 
Bristow allegation exposes danger of unfettered snoops
by A. Alan Borovoy
In view of the stories triggered by allegations that the white racist Heritage Front was created largely by Grant Bristow, reportedly a secret informant paid by CSIS, Canada's national security agency, the public needs assurance that appropriate action will finally be taken. After all, this is not the first scandal concerning a CSIS informant. In the late 1980s, for example, a CSIS informant was involved in planting bombs during a Quebec labour dispute. Thus, it is important for federal solicitor general Herb Gray to ensure that the current probe into CSIS is sufficiently comprehensive. The probe should begin by asking exactly who were the targets of the informant's snooping and why were they. A white racist ideology, by itself, cannot justify such clandestine infiltration. Was there evidence that the targets were likely to be involved in violence threatening to Canada's national security? (Violence on a smaller scale is properly left to the local police.) In the event of a finding that Bristow did indeed help to create the Heritage Front, the probe must examine what his CSIS handlers knew of his activity and when they knew it. Perhaps an even more pertinent question is what should his handlers have known. Security intelligence operatives are often tempted to ignore the possible misconduct of their informants. If the agency is getting valuable information, it might prefer to overlook the informant's methods. Thus, the probe must ask whether Bristow's activities were wilfully ignored. There is also an allegation that Bristow instigated harassment campaigns against certain anti-racists. In the words of a defector from the Heritage Front, the idea was to make the lives of these anti-racists "miserable ... 24 hours a day". To what extent, if at all, did these campaigns involve illegality? If they did, should the informant be prosecuted? If not, why not? Was he ever advised about the matters that influence prosecutorial discretion? What indeed is the CSIS policy on reporting such cases to the law enforcement authorities? If there is no such policy, it is time the solicitor general promulgated one and publicly disclosed its contents. Did CSIS indeed report to a former solicitor general about the CBC investigation into possible racist infiltration of the armed services? If so, how could CSIS justify this potential threat to investigative journalism? Did Bristow indeed spy on the Reform Party and the Canadian Jewish Congress? If so, what was the justification for intruding on legitimate politicking and lobbying and how did the information he acquired benefit either the white racists or CSIS? Moreover, what did the former solicitor general learn about this informant's behaviour and what did he do about it? Apart from professional undercover agents, informants have often been unsavoury people. The would-be assassin of former U.S. President, Gerald Ford, for example, was an informant for the FBI. Thus it has long been feared, in some circles, that secret informants could damage the very democratic institutions they were supposed to protect. Indeed, during the 1990 review of the CSIS Act, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) especially criticized the statute's failure "to regulate the behaviour of informants ... ". CCLA warned that "human spies" represent "too great a danger" to ignore in this way. To whatever extent the allegations here are verified, these words will appear prophetic. Almost by himself, a publicly-subsidized informant might have strengthened racist politics, threatened investigative journalism, and undermined legitimate politicking and lobbying. That's why solicitor general Herb Gray must insist that the current probe comprehensively address the role of informants and make recommendations as to the action that needs to be taken. This issue has been neglected far too long.
| CCLA In The Schools | Join Us | Feedback | Search | Other Interesting Sites | Home |
|