Canada's War on Terror and the Freedom to Radicalize

[jacee]

That is complete hyperbole. Saying that he will target "all" protest is saying that he's about to bring real fascism to Canada. Conservatives wouldn't put up with it.

He already did.

.

[Michael Hardner]

He already did.

Come on, jacee. Let's be serious here.

[jacee]

Yes, let's be serious ...

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/08/07/court-approves-two-g20-class-action-lawsuits-alleging-mistreatment-by-toronto-police-during-2010-summit/

It is important to remember that the police cannot sweep up scores of people just in the hope that one of the persons captured is a person who they believe is engaged in criminal activity, Justice Ian Nordheimer wrote on behalf of the unanimous, three-member panel.In essence, in this case, we have a broad class of persons who were allegedly arbitrarily detained in each instance by the police through the use of a single sweeping order.More than 1,000 people were detained by police during the G20 summit in June 2010

[Michael Hardner]

You need to separate an everyday abuse from everyday living in society. Yes, McGuinty and Harper teamed up to temporarily supress rights, yes Trudeau did it during the October Crisis and yes those actions were not acceptable. It's not the same as saying we live in a fascist society, that's just hyperbole and not helpful to us when discussing proposed legislation.

After all, if they can do that already why should we even care about new laws ?

[GostHacked]

You need to separate an everyday abuse from everyday living in society. Yes, McGuinty and Harper teamed up to temporarily supress rights, yes Trudeau did it during the October Crisis and yes those actions were not acceptable.

But it was in a time of crisis Mike!

It's not the same as saying we live in a fascist society, that's just hyperbole and not helpful to us when discussing proposed legislation.

Your rights are one crisis away from being stripped and martial law put into place. Each time we have a crisis, the government goes into overreaction.

After all, if they can do that already why should we even care about new laws ?

IF the current laws are working as designed, why do they need new ones?

[Michael Hardner]

Your rights are one crisis away from being stripped and martial law put into place. Each time we have a crisis, the government goes into overreaction.

Sure. Now we agree. Can we discuss the bill next ?

IF the current laws are working as designed, why do they need new ones?

The idea that the current laws don't prevent abuse is a criticism of the legislation, not the view of the government.

[GostHacked]

Sure. Now we agree. Can we discuss the bill next ?

Some of us have been trying that in this and other threads. IN fact we've discussed several bills over the past two years (starting with the C-30 garbage which the SCC struck down) the government has been trying to ram through.

The idea that the current laws don't prevent abuse is a criticism of the legislation, not the view of the government.

The current laws have checks and balances in place. Each time the government proposes things like this, they look at getting rid of those checks and balances that respect the rights of Canadians and the charter. Really I think it's a ploy to marginalize the SCC as it seems to be the ONLY institution we have that is the last stop before these laws get put into place. Without the SCC the laws would have been in place a long time ago.

There is always abuse in the system. That does not mean the current system does not work, we just need people to actually adhere to the rules and laws they put forth for the rest of us. Accountability needs to happen, or you will have abuse no matter what laws are being considered.

[Michael Hardner]

Some of us have been trying that in this and other threads.

Ok, good.

The current laws have checks and balances in place.

We don't have civilian oversight of CSIS, though - is that right ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Anti-Terrorism_Act

The Canadian Anti-terrorism Act was passed by the Liberal government of Canada in response to the September 11, 2001, attacks in the United States. It received Royal Assent on December 18, 2001, as Bill C-36. The "omnibus" bill extended the powers of government and institutions within the Canadian security establishment to respond to the threat of terrorism. The expanded powers were highly controversial due to widely perceived incompatibility with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,[1] in particular for the Act's provisions allowing for 'secret' trials, preemptive detention and expansive security and surveillance powers.[2]

There is always abuse in the system. That does not mean the current system does not work, we just need people to actually adhere to the rules and laws they put forth for the rest of us. Accountability needs to happen, or you will have abuse no matter what laws are being considered.

The current laws seem just as bad to me.

[Argus]

It all depends on who they define as terrorists and what acts of terrorism are, what is "reasonable suspicion'.

Most people seem to find it fairly easy to determine what a terrorist act and a terrorist is.

At the Toronto G20, a lot of innocent people were jailed on vague 'suspicions' because of the way they dressed - a bandana around the neck & a backpack - or where they were - on the street.

