Canada's Anti-Terror Laws

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 06:09 PM
link   
This was posted in this thread, but it was ignored/overlooked and buried, so I added to it and made a topic of it.

Not jazzed up with a strong name like the Patriot ACT, Canada's anti-terror laws could rightly be identified as similar. Scarily similar.

Bill C-36:

Source
Bill 36 has been passed into law after the Liberal government rammed it through the House of Commons and Senate in record time. In both houses of Parliament, the Liberal Party whips cut down further debate by moving closure motions. Royal Assent was given within an hour of Senate passing the bill on December 18, 200. Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Anne McLellan will now have to gazette the effective date of the law coming into force along with the list of organizations and individuals whom the Minister considers as “terrorists.”

The Anti- Terrorism Act amended many acts like Bill C16 (Registration of Charities (Security information) and others like Criminal Code of Canada, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Immigration Act, the proceeds of Crime Act, Access to Information Act, Canada Post Corporation Act etc. These acts that were amended ensured due process of law and protection for citizens. Anti-terrorism law has an ulterior agenda. It is on par with the laws of Mussolini and Hitler.

The amendments remove the civil liberties previously guaranteed in those Acts. Ethical, religious, and environmental arguments are not available as defenses to any alleged breach of this new law. Prior to the enactment of the Anti-Terrorism law, those Acts provided sufficient due process of law and legal protection to citizens. The current law has an ulterior agenda and it is on par with the laws of Mussolini and Hitler.

The new law will have far reaching effects on the lives of visible minorities who will bear the brunt of the full force of this draconian law when implemented. They will lose both liberty and security and live as second-class citizens under the shadow of intelligence agencies and police with unlimited and unchecked powers of surveillance, arbitrary arrest and justice through secret evidence.

*Snip*

The Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE), a national organization of journalists and free expression advocates, in their submission to the House of Commons standing committee on justice and human rights said that proposed restrictions on freedom of expression, far from enhancing security, are likely to breed insecurity, forcing dissent underground and eroding confidence in Canada's security forces. Several sections of the bill contain serious assaults on the principles of free expression. We question the need to rush passage of a bill that makes significant inroads on long-standing principles of Canadian justice, in the absence of a demonstrably imminent threat to Canada or Canadians."

*snip*

Under the Anti-terrorism law passed by Parliament, it will be easier to arrest people suspected of terrorism. In fact, police wouldn’t even need a warrant to make an arrest as long as they believe they are preventing a terrorist attack. The law also makes it easier for officers to use electronic surveillance. For instance, the use of wiretaps to seek out terrorists could be extended to one year from the usual two months and the requirement of telling the suspect about electronic surveillance after it has taken place could be delayed for up to three years. The bill would also allow the government to store the DNA of terrorists, to compile lists of terrorists and their organizations and to freeze and take away the assets of terrorists and their supporters.

Under the Income Tax Act, organizations supporting terrorist groups that claim to be charities could be stripped of their charitable status. The Official Secrets Act — under the new name Security of Information Act — has been changed to address the threat of foreign powers and terrorists spying on Canada. The Canada Evidence Act would offer more protection to the country’s intelligence information. The National Defense Act would enable the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) to gather intelligence on terrorist groups.


*snip*

The Anti-Terrorism law does not have an expiry date. Only a five-year sunset clause on two provisions that will expire after five years unless Parliament votes to reinstate them. The provisions relate to police to take suspects under "preventive arrest," holding them for 72 hours without charge and special "investigative hearings" that would see witnesses compelled to testify.


That sounds just like the Patriot ACT to me.

Bill C-35:


Source
On the surface, all C-35 does is expand the definition of an "internationally protected person." Actually, it pre-dates September 11 and is a direct response to the protests at the Quebec City Summit in 2000. Despite the fact that it is not motivated by conventional notions of terrorism, it works hand-in-hand with the Anti-Terrorism Act. The latter Act includes in the definition of "terrorist activity" conduct directed against "internationally protected persons." The definition of who is an "internationally protected person" has been extended in Bill C-35 to embrace the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and thereby extends diplomatic immunity to "representatives of a foreign state that is a member of or participates in an intergovernmental organization, their households, and staff." This type of organization need not be established by treaty and includes an intergovernmental conference in which two or more states participate.

