Review of the Inquiry of Air India Flight 182: A Canadian Tragedy

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’

What's the great urgency to mass the large force of RCMP to go in and take down the camp? I'm rather curious. Are they undertaking a test drive of Bill C-51 or exactly what's going on here?"

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

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 purpose of this act is to encourage and monitor the sharing of information between Canadian government 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 protection to ensure that the powers it grants will not be 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’ (Canadian Security

Controversy has presented its self over a newly introduced bill known as Bill C-51. Inside its contents there are drastic changes to be implemented into Canadian Law and Canada’s national security. Many of these changes show little regard for the rights and freedoms of Canadians. The vague language of the Bill is concerning for the public, as it contains the word “may” which is open to interpretation. The Bill would allow CSIS to arrest people it suspects “may” commit terrorist acts, opposed to “will”, allowing the government to decide what they deem as not appropriate.

The 2006 Ontario terrorism plot or the “Toronto 18” was a terrorist conspiracy where 18 radicalized extremists where planning an attack in Southern Ontario Canada on June 2 2006. The main targets were to detonate truck bombs, attack the CSIS headquarters, the Toronto stock exchange, open fire in crowed areas, attack the parliament building, take hostages and behead the prime minister of Canada. Fortunately, the police and the Canadian security intelligence services impeded it.

Canada has created a strategy to tackle global and domestic threat. The Strategy includes the activities of government departments that are involved in counter-terrorism and how the activities contribute to the Government’s Strategy for countering terrorism (Building Resilience Against Terrorism: Canada's Counter-terrorism Strategy, 2015, Figure 1). The strategy is laid out in a clear and unified format and four elements, which include:

Anti-terrorism policy has become a more important legislative issue since the September 11th incident in 2001. Prior to this event, North American countries felt the need to implement new policy that would protect their citizens from criminal activity associated with acts of terror. In Canada, anti-terrorism policy consists of three main components identified in the literature: 1) The criminal code and relevant violations; 2) Anti-Terror Legislation; and 3) policy in practice. In this briefing note, all three will be analyzed based on whether or not the current policy is sufficiently protecting Canadians while ensuring that civil liberties are not being violated.

The state of today’s national security is not the same as it was as recent as forty years ago. Increased deadly and violent acts of terrorism have caused a great amount of fear, lack of confidence in national security, and loss of hope within a nation. A notable act of terrorism towards a nation was the September 11 attacks that happened in the United States. Though the attacks directly affected the United States, it indirectly had an impact on Canada, as the neighbouring country, and a majority of the world. It led many countries to take a step forward and to introduce laws that prevented any acts of terrorism towards their country. On October 15, 2001, the Liberal party introduced the “Canadian Anti-Terrorism Act”, or Bill C-36, to Parliament

On June 1st, 1999 American Airlines flight 1420 experienced a tragic accident that claimed many lives and made an impact on aviation worldwide. The event and it subsequent investigation shed

Roughly nineteen years ago, on March 20th 1995, five Tokyo subway lines underwent a chemical attack which involved the deadly poison known as sarin. This was considered to be the biggest catastrophe Japan had seen since World War II. When the gas was released thousands of daily subway goer’s mornings took an awful turn. This violent terrorist act killed thirteen people, left 50 severely injured, and thousands with temporary vision problems. The perpetrators had fled the scene with no trace. Although the Japanese Government did believe it was committed by members of Aum Shinrikyo.

On the 6th November 1945, a United States bomber flies over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The only cargo aboard that B-29 bomber was an atomic bomb waiting on its target. At 8.15am the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, taking 140,000 lives with it. Most of the 140,000 died instantly, horrifyingly the rest of the innocent civilians that were not in direct contact with the bomb died painful deaths in the four months following. They died from radiation sickness and different types of cancers.

I also want to look at the clauses and see if I consider them to be fair. Most people would be shocked to learn of some of the clauses including the fact that in almost all situations where the end result is bodily harm or even death, Air Canada is protected and does not need to assume any responsibility for what happened. Of course, if something like this happens just due to negligence on the part of an Air Canada employee, that is a whole other story that will be discussed later on. If I find that I don’t think a point is fair, it will be a topic of discussion where I will recommend a solution that can help both parties. For the most part, customers and passengers of Air Canada must understand that they are not being forced to take a flight with their airlines. Air Canada is performing a service for them and if they decide to accept this service then they must be willing to abide and play with Air Canada’s rules. This is because the main objective of Air Canada when writing up this contract is to provide a service where they can make a profit, but do it in a way where they are not at risk and cannot get into legal trouble. People must remember

This assignment will be discuss, analyse and critical evaluate on the incident of aircraft Boeing 737-400 with flight registration number G-OBMM near Daventry on 23 February 1995. This assignment will be base on the report of Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB), Department of Transport with report number 3/96 (EW/C95/2/3). This aircraft incident has been choose because of the report provided by AAIB was clear with the sequences of incident, information of the aircraft operator and the Authority, complete with clear finding and factors that lead to incident also provide with 15 safety recommendations to prevent this type of incident occur again in the future.