Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Canada Rejects Anti-Terror Laws

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the shot-down dept.

507

Coryoth writes "The Canadian parliament has voted against renewing anti-terror laws that had been introduced after September 11, 2001. The rejected laws included provisions to hold terror suspects indefinitely, and to compel witnesses to testify, and were in some sense Canada's version fo the Patriot Act. The laws were voted down in the face of claims from the minority Conservative government that the Liberal Party was soft on terror, and despite the fact that Canada has faced active terrorist cells in their own country. The anti-terror laws have never been used, and it was viewed that they are neither relevant, nor needed, in dealing with terrorist plots. Hopefully more countries will come to the same conclusion."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Think of the children (of the terrorists) (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18184912)

Remember that in Canada, 9/11 is actually 11/9, since they use a different date format system up there, eh?

First Chimes! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18184914)

Terrorists get on my chimes.

Wow policies that dont work get revoked. (3, Funny)

jusDfaqs (997794) | more than 7 years ago | (#18184924)

Hopefully more countries will come to the same conclusion.
Yea, like this one, US!

Just Rejects Temporarily: +1, Patriotic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18185142)

They'll get a friendly phone call from this thug [whitehouse.org] .

I hope this helps the criminal investigation.

Yours truly,
Kilgore Trout, C.E.O.

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked. (0, Flamebait)

fatcock84 (311224) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185382)

"policies that dont work get revoked"

They don't work? Was there a terrorist act in Canada that the laws failed to prevent?

At best, the effectiveness of these laws were never tested.

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18185562)

Don't get too excited, even after the supreme court struck down certain portions of the TERROR! bill, the conservative prime minister Stephen Harper said they would ignore the ruling..
 
 
OTTAWA - Only days after the Supreme Court struck down parts of the security-certificate regime as unconstitutional, Prime Minister Stephen Harper vowed to "sustain" the system used to detain non-citizens believed to pose a national-security threat.

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that withholding evidence from individuals detained on security certificates violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
 
 

What the fuck is the problem with these red-neck politicians from oil rich states & provinces?

"He's a Jedi, 17 times, eh?" (3, Funny)

Baby Duck (176251) | more than 7 years ago | (#18184926)

I can finally Blame Canada ... for starting something Good.

Re:"He's a Jedi, 17 times, eh?" (1)

Bob Gelumph (715872) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185168)

New tag:
ThankCanada

Re:"He's a Jedi, 17 times, eh?" (1)

JazzLad (935151) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185640)

Oh my gosh, I haven't agreed with a post more in a long time. I think the only way we're (read:USA) gonna get our collective heads out of [fill in the blank: sand/dark smelly place/you get the idea] is if everyone else - even our '51st state' - shows us how asinine we're being. 'Land of the Free, home of the brave' should not be an ironic statement! we've toppled less-totalitarian governments than our own, if only the UK would wise up we'd be forced to realize the truth.

Too bad they are probably even worse off than we are. Perhaps if/when we clean up our act you (read:UK) can follow our example back from the darkside.

Cheers to Bob, Big Cheers to Canada. Read my sig, both groups are opposed to the crap that is going on these days (albeit the ACLU more than the NRA).

Re:"He's a Jedi, 17 times, eh?" (2, Insightful)

11011001 (710307) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185654)

This is one of those times where I am proud to actually be Canadian.

Once again showing (5, Funny)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 7 years ago | (#18184928)

that the U.S. is Canada's Mexico.

Maybe.... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18185156)

That's one way to look at it, but I thought most Canadians consider themselves as "The 51st State", as shown here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/51st_state#Canada [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Maybe.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18185242)

I suppose you don't do much of that "thinking" then, do you? A rare and spectacular occasion, yes?

As the french say (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18185344)

Dude, chill. As my good friends from Quebec like to say:

    Je me Souvien

Which translates roughly to

    I am Soup

Words that we call all live by.

Re:As the french say (1)

Yaotzin (827566) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185428)

Hilarious!

Re:Once again showing (5, Funny)

LunaticTippy (872397) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185232)

So what? Every country is somebody's Mexico.

Except Santa's Workshop. North Pole, bitches!

Re:Once again showing (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18185628)

I hate to say it but (pretty much) every American does not understand the nature of what happened ...

This law was not voted down because of some greater principle, this was (mostly) a political action taken in order to make a party that is sinking in the polls (the Liberal party) look better. If the Liberal party was in power they would (probably, being that they created the law in the first place) have voted in favor of the law.

Fundamental difference (2, Informative)

the computer guy nex (916959) | more than 7 years ago | (#18184938)

This Canadian legislation gave new powers to the government that did not prior exist.

