An Ounce Of Cure For A Pound Of Preventive Detention : Security Certificates

Foreign and domestic policies are not linear, rather the policies are connected in a circle, with each policy reinforcing the values of another. Domestic American terrorism in the prison and detention systems and governmental reforms are influenced by the mobilization and ethnocentrism abroad. The militarization internationally is justified by the domestic handling of the same cultural issues within the United State borders. The United States has strangely used a near Catch-22 to handle dilemmas. The United States has allowed perspective to become reality, whether with oneself or regarding issues abroad, specifically in the Middle East. Terrorism is the use or threat of fear for political or economical gain. An internal characteristic of terrorism is how dependent it is of perspective, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. To understand “terrorism,” a focus must be applied to the history, what drove an organization to commit such acts. Respectively, the Middle East has been a hotbed for the key word “terrorism,” especially because of 9/11. Subsequently, Muslims have been stigmatized by the United States as terrorists. The consequences spawned because of 9/11 require a look to the past to understand the present.

The ubiquitous and prolific Dershowitz brings very unique perspectives to the table in this article and weighs in particularly on civil liberties and international justice in a time of terror. He argues passionately and persuasively that global terrorism is a phenomenon largely of our own making and that we can and must take steps to reduce the frequency and severity of terrorist acts. Dershowitz has a great deal to say and teach about the balance we are now struggling to achieve between domestic security and civil liberty.

Recently there have been two “anti-terrorism” bills that are really affecting Canadian citizens who weren’t born here. Bill C-24 is an attack on duel citizens that were not born in Canada or are eligible for another citizenship. This bill allows these the Canadian government to revoke your citizenship if you have committed or are suspected of serious crimes. They could also deport you. This creates the idea of second class citizens. Some are not able to be targeted well others are immune. Bill C-51 is one that is really complicated, but the something it does are: It gives CSIS and the RCMP larger power in order to “prevent” terrorism. The issue is no checks and balances, no safeguards, and nothing in place to make sure what CSIS is doing is legal. It also even has allowed CSIS to break the charter of rights with permission without the public ever being notified. It also vastly expands our definition of security and that of which terrorism falls under. The terms definition of terrorism is very vague. Threats of terrorism can now be considered: interfering with public safety, the economy or financial security of Canada East. This could trap illegal protestors or the blockading railways and much more under terrorism charges. The bill also effects a lot more and threatens the rights and freedoms of many

On June 9th 2015, Stephen Harper and the Canadian government passed Bill C-51. It’s an anti terrorism act, with only the best intentions at mind for Canada and its national security. However since it’s approval, there has been much controversy surrounding the bill. There are five key changes in Bill C-51 and many Canadians aren’t pleased with them, such as, the right to exchange information between national agencies, unwarranted arrests and also the increase in surveillance that will occur with both of these new conditions (Watters, 1). Bill C-51 also interferes with sections of the Charter and other key legal philosophies such as the Magna Carta and the Rule of Law.

As the nature of conflict has changed from that of interstate conflict to transnational attacks, the world must discuss how to effectively combat terrorism in a way that minimizes harm. Throughout the following paper, I will summarize four contrasting responses to terrorism, included in a document adapted from Terrorism: How Should We Respond, of the Choices Program at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University. I will then discuss why I believe Canada’s most effective response to terrorism would be a unique combination of Options Two and Four. I believe that Canada should embrace relations with the international community, and seek solutions to terrorism as a global issue. This response would satisfy

The inception of the Constitution Act, 1982 is inarguably a highly significant event in Canada’s political history, and has impacted the political and legal landscape in numerous ways. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms regulates interaction and communication between the government and individuals, granting them with much needed protection of their rights and freedoms. Needless to say, these rights and freedoms are a critical part of the democratic political system and it is believed by many that the Charter is one of the most important legislations in Canada, as it allows laws that infringe the rights and freedoms of individuals to come under scrutiny and removed if necessary. Despite these protections that are guaranteed by the Charter

Is this justice that a permanent resident of Canada has been mistreated and was denied his basic rights? Well, Mohammad Harkat was also denied his Section 9 rights listed in the charter,” Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.” One thing I couldn’t Understand is why Mohammad Harkat was put into a detention center for no actual good reason, for 12 years, without any charge or trail. This is injustice and needs to come to an end. After watching secret trail 5, one basic thing I understood was security certificates are unconstitutional. Security Certificates don`t allow the accused victim, to contemplate what the victim has been accused off, making it an unfair trail. Special Advocates can view some of the evidence, but not allowed to tell

Security mechanisms used to protect the entirety of the Canadian state at the behest of certain ethnic and religious categories become legitimized through violence acts towards political institutions or figures (Bell 155). These ethnic and religious categories that experience biopolitical racial profiling by the security state are typically Middle Eastern or Islamic in appearance or action. These groups of people are increasingly being viewed as connected to terrorist activities in Middle Eastern countries. Critics arguing the Canada’s security regime breaches the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because of the possible use of surveillance and security provisions against Canadian citizens who are members of these ethnic and religious groups (Shaffer 200). Racial profiling in the surveillance provisions of these security acts against politically unpopular groups should not be underestimated” (Shaffer

