It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Source
Bill 36 has been passed into law after the Liberal government rammed it through the House of Commons and Senate in record time. In both houses of Parliament, the Liberal Party whips cut down further debate by moving closure motions. Royal Assent was given within an hour of Senate passing the bill on December 18, 200. Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Anne McLellan will now have to gazette the effective date of the law coming into force along with the list of organizations and individuals whom the Minister considers as �terrorists.�
The Anti- Terrorism Act amended many acts like Bill C16 (Registration of Charities (Security information) and others like Criminal Code of Canada, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Immigration Act, the proceeds of Crime Act, Access to Information Act, Canada Post Corporation Act etc. These acts that were amended ensured due process of law and protection for citizens. Anti-terrorism law has an ulterior agenda. It is on par with the laws of Mussolini and Hitler.
The amendments remove the civil liberties previously guaranteed in those Acts. Ethical, religious, and environmental arguments are not available as defenses to any alleged breach of this new law. Prior to the enactment of the Anti-Terrorism law, those Acts provided sufficient due process of law and legal protection to citizens. The current law has an ulterior agenda and it is on par with the laws of Mussolini and Hitler.
The new law will have far reaching effects on the lives of visible minorities who will bear the brunt of the full force of this draconian law when implemented. They will lose both liberty and security and live as second-class citizens under the shadow of intelligence agencies and police with unlimited and unchecked powers of surveillance, arbitrary arrest and justice through secret evidence.
*Snip*
The Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE), a national organization of journalists and free expression advocates, in their submission to the House of Commons standing committee on justice and human rights said that proposed restrictions on freedom of expression, far from enhancing security, are likely to breed insecurity, forcing dissent underground and eroding confidence in Canada's security forces. Several sections of the bill contain serious assaults on the principles of free expression. We question the need to rush passage of a bill that makes significant inroads on long-standing principles of Canadian justice, in the absence of a demonstrably imminent threat to Canada or Canadians."
*snip*
Under the Anti-terrorism law passed by Parliament, it will be easier to arrest people suspected of terrorism. In fact, police wouldn�t even need a warrant to make an arrest as long as they believe they are preventing a terrorist attack. The law also makes it easier for officers to use electronic surveillance. For instance, the use of wiretaps to seek out terrorists could be extended to one year from the usual two months and the requirement of telling the suspect about electronic surveillance after it has taken place could be delayed for up to three years. The bill would also allow the government to store the DNA of terrorists, to compile lists of terrorists and their organizations and to freeze and take away the assets of terrorists and their supporters.
Under the Income Tax Act, organizations supporting terrorist groups that claim to be charities could be stripped of their charitable status. The Official Secrets Act � under the new name Security of Information Act � has been changed to address the threat of foreign powers and terrorists spying on Canada. The Canada Evidence Act would offer more protection to the country�s intelligence information. The National Defense Act would enable the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) to gather intelligence on terrorist groups.
*snip*
The Anti-Terrorism law does not have an expiry date. Only a five-year sunset clause on two provisions that will expire after five years unless Parliament votes to reinstate them. The provisions relate to police to take suspects under "preventive arrest," holding them for 72 hours without charge and special "investigative hearings" that would see witnesses compelled to testify.
Source
On the surface, all C-35 does is expand the definition of an "internationally protected person." Actually, it pre-dates September 11 and is a direct response to the protests at the Quebec City Summit in 2000. Despite the fact that it is not motivated by conventional notions of terrorism, it works hand-in-hand with the Anti-Terrorism Act. The latter Act includes in the definition of "terrorist activity" conduct directed against "internationally protected persons." The definition of who is an "internationally protected person" has been extended in Bill C-35 to embrace the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and thereby extends diplomatic immunity to "representatives of a foreign state that is a member of or participates in an intergovernmental organization, their households, and staff." This type of organization need not be established by treaty and includes an intergovernmental conference in which two or more states participate.
Whether it is coincidental or not, the G-8 was a non-treaty organization which held a conference in Kananaskis, Alberta, not long after the passage of this Act. The Act extends the protections for participants in such a conference or to trade summits or to other international gatherings. Moreover, protection would be afforded those who may be dictators in their home countries or who may have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity against their own citizens or the citizens of other countries.
As well, protection for such persons includes not just personal physical attacks but attacks on their "freedom" or "dignity." The potential effects on legitimate protests are unclear, but ominous. For instance, Section 431 of the Criminal Code creates an offence for, among other things, an attack on the means of transport of an internationally protected person. For example, the strategy at the globalization protest in Seattle was aimed at blocking the "means of transport" of WTO officials. Similar conduct in Canada could now be seen as terrorist activity.
Furthermore, under the Anti-Terrorism Act, a "terrorist group" is defined in such a broad manner that any group, such as the Council of Canadians or the Raging Grannies, that announces an intention to block road access to a conference such as the one held at Kananaskis is liable to be classified as a "terrorist group" even if not one single member of that organization actually ends up going to a protest.