Whether it is coincidental or not, the G-8 was a non-treaty organization which held a conference in Kananaskis, Alberta, not long after the passage of this Act. The Act extends the protections for participants in such a conference or to trade summits or to other international gatherings. Moreover, protection would be afforded those who may be dictators in their home countries or who may have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity against their own citizens or the citizens of other countries.

As well, protection for such persons includes not just personal physical attacks but attacks on their "freedom" or "dignity." The potential effects on legitimate protests are unclear, but ominous. For instance, Section 431 of the Criminal Code creates an offence for, among other things, an attack on the means of transport of an internationally protected person. For example, the strategy at the globalization protest in Seattle was aimed at blocking the "means of transport" of WTO officials. Similar conduct in Canada could now be seen as terrorist activity.

Furthermore, under the Anti-Terrorism Act, a "terrorist group" is defined in such a broad manner that any group, such as the Council of Canadians or the Raging Grannies, that announces an intention to block road access to a conference such as the one held at Kananaskis is liable to be classified as a "terrorist group" even if not one single member of that organization actually ends up going to a protest.
There is one additional aspect to the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act which bears mention. It grants the RCMP extended but nebulous powers to provide security at international conferences. If there was any question about the legality of the infamous fence erected at Quebec City, this has now been redressed by the legislation which allows the RCMP to "take appropriate measures, including controlling, limiting or prohibiting access to any area to the extent and in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances." The phrase "reasonable in the circumstances" is, of course, so vague that it might justify the use of considerable force and measures that would be very draconian in a supposed democracy.


And Proposed Bill C-7:


Source
Why is the Senate considering giving 8 different Ministers the Executive power on their sole authority to issue Interim Orders in lieu of laws without first consulting Parliament, and exempts the Orders from being even examined in advance for their legality or constitutionality?
Why does the government want to establish a reserve pool of military judges in the event of martial law?
Why is the Senate considering reintroducing searches without warrant?
Can the Interim Orders under the Quarantine Act be used to order forced vaccinations and/or internment as in the US Homeland Security Act?
Why does the government want to remove the protections of the Privacy Act of their personal data collected by the government within Canada?
Why does the government want to gives the personal data of Canadian travelers without any control on how the information will be used? If you are black-listed in the United States, will you be black-listed from flying in Canada? What can you do about it if you are?
What is the demonstrable need for Big Brother databases in a free and democratic society? Why does the USA get all the personal data of Canadians even when they are not flying to the US?


What's more:

Man Jailed under Anti-terror laws denied bail.

More:

Ottawa Man Threatened With Secret Trial.
But you won't ever see Harkat in a court of law because he's being held under the draconian CSIS Security Certificate, which basically bars his family, lawyer and the public from seeing the case against him. In short, Harkat will be tried in secret.


Rocco Galati has more to add:

Source
the Muslim and Arab communities will be directly affected. You just have to witness the approximately 800 illegal detentions in this country currently going on in the correctional centres before you even have Bill C-36, where Muslims and Arabs have been directed not to be able to phone their lawyers, see their lawyers, phone their families, see their family as of September 11. That's going on right now. I see it in the jails every day.


Civil rights stripping legislation under the guise of terrorism is alive and well in Canada. Which brings the obvious question to me: why don’t you ever talk about it? Why is it just the Muslims in Canada that seem to be worried about this? How come on such an “aware” forum such as ATS the quick to criticize the Patriot ACT (and America) members from the Great White North are mum on the subject?

And before any of you blame America and the Bush, the components of this legislation were being discussed before 9/11 set the stage for terror laws and Americas moral precedent to force them.




posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Well that's certainly an inflamitory piece. Truth be told, immigrants being held in Canadian jails are there by choice. If they have commited no crime in Canada they are fighting extradition. They would rather be jail here than back home.



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by PistolPete
How come on such an “aware” forum such as ATS the quick to criticize the Patriot ACT (and America) members from the Great White North are mum on the subject?


Well PistolPete, because America is the only country that ever does anything wrong! We're evil, didn't you know that already? pfft, you're just ignorant! I bet that evil Bush somehow got hold of a time machine, traveled back to when this bill was passed, and forced it through the Senate and House of Commons himself!

By the way, great post!

[Edited on 12-11-2004 by Herman]



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Sorry Asterix you are like US OF NORD SAUVAGE CONTINENT!!!



