When good people start surrendering civil rights and freedoms to fear of terrorist attacks then the terrorists gain an upper hand without ever lifting a finger.

Parliament voted Tuesday to allow the two controversial clauses in the Anti-Terror legislation rushed into law in 2001 following 9/11 to expire as of last night. The two clauses allowed for preventive arrest if a suspect was believed to be involved in an imminent terrorist act and investigative hearings which can compel individuals to testify about information they may have about terrorist activity.

The two clauses were controversial when the then Liberal government rushed the bill into law. The country, the world actually, was in shock at the scope and scale of the 9/11 attacks and governments were rushing to restore calm and a sense of security. The two clauses allow for suspension of civil liberties provided for under the Charter while at the same time the Act uses a very broad ranging definition of terrorism. Debate at the time was fierce within the Liberal caucus leading to the inclusion of a sunset clause in five years time. The two clauses have never been used.

Debate over the government’s motion to renew the clauses was acrimonious, to say the least, this time round. The NDP and Bloc Quebecois were solidly opposed to the motion while once again considerable debate took place within the Liberal caucus. Eventually, Stephane Dion, Liberal leader imposed party discipline and declared that the vote would be against the government’s motion.

While Dion views the decision to oppose the motion as a principled stand in defense of human rights, Harper and his band of thugs errr…. the government called the Liberal decision a flip-flop, accused them of being soft on terrorism, imply that their opposition was to protect a Liberal MPs father-in-law from being called to an investigative hearing into the Air India crash and even went so far as to accuse the Liberals of making back room deals with ethnic groups to squash the clauses in order to gain Liberal support.

After the Liberals got past their howls of outrage over the drive by smears they pointed out that government has failed to do its homework. The government has had in its possession for at least five months a report of a parliamentary committee calling for reforms to the Anti-Terrorist Act and have done nothing, preferring in their usual black and white manner, to put the motion forward with an all or nothing attitude.

An Ontario court recently struck down a key measure of the Act when it said that Parliament will have to rethink the definition of terrorism. The law says terrorist acts are motivated by politics and other beliefs that are protected by the Charter of Rights. Some Conservatives have been honest enough to express discomfort with the definition of terrorism. That to a large degree is the issue with the two clauses giving law enforcement such extraordinary powers within the framework of such a broadranging definition of what a terrorist is.

In a last ditch attempt to win the motion on an emotional basis rather than reasoned argument or consensus building the government trotted out family of some of the 9/11 victims. Ms Basnicki, left a widow in the attacks appealed for the extension on the basis that she’s often thought had the US had the powers of preventative arrest or investigative hearings that the attacks might have been thwarted. She said that she was already a victim of terrorism and didn’t want to be a victim of politics.

Well, Ms Basnicki, if you didn’t want to be a victim of politics you shouldn’t have let the Harper crew manipulate you. The fact is that the US government failed to act on the intelligence (what a oxymoron reference) they had and that is why 9/11 wasn’t thwarted. Police and security agencies claim they have foiled at least a dozen plots since 9/11 and have not had to use those clauses.

Joseph over at Canada’s Debate puts the family’s involvement into perspective:

A victim should have a voice when discussing justice, and when applicable restitution. But in my experience personal tragedy by itself imparts no particular knowledge or expertise.

The New York Times provided a voice not reported in the Canadian national media, Amnesty International who along with other human rights groups had been urging the government to allow the provisions to expire arguing that other criminal laws can fight terrorism.

After the vote, Alex Neve, Amnesty International’s Canadian secretary general, said: “This by no means should be interpreted or misunderstood that Canada is somehow going soft on terrorism. What I think this is an affirmation of is that Canada is increasingly concerned that its approach to terrorism is fully grounded in respect to fundamental human rights.”

Terrorists can rob of us our fundamental human rights, if we allow them to through laws which do their work for them.

An eleven year old girl, Asmahan Mansour from Ottawa, was ejected from a soccer tournament in Quebec last weekend because she refused to remove her hijab (a head scarf worn by devout Muslim females). The ejection prompted her team and four others to pull out of the tournament and prompted a storm of controversy. It was her team mates who made the decision to follow their team mate and friend off the field when she was ejected.

Reasonable accommodation of ethnic minorities in the province has been a hot button issue there for seveal months. According to her mother, who is Italian heritage and doesn’t wear the hijab, her daughter chose to wear the hijab when she was 9 years old. Her father is Lebanese. In an interview on Canada AM her mother said that the youngster announced her decision to wear the hijab to her parents on her own and they were very proud of her.

The Quebec Soccer Federation maintains that they are simply enforcing FIFA’s (an international governing body) rules. An official at FIFA said that non-standard equipment is allowed as long as it isn’t dangerours and that there is no specific rule against headgear being worn. The Quebec Federation claims that she could strangle herself with the scarf and it is dangerous. Meanwhile teams regularly play in other provinces with girls wearing hijabs without incident. Mansour tucks her scarf into her uniform shirt when playing.

The youngster has played in tournaments in Ontario and two previous games at the Lavel tournament before the referee in the third game ordered her to remove the hijab. The Federation seems to feel that because the referee is Muslim that doesn’t make the ruling discriminatory. The youngster was not told at the time of registering for any of her games that the hijab was not allowed.

The tournament organizer placed the blame for allowing her play in the first two games on the refs. Which begs the question, if the rule about the hijab being worn is clear, why was she not told at registration and not subjected to being centered out in front of the crowd by being ejected by the ref?

One of the wonderful things about covert racism is the ability to claim “we’re just following the rules” to justify the discrimination. It is very clear in looking at this story that the ability to be flexible and allow the hijab are present in FIFAs rules that the Quebec Federation could and should show the tolerance that their governing body has shown. There are soccer teams in Muslim countries on which women wear their hijabs. I haven’t heard of any of them being killed on the soccer field.

A Bengali in TO maintains that Quebec is the most racist province in Canada, even more so than redneck Alberta. He also comments:

The right of a woman to wear the hijab is non-negotiable. It is a shame that while Canada fights in Afghanistan to “free” women so they can wear what they want, that right is stripped away at home. What is it with the French and the hijab?

Comments at The Offside include:

How a head scarf could be a danger to anyone is beyond me. I guess in theory a players hand might get caught in it and that could somehow lead to an injury. I guess. But if player safety is really the issue here than rules should be made to make the ball less dangerous for one’s head, the ground softer to fall on and there should be absolutely no contact allowed between players.

On the flipside Rob on his MySpace blog posted:

I have huge problems with the fact this is even news! This isn’t important, this isn’t life altering, this is someone who doesn’t like the rules complaining. I remember when I was younger and playing sports with sports glasses on (I couldn’t wear contacts at the time). Before every game, I had to get approval from the ref to be able to compete with them on. Some gave their approval, others didn’t and when that happened, I took them off and played with everything very blurry, but I still played by the rules.

dd