Canada Rejects Anti-Terror Laws 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."
Fundamental difference (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Well, only active because of the Mounties (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Not all the anti-terrorist laws (Score:5, Informative)
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] ).
Who needs a version of the PATRIOT Act... (Score:5, Informative)
That's how Canada dealt with (domestic) terrorists the last time. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Article ignores politican context (Score:1, Informative)
Many? I only counted one, MP Tom Wappel.
Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe! (Score:4, Informative)
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:Who needs a version of the PATRIOT Act... (Score:1, Informative)
"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.
The laws were used (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Fundamental difference (Score:4, Informative)
Sectons 505 and 805 for example have already been struck down as unconstitutional. I expect more to follow.
Re:Hold the phone... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked. (Score:2, Informative)
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?
Re:Once again showing (Score:1, Informative)
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.
Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe! (Score:5, Informative)
The next runner up is Saudi Arabia with 15.4%
Honestly though, the oil market is so tight & unstable that serious disruptions in any large country's output would have a dramatic effect on the U.S. and the rest of the world.
Consider that Canada's total (not just crude) oil production is ~64% of Iran's.
Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe! (Score:2, Informative)
In your face, PM Harper. Face it, you don't even look American...
Re:Fundamental difference (Score:2, Informative)
As for the specific Bush/Nazi connection:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,13125
http://ecosyn.us/Bush-Hitler/ [ecosyn.us]
summary is wrong (Score:1, Informative)
Plus the comment about it being used to detain 5 people is wrong - that was security certificates, which were not part of this act, and were struck down last week by the Supreme Court.
Re:Coyne brings up an interesting point (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Fundamental difference (Score:4, Informative)
The PATRIOT Act (FYI, 'Act' should not be in all caps, since it is not part of the acronym) removes restricitons on apprehension of suspected terrorists that remain for drug & RICO suspects. The PATRIOT Act is a wish-list from law-enforcement agencies (including unconstitutional provisions) that was rushed through on the pretext of preventing terrorism -- it's all the the things they wished they could do, but couldn't (even under RICO) prior to 9/11.
Re:The laws were used (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Who needs a version of the PATRIOT Act... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Once again showing (Score:5, Informative)
Funniest comment ever. This guy was minister of the environment for four years, and didn't do a thing to curb carbon emissions. Now that he is in opposition, he's Mr. Greenjeans. He's a hypocrite and an opportunist; integrity is one thing he doesn't have.
Re:Article ignores politican context (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Who needs a version of the PATRIOT Act... (Score:4, Informative)
The Emergencies Act is more circumscribed in the powers which it grants. Declaration of a 'state of emergency' is subject to a review and vote by Parliament. Uses of the Act's powers are subject to judicial review, under reasonably strict constitutional tests.
Re:Oh No! The Maple Syrup Supply is unsafe! (Score:3, Informative)
We've been one of the most active forces in Afghanistan, and were there from the start. And if you believe that terrorists hate freedom/the West/women without veils, then we're obviously as much of a target as the US.
Oh, and we're a member of the G7, a major resource exporter, and the only country that Osama explicitly threatened that hasn't seen related terrorist bombings.
In other words, you're overwhelmingly ignorant on the real world.
Re:Thanks for visiting? (Score:2, Informative)
So "Molson Canadian" is an oxymoron now, I guess. I hate the marketing too...
Re:Thanks for visiting? (Score:3, Informative)
The only Canadian beer these days is the regional mid-sized breweries (being scooped up like candy by the transnats) and the microbrews that are springing up everywhere.
Re:Unbiased news posts (Score:3, Informative)
If so, you are wrong.
Key quote:
"Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.
The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third."
Re:Allah Ackbar! (Score:3, Informative)
The "nutty left?" You call them that because they have a federally mandated universal health care system? Nevermind that the current minority federal government is Conservative, or that only two of the ten provinces have a socialist government, while four out of ten are Conservative and four are Liberal. I know that for some people anyone left of far right is consider a nutty far-leftist, but really Canada is a moderate country, not a socialist one.
Re:Once again showing (Score:3, Informative)
Not incidentally, that's just 6 months longer than the current Conservative government has been in power. How much progress do you think they will make by September?
In his 19 months, Dion created a plan. The Conservatives cancelled it. What did you expect would happen?
Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked. (Score:2, Informative)
I count only 4 attacks on U.S. soil before Sept. 11, 2001 since 1920, 2 (possibly 3) of which were by Americans citizens. The attacks outside of our country are much harder to prevent without going outside our jurisdiction.
There were no attacks from 1995 (OK. City until 2001) and the indication is that the potential for the attack on 9/11 was known but ignored. Since that time the first world trade center bombing in 1993 all we get is reactive measures, and very little proactive measures to security. Only now when some detail comes out about a potential threat, everyone freaks out, and there is a larger knee-jerk reaction, and then everything goes back to the way it was 6 months ago. For example, after the attempt with shoe bomb, we had months of taking shoes off before boarding planes, then there was the "explosives" in water bottles, no carry-on containers.
I think the problem is administration wants to be seen to do something, so does the things that affects us the most directly and therefore most visible, rather than the things that prevent then from happening.
Re:Unbiased news posts (Score:4, Informative)
It goes on to say, "The fourth and fifth most centrist outlets are the Drudge Report and Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume." Nonetheless, the scale was 0-100, with 100 being most liberal and 50.1 being centrist. Brit Hume's score was 39.7, making it clearly conservative.
And finally, "Our method only measures the degree to which media is liberal or conservative, relative to Congress," ergo even FOX's most centrist show is more conservative than Congress.
Re:Think of the children (of the terrorists) (Score:3, Informative)
We need an "-1 Uninformed insular idiot" mod. All European countries use the more rational DD/MM/[YY]YY format though the ISO YYYY-MM-DD is obviously the best, alphabetic sorting is equivalent to chronological and all that.
The frankly bizarre [M]M/[D}D/[YY]YY format is a PITA to deal with.