Terrorism: What Is Mr. Trudeau Solution?

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.

The Charter is divided into categorized sections that have different sets of rights or freedoms, but they all come together to complete one job and that is ensuring every Canadian’s rights and keeping everyone safe. The greatest impact of the Charter has always been in the area of criminal law. Charter-protected legal rights mean more prominent protections for accused people, including the right to speak to a lawyer, to not be detained subjectively, and to be free against unreasonable search and seizure (Significance 1; sec. 5, para. 1). These things really makes Canada a fair and just country. But, although the greatest impact of the Charter has been

Bill C-51 was passed on June 2015 and has since caused a lot of controversy among Canadian citizens. The legislation was created to stop future terror attacks on the country and to slow down radicalization. Instead, Canadians find that the bill strips them of their freedom and promises little improvement to public safety. Not only that, but some also find it dangerous in terms of its potential impacts on constitutionally and internationally protected rights, on the rule of law, and on the health of Canada’s democracy. In the end, this legislation is not only unsuccessful in countering terrorism, but is also counter-productive in that it is reckless, dangerous and ineffective towards supporting Canadians’ rights and freedom.

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 article, “How Ottawa’s New Terrorism Act Could Chill Free Speech” by Kent Roach and Craig Forcese is briefly about how the new terrorism law restricts people from free speech. The authors of this article believe that this law, also known as Bill C-51 is panoptic and that it accuses even those who have no intention to promote acts of violence. In addition, they consider that this recently passed act condemns constitutionally legal speeches by providing a hypothetical example of a foreign affairs newspaper columnist who expresses her views on the Ukrainian crisis. The journalist ideates that the Canadian government should support Ukrainian rebellions who are intending

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Bill C-51 has been a controversy since it was hastily pushed through parliament by the Conservatives in a knee-jerk reaction to two attacks on Canadian soil that were deemed as “acts of terrorism.” Surely Canadian’s agree with laws that protect us from acts of terrorism, but Bill C-51’s broad generalizations and definitions can easily result in manipulating this law to target non-terrorist groups and individuals.

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

Coming in at over 60 pages, the Anti Terrorist Act, is not only a long read, but its a long read filled with problems. This new law upset millions of Canadians because it allowed the government to impeach on Canadians privacy without their knowledge or without due cause because of a thought they may be a terrorist or promoting terrorism. This new law which contains ideas of creating a new “secret” police force, censoring our freedom of speech and other changes that are downright unconstitutional. This law which was passed in 2015, requires significant amendments and I will explain to you two of the many points that need changing within Bill C-51.

The Canadian Criminal Justice System is, for the most part, reflective of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and various Supreme Court of Canada case-law. Everyone who finds themselves on the opposing end of the Criminal Justice System is entitled to certain protections every step of the way, beginning even before the arrest; laws protect us from unreasonable investigative techniques, guarantee certain rights at point of arrest, and provide us with the right to counsel. The bail court departs from the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard in that the crown only needs to prove on a balance of probabilities (Kellough, 1996, p. 175) in order to take away a person’s freedom. It is for this reason I decided to limit the scope of my

In October 1970, Canada faced a pressing terrorist attack in Montreal, Quebec by a group known as the Front de Liberation du Quebec, or the FLQ for short. The group committed multiple attacks starting in 1963 that slowly escalated until the October Crisis, where they kidnapped two government officials and proceeded to murder one of them. The Canadian government responded harshly and rapidly. The prime minister of Canada, Pierre Trudeau, issued the War Measures Act which along with various things allowed the police and military full reign to arrest people and hold them with no explanation. The Canadian population was highly supportive of the government’s action believing that this extreme state repression would bring a finish to the October

Bill C-51 was passed on June 2015 and has since caused a lot of controversy among Canadian citizens. The legislation was created to stop future terror attacks on the country and to slow down radicalization. Instead, Canadians find that the bill strips them of their freedom and promises little improvement to public safety. Not only that, but some also find it dangerous in terms of its potential impacts on constitutionally and internationally protected rights, on the rule of law, and on the health of Canada’s democracy. In the end, this legislation is not only unsuccessful in countering terrorism, but is also counter-productive in that it is reckless, dangerous and ineffective towards supporting Canadians’ rights and freedom.

This has led to problems for many harmless people in the US. After the 9/11 incident, many innocent people have been denied entry inside the United States of America only because they had been suspected of being involved in terrorist activities. Taking the United States as an example, INA should have been Canada's primary source for comparison to ensure the same problems that the United state government faced, should not occur in Canada. Numerous people faced repercussions after this amendment was made. Another similarity between the two is that under the INA, the police has similar authority to the police officer under the Bill C-51, and can not only arrest an individual based on suspicion but can also prohibit him from entering the country if it is believed that the individual was a part of any terrorist activity. Therefore it is absolutely vital that the Bill C-51 be amended so that innocent people in Canada do not face such consequences and there is no contradictions between Bills and Charters in

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

I have proposed in these first paragraphs that there are problems with having judges at the head of the legal and moral trajectory of our nation, but surely I am not the first to propose such a thing. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms addresses this issue by having the threat of a legislature disregarding the Supreme Court. Sections 1 and 33 give parliament just such authority. At the beginning of this essay I made the statement that putting our rights under reasonable limits

In this world there are those who choose to invoke terror in the hearts of others; those who do this are called terrorists. They kill, hurt, or destroy to scare others into doing what they want. This is happening in America; this has happened before, when Ronald Reagan was President, and it was quickly ended when he showed them the true power of America. He scared them into stopping their terrorist activity by showing them who the ‘boss’ was. This doesn’t happen anymore; our presidents are weak and slow to take action, even at the beheading of an American citizen, and this shows terrorists that Americans are losing power when in fact they are not.