Controversial Anti-Terrorism Tools Revived as Bill Passes (Canada)

This Link covers a story which speaks about the return of preventive arrests and investigative hearings,as well as terrorism-related penalties increases.

The Liberals joined the Conservatives to pass the bill — known as S-7, the combating terrorism act — by a vote of 183 to 93. It would bring back two central provisions that were originally instituted by the Jean Chrétien government after the Sept. 11 attacks in New York in 2001 but were "sunsetted" after a five-year period.

One allowed for "preventive detention," meaning someone can be held without charge for up to three days just on suspicion of being involved in terrorism.

The second provides for an "investigative hearing" in which someone suspected of having knowledge of a terrorist act can be forced to answer questions. The objective is not to prosecute the person for a criminal offence, but merely to gather information.

Any fellow Canadians here? I don't like the sound of this bill at all; what are your thoughts?

reply to post by anon4m05


Does our government even has balls? i will be pissed if the "randomly" pick me at airport check.


Frkin pathetic... our government becoming retarded like the US government.

By the way this bill is similar to the American Patriot Act.

It's quite obvious that the events in Boston are being exploited here, which is a shame in and of itself.

I recall something about a "terror plot" being "thrwarted" in Canada (which undoubtably is also being used as reason to pass this); if you ask me, Harper needs to go.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by anon4m05

 

Does our government even has balls? i will be pissed if the "randomly" pick me at airport check.

Last time I flew somewhere, I was "randomly" picked out for a check, both ways, there and back. Not very random if you ask me.

reply to post by anon4m05


And i'm in Toronto, Mandatory check for sure.

Really doesn’t sound that bad

The Terrorism Act 2006 (uk) allows for 14 days without charge and in exceptional cases 28 days however originally they wanted 90 days.

I think with the recent arrests in Canada over the alleged Al-Qa’ida plot 3 days really isn’t very significant without charge.

If you’re not a terrorist then you shouldn’t have to worry about this law too much.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


I disagree; any bill that erodes civil liberties is something to be afriad of (or at least concerned about). Ergo, one need not be a terrorist to recognize this bill as something unnecessary and unfavourable.

As well, it doesn't just end at 3 days;

If he or she refuses (the investigative hearings/probationary conditions), that person can be imprisoned for up to 12 months.

12 Months!

Much worse than 3 days

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


The problem is, they going to suspect you on your nationality and other factors. If you have a Muslim name and brown, you fuked. Well i guess they will add Russian attributes to the checks now?

One of my friend is from south America, he is tan and has sort of a Muslim name but been in Canada since he was 5.... they even asked him one too many question when crossing over to buffalo.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

The problem is, they going to suspect you on your nationality and other factors. If you have a Muslim name and brown, [snip]. Well i guess they will add Russian attributes to the checks now?

One of my friend from south American, he is tan and has sort of a Muslim name..

Most terrorism experts now agree that for the most part ethnic profiling of terrorist suspects just doesn’t work as many may not appear to look like a typical terrorist and that it opens up potential holes in security.

Your tanned friend with a “Muslim” name is still safe just so long as he doesn’t start ranting about blowing up stuff.

Originally posted by anon4m05
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

I disagree; any bill that erodes civil liberties is something to be afriad of (or at least concerned about). Ergo, one need not be a terrorist to recognize this bill as something unnecessary and unfavourable.

As well, it doesn't just end at 3 days;

If he or she refuses (the investigative hearings/probationary conditions), that person can be imprisoned for up to 12 months.

12 Months!

Much worse than 3 days

edit on 26-4-2013 by anon4m05 because: (no reason given)

Again I think that makes sense, if the police have inelegance that you have knowledge some kind of terrorist plot and you refuse to cooperate then I think a prison sentence is a good deterrent to prevent people taking such a view.

Terrorists exist, and there is a need for laws that equip law enforcement agencies with the powers to stop them. Unless these powers are being abused then I see no problem with this.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
They're not actually looking to stop terrorists, but to be able to label people as such. Particularly those who who are a threat to their goal (which is to start ww3.) The whole "if you're not one, then don't worry" IS BULL CRAP!!!! They need laws in place for DISSIDENTS!

Originally posted by Meaningless
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

They're not actually looking to stop terrorists, but to be able to label people as such. Particularly those who who are a threat to their goal (which is to start ww3.) The whole "if you're not one, then don't worry" IS BULL CRAP!!!! They need laws in place for DISSIDENTS!

I would call that conspiracy theorist paranoia, there are very clear laws which clearly state what does and does not constitute a terrorist so unless you fall under this category then you are not going to be accused of being a terrorist.

And of course they are looking to stop terrorists.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Originally posted by anon4m05
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

I disagree; any bill that erodes civil liberties is something to be afriad of (or at least concerned about). Ergo, one need not be a terrorist to recognize this bill as something unnecessary and unfavourable.

As well, it doesn't just end at 3 days;

If he or she refuses (the investigative hearings/probationary conditions), that person can be imprisoned for up to 12 months.

12 Months!

Much worse than 3 days

edit on 26-4-2013 by anon4m05 because: (no reason given)

Again I think that makes sense, if the police have inelegance that you have knowledge some kind of terrorist plot and you refuse to cooperate then I think a prison sentence is a good deterrent to prevent people taking such a view.

