Mutiny Brewing on the Good Ship Liberal

[southerncomfort]

Can Dion hold tight to the reigns, can he steer the good ship Liberal before she runs aground LOL

OTTAWA - A spokesman for Liberal leader Stephane Dion said yesterday the party will "absolutely not" revisit its opposition to extending two controversial provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act despite a potential mutiny that appeared to be shaping up among Liberal MPs.

Spokesman Andre Fortin made the statement amid growing opposition within Liberal ranks, where some see one of the measures as vital to an RCMP probe into the 1985 Air India bombing. Among Liberal MPs citing the Air India case are justice critic Marlene Jennings, Stephen Owen, Keith Martin and Don Bell.

Toronto MP Roy Cullen said he is trying to persuade 30 colleagues to break ranks and side with the government to extend the measures, which allow "preventive arrests" and "investigative hearings." more here OTTAWA - A spokesman for Liberal leader Stephane Dion said yesterday the party will "absolutely not" revisit its opposition to extending two controversial provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act despite a potential mutiny that appeared to be shaping up among Liberal MPs.

Spokesman Andre Fortin made the statement amid growing opposition within Liberal ranks, where some see one of the measures as vital to an RCMP probe into the 1985 Air India bombing. Among Liberal MPs citing the Air India case are justice critic Marlene Jennings, Stephen Owen, Keith Martin and Don Bell.

Toronto MP Roy Cullen said he is trying to persuade 30 colleagues to break ranks and side with the government to extend the measures, which allow "preventive arrests" and "investigative hearings."

[geoffrey]

The anti-terror measures are all completely reasonable, this isn't like the Patriot Act. Your in front of a judge within 24 hours, no years without a trial or anything like that. If the police can't stop someone from walking into a building and blowing it up because the law prevents it, we've got serious trouble.

Dion is making a MASSIVE mistake here, and if enough Liberals decide to vote against the party line, we'll see even more questions about Dion's failure to grab control of the party.

It's rather clear to me that Dion has absolutely no leadership ability, poor decision making ability and is from a very radical leftist wing of the party.

[hiti]

Anyone ever hear of MPs allowed free speech, MPs allowed free votes? This concept is not a reflection of poor leadership. Rather "real" leaders are not afraid of difference of opinions.

[geoffrey]

Anyone ever hear of MPs allowed free speech, MPs allowed free votes? This concept is not a reflection of poor leadership. Rather "real" leaders are not afraid of difference of opinions.

Actually, when the party has no real values (due to division) and the leader can't get their agenda to be followed (Senate terms in the Senate), Dion has some major issues.

[jdobbin]

I'm sure this will all be sorted out in next week's caucus meeting.

At the moment, I don't know where I stand on the law. I'd like to see more of the case for and against.

[Catchme]

Anyone ever hear of MPs allowed free speech, MPs allowed free votes? This concept is not a reflection of poor leadership. Rather "real" leaders are not afraid of difference of opinions.

Exactly Hiti, unlike Harper, the CPC and their supporters.

Dion, made the correct move with this one, PQ will line up solidly behind him on this, and he will have the support of the Bloq and the NDP as well on it, without a doubt.

Sounds like the neo-con branch of the Liberals is acting up.

This is the 2 points in question:

two of the Criminal Code provisions enacted by the ATA, the investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions (know as the preventive arrest provision) powers are scheduled to sunset in early 2007.

Here is a description of them:

INVESTIGATIVE HEARINGS

Section 83.28 of the Criminal Code, also contained in section 4 of the Anti-terrorism Act, deals with investigative hearings. Under this provision, a peace officer, with the prior consent of the Attorney General, can apply to a superior court or a provincial court judge for an order for the gathering of information. If it is granted, the order compels a person to attend a hearing before a judge, answer questions, and bring along anything in their possession.