The PATRIOT ACT (please use it in caps, as it is an acronym) simply applied certain powers the US Government already had to potential terrorists. It did not make sense for us to have more power against drug cartels than terrorist cells, which is the reason why PATRIOT ACT will not be completely voided anytime soon.

Re:Fundamental difference (1)

delong (125205) | more than 7 years ago | (#18184952)

My god man, don't you know where you are? You'll be tarred, feathered, and stoned for that comment.

Re:Fundamental difference (4, Funny)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185234)

The PATRIOT ACT (please use it in caps, as it is an acronym)

And don't forget to capitalize it for Canada's proposed law as well, the MOUNTIE (Marshalling Our Unified Nation against Terrorism Immediately, Eh?) Act.

Re:Fundamental difference (1, Flamebait)

Evilest Doer (969227) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185348)

It did not make sense for us to have more power against drug cartels than terrorist cells
Neither of these powers make any sense, nor are they Constitutional. The first Bush pushed the "War on Drugs" which has whittled away our rights, and the second Bush pushed the "War on Terror" which has evicerated our rights. Has noone noticed that both of the big excuses for eliminating civil rights have been pushed by Bushes, a family well-known for and even convicted of helping the Nazis?

Re:Fundamental difference (1)

SevenHands (984677) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185626)

"Bushes, a family well-known for and even convicted of helping the Nazis?"

I am genuinely curious about this one. Does any slashdotter have a link for this. I do not want to do the search from within my country for fear of repercussions. Just kidding. I am at work right now and shouldn't be using the computer for anything other than work, err.. reading slashdot... must stop confusing reading /. with work.

Re:Fundamental difference (4, Insightful)

bberens (965711) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185420)

You're right, it doesn't make sense but not for the reason you're likely professing. Terrorism is not a threat. People need to see that in print more. Terrorism is not a threat. More people die from the use of non-prescription anti-inflammatory drugs such as Aspirin every year in the U.S. than have EVER died from terrorism on U.S. soil. Seriously, think about that for a minute: Aspirin kills more people than terrorism in this country. If the government has more powers to go after drug cartels than terrorists then the solution should be to trim the powers available to go after drug cartels, not grant more powers to after some other random type of criminal.

/Yes, I know that the drug cartels you were referring to have nothing to do with Aspirin. I merely used them as an example because Aspirin is generally considered 'harmless' by most people.

Re:Fundamental difference (3, Informative)

Eric Damron (553630) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185466)

The PATRIOT Act (Please don't upper case "act") did amend various laws but in doing so it also altered those laws giving the government powers that it never had before.

Sectons 505 and 805 for example have already been struck down as unconstitutional. I expect more to follow.

Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe! (0, Troll)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 7 years ago | (#18184946)

I mean, really - is anything in Canada a true target? My understanding that the "cells" in Canada were in place for attacks on targets in the US.

Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe! (2, Insightful)

Zeebs (577100) | more than 7 years ago | (#18184968)

Negative, the cell that was arrested intended to attack Toronto.

Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe! (0, Troll)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185062)

In that case, are the terrorists stupid? I thought the US was the Great Satan, with Great Britain as our sniveling lackey and Israel as the evil demon sitting on our shoulder. Guess they didn't get the memo (or are REALLY bad with maps).

Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe! (4, Insightful)

Phisbut (761268) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185140)

In that case, are the terrorists stupid? I thought the US was the Great Satan, with Great Britain as our sniveling lackey and Israel as the evil demon sitting on our shoulder. Guess they didn't get the memo (or are REALLY bad with maps).

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the US import most of its oil from Canada. Hitting Canada would have a dramatic effect on the US.

Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe! (1)

psychrono (1030230) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185350)

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the US import most of its oil from Canada. Hitting Canada would have a dramatic effect on the US.
Yes, along with around 50% of the fresh water supply to the states as well.
There is definately some things in Canada that the US cannot live without; literally.

Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe! (1)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185368)

Toronto tends not to export oil...

You're looking seriously farther west for that.

Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18185116)

> I mean, really - is anything in Canada a true target? My understanding that the "cells" in Canada were in place for attacks on targets in the US.

Besides those mentioned in the other post...

If Al-Qaeda has anything to say about it, then perhaps there are targets in Canada: CBC link [www.cbc.ca]

Oil pipelines? (2, Insightful)

Erioll (229536) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185134)

How about the fact that Canada is the USA's #1 supplier of Oil? This information [gravmag.com] is at least two years out of date, but that's not very far out of date at all. If somebody has a more recent link, great, but it won't have changed a whole lot.

Lots of targets up here that WILL hurt you.