The “War on Terror” is a term used to describe the military action taken by America and Canada after the events of September 11, 2001. This phrase is symbolic of the justification of acts that varied in legality and morality as a means to safe guard the security of the nation. These actions were perceived as necessary, top priority and essential but in actuality striped individuals of their rights, were unconstitutional and based not of factual information but racism and bigotry. The justifying of such intrusive acts in the name of protecting the nation is not a new phenomenon but can be dated back to the mid nineteen hundreds and is still used today. Canada prides itself as a multi-cultural, open and accepting nation. However, the presence

Canada’s counter-terrorism strategy is failing. From the 2014 attack on Parliament hill to the January massacre at the Quebec city mosque, it is clear that terrorism is an imminent threat, both to Canada and to the world. Backlash against Western culture provides ammunition to extremist Islamic groups globally, which is only exacerbated by the West’s disproportionate military responses to legitimate and perceived threats through drone strikes or other military operations. Anger towards domestic policy decisions fuels far-right white supremacists, and government’s unwillingness to label the violence perpetrated by these groups as terrorism only provides them with impunity. The lack of lack of multilateralism and international

Terrorism is an undoubtedly real concept that has left its mark on the 21st century in quite a profound way. That being said the topic of terrorism is both one of reality and conspiracy, not to debate the merits of its authenticity but rather the way in which governments respond to such unforeseen attacks. Many theorists have argued that the so-called war on terrorism is simply a political ruse; a political tactic used by western democracies to justify their engagement in ulterior motives abroad. When the Bush administration declared a universal “war on terrorism” after the events of 9/11 occurred, the entire approach of the western world towards the subject altered. Harsher laws, stricter security regulations and calculated conventional warfare tactics became priority. To engage in the discussion of whether the war on terror is in fact winnable is an extremely subjective argument, since it cannot be eradicated in a purely conventional sense, as small victories ensue but the overall war rages on. Terrorism is an unfortunate and undeniable reality that Canada has come to comprehend, the west is no longer a safe haven isolated from the reaches of radicalism. Canada not being a nation completely immune from the influences of terrorism has had to respond to threats by implementing additional criminal laws and policies to ensure the preservation of peace and security both domestically and abroad. Subsequently, with Canada being a nation built on the rule of law it is extremely

In Part Three, Cole and Dempsey focus on the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996, a forerunner to the Patriot Act that helped to establish the legal framework for today’s domestic war on terror. The act allows the State Department to designate Foreign Terrorist Organizations in a process that is highly politicized and lacking sufficient objective criteria. It also makes it possible for government prosecutors to bring cases against individuals without proof that they have engaged in terrorism, aided or abetted terrorists, or planned to commit terrorism. Under the 1996 act, the government may freeze the assets of designated terrorist groups and use secret witnesses against those suspected of having links to terrorists.

3) “It was not until after 9/11 that democratic countries introduced legislation that criminalised an ‘act of terrorism’” (O’Hare, 2011) To aid police in their fight against terrorism, the Australian Government has made a significant number of changes to current legislation, as well as introducing a number of new counter-terrorism laws to assist law enforcement in responding to terrorist threats. “The states and territories have referred legislative powers to the Commonwealth to allow the creation of a single set of terrorism offences under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (the Criminal Code).” (Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p. 55) These amendments, and additional legislation, have been instrumental in allowing law enforcement to respond to terrorist threats. In addition to new criminal offences, new powers include; more effective detention and questioning powers; the ability to declare terrorist organisations illegal; and the ability to exercise more control over people’s movements. The new counter-terrorism “offences are aimed at individuals who engage in, train for, prepare, plan, finance or provide support for terrorist acts.” (Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p. 55) Other tools within the Criminal Code available are ‘control orders’ and ‘preventative detention’. “Control orders are protective measures that can restrict a person’s movements and activities.” (Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p. 57) Whereas

In Canada, terrorism exuding from Al-Qaeda-propelled radicalism remains a genuine risk. In spite of late fruitful operations focusing on Al-Qaeda Core, the Service keeps on seeing backing for AQ causes in Canada. Of specific importance is the aforementioned examination concerning an asserted Al-Qaeda-connected plot to assault a train in Southern Ontario, which prompted the capture of two people in April 2013.Over the recent years Canada has seen an extensive development in both domestic and global terrorist threat and additionally various significant. There were prominent episodes of Canadians flying out abroad to take part in terrorist exercises, and the remarkable captures for an asserted terrorist plot to be completed on Canadian soil. In the United States, fear assaults at the April 2013 Boston Marathon showed the continuous danger to the West from homegrown brutal extremism.

Bill C-51 also known as the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, is a bill that was first tabled in Parliament in January 2015. It was introduced to enhance Canada’s original anti-terror laws which were created shortly after the terrorist attack on September 11th 2001 in the United States of America. Moreover, the need to revise and amend these laws became even more evident after recent attacks both in Canada and abroad. In doing so the government recognized the need to adopt a more preventative approach to dealing with internal and external threats. However, there are a large number of individuals, groups and institutions which opposed this bill. This was evident in March of 2015 when political protests were held and over fifty-five rallies took place across Canada (Lepore, 1). The majority of those opposed to the new anti-terror legislation expressed concerns with three major components of the bill and the vagueness; to privacy concerns with the new information sharing between agencies, new amendments to the Criminal Code surrounding terrorism offences and the increased powers provided to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS); specifically their perceived lack of oversight. Although this piece of legislation is crucial to the safety and security of Canada against acts of terrorism it requires some amendments in order to ensure proper oversight and respect for Canadian values. This paper will argue that changes need to be made to the CSIS act, specifically regarding