Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Canada Rejects Anti-Terror Laws 507

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the shot-down dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canada Rejects Anti-Terror Laws

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @03:42PM (#18184912)
    Remember that in Canada, 9/11 is actually 11/9, since they use a different date format system up there, eh?
  • by jusDfaqs (997794) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @03:43PM (#18184924) Journal

    Hopefully more countries will come to the same conclusion.
    Yea, like this one, US!
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      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 i
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by kinglink (195330)
      "The anti-terror laws have never been used"

      I love when someone claims that a policy doesn't work. I don't know where the synopsis gets this but from the sound of it it was never used, that's called untested, not "doesn't work."

      Why is it that there seems to be two responses from these anti-Bush/anti-patriot act groups? "Terror laws don't work" where as the last full scale terror attack on our country was 5 years ago. The second response is usually "Well the world hates us" and you look again and there hasn
      • by IceDiver (321368) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @04:51PM (#18185966)

        I don't know where the synopsis gets this but from the sound of it it was never used, that's called untested, not "doesn't work."

        I would argue that, since the laws have never been used, they were unneeded, not untested. Furthermore, key provisions of the laws were recently struck down as unconstitutional by the Canadian courts.

        So, not only were the laws not necessary, they contravened the highest law of the land. It's no wonder Parliament voted them down! I'm just surprised that the same hasn't happened yet to the blatantly unconstitutional laws that have been enacted since 9/11 south of the Canadian border!


        • Mod parent UP! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by IgLou (732042) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @05:27PM (#18186496)
          What irritated me about this was that people somehow think that these unproven laws are needed? WHY?? Let's review, to protect you Joe Canadian we are going to strip away a fundamental right or two and then remove the need for due-process or accountability. RIIIGHT. I agree with you completely these laws are unneeded, unconsitituional and unnecessary.

          What makes matters worst is Mr. Harpers response to the opposition and declaring that they don't have Canada's security in mind. Talk about spreading FUD; our PM is good at it.

          I feel for anyone who lost a loved one in 9/11 but this legislation was never a solution just a stop-gap knee-jerk response.
      • by Onan (25162) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @05:44PM (#18186730)

        Why is it that there seems to be two responses from these anti-Bush/anti-patriot act groups? "Terror laws don't work" where as the last full scale terror attack on our country was 5 years ago. The second response is usually "Well the world hates us" and you look again and there hasn't been an attack on US soil since 9/11. So why hasn't terrorism reigned supreme here if everyone hates us and Homeland security isn't working? We aren't fighting the three stogies here.

        Oh, that's an easy one. Those two positions are not contradictory at all.

        Invasive, authoritarian laws like the PATRIOT Act do greatly increase the risk of terrorism (in addition to having many more deleterious effects). But terrorism is a trivial problem in the first place: something that happens with negligible frequency, and harms (on a national scale) a miniscule number of people.

        So, yes, the Bush administration is actively working to destroy the Bill of Rights in order to make a trivial problem slightly worse. I do have kind of a problem with that.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by iocat (572367)
          Yeah, except the worst element of the PATRIOT Act is they can get librarians to say what books you checked out, without a warrant. The Canadian law allowed compelling witnesses to testify (banned under our fifth amendment) and indefinite detention (banned under some other amendments). The Canadian law was SIGNIFICANTLY more authortarian than the PATRIOT Act.

          Although I guess how much people freaked out about the PATRIOT Act, shows just how jealously Americans really do regard their freedom. (Although I sus

      • by Chris Burke (6130) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @06:27PM (#18187338) Homepage

        Why is it that there seems to be two responses from these anti-Bush/anti-patriot act groups? "Terror laws don't work" where as the last full scale terror attack on our country was 5 years ago. The second response is usually "Well the world hates us" and you look again and there hasn't been an attack on US soil since 9/11. So why hasn't terrorism reigned supreme here if everyone hates us and Homeland security isn't working? We aren't fighting the three stogies here.


        Well the last attack by foreign terrorists on US soil before 9/11 was in 1993, so eight years. Clearly the policies initiated after 9/11 were not necessary to provide 8 years of no attacks. Arguing that 5 years of no attacks since in any way validates those policies is the most falacious of reasoning.

        And why have attacks not been more frequent? Well first there is the planning involved -- again, 8 years between the failed WTC bombing and 9/11. And more importantly, since 9/11 there has been no need to attack the US on its own soil!