Re:Oil pipelines? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185408)

Per country, yes, it seems that Canada is the largest supplier, per country. However, The US also gets 19% (as compared to Canada's 18%) from the middle east, including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait.

Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe! (3, Informative)

Coryoth (254751) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185252)

I mean, really - is anything in Canada a true target? My understanding that the "cells" in Canada were in place for attacks on targets in the US.

The plan was to bomb major buildings in downtown Toronto, so yes there were significant targets, and yes they were Canadian targets. As to cells being in place to attack US targets - well that implies or assumes some sort of overall governing strategy which simply doesn't seem to be the case. The Canadian terrorist plot that was foiled was, much like the London bombings, a case of home grown terrorists who were simply "inspired by", but had absolutely no links to, Al Qaeda. The claim that there is some worldwide terrorist network that is out to get the US seems to be more a phantom created by certain US politicians than anything. The reality seems to be unconnected groups who, inspired by the publicity given to "global terrorism", decide that terrorism seems to be a way to take out their personal (and often local an homegrown) frustrations. There is no terrorist mastermind behind it all. And that's one of the reasons why local law enforcement is already sufficiently empowered to deal with such groups without any special provisions for "terrorists". We need to stop treating "terrorists" as anything significant and start treating them like the common criminals they are.

Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe! (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185448)

I think to the extent that there is an organization to Al Qaeda, the nebulous and largely independent cells is exactly how it is supposed to function. There is no doubt that there has been some centralization as far as training, and that some attacks may have come from a more central "command" (if you will). The whole point behind such a structure is that knocking out any individual group will have little effect on others. Catching guys planning to bomb Toronto isn't likely to get you a lot of intelligence about someone planning an attack in France. Al Qaeda and its affiliates (including all the local yokels inspired by bin Laden and his ilk) are all about throwing as much shit at the wall as they can manage, with the hope that a few find their way to completion (9-11, the London and Madrid bombings for instance).

That's what makes it so hard. It isn't like the bad old days of the Soviet Union, where you knew some Soviet provocateur was involved at some point. Nor is it like the drug cartels or the Mafia, where there was a centralized command structure. A diffuse enemy, who may in fact be several unlinked or only casually linked enemies, is a lot tougher to fight. And since the WEstern intelligence community, by and large, went to sleep after the fall of the USSR, there were no sleepers, no moles or even a lot of information about these networks until after spectacularly successful attacks. Then everyone woke up and realized "wow, we've got a problem!"

In other news... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18184954)

From http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/02/12/muslim-p oll.html [www.cbc.ca]

"Asked about the arrests last summer of the 18 Muslim men and boys who were allegedly plotting terrorist attacks in southern Ontario, 73 per cent of the Muslim respondents said these attacks were not at all justified and 82 per cent said they had no sympathy for those who wanted to carry them out."

IMO those numbers aren't high enough. Then again, I wonder what the numbers for a poll of non-muslims would be? Better? Worse? One Canadian high-school student told me his classmates cheered on 9/11. What the fuck?

Re:In other news... (1)

the_womble (580291) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185016)

Well the percentages may be because of the strong wording - "not at all" and "no sympathy" - may be a lot of the rest felt there was "little justification/insufficient justification" and had "little sympathy".

Oh Canada! (5, Insightful)

deadhammer (576762) | more than 7 years ago | (#18184958)

I'd like to say that, as a full red-blooded, maple syrup-sweating, moose riding Canuck, I've never been prouder of my country. These sorts of laws always seem good in the panic moments when they're pushed through, but cooler heads will prevail. We've said no to bad, kneejerk legislation, and I'm proud to be a voter.

Re:Oh Canada! (5, Insightful)

mdielmann (514750) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185206)

As another Canadian, I entirely agree with you. While I'm generally a supporter of the conservative party (parties in some places), once again I'm vindicated in my opinion that minority governments are best for the average citizen.

<rant>
My theory goes something like this. No matter what you do, it's most often politicians and not visionaries who get voted into office, if for no other reason than they lie better. This leaves you with leaders who are more concerned with their best interest rather than the people's, which results in a corrupt government. Also, majority governments can ram through just about whatever they want, whereas minority governments have to negotiate and compromise. Another way to say this is majority governments are effective, while minority governments are ineffective. So given the two likeliest choices of a corrupt effective government and a corrupt ineffective government, I'll choose the latter. At least they have a harder time shafting us.
</rant>

Hey, if you can't rant about politics, what can you rant about?