Any person ordered to attend such a hearing is entitled to retain and instruct counsel. A person attending is required to answer questions, but may refuse to do so, on the basis of law relating to disclosure or privilege. The presiding judge is to rule on any such refusal. No one attending at such a hearing can refuse to answer a question or to produce a thing on the grounds of self-incrimination. As well, any information or testimony obtained during an investigative hearing cannot be used directly or indirectly in subsequent proceedings except in relation to a prosecution for perjury or providing subsequent contradictory evidence.

Section 83.31(1) of the Criminal Code requires the responsible federal and provincial ministers to publish annual reports on the usage of these provisions. There have so far been no reported uses of investigative hearings. In June 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada in two companion cases related to the Air India trial in Vancouver constitutionally upheld this provision. The investigative hearing in relation to this trial was ordered but not held because the Air India trial was over by the time the Supreme Court of Canada had issued its rulings.

RECOGNIZANCE WITH CONDITIONS (PREVENTIVE ARREST)

Section 83.3 of the Criminal Code, contained in section 4 of the Anti-terrorism Act, deals with recognizance with conditions. With the prior consent of the Attorney General, a peace officer, believing that a terrorist act will be carried out and suspecting that the imposition of a recognizance with conditions or the arrest of a person is required to prevent it, may lay an information before a provincial court judge. That judge may order that person to appear before him or her. A peace officer may arrest without warrant the person who is the object of the information if such apprehension is necessary to prevent the commission of a terrorist activity.

Such a detained person must be brought before a provincial court judge within 24 hours, or as soon as possible thereafter. At that time, a “show cause” hearing must be held to determine if the person should be released or detained for a further period of time. This hearing itself can only be adjourned for a further 48 hours.

If the judge determines there is no need for the person to enter into a recognizance, the person is to be released. If it is determined the person should enter into a recognizance, the person is bound to keep the peace and respect other conditions for up to 12 months, and to not be in possession of a weapon. If the person refuses to enter into such a recognizance, the judge can order that person to be imprisoned for up to 12 months.

Section 83.31(2) and (3) of the Criminal Code require the responsible federal and provincial ministers to publish annual reports on the usage of these provisions. There have so far been no reported uses of them.

Gov Site on committee reports on sunset clauses

Sweet, so we could have Police officers, arresting people without a warrant and then taking them before the very same judges that they have chosen themselves!

[Catchme]

Here is the BCCLA's take on those 2 clauses that are sunsetting.

.

and the other

Preventative arrestThe investigative hearing

The Bill introduces into the Criminal Code an “investigative hearing,” where a person can be compelled to give oral evidence and produce documentation for the purpose of assisting a peace officer in the investigation of terrorist activity or potential terrorist activity. Refusal to give this evidence could result in a finding of contempt of court and imprisonment. While there are some similar proceedings in the regulatory sphere, this is a novel provision for the Criminal Code. It is not clear that any of those provisions would survive Charter challenge.

This provision is a severe transgression of the principle that individuals, as autonomous agents, are free to give or withhold their own evidence. While the investigation and prevention of large-scale terrorist acts may justify this extraordinary measure, this challenge to the legal right to remain silent in the presence of the state should not, without justification, become a fixture of our legal culture

The Bill introduces into the Criminal Code the power of preventative arrest and subsequent release on conditions where there are reasonable grounds that aterrorist activity will be carried out, and there is a

reasonable suspicion the arrest of the person or their release on conditions is necessary to prevent the

carrying out of the terrorist activity.

The arrest may take place without warrant. The person must be brought before a provincial court judge within 24 hours or as soon as possible thereafter. The person can only be further detained for an additional 48 hours (unless they are charged with an offence). If the criteria described above are met, the person shall be released on a recognizance with conditions for up to one year. If the criteria are not met, the person must be released unconditionally. Refusal to sign the recognizance can result in custody for up to one year.

The Department of Justice has admitted that the threshold for arrest under this section is lower then those provisions currently contained in the Criminal Code, which requires reasonable grounds that the person has committed or is about to commit an indictable offence.

It is unclear why the lower threshold contained in the Bill is necessary. Again, if this lower threshold for

short-term detention and subsequent release on conditions is justified in times of crisis, it should not

remain in our legal culture longer than is necessary.