        Let me make this as clear as possible: Afghanistan and Iraq have caused more harm to the United States that a hundred attacks like 9/11. In response to 9/11, the U.S. did to itself more than al Qaeda could ever dream of doing just on its own capacities. Not only in material costs but in the all-important propaganda war. The credibility the US has lost in the last 5 years is a huge boon to our enemies. Our status as world leader is

        It's a classic strategy, and the same one used by Hezbollah against Israel. You can't effectively attack the giant on its home turf, so you poke at it to enrage it and lure it into your home turf where the giant is at a disadvantage. In their attempts to stomp you out, the giant innevitably stomps on the innocent and thus further increases resentment of the giant. Two wins, military and PR, from one strategy.

        The whole purpose of terrorism is to make your enemy crazy-stupid with fear. The U.S. is still behaving crazy-stupid, and paying for it. Why attack again? It would be a waste of resources; they are still getting everything from the one attack 5 years ago that they could hope to get from a new one. If we ever get our heads out of our asses, if we ever get people to think longer than "well no attacks it the last 5 years, so USAPATRIOT must work!", THEN maybe they'll see a need to attack us again.

      • by flyingsquid (813711) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @06:39PM (#18187478)
        Why is it that there seems to be two responses from these anti-Bush/anti-patriot act groups? "Terror laws don't work" where as the last full scale terror attack on our country was 5 years ago. The second response is usually "Well the world hates us" and you look again and there hasn't been an attack on US soil since 9/11. So why hasn't terrorism reigned supreme here if everyone hates us and Homeland security isn't working? We aren't fighting the three stogies here.

        There are three answers:

        (1)They don't have to strike on our home territory to hurt us- in fact, they can hurt us a lot more easily, and more effectively, by attacking us abroad. If I were a fanatical Saudi Arabian suicide bomber, I could bomb a Starbucks in Topeka, but it would cost a lot of money and take a lot of time to plan, and it would have a low probability of succeeding. On the other hand, I could just head to Iraq. It's a lot easier to get across the unsecured Iraqi border than through American customs, and once I'm there I look like everyone else and speak the local language, so it's much easier to operate and blend in. And the Americans have done me the favor of shipping to my front door- at the cost of billions of dollars- their young men and women. Praise Allah!

        (2) They are busy attacking our allies -as they did in Madrid and London- to isolate us. And quite effectively. Notice how small the "coalition of the willing" is these days?

        (3) America is pretty good at integrating its immigrants, so Al Qaeda has very few sympathizers in the United States. Muslim immigrants to the United States tend to like America, identify as Americans, and to pick up our values, and their kids are very well integrated into the culture. They may not like the government but they like the country. However, Muslims in Europe much more often end up isolated, economically disenfranchised, and pissed off at their host countries. That makes them more likely to look to radical Islam and hatch bomb plots, as in London. The way we treat our immigrants, and not the Patriot Act, is probably our strongest defense against domestic terrorism.

  • by Baby Duck (176251) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @03:43PM (#18184926) Homepage
    I can finally Blame Canada ... for starting something Good.
  • by teamhasnoi (554944) <{moc.oohay} {ta} {ionsahmaet}> on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @03:43PM (#18184928) Homepage Journal
    that the U.S. is Canada's Mexico.
    • by LunaticTippy (872397) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @04:05PM (#18185232)
      So what? Every country is somebody's Mexico.

      Except Santa's Workshop. North Pole, bitches!
  • 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.
    • by delong (125205)
      My god man, don't you know where you are? You'll be tarred, feathered, and stoned for that comment.
    • by UbuntuDupe (970646) * on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @04:05PM (#18185234) Journal
      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.
    • by bberens (965711) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @04:19PM (#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.
      • by Sciros (986030)
        Dude if I could I'd mod you insightful. Thanks for the info next time I'm in a big crowd in D.C. I'll know to stay the hell away from any Aspirin-popping male senior citizens.

        While we're at it let's propose a "War on Natural Causes" because that has also killed way more people than terrorism has in the U.S.

        Yeah I agree people need to see "terrorism is not a threat" in print more. What they should be seeing in print is "Tel-Aviv: 12 killed 26 wounded. Aspirin for the lose!"
    • by Eric Damron (553630) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @04:22PM (#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.
    • by Red Flayer (890720) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @05:00PM (#18186116) Journal

      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.
      Umm, no. That's a line of propaganda you've taken hook, line, and sinker.

