategy for what they perceive as the public’s interest. Putin’s vision of Russian exceptionalism, reiterated in his speeches to the people, now inspire a new wave of popular support throughout the country, and his actions in Crimea and the rest of Ukraine reflect a prototypically powerful Russia rising from the ashes of the USSR’s breakup in 1992. Pro-Russian rebel forces now control the majority of Eastern Ukraine –including the area where Malaysian Airlines MH-17 was allegedly shot down by opposition forces with Russian-supplied surface-to-air missiles–further illustrating their influence. In Bashar’s inaugural speech last week, he called for a greater focus on caring for the people of Syria, decrying attempts from the West to uproot existing order in the country and promising to protect the Syrian people against further bloodshed. While his declarations of victory of terrorism don’t ring true for Syrians in Aleppo still recovering from last week’s airstrike, his military and political capabilities will undoubtedly keep Syria safe from international threats and slowly but surely defeat the Free Syrian Army from within its borders. Al-Baghdadi’s comprehensive public works campaigns and acquisitions of oil and gas fields in both Syria and Iraq have won the support of citizens and business leaders alike who hope to cash in on the loot.

Yet, the widespread, intricate cronyism that ties the three together is the most damning evidence of all. Reports recently surfaced that the Islamic State may be selling Syria oil and gas through secret back channels, even though the Syrian government vowed to “eliminate” the extremist Sunni terrorist organization, which it considers a threat to Bashar’s presidency. Russia too has joined in on the action, providing the Syrian regime with weapons and jets to combat their civil war, seeing value in defending a vital economic and political ally in the Middle East.

Sustained growth by these three powers gravely threatens American political and economic interests; yet, the US has proposed ineffectual sanctions that, while crippling to Syria and Russia’s economy, have done little to nothing to ease tensions and render solutions. Putin hasn’t batted an eyelid: the creation of the $100 billion BRICS Development Bank poses a serious threat to both the US dollar and the influence of Western-based lending institutions like the World Bank and IMF. While a three-front war in the regions would be strategically challenging and politically impossible, more direct action must be taken in Iraq, Syria and Russia. While America’s presence in Iraq is growing, its purely advisory role lacks the necessary punch to rid Iraq of ISIS.

While war hawks and some leaders in the US want to sustain the country’s role as the international police force for conflict and corruption around the world, it is clear that a majority of Americans want to focus on domestic economic and political rehabilitation. Ultimately, the country may no longer be able to foot the bill, either economically or politically.

The views expressed by these authors do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post Authoritarianism: A Love Story appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.