Re:Oh Canada! (4, Insightful)

Coryoth (254751) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185396)

If you think minority governments can be a good thing (and indeed they can be), then support proportional representation for Canada. I'm a New Zealander now living in Canada, so I've seen how proportional representation effected politics in NZ (with both pros and cons) and realistically I believe it would be a significant step forward for Canada.

Re:Oh Canada! (1)

lazarus (2879) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185310)

We've said no to bad, kneejerk legislation, and I'm proud to be a voter.
But what is knee-jerk? Creating a law containing sweeping powers to detain and question people related to terrorist activites (whatever that is) in the heated moments after a crisis, or failing to replace said law with something more resonable when it expires?

The answer, of course, is both. I feel that your pride in the Canadian system is somewhat misplaced in that this law was killed because the opposition party (Liberals) voted against it. Of course, *they* introduced it. Ask yourself for a second, if the Liberals were in a majority government position right now and this law came up for renewal, would they have killed their own law?

No, of course not.

This was not about Canada doing the right thing. This was about Canadian politics. The fact that the citizenry benefitted was a happy coincidence.

Re:Oh Canada! (1)

rainman_bc (735332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185390)

I'd like to say that, as a full red-blooded, maple syrup-sweating, moose riding Canuck, I've never been prouder of my country

Thing is the ass-hat (Celine) that led the party that voted against this law was the same ass-hat that was a member of the party who created that law.

AND keep in mind that this same ass-hat (again, Celine) who is saying the govt is not doing anything to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is the same ass hat who sat as environment minister in the previous government and was also part of that same government for a number of years.

Just remember those facts when you vote Red next election.

Re:Oh Canada! (4, Funny)

Original Replica (908688) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185464)

Oh sure. Show off your functioning democracy, with your multiple opposition parties, and your voter confidence. Wanna buy some Diebold black boxes?

Re:Oh Canada! (1)

Floritard (1058660) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185538)

As yet another Canadian, I myself would also like to express my pride in this beautiful country. I however, am an American, so fuck you guys and your adorable dislike of government jackbootery. It's moot anyway. Remember, we're coming for you when we run out of paper.

And Now an election (3, Funny)

mandelbr0t (1015855) | more than 7 years ago | (#18184974)

That's it for Stephen Harper, I think. It is possible to follow-up this vote with a vote of non-confidence. That should provoke the Spring election that many Canadians were expecting. It doesn't mean he won't win again, though...

Gotta love Canadian politics :)

Re:And Now an election (1)

gfilion (80497) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185106)

That's it for Stephen Harper, I think. It is possible to follow-up this vote with a vote of non-confidence. That should provoke the Spring election that many Canadians were expecting. It doesn't mean he won't win again, though...

There's currently an election in Québec [democraticspace.com] . The Bloc (federal) and the PQ (provincial) share the same electoral funds and they don't have enough for two elections the same year. So the Bloc would vote against a vote of non-confidence. Also, Harper is gaining in the surveys, so it's a bad time for a non-confidence vote.

Re:And Now an election (1)

Bullfish (858648) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185112)

Actually, no, it was not a confidence issue. Fret not, his timing is coming to an end anyway. It's only a matter of time.

Coyne brings up an interesting point (3, Interesting)

twilight30 (84644) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185260)

Generally, I don't agree with Coyne, but, he is pretty sensible for a Conservative, and I respect his opinions. Today's Post column [andrewcoyne.com] brings up a good point:

It is a sign of the oddly disembodied nature of the debate that most of the points advanced could have been made by either side -- could and were. The sunsetted provisions, it was pointed out, one allowing police to arrest suspects without warrant and hold them for up to 72 hours, the other empowering judges to compel evidence at special investigative hearings, have never been used. Ha, says one side, so they're unnecessary! Ho, says the other, so they've hardly been abused, have they?
In our knee-jerk anti-Tory attitude we often forget that the Liberals were the ones who proposed -- and passed -- this legislation in the first place.

Re:Coyne brings up an interesting point (2, Interesting)

hooded_fang (964565) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185590)

Yeah the Liberals proposed and passed the legislation but it was never meant to last forever. Most people agreed that it was needed at the time but due to the haste in which it was made law it was obvious that it would need to be changed. I really dont dig the fear politics that Harper likes to use. What scares me is the possibility of losing my freedoms and rights so that a perceived security can be achieved. What security is that where most of the laws can actually be used detrimentally to the people they are trying to protect. Yes anti-terror measures need to be in effect but we have the time now to look at the original provisions and make the necessary changes. I dont think that noone has abused them in the past is a good reason for keeping them as is. Harper's been busy changing the system to politicize it (ie: police having influence on judges/how is that fair if the police have been abusing the citizens) and even though things may not have been abused in the past, this doesnt mean that they won't in the future. I live in a city that was recently branded as having the worst police in North America (yay another badge of pride for Vancouver) and it chills me to think that people like that should influence my rights. What happens if a power hungry cop takes out someone cause he can't control himself. It happened to a guy who happened to be walking by a police action during a riot in Vancouver a few years back. A police officer who was a bit too amped decided to broadside a guy in the mouth for being nowhere near the action. The guy lost his teeth and the cop got suspended without pay. If you give the cops an influence of the way the courts run then the cop stands the chance of having no punishment. I for one would rather relook our rules than slip further into a police state. If we just say "it's to punish terrorists" when will those rules be changed to come after other unworthies? After all its easier to be a conservative in a liberal society than a liberal in a conservative society.

