Anti-Terror Clauses Ride Off Into Sunset
| 2/28/2007 | Posted by Patti under General |
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.â€
Terrorists can rob of us our fundamental human rights, if we allow them to through laws which do their work for them.
Follow Me!