This was their conclusion:

Summary of BCCLA’s submission to the House of Commons

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

ON OCTOBER 30, 2001, BCCLA Vice President John Russell and Policy Director Garth Barriere appeared

before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, along with Quebec

counterpart organization Ligue des droits et libertes, and the Quebec human rights commission, Commission

des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse.

The BCCLA urged the Committee to carefully review this legislation and propose amendments to the House

which address some of the more problematic provisions. Mr. Russell noted that this must be the beginning

and not the end of the debate on balancing security and civil liberties.

We also urged that the Committee accept as a guiding principle in this context that restrictions to basic rights

and freedoms in a free and democratic society are justified only if they are necessary to secure and restore those same rights and freedoms. Any retreat from this principle signals a retreat from what we have accomplished as a society; from what is arguably our most remarkable cultural and moral contribution to history.

In our presentation, we noted that two fundamentally important implications follow from this principle.

First, restrictions on basic human rights and freedoms must be no greater than are necessary to address the

problems at hand. In this respect, the onus is clearly on the government to demonstrate where existing legal

instruments of law enforcement are inadequate to protect our basic institutions of rights and freedoms.

Second, if restrictions on basic human rights and freedoms can ultimately be justified only for the sake of

those rights and freedoms, there must be some evident commitment that the restrictions will come to an end.

And first they came for.....

[Catchme]

Oh, here is southerncomforts missing link, to what she cited and did not link to.

And here is a critical missing piece of info:

The party reversed its position on human rights grounds, but concern has grown that allowing them to expire could hamper continued investigations into the Air-India disaster.

Mr. Cullen said in an interview that investigative hearings should not be allowed as a tool to retroactively probe previous terrorist attacks, but only to compel witnesses to provide testimony that could be used to prevent terror.

"The whole idea of the Anti-Terrorism Act is it's supposed to be proactive and preventative," he said.

He cited an interim report in October, 2006, of the Commons public safety committee that recommended investigative hearings be confined to situations "where there is imminent peril of serious damage being caused."

Will Not Stand up to Human Rights Laws, unless of course we are willing to let them go, just as they did in the USA

[geoffrey]

Going on 6 years and the laws have never come into question as an infringment upon freedom.

Seems like your 'concerns' are just fearmongering. Stop trying to scare people, it's unhealthy for democracy right?

[Catchme]

Oh, I was hoping someone would point that out, as there is a reason why they did not use them. If you would have read all the links you would have noticed they do not meet the measure of the Charter of Rights Litmus. There were already laws in place that covered this type of thing without suspending human rights.

The only reason to use them is to override Charter Rights, and that is a no no and why the Liberals have changed their minds, as it is a human rights breach.

So, if we have that type of measure it must mean that the CPC want to be able to over ride Human Rights.

Again conveinent for when, after the police have picked the judges, they will be bringing the people to whom they have stripped of their Human Rights to the very same people they had picked to be judges. Little to cozy for me personally, what happens if we get another Trudeau? Sure, the CPC supporters may think it is great when Harper is in power, but he won't be for long, and they should think about things then.

Unless of course they are going for a theocracy and don't figure Harper will ever leave.

[geoffrey]

What humans rights are suspended by arresting a terrorist just before he blows up a building?

Promenent Liberal Anne McLellan certainly disagrees with you:

Former Liberal justice minister Anne McLellan defended them this way: "And that's why preventive arrest is in this package. We have to look at stopping these people before they get on those planes and put them through the World Trade Centre."

Source: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070210/libs_terror_070210/20070210?hub=TopStories

You really don't think such things as terrorists exist, do you? Or do you think that arresting one and keeping him behind bars for 24 hours is too much a sacrifice to keep yourself safe?

I really don't get the opposition. This isn't the Patriot Act, this is common sense. If you don't think it can happen to us, look at London or Madrid. It can, and it likely will if we elimate every possible way for us to fight terrorism.

[B. Max]

This is just the Liberals merrily stepping in every cow pie in the pasture. With Dion leading the way.

[Catchme]

What humans rights are suspended by arresting a terrorist just before he blows up a building?