Re:And Now an election (1)

Krakhan (784021) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185374)

I think the next vote of no confidence will most likely come after the conservative budget if it doesn't get voted through the house.

So, I think there will most likely be an election coming up this summer.

Primer on Cdn politics for our US friends (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18185502)

Now that the government has been defeated in the House of Commons (that's like your "Congress"), by law no more legislation can be passed until the Prime Minister is pinned in hand-to-hand combat.

sadly not in germany (1)

dunkelfalke (91624) | more than 7 years ago | (#18184994)

here the anti-terror laws become stricter and stricter because our minister of the interior is a fascist. and not only the federal minister of the interior is one, also ministers of the interior of all the german federal states increase the police mandates with the new police laws.

life here starts to suck. i would move to finland but the language is just too difficult (still have nightmares from learning estonian, which is more or less simplified finnish with some german influences).

Re:sadly not in germany (1)

saskboy (600063) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185214)

You seem to write english pretty well, maybe you'd consider coming to Canada instead? We just struck down the laws you're saying are too harsh in Germany, and many, many Canadians came from Germany.

Thanks for visiting? (0, Flamebait)

SCDavis (974281) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185018)

So now terrorists will get a slap on the wrist and sent off with a cold molson and a t-shirt with a maple leaf on it? wtf - eh?

Re:Thanks for visiting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18185068)

"a cold molson"?

A real Canadian would use the term "beers".

 

Re:Thanks for visiting? (5, Insightful)

Coryoth (254751) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185320)

"a cold molson"?
A real Canadian would use the term "beers".

Come now, I think calling Molson "beer" is being a bit generous. Sure, it has less resemblance to water than the mainstream US brands (Budweiser, Millers, etc.), but calling it "beer" is just taking things a bit too far.

Makes me proud to be Canadian. (5, Interesting)

jmagar.com (67146) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185030)

The sunset clause kicked in and it has rightfully expired. But what amazes, and impresses, me most is that a number of MPs chose not to vote. Abstained. Their reasoning [www.cbc.ca] : The provisions have not been used, and thus can be argued to be not needed. But the conflicting position is that since they were not used, they were not abused. The environment that existed to warrant the creation of these provisions has not gone away, and since we have not abused the provisions, then we should keep them... just in case.

Both are sane positions, but I favor the one where civil rights are not taken away. A good day for all Canadians.

Re:Makes me proud to be Canadian. (2, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185308)

A good day for all Canadians.

Heh... true in a funny way. A good day for law-abiding Canadians who don't want to let the terrorists win by tricking them out of their civil liberties. And good news for terrorists who want to operate more effectively in Canada. Both groups win by their own measures of success.

Re:Makes me proud to be Canadian. (5, Insightful)

natophonic (103088) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185496)

And good news for terrorists who want to operate more effectively in Canada.
If the powers granted by the legislation were never used, and terrorist cells in Canada were disrupted and dismantled during the five years this legislation was in effect, then that's a pretty shallow victory for the terrorists.

Re:Makes me proud to be Canadian. (1)

fizzup (788545) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185402)

This argument, that since they were not used they were not abused, drives me nuts! Every time someone says it, I hear this: these rules haven't been abused yet, so just give us one more chance. Lets renew them and see if we can figure out how to abuse them.

Oh, and how's this for abuse: the Prime Minister calls into question the reputation of the father-in-law of an Opposition Member of Parliament who is allegedly about to be compelled to testify, even though the identities of those questioned without charge are supposed to be kept secret.

Hold the phone... (4, Insightful)

micromuncher (171881) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185036)

The anti-terror legislation was TEMPORARY to be evaluated every 5 years. So its 5 years was up, and the majority of opposition (not just liberal) voted against renewing the measures. These measures are CONTRARY to our charter of rights an freedoms, specifically to detain and search ANYONE WITHOUT EVIDENCE on SUSPICION of terrorist activity. And the caption here is WRONG. There are at least 5 individuals (I know of, not personally, just through the CBC) here in Canada that were placed in jail without arrest because of this legislation. SO...