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 08:33 PM
link   
welcome to the new world where we threw our brains and pencils away.the patriot act evens has effects in canada medical companys.ex an amercian firm can send all personal info to the fbi without any laws protecting us.our bill 36 echos the same.music media and freedom of speech are effected now.did we not fought this war already. world war 2.the protests. the 60s are back yahooooo



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 08:37 PM
link   
The point of the drunk pirate's post is that, if you follow the government, never question it, and stay in your place as a timid fellow, then everything will be alright. After all, the government likes these types of people, they can police the rest of the crowd so the gov. doesn't have to get involved.

So just sit back, take it in the ass, and everything will be OK.



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 08:42 PM
link   
no freedoms no voice no thoughts somebodys out there does something and we sit back and watch.time for a beer cheers all and keep well flukemol......



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Herman

Originally posted by PistolPete
How come on such an “aware” forum such as ATS the quick to criticize the Patriot ACT (and America) members from the Great White North are mum on the subject?


Well PistolPete, because America is the only country that ever does anything wrong! We're evil, didn't you know that already? pfft, you're just ignorant! I bet that evil Bush somehow got hold of a time machine, traveled back to when this bill was passed, and forced it through the Senate and House of Commons himself!

By the way, great post!

[Edited on 12-11-2004 by Herman]


north america is being molded into the western quadrant of the new world order. this is not a 'we're better than you' issue.
this is an issue of 'us', the average joe, versus, 'them' the power brokers. it was a simple thing to pass the draconian bills. canadians still TRUST their government.
also, of course, the canadian government doesn't have so much controversy to deal with.
i was personally APPALLED that those bills passed. it convinced me that we are on the exact same path as the states, we are just a mellower version of all things north american(except for hockey, of course). canada has no where near the tension of the states. a canadian version of 'COPS' would only be useful as a tranquilizer.
try and find the transcript of the ernst zundel trial on the net. total kangaroo court totalitarianism.
canada is the model for the new world order(the NWO's not so bad, if you think of it that way).



posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Rather than reprint some nonsense from individuals who jump at any opportunity to complain about any and every law, I suggest you read the act itself, and tell me where an ordinary citizen can be picked up and charged with terrorism simply because the government decides they may have incited a demonstration, or spoke out against the government or whatever that caveat is within the Patriot Act.

Then tell me where an accused may be indicted secretly or otherwise, without an application to the courts, or removed from Canadian soil to an offshore holding facility. Specifically “A person has the right to retain and instruct counsel at any stage of the proceedings.” Or denied Habeas Corpus.

How then does this law against terrorism compare to the Patriot act, and what rights exactly have been eroded? Now then, acknowledging that you have been forced to try and find some support for the writ argument, maybe you can tell me exactly what this has to do with that?

“(3) A peace officer who arrests a person in the execution of a warrant issued under subsection (1) shall, without delay, bring the person, or cause the person to be brought, before the judge who issued the warrant or another judge of the same court. The judge in question may, to ensure compliance with the order, order that the person be detained in custody or released on recognizance, with or without sureties.

The consent of the Attorney General is required before a peace officer may lay any information under subsection (2).”

www.law.utoronto.ca...

Let’s review the Patriot act shall we? In brief yet.

Starting here: [B] DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping';
`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
`(B) appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'. [/B]

Then fast forward to here;

DEFINITION OF FEDERAL CRIME OF TERRORISM.

