Scrutinizing
do-gooders
>> U.S. social justice fundraiser Kim Klein on how law enforcement is suspicious of charities

by EVE KRAKOW

Under the anti-terrorism laws passed in Canada and the U.S., many non-profit groups carrying out legitimate activities could be seen as collaborating with terrorists, social activists fear. In the name of national security, charities and social change organizations are facing heightened scrutiny and surveillance from law enforcement agencies.

Kim Klein is an American fundraising trainer and consultant who has been working with social justice groups for 25 years. As part of an event organized by Concordia's Institute in Management and Community Development, she was in Montreal this week to talk about the effects of anti-terrorism legislation on non-profit groups in North America.

Mirror: What is it about the anti-terrorism laws passed in the U.S. and Canada that non-profit groups are or should be concerned with?
Kim Klein: Non-profit organizations are named in the U.S. Patriot Act and in Bill C-36 [Canada's Anti-Terrorism Act] in three ways: groups that are fronts for terrorist groups, groups that are collaborating with terrorist groups, and groups that inadvertently facilitate terrorist activities-which is rather problematic. For example, a homeless shelter that provides services to someone who is later accused of being a terrorist could be accused of collaborating.

The main problem is that "domestic terrorism," the new crime that has been created by these acts, is an enormously broad and ill-defined concept. Groups like CUSO and CIDA [that do international development and humanitarian aid work] could easily be collaborating-sometimes deliberately, in the sense of cooperating with people who may belong to revolutionary groups. But that's their only choice. In these villages and communities, they have to work with who they can.

M: What other types of non-profit groups are likely to be affected by this legislation?

KK: Groups that work with immigrants or on immigration rights; groups doing any kind of civil liberties work, particularly those trying to protect people of Middle-Eastern descent; and most recently, groups doing environmental work. In the U.S., Congress just passed a law that exempts the military from environmental regulations. A number of groups are challenging this law, and are thereby exposing themselves to government scrutiny.

Being green is unpatriotic

M: But how do environmental causes fit in with the anti-terrorism legislation?
KK: It has to do with the whole war on terrorism. The U.S. is saying we need to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska because we need to have more domestic production of oil and not rely on the Middle East. With the new, sweeping power of the Patriot Act, an environmental group opposing such drilling could be accused of collaborating with terrorism. And because there is no procedural safeguard, the group could be shut down, and then have no recourse.

That's the real problem: the constitutional safeguards that normally protect citizens are being overridden. We've seen this happen before. We saw it in World War II when 120,000 Japanese were interned, we saw it in the McCarthy years.

M: Given these experiences, do you think we've learned anything from the past?

KK: I hope so. I saw this wonderful quote from Milan Kundera that says, "The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting." One of our jobs is to remember that this has happened before and make sure it doesn't happen again.People are so nervous-and rightly so-that we will be attacked again. But I just want to say to people, "Do not give up your civil liberties in order to feel safer." That doesn't make you safer.

M: You mentioned that six Muslim charities have been shut down in the U.S. How else do you think this war on terrorism will affect non-profit organizations?

KK: I think a lot of groups are going to be put under surveillance-their phones are going to be tapped, their computers are going to be hacked into. That's already happened to a few groups, who have reported break-ins that seemed not so much robberies as efforts to steal information.One Canadian I talked to thinks these laws will be used more by foreign governments against humanitarian groups that come from Canada. A foreign government may say, "Look at who this group is working with, you have to do something." So that may be where the problem comes, and not so much from our own government.