Its a good thing this abhorent measure is gone, because it was a crutch to avoid the due dilligence in proving guilt before innocence.

Re:Hold the phone... (1)

Erioll (229536) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185180)

The security certificate legislation (which is almost-certainly what you're referring to with your "5 individuals" statement) is different I think. Not the same thing. Could be wrong on that though.

Re:Hold the phone... (0, Offtopic)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185196)

Randomly CAPITALIZING posts like THIS ON Slashdot makes me WANT TO jail whomever TORTURES ME with something that SO HARD to read.

Seriously. Trying too hard to EMPHASIZE everything tends to DISTRACT from your POINT.

That said, yay Canada!

Re:Hold the phone... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18185216)

"There are at least 5 individuals (I know of, not personally, just through the CBC) here in Canada that were placed in jail without arrest because of this legislation."

Actually the 5 (3 to be exact) suspected terrorists which are being held in Canadian prisons, are being held on Security Certificates issued by the Department of Immigration and Passport. The 3 in question being held are NOT Canadian citizens, ARE known terrorists, and can leave prison any time they wish if they leave Canada voluntarily. The fact that the Canadian government pussyfoots around these individuals is sickening to most (I am a Canadian citizen). 20 years ago they would have quickly and quietly made a trip back to their home countries for whatever fate awaits them. There are too many left wing hippies in Canada who don't realize that National Security is paramount. They will be (and usually are) the first group of people to complain that the Government and Law Enforcement didn't do "enough" to protect them after an attack. Unfortunately there'd have to be an attack, with the loss of numerous innocent lives, for anyone to say "I told ya so".

Re:Hold the phone... (1)

micromuncher (171881) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185504)

Since when do we have different laws for foreigners within our jurisdiction?

Re:Hold the phone... (1)

Cocoshimmy (933014) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185324)

Yes it certainly is bad that these 5 people were held against their will. However, I think they used Security Certificates in this case and not the new anti-terror legislation to hold these foreign nationals. Security certificates have existed since at least the early 90's. IIRC the 5 people currently being held were entering the country and Canada suspected them of something (of what, we don't know because it was secret). Anyways, Canada DID give them the option to return to their own country with no jail time. Had they chosen to stay they would have been held for an indefinate amount of time. This is no different from most other countries which hold terror suspects indefinately except that in many cases they DONT give them the option to return to their home country. So while it is bad that they were held against their will it isn't as bad as what other countries have.

Re:Hold the phone... (5, Informative)

fishboy (81833) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185512)

The five individuals you speak of have been held on security certificates, an aspect of Canadian law that was not part of the Anti-terrorism act that will sunset tomorrow. Certain aspects of those security certificates, however, were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme court of Canada last week in a 9-0 ruling, giving the government one year to come up with provisions for adequate defence for the accused and a means for the dealing of evidence that is deemed essential to national security.

The anti-terrorism act was largely a means by which the government of the day dealt with the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, both to appease the public that something was being done about terrorism, but mostly to head off accusations from the Bush administration that Canada was soft on terrorism. They were never used because Canadian law already possessed draconian measures to detain suspects indefinitely without charge, the ability to try them without ever revealing the charges, and to use evidence that they and their lawyers are not allowed to see.

Well, only active because of the Mounties (5, Informative)

wwwrench (464274) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185040)

Canada has faced active terrorist cells in their own country.

Well, just to put this in context...

The Mounties, scared the hell out of Canadians by announcing that these people acquired three tons of ammonium nitrate, and were quoted in their press conference as saying "To put this in context, the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City that killed 168 people took one ton of ammonium nitrate."

Only later did it come out that it was undercover Mounties who sold them fake ammonium nitrate, and even encouraged them to buy the stuff.

Undercover Mounties? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18185338)

How is it that the big red coats and huge stinky horses underneath them didn't give the game away?

Not all the anti-terrorist laws (5, Informative)

Bullfish (858648) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185054)

The anti-terrorism act is still there. Just a portion of the laws are being allowed to expire. Frankly, I never saw the point of the laws in the first place. If there ever was a real terrorist issue, we have enough criminals laws to deal with them. That is what they are... criminals. Sometimes they are better armed and organized than the average bear, but they can also be three kooks with an ax to grind.

If the threat was more widespread, we always have the emergencies act ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergencies_Act [wikipedia.org] ) which replaced the war measures act ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Measures_Act [wikipedia.org] ).