`(i) section 32 (relating to destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities), 37 (relating to violence at international airports), 81 (relating to arson within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction), 175 or 175b (relating to biological weapons), 229 (relating to chemical weapons), subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) of section 351 (relating to congressional, cabinet, and Supreme Court assassination and kidnaping), 831 (relating to nuclear materials), 842(m) or (n) (relating to plastic explosives), 844(f)(2) or (3) (relating to arson and bombing of Government property risking or causing death), 844(i) (relating to arson and bombing of property used in interstate commerce), 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a Federal facility with a dangerous weapon), 956(a)(1) (relating to conspiracy to murder, kidnap, or maim persons abroad), 1030(a)(1) (relating to protection of computers), 1030(a)(5)(A)(i) resulting in damage as defined in 1030(a)(5)(B)(ii) through (v) (relating to protection of computers), 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the United States), 1116 (relating to murder or manslaughter of foreign officials, official guests, or internationally protected persons), 1203 (relating to hostage taking), 1362 (relating to destruction of communication lines, stations, or systems), 1363 (relating to injury to buildings or property within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States), 1366(a) (relating to destruction of an energy facility), 1751(a), (b), (c), or (d) (relating to Presidential and Presidential staff assassination and kidnaping), 1992 (relating to wrecking trains), 1993 (relating to terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against mass transportation systems), 2155 (relating to destruction of national defense materials, premises, or utilities), 2280 (relating to violence against maritime navigation), 2281 (relating to violence against maritime fixed platforms), 2332 (relating to certain homicides and other violence against United States nationals occurring outside of the United States), 2332a (relating to use of weapons of mass destruction), 2332b (relating to acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries), 2339 (relating to harboring terrorists), 2339A (relating to providing material support to terrorists), 2339B (relating to providing material support to terrorist organizations), or 2340A (relating to torture) of this title;
`(ii) section 236 (relating to sabotage of nuclear facilities or fuel) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284); or
`(iii) section 46502 (relating to aircraft piracy), the second sentence of section 46504 (relating to assault on a flight crew with a dangerous weapon), section 46505(b)(3) or (c) (relating to explosive or incendiary devices, or endangerment of human life by means of weapons, on aircraft), section 46506 if homicide or attempted homicide is involved (relating to application of certain criminal laws to acts on aircraft), or section 60123(b) (relating to destruction of interstate gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility) of title 49.'. "

Virtually every crime in the US may be construed as terrorism, you won’t find that in Bill C36. You have no rights to privacy nothing! Even your educational records and e-mail may be accessed without your knowledge. But you dream on and pretend that Canada’s law, clearly defined, and requiring judicial consent specific to threats and activities against the country, and requiring legal representation or mandatory release if no charge after 24 hours even remotely comes close to the PA.

The only think that is not covered in the PA, is the interception of the toilet tissue one can flush. Trust me, that will be included in PAII.



posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Rather than reprint some nonsense from individuals who jump at any opportunity to complain about any and every law, I suggest you read the act itself


I reprinted "nonsense" that others have said because they spoke in laymans terms that everyone could understand. In fact I did post links to the actual Bills in question. They are quite similar to the Patriot ACT in every way, shape and form. No one can "just be picked off the street" from the Patriot ACT, I don't know where you get this idea.

I suppose you should have read the text of Bill C-36, here's how a terrorist is defined in Canada:

(b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada,


(i) that is committed


(A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and


(B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and


(ii) that intentionally


(A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,


(B) endangers a person's life,


(C) causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,


(D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), or


(E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C),


That's at least as vague as the Patriot ACT. I think you can probably construe "whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause" to be quite a few different things. Most of the unlawful acts directly stated in the Patriot ACT are indirectly stated here. To argue semantics at this point would be a fruitless effort.

This is hardly inflammatory Intrepid.



posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 11:14 PM
link   
I meant no disrespect Pete but you're in my field here. I work in a Detention Center, that's where they bring inmates are brought after booking and I can tell you that what is IMPLIED here doesn't happen.



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
I meant no disrespect Pete but you're in my field here. I work in a Detention Center, that's where they bring inmates are brought after booking and I can tell you that what is IMPLIED here doesn't happen.


i meant no disrespect, either. i speak of the larger patterns.
you have to realise, that history is a web. i know you guys are pretty on top of it, so hopefully we don't have to discuss things under a microscope. i much prefer the macroscope.
from weishaupt to pavlov to mkultra, there has been a slow and relatively steady conditioning of the mass mind. there have NEVER been any REAL terrorists(meaning rebels who visit random violence on civilians to further their cause, ...kinda sounds stupid, put like that). they didn't HAVE to drop the bomb. they wanted to shock the mass mind. they could've avoided pearl harbour. they could have stopped 911. they are making these things happen.
america is meant to split apart in a civil war. canada will be the new switzerland.
america has been PROGRAMMED for war.
canada has been PROGRAMMED for peace.
that is why the wording of the canadian 'patriot act' is so much softer.
it is OPEN TO INTERPRETATION, though, and THAT is the crux of the matter.
in short, canada doesn't NEED such harsh, unjust clauses. we are the first sheep to roll over, because we have been conditioned to be that way. at least we have brains, eh?



