Essay On Bill C-51

Did the obtaining of evidence breach ss.8, 9 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

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’

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.

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.

Why were men allowed to fight in wars at the age of 18 but not allowed to vote? This all began in World War II and intensified during the Vietnam War. World War II began in 1941 and ended in 1961 which was a 20 years difference. Young men were being drafted for fighting in wars at the age of 18. They fought and protested for years because they wanted to be able to vote. Letting them vote affected a lot of people and things because it was many votes that counted towards helping the world out. This problem got passed in 1971 which became The 26th Amendment.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, was signed into law on October 3rd, 1965, and abolished the National Origins Formula. This aforementioned policy was an American structure of immigration quotas that transpired from 1921 to 1965 and limited resettlement to the United States, based on the conviction that an existing ethnic composition needed to be maintained. This former policy directly impacted existing proportions of the population from Eastern and Southern Europe and demonstrated an inherent bias against Asians and Africans. However the Immigration Act of 1965 intended to eradicate these former immigration policies, replacing it with a law that was meant to lead to profound demographic changes. The Immigration and Nationality Act was cited as a radical break from the then-quota-system, replacing it with a preference structure that focused on an immigrants’ skills and family relationships with United States residents. At its core the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was a reformed legislation that eased restrictions on immigration laws and

One of the important and longest debates in the history of American post- independence was about whether or not to ratify the Constitution, which was proposed by the delegates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The supporters of the approved Constitution called themselves Federalists and those who were against it were known as Antifederalists. Each party has their own beliefs on why the Constitution should be ratify or not. Their beliefs are clearly displayed in some of the following articles: Patrick Henry's "Virginia Should Reject the Constitution,” Robert Yates “Brutus,” James Madison's "Federalist Paper No. 10.”

This paper is about the Propisition 60 that will be voted on in California this November. It discuses the opposing arguments for and against the bill and what the consequences will be if the bill is passed. Also it will discuss as to whether the Proposition is best viewed from consensus or conflict view of law.

Immigration is a hot topic, Donald Trump did not start this discussion this is an ongoing issue. The American government cannot ignore the problems society is experiencing with the current immigration policy. The News Week article “Fifty Years Later, the Immigration Bill that Changed America”, shares how the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 changed the face of America. This Act removed the national origin quota system that was established in the 1920’s. The quota system limited the number of immigrant who could enter American based on their ethnicity. Removing the quota was a timing issue, Civil Rights were a hot issue in 1965 and the quota was bias, however removing the quota caused America major problems.

Colorado voters do not realize how easy they have made it for children to obtain marijuana. When Amendment 64 was passed, an already troublesome condition escalated to a more dangerous level for our youth. School officials are “reporting an increase in marijuana-related incidents in middle and high schools” (Nancy Lofholm). Sadly, parents smoke openly, in front of their children. Now that they can legally obtain one ounce of marijuana, they do not see the need to keep the drugs out of sight. Once in plain sight, kids have more access to marijuana to share or sell with their peers. Easy availability of weed to minors has very harmful effects on the young mind. Amendment 64 needs to be altered to include more stringent controls to keep the

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 impacted the American people without many of them realizing it. The act called for increased monitoring of computer networks, phone lines, and online history inside the United States and allowed the government to deport suspects (ACLU). What was created by the act has snaked its way into all aspects of our lives, creating a sense of order and restricting some freedom. However, some say that this imposition into our daily lives limits our freedoms and actions allowed us by the Constitution. Many interest groups voice strong resentment for the act while others try to demonstrate the strengths and triumphs of the Homeland Security Act. This paper will show the differing viewpoints of those that feel that the

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

Mock Congress Journal was required to write Bill 9 (The Transportation and Economic Growth Act of 2016) and Bill 11 (A Resolution to Ban Monitoring of Social Media). I Found a pretty good amount of Information that is Against Bill number 9 like how it actually would not help the federal highway system and public transportation it would just hurt them because the 45 cents raise in cost for gas may sound like it is not much, but when paying for gas that 45 cents would cause it to go up from 60$ for a full gas tank to 90$ for a full gas tank. Another reason why raising the gas prices would be bad is that it would cost so much more to take publ=ic transportation like a Taxi or a Airplane than what it is like now so if the gas prices are raised then the chance of somebody taking an airplane or a taxi would drop a lot.

In 2005 the terrorist attack in London (7/7) killed 56 people and 700 were injured. This was the largest and deadliest terrorist attack in London in history. It is clear that law enforcement agencies powers have increases with the statutes that have been implemented. The Terrorist Act 200 created a power to carry out blanket stop and searches. The Anti- Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 introduced new powers for the Treasury to freeze terrorist funds

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