The Impact of the Anti-Terrorism Act on the State and Citizen

Since the 9/11 attacks on U.S. soil at the outset of the twenty-first century, western states have enacted vast changes in the way that they deal with terrorist groups and terrorists. Due to the fact that civilian casualties have escalated as a result of terrorist acts, western polities have steered away from a punitive paradigm that criminalizes terrorist acts and aims at penalizing individuals who perpetrate such acts. Instead, there has been a dramatic shift towards a preventative approach in which terrorist acts are prevented prior towards any manifesting and inflicting harm on innocent victims. In Jonathan Shapiro’s “An Ounce of Cure for a Pound of Preventive Detention: Security Certificates,” published in Queen’s Law Journal in 2008, discusses the paradigm shift in Canadian foreign policy as it pertains to terrorism through a cogent discussion of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). The IRPA authorizes the government to detained suspected terrorists amidst deportation proceedings. However, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a decision that the Charter was provisionally violated by certain provisions of the Act, which is the central point of contention Shapiro has in this article. Indeed, he critiques the approach of the Supreme Court in the Charkaoi v. Canada decision, positing that the security certificate process violates several of the liberty and equality

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

The 9/11 terror attacks is one of the historical and fatal events that changed the United States of America forever, especially in relation to terrorists and terrorism. While these concepts were on the minds of very few people in America's population before the attacks, the 9/11 incident made terrorism to become one of the major concerns for the whole nation. This is despite of the fact that they were carried out in New York City, Washington, and parts of Pennsylvania. Since it was a major concern, the terror attacks dominated all kinds of media and contributed to increased security measures for average Americans. Moreover, terrorism currently provides a major threat to global security that any time in American and global history (Dyson, 2001, p.3). As a result, it has become a fundamental aspect for law enforcement agencies and their initiatives, particularly with the rapid technological advancements.

On June 9th 2015, Stephen Harper and the Canadian government passed Bill C-51. It’s an anti terrorism act, with only the best intentions at mind for Canada and its national security. However since it’s approval, there has been much controversy surrounding the bill. There are five key changes in Bill C-51 and many Canadians aren’t pleased with them, such as, the right to exchange information between national agencies, unwarranted arrests and also the increase in surveillance that will occur with both of these new conditions (Watters, 1). Bill C-51 also interferes with sections of the Charter and other key legal philosophies such as the Magna Carta and the Rule of Law.

In coordination with the growing outcomes of terrorism, both international and domestic, we can examine the effectiveness of Australian Law in balancing the rights of the individual and the state. Throughout the course of time we see the changing face of international terrorism and how it has implications that are far reaching and affect our day to day rights and freedoms. I will be referring to the following cases in my response; Mohamed Haneef, David Hicks, Peter Greste and also Australian citizens involved in ISIL.

The second change that the Anti-Terrorism Act needs is to change the language that makes the new law so vague. Right now the law is said so that it covers “terrorism offences in general”. We already knew that it was illegal to commit a terrorist act or facilitate an act, however; the amendment makes promoting or advocating terrorism a criminal offence, and although few people speak out in favor in terrorism, the new act would make speech supporting terrorism illegal,

Terrorism is an act of violence, usually done in the public sphere, which is used to incite fear in a population in order to coerce change in public opinion or a government’s position on an issue. In many parts of the world, groups wage war with their countries, either to separate from the government or to overthrow it entirely. Sometimes these people are treated unfairly by their government, and their struggles are justified. Other times, these groups use violence against both military and civilian targets, terrorizing innocent bystanders to get what they want—these groups are terrorists. Often, though, it is difficult to tell the difference.

They elucidate that terrorism is a “premeditated, politically motivated, violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups of clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience,” (National Institute of Justice).

The word “terrorism” was first used during the French Revolution when British statesman Edmond Burke used the term to describe the actions of the Jacobin-dominated French government. Under the leadership of Maximilien Robespierre, thousands of people that were said to be enemies of the state were put on trial and then executed by use of the guillotine (O 'Connor, 2006). However, since the inception of the word, it has taken on a new meaning. One can now hear the word “terrorism” and be overcome by anger or even fear. Terrorism now seems to have turned to attacks against a government rather

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

The most common and frequently the most serious problem in legal definitions of terrorism under national laws is that they are overbroad and vague. As a basic legal principle, such laws fail to give reasonable notice of what actions are covered. Many are so broad that they cover common crimes that should not reasonably be deemed terrorist or acts that should not be considered crimes at all. “Their scope leaves them susceptible to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement by the authorities” (In the Name of Security). Few terrorism definitions are so narrowly drawn. In general, definitions of terrorism tend to cover acts carried out for a wide variety of purposes, often with no requirement that they cause or intend to cause death or serious injury, and without specifying the level of physical property damage required to render an act terrorist. “Legal definitions of terrorism generally specify two or three basic elements: the act and purpose, or the act, intent, and purpose” (In the Name of Security). The crime of terrorism is typically characterized as an act carried out with a particular intent—for example, the intent to kill—and for a specific purpose, such as coercing or intimidating a government or population into performing or abstaining from an action. The American Civil Liberties Union

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

September 11th, 2001, the day that the biggest terrorist attacks in history took place, the attack on the World Trade Centre in New York City. Even though this act of terrorism took place in the United States, it still had a major effect on Canada and changed a lot about the country and formatted what Canada is today. I will speak of four ways in which 9/11 affected Canada: The accusation that some of the hijackers entered the U.S. through Canada, how 9/11 affected immigration to Canada for Muslims, the way Muslims live in Canada today, and the story of Maher Arar and its relation 9/11.

Terrorism in the twenty-first century has some similarities and differences from terrorism in the twentieth century. Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use or threatened use of violence in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim. Also useful to remember that because the two entities involved, the terrorists and the terrorized, are on the opposite end of the political, religious or ideological continuum, the same act is viewed by them differently. There is much sense in the phrase one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

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