That was simply a case of incompetent police leadership and thuggish police. We could solve such issues fairly easily by firing cops who get out of line. Bodycams should help with that.

[Argus]

We can trust that Harper will target all protest and police/CSIS will gleefully arrest dissenters.

.

Seems to me that your previous mention of police abuse of protesters came from the very politically correct and liberal government of Dalton McGuinty.

[Argus]

Yes, let's be serious ...

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/08/07/court-approves-two-g20-class-action-lawsuits-alleging-mistreatment-by-toronto-police-during-2010-summit/

It is important to remember that the police cannot sweep up scores of people just in the hope that one of the persons captured is a person who they believe is engaged in criminal activity, Justice Ian Nordheimer wrote on behalf of the unanimous, three-member panel.In essence, in this case, we have a broad class of persons who were allegedly arbitrarily detained in each instance by the police through the use of a single sweeping order.More than 1,000 people were detained by police during the G20 summit in June 2010

Damn those Liberals! They obviously don't believe in freedom!

[Argus]

You need to separate an everyday abuse from everyday living in society. Yes, McGuinty and Harper teamed up to temporarily supress rights,

There's no indication that Harper had anything to do with the abuse of police powers at the G20. The last federal abuse of police powers I'm aware of came from that 'fascist' Jean Chretien, who used the RCMP as his party enforcers.

[GostHacked]

We don't have civilian oversight of CSIS, though - is that right ?

It would be a good thing to have oversight. But how will that look? Who will do it? Can we expect a non-partisan approach to analyzing the proposed laws?

The current laws seem just as bad to me.

That current law you speak of is the response to 9/11 in the USA. Everything since then has built on top of it. Very similar to the USA with the PATRIOT ACT and then the National Defence Authorization Act. A little here a little there, a crisis pops up to help the agenda (never let a crisis go to waste).

The laws we had before should have been sufficient. So the laws you are viewing as bad are fairly recent laws. You think the new laws will make this better or worse? What has been the trend?

[Michael Hardner]

There's no indication that Harper had anything to do with the abuse of police powers at the G20.

Ok. Point taken.

[Michael Hardner]

It would be a good thing to have oversight. But how will that look? Who will do it? Can we expect a non-partisan approach to analyzing the proposed laws?

Your quote: "The current laws have checks and balances in place."

Before we continue, clear up some confusion for me: do you now agree that we don't have checks and balances to some degree ?

The laws we had before should have been sufficient. So the laws you are viewing as bad are fairly recent laws. You think the new laws will make this better or worse? What has been the trend?

I think once we agree on my other point, we'll agree on the next one.

[GostHacked]

There's no indication that Harper had anything to do with the abuse of police powers at the G20. The last federal abuse of police powers I'm aware of came from that 'fascist' Jean Chretien, who used the RCMP as his party enforcers.

Right it was the Toronto Police services. The powers that the police were suposedly given were never given in the first place. Something is so messed up with that. The reporting was that the police had these new powers to detain and restrict movement within certain parts of the city. Only to find out later, none of those powers were granted. So what can a person make of the ketteling incident a day after the real problem of trashing cop cars and breaking shop windows? The police had the chance to stop the cars from being trashes.

We even had people on this board being apologists for the actions of the police.

So eventhough I am a Canadian citizen, foreign dignitaries have more rights than I do as they can hold a nice conference and restrict my movement through the city which normally I would have open access.

One set of rules for them, another for us. That seems to be clear enough for me.

[GostHacked]

Your quote: "The current laws have checks and balances in place."

Before we continue, clear up some confusion for me: do you now agree that we don't have checks and balances to some degree ?

That's part of the issue, how do we really know what checks and balances are effective? Even if they are in place, are they being used? Goes back to my issue with the language being used (legalese mumbo jumbo) and how laws can be interpreted. A law should never need interpreting.

[Michael Hardner]

That's part of the issue, how do we really know what checks and balances are effective? Even if they are in place, are they being used? Goes back to my issue with the language being used (legalese mumbo jumbo) and how laws can be interpreted. A law should never need interpreting.

That being said, do you think the existing legislation is good enough ?

[GostHacked]

That being said, do you think the existing legislation is good enough ?

That depends if the legislation is easily understood. If there is no clarity, then what good is it?