Terrorists exist, and there is a need for laws that equip law enforcement agencies with the powers to stop them. Unless these powers are being abused then I see no problem with this.

The problem though is the Bill/Law itself; it will inevitably invite and facilitate abuse, and so its not a matter of waiting for it to be abused to say that it is bad. Look at the US Patriot Act, or the militarization of its police forces, the continuous expansion of the military budget. This bill will only be a stepping stone to worse and more provokative legislation.

Generally, Canada is not a target; even if you ARE a terrorist, it wouldn't be wise to attack Canada, as Canada opens the door in some way, which allows for people with malicious intent to fly under the radar. Granted, in this sense, certain laws can be acceptable.

I feel as though Canada is different in this regard; we're not big on guns, we don't have a huge military, and we don't really go starting wars much. This kind of legistlation fundamentally changes or alters what it means to be Canadian, and I would be much more at home with this Law if it was voted on with a national referendum. That way, it is a Canadian Law, passed by Canadians, for the interests of Canadians.

So, my concern here is that this bill is not being passed to protect Canadians, but rather, is being passed for the interest of the United States; and it always irks me when a piece of Canadian Legislation is signed for the benifit of US interests.

reply to post by anon4m05


The Patriot Act is a different piece of legislation in a different state and I don’t think it is therefore a completely fair comparison however I do understand what you are saying.

What’s important to remember however is that all laws are open to abuse In the UK for example terrorism legislation that permitted stop and search powers to police has been abused and this has been recognised in court and as such measures have been taken to top this practice.

I definitely agree with you therefore that laws are open to be abused yet at the same time I still see the need for laws to equip law enforcement with the legislative apparatus to combat terrorism.

I do agree with you to some extent that this legalisation might be more in the interests of Americans as opposed to Canadians however I do not think that makes it any less necessary. Furthermore I also think it would be very unwise to argue that Canada dose not face any threat of terrorism although like I say I do get what you mean about it being in Americas interesting for Canada to make a strong stance against terrorism.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
Of course you would! It's obvious you don't understand the kind of control they have.... which is OK. I suppose.... Just know that the biggest terrorist of them all is government and they're not afraid to walk over us. Their control runs all the from schools, to the medical industry, agencies/corporations, media, etc.... every source of information is controlled by them but some are too blind to see it or they act like they are.

All they have to do is plant a little evidence and in seconds they could make you out to be the bad guy. Sometimes they don't even need evidence! Just look at what happened with Kony, celebrities started tweeting and fans instantly believed them.

reply to post by Meaningless


Again that is conspiracy theorist paranoia that stems from the idea that the government is behind most if not all major acts of terror when that is simply not true.

For anyone to be deemed a terrorist they must meet the legal definition of “terrorist” as set out by the state. That means that right now for example the government does not consider anyone a terrorist just for using ATS, however if they were to change their laws to say if you are a member of ATS then you are a terrorist, you would be treated like one under the relevant legalisation. So unless you have done something that meets the states definition of “terrorist” that can be proved then you are not a terrorist.

That also means that as much as you might want to call the state and its leaders “terrorists” they technically are not as quite frankly yours, mine and even the dictionaries definition of terrorism means absolutely nothing up against the legal definition.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by anon4m05

 

I definitely agree with you therefore that laws are open to be abused yet at the same time I still see the need for laws to equip law enforcement with the legislative apparatus to combat terrorism.

I do agree with you to some extent that this legalisation might be more in the interests of Americans as opposed to Canadians however I do not think that makes it any less necessary. Furthermore I also think it would be very unwise to argue that Canada dose not face any threat of terrorism although like I say I do get what you mean about it being in Americas interesting for Canada to make a strong stance against terrorism.

Yes, it is agreeable that there need to be mechanisms to combat terrorism. However, as you said (in regard to my comment on the patriot act), different law, different state/region, maybe an unfiar comparison; I would hold the same view in regard to equiping law enforcement with that combative apparatus.

A Major difference in Canada is that CSIS and RCMP have a monopoly on couter-terrorism and surveilance. It makes for a much more streamlined and efficient system to catch such things; as we saw in Boston, the many different police forces trying to operate in conjunction with eachother was complicated and at sometimes confusing, which no doubt makes it more difficult to catch these guys. Since, in Canada, the RCMP and CSIS have a monopoly in that regard, this law is quite unnecessary because our local law enforcement isn't the authority to deal with such targets or operations, and as such, do not need to be equipped in such a way.

And you are right; just because it may be passed for US interests doesn't make it less necessart. I will concede on that point; Canada and US are important allies, and that fact cannot be ignored. This still does not change the fact that Canada is a Soverign Nation, and I would be expressing the same concern if it was any other Country (hence my suggestion for a national Vote/Refferendum on the issue).

Canada is target, make no mistake; but I have a strong inclination that we are, for lack of a better phrase, down there on the list. Canada doesn't need to take a strong stance against terrorism; the US does that perfectly fine.

Canada should be making strong stances for peace, not this.

I hope you understand where I'm comming from.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
So you honestly think government is looking out for us? LOL, no need to go further into discussion. I understand.