Commentary

The Assault on Civil Liberties in the Name of Anti-Terrorism

It is a fact that no terrorist attacks have taken place on Canadian soil for two decades, nor is there any evidence that such attacks are planned. It is also a fact that the current provisions in the Criminal Code have proved adequate in apprehending any real or imagined terrorists in the past. Nevertheless, the Chretien government, under pressure from Washington, has seen fit to railroad several pieces of draconian legislation through Parliament under the guise of their being necessary as part of a "war against terrorism". Bill C-35, Bill C-36, Bill C-42 and other pieces of "anti-terrorism" legislation currently before Parliament constitute the re-birth of the War Measures Act and a serious assault on civil liberties.

In response to thousands of objections from Canadians, the Chretien government was forced to accept a few amendments to Bill C-36. The main change was the inclusion of a five-year sunset clause on some of the more draconian powers given to the police, courts and Solicitor General, including preventive arrest and investigative hearing provisions. The amendments also included a clarification of the definition of terrorist activities with removal of the word "lawful" in relation to protest activities. However, since the activities described by the word "lawful" were left untouched, it is somewhat of a moot point.

Meanwhile, Bill C-35 expands the definition of an "internationally protected person" from diplomatic staff to anyone attending a meeting on behalf of a foreign government. By this definition anyone getting too close to a participant in an international trade meeting could conceivably be charged with a terrorist act.

Bill C-42 goes even further, allowing the Solicitor General to declare any area of the country (land, air or sea) to be a military security zone and permitting the "forcible removal" of anyone not wanted within that zone. A Conservative member of Parliament has pointed out that if this bill were actually aimed against terrorists it would authorize "lethal force" rather than "forcible removal". She questioned why the security forces would want to forcibly remove terrorists from such zones and suggested that it is really aimed at excluding protesters from the area around international meetings, such as Kananaskis Village near Banff where the meeting of the G-8 countries is scheduled to take place next June. The Bloc Quebecois has also expressed concerns that the new powers of the Solicitor General could be used in the event of a successful vote for sovereignty in Quebec, with the entire province being declared a military security zone, such as was done in 1970 when the Trudeau government invoked the War Measures Act.

While the government has repeatedly denied that its "anti-terrorism" legislation will ever be used against "legitimate dissent", these assurances ring somewhat hollow given the track record of this and previous governments when it comes to dissent. Protesters at the 1997 APEC meetings in Vancouver were attacked and pepper-sprayed by the RCMP under direct orders from the Prime Minister's Office for the "crime" of embarrassing Indonesian dictator Suharto. In Quebec City last April thousands of protesters were tear-gassed and shot with plastic bullets even though they were blocks away from the "Wall of Shame". Clearly, in these instances "legitimate dissent" was limited to expressing opinions in ways which did not confront the government or embarrass its friends.