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
The point of the drunk pirate's post is that, if you follow the government, never question it, and stay in your place as a timid fellow, then everything will be alright.


So how did my post imply that? I was merely commenting in a sarcastic way on how so many people rush to scrutinize our (The U.S's) patriot act, when in fact Canada has one of it's own that goes completely un-noticed. I don't like the patriot act either.



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 02:24 AM
link   
The thing is though....the abuses that could happen from the Patriot ACT aren't happening in America either. Other than a few exceptions, most notably Jose Padilla, the Patriot ACT hasn't effected anyones civil rights - except for terrorists. And I hate to use O'Reilly for this example but he had a civil rights expert on a while back that was complaining about the P. ACT. O'Reilly propositioned him to name one instance in which someones civil rights have been violated due to it, he stammered a bit and gave no real good answer. It's just not happening. People certainly aren't being "picked up off the street", nor can they be. And I'd just like to point that out as an example that what occurs in the US, or what our government does, is often completely overblown. That's not of course to suggest everything here is peachy, but it's nothing close to the fascist cesspool of violence and gluttony that's seems to be widely believed.

Now, a few notable exceptions that have occured in Canada are documented in my initial post. Essentially, both Canada's Anti-Terror Laws, and the US Patriot ACT are doing what they're meant to: protect us. Not what they could do: rob us of our civil liberties.

The only real difference between the Patriot ACT and the Anti-Terror Laws is as billybob said, softer language. They were both pressed into legislation without public debate. They both allow for essentially all the same things: Wire taps, held without bail or charge, snooping in your private life, overbroad definitions of a terrorist, an overbroad list of crimes that you can be labled a terrorist for, its all there. Just with softer language. They both can be interpreted, the Canadian version is just open for a little bit more. I don't know if that's necessarily a good thing. I don't know if having overbroad language is worse than having every base covered in legalese. The soft language in the Canadian version is the difference between your girlfriend dumping you and saying your ugly or saying she just wants to be friends. They both result in the same thing.

I've done a lot of research on this in the last two or three days. You can't logically criticize the US for the Patriot ACT and accept the Anti-Terror Laws as only being to serve the purpose of fighting terror.

Americans are hardly programmed for war. Our government has to take great measures to get our populace to approve a war. And even then the approval doesn't last very long. Americans are very peaceful people, we dislike war as much as the next guy. It seems more likely to me that Canada has been lulled into a false sense of security through progressive social programs that make the government appear to be benign. In reality your civil liberties are flapping in the breeze just as ours are.




And no offense taken intrepid.
And I'm certainly not trying to make all of Canada mad at me with this thread.
I'm finding this whole thing fascinating on many levels for some reason....



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 03:56 AM
link   
we in canada have peace in our county and others should follow the act of peace.peace of mind knowing we did not fight the second world war to sit here and repeat old mistakes.only thing flappin in the wind up here is donuts and beer wink lol.......flukemol



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by PistolPete
Americans are hardly programmed for war. Our government has to take great measures to get our populace to approve a war. And even then the approval doesn't last very long. Americans are very peaceful people, we dislike war as much as the next guy.


i remember RIGHT after 911, the new 'pearl harbour' movie came out. at the local GROCERY store, they had a custom rack set up. it took up a lot of visual space. you literally COULDN'T miss it. (i didn't watch it, but i'm POSITIVE they never mentioned prior knowledge, there, either. it was a propoganda piece, meant to rerun the programs of patriotism in the face of foreign devils).
it didn't seem to sell very well(in this canadian city), at all. but it stayed on display for months.
then, 'black hawk down' was the first of a raft of movies, glorifying the role of soldiers, that followed.
'go get'em boys.' was an effective meme released into the new 'terrorism' enviroment. bush invokes the america cowboy icon (john wayne) with his 'dead or alive', 'with us or against us' rhetoric.
we the sheeple don't realise that language and media can be used to get into 'backdoors' in our personal inner sanctum 'firewalls'. the above john wayne example, leads us to believe that GWB is like a big-hearted rough and tumble tough guy, out to protect the good people of dodge. indeed, he IS protecting all the major manufacturers, ....ford, and GM, enron(who actually got punished for that?). tax breaks for the haves, off to war, to protect the interests of the ultra-rich, for the disenfranchised.