[Michael Hardner]

That depends if the legislation is easily understood. If there is no clarity, then what good is it?

The existing legislation is good enough if it's easily understood ? Ok. You seemed to say it was good enough above, so ... it's easily understood I guess.

[Michael Hardner]

Existing legislation is excerpted below. I'm quoting a lot of the CBC story, because it may be archived soon.

http://www.cbc.ca/news2/background/cdnsecurity/

In the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the U.S., the federal government created Canada's first anti-terrorism legislation defining what terrorism is and making it a punishable offence within Canada's Criminal Code. The Anti-terrorism Act (Bills C-36 and C-42), was the subject of heated debate and controversy as the Liberal government of the time fast-tracked it through the House of Commons and the Liberal-dominated Senate.

The act became part of the Criminal Code on Dec. 18, 2001. The changes to the code are "aimed at disabling and dismantling the activities of terrorists groups and those who support them."

As it was being drafted politicians and protesters raised concerns that the legislation as proposed trampled on civil liberties because it gave police sweeping new powers, including the ability to arrest people and hold them without charge for up to 72 hours if they are suspected of planning a terrorist act.

The Liberals used their majority to pass a motion to curtail debate, and rejected all of the remaining opposition amendments. The motion passed easily in the House of Commons with a vote of 190 in favour and 47 against.

However, in a nod to civil libertarians, the bill contained a five-year sunset clause on some of its more controversial elements and it is the proposal to extend these provisions that has provoked enormous controversy in Parliament in recent weeks.

The Conservative government has tried to paint the Liberals as hypocritical and weak on terrorism for refusing to extend two provisions in particular. Because both the NDP and the Bloc Québécois are also against an extension, Liberal support is necessary if these elements of the act are to continue.

What's at stake

Of the two clauses that are at the heart of the debate, one allows police to arrest suspects without a warrant and detain them for three days without charges if police believe a terrorist act may be committed.

The other would allow a judge to compel a witness to testify in secret about past associations or perhaps pending acts under penalty of going to jail if the witness doesn't comply.

Neither clause has been used by police or prosecutors in the five years the act has been enforced but, in October, a parliamentary committee recommended extending the two provisions for another five years.

As well, Prime Minister Stephen Harper caused a partisan stir last week when, reading from a news report, he said a relative of a Liberal MP was on a secret list to be questioned by authorities in their reinvestigation of the Air India tragedy and implied this was the reason the Liberals were switching sides.

In the Commons this week, deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff explained his party's change of position, arguing that the curtailment of civil liberties can only be justified under emergency provisions and when public safety absolutely requires it.

"If this is the test," he said, "the clauses should sunset because they have not proven absolutely necessary to public safety. The government, in essence, has not proven its case and on these questions where our liberties are at stake the government has to prove the case of public necessity beyond a shadow of a doubt."

Motive and history

When the bills were passed, the Liberal justice minister at the time, Anne McLellan, said the provisions had three main objectives: To suppress existing terrorist groups, provide police with new investigative tools, and toughen prison sentences for terrorists.

The bills also contained provisions to comply with new UN rules on combating terrorism as well as with similar laws that were being put in place in the U.S. and Britain.

"We believe that people everywhere are entitled to live in peace and security," McLellan said.

Former justice minister Vic Toews

In June 2006, then Conservative justice minister Vic Toews said the government had no plans to toughen the Anti-terrorism Act after the arrest of 17 people in Toronto suspected of planning a bombing campaign. However, he said, it may consider changing the law's definition of terrorism, which is called the motive clause.

This clause defines a terrorist act as one committed "for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause." Toews said there are two problems with that definition: it could lead to profiling of people of a particular religion, Islam especially, and it could be difficult for prosecutors to provide evidence of a suspect's personal beliefs.

On Oct. 24, 2006, a Superior Court judge struck down the motive clause, saying it violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The judge was working on the case of Mohammed Mormin Khawaja, the first person charged under the new anti-terror provisions.

Khawaja, a software developer, was arrested on March 29, 2004, and faces seven criminal charges alleging that he participated in and gave assistance to an alleged British terrorist organization.

Although the judge struck down part of the law used to arrest Khawaja, he said his trial on the charges could go on.