Promenent Liberal Anne McLellan certainly disagrees with you:

Former Liberal justice minister Anne McLellan defended them this way: "And that's why preventive arrest is in this package. We have to look at stopping these people before they get on those planes and put them through the World Trade Centre."

You really don't think such things as terrorists exist, do you? Or do you think that arresting one and keeping him behind bars for 24 hours is too much a sacrifice to keep yourself safe?

I really don't get the opposition. This isn't the Patriot Act, this is common sense. If you don't think it can happen to us, look at London or Madrid. It can, and it likely will if we elimate every possible way for us to fight terrorism.

Well, that is something that I would never have thought i would see a Harper apologist quoting Annie got your guns. Of course she would defend it, she put it in place.

Geoffery, apparently you DID NOT read the BCCLA report on these 2 items, nor did you read the deliberations that went into them in the first palce, as to why there was a sunset clause. Nor did you apparently read, what the SCC said about them NOT meeting HUMAN RIGHTS litmus tests, not just in canada but according to the greater Human Rights world wide. Nor did you pay any attention to the fact those 2 points are NOT needed to have a preventative sweep before someting happens.

The 2 points presume guilt, and ask the person to implicate themselves, and if they have nothing with which to implicate themselves, they can still be jailed if the police/judiciary do not believe them. They can be arrested without warant or without even any actual proof or cause. And it is up to them to try and prove their iinnocent, even if the state has nothing upon them. They are presumed guilty and the burden of proof is upon them to prove their innocence

Perhaps in someone's perceptions of a facist state, this type of sending to Siberia, would be wanted, but NOT in a democracy.

BTW, it is NOT just 24 hrs, that is misinformation, that is the minimum, they can be held a year without review, then they can be held longer yet again after a review. Remember, we already have 3 who have been held now for over 3 years that are starving themselves to death because there is no evidence, no trial no anything happening to help them.

[geoffrey]

BTW, it is NOT just 24 hrs, that is misinformation, that is the minimum, they can be held a year without review, then they can be held longer yet again after a review. Remember, we already have 3 who have been held now for over 3 years that are starving themselves to death because there is no evidence, no trial no anything happening to help them.

Well they shouldn't starve themselves, silly.

Those security certificates have nothing to do with the law we are questioning currently, they fall under the Immigration Act.

[Catchme]

BTW, it is NOT just 24 hrs, that is misinformation, that is the minimum, they can be held a year without review, then they can be held longer yet again after a review. Remember, we already have 3 who have been held now for over 3 years that are starving themselves to death because there is no evidence, no trial no anything happening to help them.

Well they shouldn't starve themselves, silly.

Those security certificates have nothing to do with the law we are questioning currently, they fall under the Immigration Act.

Glad you brought up security certificates, as I was sure you would, as I was sure you knew more than you were pretending to know, bit of a bait there geoff sorry. As you know full well, it is those very same security certificates, that make the investigative hearings NOT necessary.

Those investigative hearing would only be necessary if you wanted to suspend peoples human rights for whatever reason.

[Who's Doing What?]

Anyone ever hear of MPs allowed free speech, MPs allowed free votes? This concept is not a reflection of poor leadership. Rather "real" leaders are not afraid of difference of opinions.

Free Speech?

Is that like allowing party members to talk to the media?

[scribblet]

Anyone ever hear of MPs allowed free speech, MPs allowed free votes? This concept is not a reflection of poor leadership. Rather "real" leaders are not afraid of difference of opinions.

Free Speech?

Is that like allowing party members to talk to the media?

Maybe, but any party has to have discipline of some kind, its necessary in every organization - loose lips sink ships.

[madmax]

Anyone ever hear of MPs allowed free speech, MPs allowed free votes? This concept is not a reflection of poor leadership. Rather "real" leaders are not afraid of difference of opinions.

Free Speech?

Is that like allowing party members to talk to the media?

Maybe, but any party has to have discipline of some kind, its necessary in every organization - loose lips sink ships.

It's clear that the Reform days are over.