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."
Makes me proud to be Canadian. (Score:5, Interesting)
Both are sane positions, but I favor the one where civil rights are not taken away. A good day for all Canadians.
Coyne brings up an interesting point (Score:4, Interesting)
ALL Laws should Auto-Sunset after a year. (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't see a downside. Anyone?
Re:Coyne brings up an interesting point (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Coyne brings up an interesting point (Score:2, Interesting)
Considering that the provisions have never been used, you can hardly fault the same Liberal party, five years, three prime ministers and two leaders later, for allowing the legislation to expire in a world where global terror events have actually fallen since 9/11. Also, bear in mind that the ruling Conservatives voted for the legislation, along with the other opposition parties at the time, passing it 190-47, hardly what I would call a 'divisive' piece of legislation.
Re:Coyne brings up an interesting point (Score:2, Interesting)
So what? It was also the Liberals who defined this legislation with a sunset clause - specifically because it was not envisioned to be needed forever.
The correct "anti-Tory" tack to take here is that the Conservatives are so gung-ho for law and order that they're insane enough to strip Canadians of civil rights over trumped up fears.
Re:Well, only active because of the Mounties (Score:1, Interesting)
That's how propaganda and falsehoods from government work. Publish, promote, and shout a huge lie. Retract it quietly later.
People remember the lie, and don't even see the retraction. The government doesn't get held accountable for the lie because they retracted it (and due to the propaganda model [wikipedia.org]). We've seen it over and over again.
That Brazilian "terrorist" who was killed by UK police in the tubes for running away while carrying a bomb? He wasn't a terrorist. He wasn't running. He didn't have a bomb.
The "liquid bombing plot?" There wasn't an imminent threat. They didn't have a target. They didn't have the materials. They weren't even really in the planning stages for it. They were encouraged to do it by undercover operatives. By the way, the plan wouldn't have worked even if they had executed it perfectly (the *boom* wouldn't have been big enough). But we still aren't allowed to bring toothpaste onto airplanes.
Your example is just one of many.
Looks to me... (Score:2, Interesting)
...like all the Canadian Slashdot readers got the mod points today. Anything even slighly mocking Canada is getting modded "Flamebait, Troll, Redundant, Offtopic" Yet anything attesting to the superiority of Canada is getting modded up.
Seriously folks, the moderation system doesn't contain +1 Agree and -1 Disagree for a reason. Try not to use it as such.
Heck, you might as well mod this as flamebait, too. I don't care. It's your mod point to waste.
You have one thing incorrect (Score:2, Interesting)
The Koran tells Muslims to give the kufr three choices: submit to Islam, pay the jizya as a dhimmi, or fight. So you don't have to "convert or die." You can, alternatively, live as a oppressed citizen under Islamic law.
Mistake in Summary (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, the law that was voted on only included provisions to hold terror suspects for 72 hours, not indefinitely.
The law about holding suspects indefinitely which the article mentions (and the article is clear that it's a different law) was struck down by the Supreme Court last week [signonsandiego.com].
The law that could hold a suspect indefinitely required a "security certificate" to be issued by the government, and it only applied to foreign suspects.
Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked. (Score:3, Interesting)
Although I guess how much people freaked out about the PATRIOT Act, shows just how jealously Americans really do regard their freedom. (Although I suspect most of the people who rail against the PATRIOT act have never read it, and wouldn't have protested nearly as vigorously against it if a Democrat was in the White House.)
Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked. (Score:4, Interesting)
No, they don't count because they didn't happen on U.S. soil. You'd have to be insane to claim that there are fewer terrorist attacks on U.S. interests abroad today.
But the whole argument is that they'd be attacking us here if they weren't attacking us there. Clearly that isn't the case.
The simple answer is to claim the lions rock idea, which does make sense, but you probably don't live next door to a zoo, do you? Statistically you can predict that we should have been attacked in the last six years if we took no precaution, so that means in all likely hood the DHS works.
Statistically the last attack before 9/11 on U.S. soil was in 1993, so no you wouldn't necessarily expect there to have been an attack by now, and the lack of such an attack is completely inconclusive regarding the efficacy of DHS.
So one day after 10 years of peaceful living, I think to myself, well I've never been murdered or robbed, why don't I get rid of my gun and security system? Joe finds this out. Do you think I'm going to be safe the next day?
Well you were safe from Joe for the 10 years before you got the gun and security system, so yeah, I'd think it's safe to say that you overstated the threat of Joe, and really the gun and security system did nothing.
But that's not really the case. Before, you weren't without a security system, it was just a modest and practical one. Then one day Joe broke in, actually walked in by posing as a repair man which is actually his job, and you got all paranoid and decided you needed a gun and a super invasive security system that checked the bodily orfices of everyone that came into your house. Even though none of the security systems you implemented would have prevented Joe's attack, you still maintain that it is necessary. All it does is piss of your family and guests, though.
We fought terrorism before 9/11. We don't need USAPATRIOT or DHS to do it now.