There is one additional aspect to the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act which bears mention. It grants the RCMP extended but nebulous powers to provide security at international conferences. If there was any question about the legality of the infamous fence erected at Quebec City, this has now been redressed by the legislation which allows the RCMP to "take appropriate measures, including controlling, limiting or prohibiting access to any area to the extent and in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances." The phrase "reasonable in the circumstances" is, of course, so vague that it might justify the use of considerable force and measures that would be very draconian in a supposed democracy.
Source
Why is the Senate considering giving 8 different Ministers the Executive power on their sole authority to issue Interim Orders in lieu of laws without first consulting Parliament, and exempts the Orders from being even examined in advance for their legality or constitutionality?
Why does the government want to establish a reserve pool of military judges in the event of martial law?
Why is the Senate considering reintroducing searches without warrant?
Can the Interim Orders under the Quarantine Act be used to order forced vaccinations and/or internment as in the US Homeland Security Act?
Why does the government want to remove the protections of the Privacy Act of their personal data collected by the government within Canada?
Why does the government want to gives the personal data of Canadian travelers without any control on how the information will be used? If you are black-listed in the United States, will you be black-listed from flying in Canada? What can you do about it if you are?
What is the demonstrable need for Big Brother databases in a free and democratic society? Why does the USA get all the personal data of Canadians even when they are not flying to the US?
Ottawa Man Threatened With Secret Trial.
But you won't ever see Harkat in a court of law because he's being held under the draconian CSIS Security Certificate, which basically bars his family, lawyer and the public from seeing the case against him. In short, Harkat will be tried in secret.
Source
the Muslim and Arab communities will be directly affected. You just have to witness the approximately 800 illegal detentions in this country currently going on in the correctional centres before you even have Bill C-36, where Muslims and Arabs have been directed not to be able to phone their lawyers, see their lawyers, phone their families, see their family as of September 11. That's going on right now. I see it in the jails every day.
Originally posted by PistolPete
How come on such an �aware� forum such as ATS the quick to criticize the Patriot ACT (and America) members from the Great White North are mum on the subject?
Originally posted by Herman
Originally posted by PistolPete
How come on such an �aware� forum such as ATS the quick to criticize the Patriot ACT (and America) members from the Great White North are mum on the subject?
Well PistolPete, because America is the only country that ever does anything wrong! We're evil, didn't you know that already? pfft, you're just ignorant! I bet that evil Bush somehow got hold of a time machine, traveled back to when this bill was passed, and forced it through the Senate and House of Commons himself!
By the way, great post!
[Edited on 12-11-2004 by Herman]
Rather than reprint some nonsense from individuals who jump at any opportunity to complain about any and every law, I suggest you read the act itself
(b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada,
(i) that is committed
(A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and
(B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and
(ii) that intentionally
(A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,
(B) endangers a person's life,
(C) causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,
(D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), or
(E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C),
Originally posted by intrepid
I meant no disrespect Pete but you're in my field here. I work in a Detention Center, that's where they bring inmates are brought after booking and I can tell you that what is IMPLIED here doesn't happen.
Originally posted by Jamuhn
The point of the drunk pirate's post is that, if you follow the government, never question it, and stay in your place as a timid fellow, then everything will be alright.
Originally posted by PistolPete
Americans are hardly programmed for war. Our government has to take great measures to get our populace to approve a war. And even then the approval doesn't last very long. Americans are very peaceful people, we dislike war as much as the next guy.
It is true, you did reprint the nonsense others spouted. There will always be a contesting of a law, that does not mean those contesting are correct. It is not enough to tell me they are quite similar, I have challenged you to show me where they are to the extreme, and have gone further by providing the crux of C36 and that of the PA. They are in no way on the same level. And yes in America, they can be just picked off the street with the PA, all you need do is read the issues regarding the Guantanamo detainees and their fight to be heard in court.
Originally posted by PistolPeteI reprinted "nonsense" that others have said because they spoke in laymans terms that everyone could understand. In fact I did post links to the actual Bills in question. They are quite similar to the Patriot ACT in every way, shape and form. No one can "just be picked off the street" from the Patriot ACT, I don't know where you get this idea.
I suppose you should have read the text of Bill C-36, here's how a terrorist is defined in Canada:...
Obviously your idea of vague and mine differ. Since there is nothing vague about either. Bill C36 definitely points to extreme acts, the Patriot act can pick you up and send you off to a paid vacation to Cuba, in a 6x6 cell with no Cohibas to enjoy.
That's at least as vague as the Patriot ACT. I think you can probably construe "whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause" to be quite a few different things. Most of the unlawful acts directly stated in the Patriot ACT are indirectly stated here. To argue semantics at this point would be a fruitless effort.
Originally posted by billybob
north america is being molded into the western quadrant of the new world order. this is not a 'we're better than you' issue.
this is an issue of 'us', the average joe, versus, 'them' the power brokers.