On 30 January 2015, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced his new “anti-terrorism” bill (C-51), which he claims will keep Canadians safe. The omnibus bill seeks to make sweeping changes to Canadian law, including: extending unprecedented powers to the secretive Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) “to disrupt” activities, lowering the threshold for detaining terror suspects, increasing sharing of private information about Canadians, and criminalizing the speech of anyone who “advocates or promotes” terrorism. On this last point, advocacy and promotion of terrorism are not defined in the legislation so it’s anyone’s guess which speech might be criminalized. What we do know, however, is that the Conservatives have previously labelled Canadians actively advocating for the environment and opposing oil and gas pipeline construction as “eco-terrorists”. So it seems this law could cast a disturbingly wide net; for example, it’s conceivable that an activist advocating direct action to protect the environment could be thrown in jail for five years under C-51.
Moreover, extending to CSIS the legal mandate to engage in disruptive activities represents a potentially serious rejection of the conclusions of the McDonald Commission of Inquiry into Certain Activities of the RCMP. The Royal Commission was set up in 1977 to investigate systematic illegal activities carried out by the RCMP, including break-ins, arson and theft, and it recommended in 1981 that the RCMP’s national security functions be separated into a new civilian agency in order to break the vicious cycle of illegality. Hence the birth of CSIS in 1984, and its mandate to collect intelligence and alert police when security threats arise. By giving CSIS itself the power to undertake disruptive activities, though, the Conservatives are essentially recreating the situation that the McDonald Commission and subsequent legislation sought to change.
The bill does all the above without improving oversight mechanisms to ensure CSIS and other security agencies do not abuse their powers. (Indeed, the existing mechanism—the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC)—is suffering a serious crisis of credibility after its Harper-appointed chair, Arthur Porter (pictured above right), was charged with fraud and money laundering as part of a bribery scandal connected to the construction of a new Montreal super-hospital.)
Despite the profound changes contained in Bill C-51, Harper was not in Parliament when the new bill was introduced to face the Members of Parliament who ostensibly represent Canadians; apparently, he thought it was more appropriate to be making a speech in Richmond Hill, just outside of Toronto.
It didn’t take long, however, for major news outlets in Canada to heavily criticize the proposed legislation. Here’s a sample.
The Globe and Mail editorial board: Parliament should reject the bill
Prime Minister Stephen Harper never tires of telling Canadians that we are at war with the Islamic State. Under the cloud of fear produced by his repeated hyperbole about the scope and nature of the threat, he now wants to turn our domestic spy agency into something that looks disturbingly like a secret police force. Canadians should not be willing to accept such an obvious threat to their basic liberties. Our existing laws and our society are strong enough to stand up to the threat of terrorism without compromising our values.
Ottawa Citizen editorial board: The bill is appalling for many reasons
There are many reasons to be appalled by the haphazard, overbearing and ill-defined provisions criminalizing the general promotion of terrorism that were presented by the federal Conservative government on Friday, but worst of all is the potential they have to actually increase the likelihood of radicalization and terrorism in Canada.
So let’s say the police determine that a young man with a poisoned mind posts a questionable YouTube video. Some antidotes might be community, parental or religious intervention in an effort to present a better path. A good way to further poison that mind, though, might be a short stint in a federal correctional system that has seen, under this government, a drastic reduction in rehabilitation programs and resources. Worse, jails in Canada and around the world have become breeding grounds for radical jihadis, with experts here pointing out that the Correctional Service of Canada doesn’t have appropriate resources to deal with these unique offenders. What prisons do provide, though, is easy access to people who’ve actually tried to carry out terrorists acts.
National Post editorial board: No reason to further police speech and greater oversight of intelligence agencies is needed
When it comes to provisions banning “promoting” and “advocating” terrorism, furthermore, the threat to civil liberties may well not be minor. Neither term is defined. Where such laws exist, they tend to be abused. In 2001, France prosecuted a cartoonist (ironically enough) for a depiction of the 9/11 attacks with the caption, “We all dreamed it … Hamas did it.” As part of a massive recent speech crackdown, French comedian Dieudonné was arrested for saying he “felt like Charlie Coulibaly” — a cryptic reference to Charlie Hebdo and Amedy Coulibaly, the kosher supermarket attacker.
Such statements will offend many, but they fall miles short of incitement to violence, which is the proper threshold at which law-enforcement ought to concern itself with people’s freedom of speech. Needless to say, counselling someone to commit terrorism is already a criminal offence in Canada. There seems little justification to go any further than that, and little reason to trust that prosecutions in this country will not go too far as well. Once the horse is out of the barn, it’s awfully difficult to corral — especially without proper democratic oversight.”
Toronto Star editorial board: We should not surrender our cherished freedoms; opposition MPs need to fight this
The sheer level of public concern that Ottawa may not be getting the balance right between security and civil rights argues for a higher, more sophisticated level of scrutiny than this government is disposed to consider.
Rather than limply wave these new measures through the Commons for fear of looking “soft” in an election year, the New Democrats and Liberals should press vigorously for the creation of a panel of MPs and senators from across party lines to vet Canada’s security laws and the operations not only of our spy agencies but also of the military, police and other agencies, as the Starhas urged before.
Even the Toronto Sun editorial board was critical and called for changes to the bill
A no-fly list should be reserved for the worst of the lot. Not something used arbitrarily.
A big concern is freedom of speech. George Orwell noted free speech is meaningless unless it includes the freedom to say things others hate.
Clean up this language so it’s clear that this is about going after people urging or planning attacks, not just despicable losers tweeting thumbs up to the Islamic State.
Source: allthecanadianpolitics.tumblr.com/
Author:
No comments:
Post a Comment