Free reign (-1, Troll)

Vile Slime (638816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185056)

I guess that means those well meaning Muslim men who wanted to behead the Canadian Prime Minister have nothing to worry about:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13150516 [msn.com]

Re:Free reign (4, Funny)

koreth (409849) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185098)

Yeah, because without anti-terror laws, I'm sure it's perfectly legal to plot to behead a public official in Canada. How could they possibly have let that gaping hole in the criminal code reopen?!?

Re:Free reign (1)

grub (11606) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185208)

Heheh I've been giggling over this comment for a few minutes now. Thanks for the laugh.

Re:Free reign (1)

fatcock84 (311224) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185624)

I think the idea behind the laws was to make it easier to discover such a plot.

Although I'll grant you that the laws are unnecessary in Canada; what significance could there be in attacking Canada?

Article ignores politican context (4, Insightful)

cowwoc2001 (976892) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185100)

Virtually every Canadian news agency that covered this event highlighted how the law was voted down purely for political reasons, not for morale ones. The law was originally introduced by the Liberal party which is the exact same party that voted against it this time. The Liberal party is simply trying to bring up the minority Conservative government for obvious political reasons. This has absolutely nothing to do with moral objection, as many Liberal members broke rank from their party and actually voted *for* the bill. You can be sure this bill will come back in one form or another introduced by the Liberals if not by the Conservatives. You can't close your eyes and pretend that bad people don't exist and those advocating such an approach are ignorant in my view.

Best News all Day... Well, Sorta... (2, Insightful)

Plekto (1018050) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185190)

Of course, it's *not* happening in the U.S. - so... same old crud here as usual. Sigh.

Sometimes I really wonder how long this country has at the rate we are going. Just take a look at Democracy Now or any alternative site - or better yet, just go to news.yahoo.ca/ for a slightly less baised mainstream news look at the U.S.(far less filtering than the stuf we get from Reuters/CNN/Fox/etc main newsfeeds). The sad thing is that it's the working class what will take the brunt of any retaliation for what we are doing - be it military, terrorist, economic, or otherwise.

Re:Article ignores politican context (5, Insightful)

CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185220)

You can't close your eyes and pretend that bad people don't exist

We are fully aware that people like you (the bad people) are out there trying take away our liberties for the smallest and most false sense of security. Thats why we applaud this. Its a victory against you bad people. Don't worry we know you exist!

Re:Article ignores politican context (1)

cowwoc2001 (976892) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185328)

We are fully aware that people like you (the bad people) are out there trying take away our liberties for the smallest and most false sense of security. Thats why we applaud this. Its a victory against you bad people. Don't worry we know you exist!
Dear sir, rights (be they Freedom of Speech or otherwise) do not exist in a vaccum. I fully understand your apprehensiveness when laws are passed which limit your rights but you must remember that *no* right is unlimited. If you allowed people to abuse democractic rights to undermine that same democracy you will end up with no rights to talk about before very long. One should not be allowed to abuse Freedom of Speech to spread hate literature. I am not calling for your rights to be limited ad-hoc but rather I am saying that there are many reasonable limitations on rights which exist to safeguard those same rights you take for granted. Please do not misinterpret my intentions, I keep on saying *reasonable* limitations. I simply don't understand people who refuse *any* limitations on rights and they somehow believe that the world will take care of itself. History has proven time and again that it will not.

Re:Article ignores politican context (1)

CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185532)

I agree with everything you are saying... however

I simply don't understand people who refuse *any* limitations on rights

I consider giving the government the power to indefinately in prision people without a fair trial and "coerice" confessions or testimony, etc, etc FAR above and beyond *any* limitiations. I certainly cannot think of ANY other rights we should fight for more? Having given up those rights, no other rights really matter.

Re:Article ignores politican context (4, Insightful)

Malakusen (961638) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185534)

One should not be allowed to abuse Freedom of Speech to spread hate literature

Yes, they should. And everyone else is free to spread anti-hate literature that points out the small-minded flaws of the hate literature. It's a good thing for hateful people to make known the extent of their insanity, so that the rest of us can guard against it. Make it illegal, and they go underground, and they feel that their rights are being oppressed, and they are more likely to become violent. Picture a water balloon, with the balloon being the hater and the water being the hate. Leave it alone, and nothing is likely to happen. Squeeze it, and it'll pop.

Re:Article ignores politican context (3, Funny)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185484)

We are fully aware that people like you (the bad people) are out there trying take away our liberties for the smallest and most false sense of security. Thats why we applaud this. Its a victory against you bad people. Don't worry we know you exist!

Just curious. What liberties have you lost due to anti-terror legislation in whatever country you are living in?