Highlights of the Anti-terrorism Act:

• It gives the police wide, sweeping powers to act on suspected acts of terrorism.
• It allows suspected terrorists to be detained without charge for up to three days.
• It makes it easier for the police to use electronic surveillance, which used to be seen as a last resort.
• It allows for preventive arrests.
• It allows judges to compel witnesses to give evidence during an investigation.
• It allows for the designation of a group as a terrorist organization.

The legislation makes it a crime to:

• Knowingly collect or provide funds, either directly or indirectly, in order to carry out terrorist crimes. Using this definition, the Crown must prove that the accused collected, provided or made available funds that he or she knew would be used to help a terrorist group. Canadian courts would be given the jurisdiction to try this offence even if it were committed outside Canada, when the accused is found in Canada. The maximum sentence for this offence would be 10 years.
• Knowingly participate in, contribute to or facilitate the activities of a terrorist group. The participation or contribution itself does not have to be a criminal offence and would include knowingly recruiting into the group new individuals for the purpose of enhancing the ability of the terrorist group to aid, abet or commit indictable offences. The maximum sentence for the offence of participating or contributing would be 10 years imprisonment. The maximum sentence for facilitating would be 14 years imprisonment.
• Instruct anyone to carry out a terrorist act or an activity on behalf of a terrorist group (a "leadership" offence). This offence carries a maximum life sentence.
• Knowingly harbour or conceal a terrorist. The maximum sentence for this offence would be 10 years.

In addition to the changes to the Criminal Code, the anti-terrorism legislation makes changes to:

The Official Secrets Act - renamed to the Security of Information Act it creates new offences against threats of espionage by foreign powers and terrorist groups and allows ministers to declare certain actions secret.

The Canada Evidence Act - amended to include changes to courtroom and other proceedings to protect classified information.

The National Defence Act - amended to clarify the mandate of the Communications Security Establishment to intercept communication of foreign targets and undertake security checks of government computer networks to protect them from terrorist activity.

[jacee]

You need to separate an everyday abuse from everyday living in society. Yes, McGuinty and Harper teamed up to temporarily supress rights, yes Trudeau did it during the October Crisis and yes those actions were not acceptable. It's not the same as saying we live in a fascist society, that's just hyperbole and not helpful to us when discussing proposed legislation.

"He already did" ... target all protests.

I didn't say fascism, you did.

After all, if they can do that already why should we even care about new laws ?

It wasn't legal for them to arrest all those people. Lawsuits are ongoing.

Now it'll be easier for them to target protesters ... legally.

Incremental fascism perhaps?

.

[Michael Hardner]

"He already did" ... target all protests.

Ok, then. We still have the right to protest in this country.

Now it'll be easier for them to target protesters ... legally.

Incremental fascism perhaps?

.

People said that before. I don't think they're doing this to stop protests, although yes it would be easier for them to do that.

I think that the legal system is just breaking down....

[jacee]

Ok, then. We still have the right to protest in this country.

Over 1000 people didn't that day.

People said that before. I don't think they're doing this to stop protests, although yes it would be easier for them to do that.

I think that the legal system is just breaking down....

You do understand that Harper, CSIS and the RCMP consider environmentalists, Indigenous Peoples and anarchists to be potential "terrorists", along with Muslims.

Any protestors can easily be 'suspected' of planning to maybe commit a terrorist act.

Hell, at the g20 acting students on the way to rehearsal carrying props were detained.

A bandana around the neck was suspicious.

Being near Queen & Spadina got you 4 hours of peeing in your pants in the rain.

Do you think Harper is sorry for any of that?

I don't.

.

[Michael Hardner]

Over 1000 people didn't that day.

Of course that's true. As has been pointed out, McGuinty made that possible. The lesson to be learned, I think, is that we're not 100% free. But what does it mean with regards to these proposals ?

You do understand that Harper, CSIS and the RCMP consider environmentalists, Indigenous Peoples and anarchists to be potential "terrorists", along with Muslims.

Any protestors can easily be 'suspected' of planning to maybe commit a terrorist act.

Hell, at the g20 acting students on the way to rehearsal carrying props were detained.

A bandana around the neck was suspicious.

Being near Queen & Spadina got you 4 hours of peeing in your pants in the rain.

Do you think Harper is sorry for any of that?

I don't.

.

Nor do I. But I think we have seen that they can do that any time they want. I also think they will use such legislation to do more of it. And to investigate and prevent terrorism too.

Now what ?