Bill C-51

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

One of the most misinterpreted aspects of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the freedom of expression. Group organizations have misused this much too often. In the past, many extremist groups have misused this right to protect themselves. A great example is the Westboro Baptist Church. This church is one of the many groups across North America that uses the Charter to protect themselves. The Charter protects them even though their actions and messages are harmful and not beneficial to society. If the Charter was to recognize these groups as dangerous, they wouldn’t have the chance to misuse these freedoms. Also, the fact that if a Canadian citizen were to use the excuse of the freedom of expression to defend their actions, they wouldn’t

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.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an important milestone in Canadian history. An effort through rigorous debate and compromise gave birth to this document that defines our collective values and principles by guaranteeing and protecting the fundamental rights of its citizens. Prior to the Charter, there was no gurantee in Canada that rights and freedoms would not be taken away by legislation. The Charter also allows courts to render the constitutional duty so that any decisions made are consistent with those rights and freedoms. The Charter was established firmly in “The Constitution Act, 1982”, with the declaration of this act Canada escaped from the severe practice of concept of parliamentary supremacy. The Charter has an enormous effect on court’s decision power to award justice to important and debatable issues about policies that affect public. In awarding the verdict courts are not even reluctant to rewrite laws that violate the testament of the Charter. The judges have a duty to regulate the rulings of both provincial and federal governments which, disagree with the root value of Charter.

Public Law 107-56 otherwise known as the USA PATRIOT Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. USA PATRIOT Act is an acronym which stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. (justice.gov) This law was instated in response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The Islamic terrorist group known as Al-Qaeda, coordinated four different plane hijackings killing 2,996 people, and injuring 6,000+ others. (9/11 memorial.org) Just weeks after the attacks congress rushed to pass this bill, passing the senate 98 to 1, and the house 357 to 66 (justice.gov), so that we can have more security controls within the United States. It gives the United States government the same powers and tools used to investigate organized crime and drug trafficking in decades prior, to investigate current suspected terrorist. The Patriot act has several different titles that cover different grounds, all which have the same purpose of preventing future acts of terrorism. The patriot act allows the government to track and intercept any form of electronic communications of suspected terrorist in order to prevent any acts of terror, and also for intelligence gathering. The act also aids the government in securing borders, and removing those that are here with the intent to cause harm.

After the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001 the United States became a very different place. This drastic change was caused by the initial emotional reactions that American citizens, as well as government leaders had towards the tragic event. The government, in an effort to assure that these events never happen again passed the USA PATRIOT Act, which is an acronym that stands for the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. The major goal of this act is to combat terrorism by giving the government more leeway in what areas they are allowed to use their surveillance tools and also to what circumstances these tools can be used. The major issue that arise with this act are the fact that many of the act can be seen as unconstitutional.

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 necessity to limit the rights and freedoms of Canadians is illustrated and reinforced through the governments use of reasonable limits, ‘notwithstanding clause’ to limit individual rights and freedoms, and the occasional need for the government to have power extended above and beyond the limits prescribed in the Charter.

As a Canadian in today’s society we believe we have a certain set of inalienable rights. One of those rights that seem to be at the forefront of the 2015 Canadian election is privacy. As Dr. Kent Roach and Dr. Craig Forcese state, “privacy is, in our society, the right to be left alone by the state.” The Conservative upbringing of Bill C-51 challenges the ideology around our right to be private, as well as our government’s role in the protection of Canada from threats of terrorism. The Harper government essentially, will increase their role in national security to keep a constant watchful eye on potentially harmful situations and end them before anyone is hurt or killed. If passed, the bill would allow the government to arrest anyone suspected of terrorism without that person even committing a crime. Furthermore, the language used in the bill is extremely vague and makes one question, where the line will be drawn? Will our basic rights to peaceful protest and free speech be affected? Unfortunately perhaps they will. One of the most concerning parts of the bill in regard to privacy is the fact that the government will now be able to access several sensitive documents about citizens from top agencies such as the Public Health Agency, Canadian Border Services Agency as well as the Canadian Border Services Agency. Privacy is changing in Canada. This is a landmark bill and as such it is creating quite a splash in the ongoing Canadian Election.

This type of secretive government program certainly defines the contradictions of a so-called democratic country, which has continually propagandized the idea of equal rights and the right of individuals to have different political ideas. The role of the RCMP actually presents a type of “police state” mentality that projects a threat to democracy as a part of human rights violations committed by the Canadian government during this time. The Cold Ear ideology of “capitalism versus communism” certainly created a hyper-reactionary dualism in Canadian politics, which viewed anyone who supported communism as an enemy of the state. PROFUNC certainly defines a concerted effort by government officials and the RCMP to monitor Canadian communists with the future potential of having them imprisoned during a time of war with the Soviet Union.

In the midst of the October Crisis Pierre Trudeau handled the time of terrorism well. In this essay one will see how Trudeau handled the crisis excellently by examining the first domestic use of the War Measures Act which led to improvements on the Act, ensuring that Quebec did not become its own independent country, and how Canada stood behind and supported Quebec and Pierre Trudeau through the acts of violence led by the FLQ.

A paradox has always exists between the issue of civil liberties and national security. Democracy creates civil liberties that allow the freedom of association, expression, as well as movement, but there are some people use such liberal democracy to plan and execute violence, to destabilize State structures. It illustrates the delicate balance existing between reducing civil liberties to enhance security in a state. States have detained suspects for years and have also conducted extensive privacy incursions as strategies to combat terror, however it risks violation of civil liberties. This essay discusses the extent to which a state should be allowed to restrict civil liberties for the enhancement of national security and not abandon democratic values. It looks at aspects of the legal response to terrorism in the United States after the 9/11 attack.

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

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