As Canadian legislators rush to pass an anti-terrorism bill, a rising number of distinguished lawyers and academics are warning the government to slow down, take a deep breath and figure out if these new restrictions are really such a good idea.
The enactment of this legislature would result in “terrorism from below replac(ing) terrorism from above,” said Oren Gross, of Tel Aviv University’s faculty of law, at a hastily arranged conference organized by the University of Toronto’s law society last week-end.
Gross warned that “panic, fear, and hatred of the terrorists may lead the public to rally around the flag and press the government to enact the legislation.”
The proposed bill, C-36, would give sweeping new powers to law enforcement officials by altering the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, the Access to Information Act, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, the Firearms Act, and the National Defence Act, among others.
Critics say current laws are good enough to combat terrorism and the nearly 200-page bill would unnecessarily restrict the civil liberties of law-abiding Canadians.
University of Toronto law professor Kent Roach said governments “tend to confuse the toughening of laws with the actual fight against crime,” citing the British government’s persecution of innocent bystanders under toughened crime laws following the Birmingham bombings in 1974.
Brenda Cossman and David Schneiderman, University of Toronto law professors, feared that the definition of terrorism included in the proposed legislation could include those involved in civil disobedience. In a joint presentation, the professors argued that the bill could restrict protest and free speech.
While agreeing that the language in some of the clauses needs refining, other speakers argued that the additional legislative powers proposed in Bill C-36 are necessary and lacking in present legislation.
MP Irwin Cotler, who sits on the Justice and Parliamentary Committee, said that concerns over domestic due process is “inappropriate in a non-conventional time.”
University of Toronto Law professor Patrick Macklem said “neither international nor domestic law addressed terrorist acts; terrorism is a crime that needs to be named and Bill C-36 merits praise for naming it.”
For more information on the proposed legislation in Bill C-36, as well as cited legislation and international conventions, you can go to the University of Toronto Faculty of Law homepage, at www.law.utoronto.ca.