there was a show up here called 'talking with americans'. a comedian went around interviewing people on the streets of US cities. one question was, 'should we be bombing saskatchewan'. i absolutely COULDN'T believe that these people, who had NO IDEA of the reality of saskatchewan were saying things like, 'well, if we have to, we have to'. i believe you could drop the entire munitions on saskatchewan without hitting anyone. you can watch your dog run away for three days, is the regional joke.

to agree with me on this, you must first study the implementations of the schools of thought preached by lord bertrand russel, h.g. wells and aldous huxley, (among others)post WWII. this will add weight to the argument that every single form of media is used to program us, right from birth, through the institutionilization of thought.
so, i'm not saying americans actually LIKE war, i'm saying they are programmed to think it necesarry and 'just'.



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by PistolPeteI reprinted "nonsense" that others have said because they spoke in laymans terms that everyone could understand. In fact I did post links to the actual Bills in question. They are quite similar to the Patriot ACT in every way, shape and form. No one can "just be picked off the street" from the Patriot ACT, I don't know where you get this idea.
It is true, you did reprint the nonsense others spouted. There will always be a contesting of a law, that does not mean those contesting are correct. It is not enough to tell me they are quite similar, I have challenged you to show me where they are to the extreme, and have gone further by providing the crux of C36 and that of the PA. They are in no way on the same level. And yes in America, they can be just picked off the street with the PA, all you need do is read the issues regarding the Guantanamo detainees and their fight to be heard in court.


I suppose you should have read the text of Bill C-36, here's how a terrorist is defined in Canada:...


Is that so? Did you purposefully miss the pretext of the Bill? (In short)
terrorist activity'' means..
an act or omission committed or threatened in or outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, is one of the following offences:
Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft
Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons
International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages
Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material
Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation

Convention for the Supression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation
Protocol for the Supression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf
International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings
International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism


Why would you deliberately leave out the definition of terrorism if not to obscure the meaning of terrorist activity for the audience’s benefit and paint any grievance as an act capable of being labeled as one done by a terrorist? I am quite fine with those being within the definition of terrorist activity, and I can hardly see how these fit the bill:


`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
`(B) appear to be intended—
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;

relating to congressional, cabinet, and Supreme Court assassination and kidnapping
relating to arson and bombing of property used in interstate commerce,
relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a Federal facility with a dangerous weapon
relating to conspiracy to murder, kidnap, or maim persons abroad
relating to protection of computers resulting in damage as defined in 1030(a)(5)(B)(ii) through (v) (relating to protection of computers)
relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the United States, (relating to murder or manslaughter of foreign officials, official guests, or internationally protected persons
relating to destruction of communication lines, stations, or 1366(a) r
relating to Presidential and Presidential staff assassination and kidnaping
and my favourite relating to certain homicides and other violence against United States nationals occurring outside of the United States
relating to acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries
And this one covers just about any fool who is caught with the most simple tools for a pipe bomb, or a gun or nail file on their person, that covers what 90% of Americans? relating to explosive or incendiary devices, or endangerment of human life by means of weapons, on aircraft


That's at least as vague as the Patriot ACT. I think you can probably construe "whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause" to be quite a few different things. Most of the unlawful acts directly stated in the Patriot ACT are indirectly stated here. To argue semantics at this point would be a fruitless effort.
Obviously your idea of vague and mine differ. Since there is nothing vague about either. Bill C36 definitely points to extreme acts, the Patriot act can pick you up and send you off to a paid vacation to Cuba, in a 6x6 cell with no Cohibas to enjoy.

To even speak against the government may be construed as an act of terrorism. In other words, freedom of speech is now defined by the whim of the government in control.



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

north america is being molded into the western quadrant of the new world order. this is not a 'we're better than you' issue.
this is an issue of 'us', the average joe, versus, 'them' the power brokers.


Gottcha. ...This is a great thread - thanks. ...Confirms for me that the new Continental Corporate Merger has been in the mix for a long while - we're already harmonized.


Please check out this thread too:
North America Plans Continental Corporate Merger
www.atsnn.com...









top topics
 
1

log in

join