Bill C-51 Ina

Since the British North America Act was adopted in 1867, Canada has been developing and writing up their own laws independently from other countries. Many people believe that, though our Canadian laws have come far from the days of the BNA act, they are still not up to par with the harshness of American laws. The advantage that Canadians have over Americans is that in Canada, there is only one criminal code for all Canadians whereas in the United States, every State has their own criminal codes which, unfortunately for the Americans, are not identical. Also, the United States and Canada each have a law that is fraught with the possibility that an injustice will be brought upon those whom these laws apply. In the United States, it is the

Canada is a huge country located between the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean and consists of 10 provinces. This country is the host for immigrants from all over the world with different religions and cultures. It embraces all of these diverse groups of people. It was essential that some arrangements be made to accommodate for these divers groups’ needs and ultimately in the year 1960 legislation of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was a huge step toward these affairs. The Charter was enacted by the parliament in order to respect each person’s rights and eligibilities in different areas and it is divided into subsections.

Australia’s first anti-terror laws were enacted in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11 (Prof Andrew Lynch 2010). In recent years, increasing Australian involvement in international conflict has seen these laws shift to accommodate alarming trends in home grown terrorism (Australian Security Intelligence Organisation 2014). Sydney’s 2014 terror raids prompted the most significant changes to Australia’s counter terrorism legislation in the last decade (Commonwealth of Australia Department of Defence 2015). Amendments granted law enforcement and intelligence agencies new and somewhat controversial powers, in the name of national security.

Kim Campbell introduced Bill C-49 that stated that when in a rape trial, the witness can not be cross-examined while testifying. This bill was an important implication that protects the victim's past sexual history into the trial. This bill was an important implication that has helped many people in Canada. Without this bill, it would make rape victim’s court cases even harder to win and get the justice they deserve.

The purpose of this act is to encourage and monitor the sharing of information between Government of Canada institutions in order to protect Canada against activities that threaten the security of Canada, but this bill not only fails to fix those flaws, it recreates and causes more underlying problems without adding any meaningful safeguards to ensure the expansive powers it grants will not be similarly abused. The bill allows information sharing across 17 government institutions for a wide range of purposes, most of which have nothing to do with terrorism. After the bill was passed, it has raised serious concerns regarding the potential impact is has on the basic civil liberties of all Canadians. The new legislation significantly expands CSIS’

There are moments when civil liberties should be curtailed in democratic countries like the US and Canada, in order to maintain national security. While this is true, there are also moments that an individual’s civil liberty should be maintained whereas it is not. Consequently, governments should make clear boundaries as to which occasions civil liberties should be restricted. For instance, both the Patriotic Act and the Anti-terrorist Act allowed rover wiretapping which are needed to deal with terrorists who have a sophisticated knowledge of how technology works.

The case of Thomas v Mowbray revolutionised and created a new, broad, perspective of the constitutional defence powers in regards to terrorism. This was the first case to reach the High Court on the validity of anti-terrorism measures that were recently introduced to Australia by the executive. Thomas made several submissions within this case, including that the defence power was limited to defence against threats from foreign states and that the words ‘naval and military’ present in the wording of the section confines the defence power to those activities and cannot underpin broader activities to protect the community. Unfortunately, on the first point there was a 6:1 majority that the law was valid under the power for threats both domestic and foreign. Kirby J dissent held that the Commonwealth had essentially failed to establish the factual basis that was needed to support its reliance on the defence power. Further, Kirby J concluded that the ‘facts underpinning the war on terror did not constitute hostilities for the purposes of the first limb of the defence power.’ The majority of the High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the anti-terrorism laws that allowed for the courts to impose control orders upon persons of whom they believed to pose a threat due to their connections to listed terrorist organisations, regardless of the possibly that some derogable rights maybe be overridden. The control order imposed on Thomas required him to remain in his residence

For example, according to Bill C-51, a lot more discretion has been promoted to police to carry out something called “preventive detention.” Ordinarily, for so-called ‘normal’ offences (e.g., drunk driving, assault, etc.) arrest can only take place where an officer believes there are reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been or will be carried out. Now, under

The schematic format of this paper is to provide a brief inquiry of Parliament’s response to the legislature, examine the issues surrounding oversight, and investigate the violations of constitutional rights. Although C-51 is divided into five parts, the following experts will examine privacy protection from parts one through four. These include, the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act, the Secure Air Travel Act, the Criminal Code, and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act (Parliament of Canada, 2015).

The Patriot Act, an act passed by Congress in 2001 that addressed the topic of privacy in terrorist or radical situations, is controversial in today's society. Although it helps with protection against terroristic events, The Patriot Act is not fair, nor is it constitutional, because it allows the government to intrude on citizens' privacy, it gives governmental individuals too much power, and because the act is invasive to the 4th amendment right. To further describe key points in the act, it states that it allows investigators to use the tools that were already available to investigate organized crime and drug trafficking, and it allows law enforcement officials to obtain a search warrant anywhere a terrorist-related activity occurred.

Surveillance and biopolitical governance are terms usually associated with the internal surveillance methods of the United States, especially in light of the Snowden NSA leaks. However, Canada has developed an elusive biopolitical national security policy that has both social and political consequences. In April 2004, the Canada’s federal government introduced its first national security legislation, Securing an Open Society: Canada’s National Security Policy (Bell 147). Discussions surrounding a national security agenda has expanded rapidly since the tragic events of 9/11. Canada has quoted $690 million in national security policy and strategy however, this only reflects a portion of the actual total amount of money put towards security and

How exactly does the government “control” terrorists? Firstly, they now have permission to declare an unjustified arrest on “suspected targets.” Now the key word here is “suspected,” this can mean relation, interaction with offenders, childhood relationships, birthplace, previous record of law offence, and religion. I mean come on, though many Canadian citizens are safe from this bill, other innocent people can be arrested for these charges, and can you really defend a bill that defies up to seven of the eleven clauses of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Is this really what Canada believes in?

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

Canada federal officials are investigating a privacy breach involving the imprisoned terrorist who lost the rights to live in the country . Zakaria Amara’s receipt of a government letter informing him he no longer held Canadian citizenship was promptly reported in the media late last month and soon after confirmed by a Conservative cabinet minister in the middle of a closely fought election campaign.The issue quickly fired up the campaign trail debate about new provisions that allow the government to revoke a terrorist’s canadian citizenship as long as the person has nationality elsewhere. However the citizenship and immigration canada is refusing to release a copy of the letter to Amara due to privacy considerations. The department takes privacy matters very seriously and has procedures in place to protect their personal information. Citizenship and immigration would not be elaborate it would be inappropriate to comment any further. The federal act protects the privacy of individuals with respect to their personal information about themselves held by government institutions. One’s citizenship would be considered personal information.

There is an increase in Canadians fearing terrorism. Omar Khadr is also a confirmed supporter of terrorism that was also allowed back into Canada and set free on bail without serving his full sentence. They