I ask because I keep hearing about how the US has become a police state. Well, I'm in the US and as far as I can tell, this new Bush police state looks exactly as it did under Clinton, except the economy is better. I think it is only fair that I stand with my fellow Americans and suffer as they have, but before I do that, I need to know what it is I'm missing.

Re:Article ignores politican context (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185604)

How exactly is the economy better?

Re:Article ignores politican context (4, Insightful)

CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185658)

Where to begin? For one we've all lost the right of habeas corpus along with many others. You may not realize it but you have also lost this guarenteed right. If you wait until the loss of that right actually personally effects you ... well, it'll be too late. You'll be locked up some where and you won't even be able to complain about it on /.

Re:Article ignores politican context (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18185240)

"This has absolutely nothing to do with moral objection, as many Liberal members broke rank from their party and actually voted *for* the bill."

Many? I only counted one, MP Tom Wappel.

Re:Yes, I noticed that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18185508)

Hooray! Who brought in this draconian fascist law? Oh, it was the Liberals...

Canada is a joke. Come the next election, the Elections Canada bureau, responsible for counting and release of results, and staffed by Quebecers, will rig it so Stephane Dion wins. Bye bye, Stephen Harper.

Re:Article ignores politican context (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185516)

Not being informed on Canadian politics, I find your comment very confusing. (What does it mean to "bring up" the minority government?)

"You can't close your eyes and pretend that bad people don't exist." By that you mean terrorists? Canada has made several major terrorist busts over the last few years, more than the US it seems to me. The US has suffered tens of thousands of casualties in the war on terror (or at least in the name of the war on terror), while Canada has had virtually none. That statistic counts for a lot in my book. I don't see why a Canadian would be so eager to step into the ring and take up the fight when there is nothing to win but peace, which you already have.

Re:Article ignores politican context (1)

ezzzD55J (697465) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185552)

You can't close your eyes and pretend that bad people don't exist and those advocating such an approach are ignorant in my view.
Sure. But how do these laws help against 'bad people'?

Re:Article ignores politican context (1)

mayns (524760) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185660)

By "many" you mean 1 right? Because MP Tom Wappel was the only liberal to vote with the conservatives on this.

Who needs a version of the PATRIOT Act... (4, Informative)

AJWM (19027) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185128)

... when you can invoke the War Measures Act [wikipedia.org] ?

That's how Canada dealt with (domestic) terrorists the last time. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Who needs a version of the PATRIOT Act... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18185274)

From the Wiki link you gave:

"The War Measures Act (enacted in August 1914, replaced by the Emergencies Act in 1988)"

So no, they can't invoke the War Measures Act.

ALL Laws should Auto-Sunset after a year. (4, Interesting)

mikelieman (35628) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185336)

If it's IMPORTANT it'll get renewed. If it's NOT IMPORTANT it'll just go away.

I don't see a downside. Anyone?

Re:ALL Laws should Auto-Sunset after a year. (1)

Loadmaster (720754) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185582)

ALL laws? EVERY year? I don't know, that may involve working more than 1/4 of the year which 1/3 of that is how big my raise should be. That dog won't hunt, sir.

Sincerely,

US Congress

The laws were used (2, Informative)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185352)

Some blokes were in jail for a long time without ever hearing why. It is through their court action that it got struck down.

Re:The laws were used (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185472)

Some blokes were in jail for a long time without ever hearing why. It is through their court action that it got struck down.

Canadians seem to be much more concerned that their human rights are being defended, than their neighbour. Canada seems to try its best to be a place where all people can feel safe living there, though it does not always find it easy between defending what it is being Canadian, and taking into account the needs of the various sub-cultures that make up Canada.

Good to know (0, Troll)

Malakusen (961638) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185380)

That there is still one free country in North America.

So now that terrorism is legal in Canada... (-1, Troll)

exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185398)

...they're going to have to turn to more peaceful means to communicate their grievances. Expect to see Al-Qaeda sponsoring marathons and senior knit-a-thons.

w00t (0)

sick197666 (974586) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185476)

GO CANADA!

I wish we (the US) were as cool as Canada.

No Hope At All (0, Troll)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 7 years ago | (#18185642)

Hopefully more countries will come to the same conclusion.

I don't hope for that at all. Anyone who feels this way doesn't understand the terrorist mindset. They're not here to live and let live a good life. They're here to die for Allah's greatness and get the fast pass into Paradise. You can't talk with them. You can't reason with them. You either convert -- or die. They even intentionally target and kill others of their own faith in this struggle. Under these circumstances, conventional ideas of freedoms are just weaknesses to be exploited. This is a War, and we either fight it as such, or lose!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?