      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.
  • Oh Canada! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by deadhammer (576762) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @03:46PM (#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! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mdielmann (514750) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @04:04PM (#18185206) Homepage Journal
      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! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Coryoth (254751) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @04:16PM (#18185396) Homepage Journal
        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.
    • by lazarus (2879)
      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

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ShieldW0lf (601553)
        No, this was an expression of the fact that increasing centralized control erodes freedoms of the individual but empowers the state, and there are emergencies that can arise where that is in everyones enlightened self interest.

        It had an inherent recognition built in that the emergency is a transient state and the measures are not intended to extend beyond that. The reaction wasn't "knee-jerk" at all, it was very wisely implemented.

        The attempt by the Conservatives to exploit this emergency measure in a grab
    • 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 t
    • by Original Replica (908688) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @04:21PM (#18185464) Journal
      Oh sure. Show off your functioning democracy, with your multiple opposition parties, and your voter confidence. Wanna buy some Diebold black boxes?
    • to moy ee, Mortimer. But I still say America made Pamela Anderson what she is today.

      Wait for it!

  • by mandelbr0t (1015855) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @03:47PM (#18184974) Journal
    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 :)
    • by gfilion (80497)

      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

    • by Bullfish (858648)
      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.
    • by twilight30 (84644) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @04:08PM (#18185260) Homepage
      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: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by hooded_fang (964565)
        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 the
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by fishboy (81833)
        The Liberal Party of the day enacted the legislation largely to appease the Bush administration during a time when no one was really sure of the extent of global terrorism. They also sought provisions that would ease the minds of the Canadian public. Wisely, the inserted a sunset clause that called for renewal every five years.

        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 legisl
  • 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).
    • by saskboy (600063)
      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.
  • by jmagar.com (67146) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @03:52PM (#18185030) Homepage
    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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DoofusOfDeath (636671)

      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.
      • by natophonic (103088) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @04:23PM (#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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by why-is-it (318134)

        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.

        Once your knee has finished jerking around, perhaps you should read a bit about what really happened.

        There are plenty of laws on the books to combat crime. I don't believe for a moment that the police need to detain people for any significant length of time w

  • Hold the phone... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by micromuncher (171881) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @03:53PM (#18185036) Homepage
    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.

    • by Erioll (229536)
      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.
    • 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 j
    • Re:Hold the phone... (Score:5, Informative)

      by fishboy (81833) <`pieter' `at' `blokker.ca'> on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @04:24PM (#18185512) Homepage
      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.
  • by wwwrench (464274) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @03:53PM (#18185040) Homepage
    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.
  • by Bullfish (858648) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @03:53PM (#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] ).
  • by cowwoc2001 (976892) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @03:57PM (#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.
    • 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
    • by CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @04:05PM (#18185220) Journal
      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: (Score:3, Funny)

        by ArcherB (796902) *
        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 look
        • How exactly is the economy better?
        • by CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @04:33PM (#18185658) Journal
          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: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by kabocox (199019)
          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.


          You missed the memo. We are living in
    • 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 stati

    • by ezzzD55J (697465)

      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'?
  • by AJWM (19027) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @03:58PM (#18185128) Homepage
    ... when you can invoke the War Measures Act [wikipedia.org]?

    That's how Canada dealt with (domestic) terrorists the last time. [wikipedia.org]
    • by Idarubicin (579475) <.moc.liamtoh. .ta. .teiuqslla.> on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @05:33PM (#18186596) Journal

      ... when you can invoke the War Measures Act?
      It's a good thing that they can't invoke the War Measures Act, then. It was replaced by the Emergencies Act [wikipedia.org] in 1988, no doubt in large part because the provisions of the War Measures Act would have been deemed unconstitutional under the Canadian Constitution (in particular, the terms of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms [wikipedia.org], adopted in 1982).

      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.

  • by mikelieman (35628) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @04:13PM (#18185336) Homepage
    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?

  • The laws were used (Score:3, Informative)

    by flyingfsck (986395) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @04:14PM (#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.
    • 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.
  • Well... (Score:2, Funny)

    by powerpants (1030280)
    It's aboot time!
  • "Soft on Terror" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SandwhichMaster (1044184) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @05:00PM (#18186094) Homepage
    "...that the Liberal Party was soft on terror"

    How is it that everyone not willing to give up Civil Liberties is considered "Soft on Terror"? People are cowards if they don't vote for every anti-terrorist bill? If you ask me, the people who will so readily give up their freedoms, and even send a nation's youth to war, are the real cowards.

Many people are unenthusiastic about their work.

Working...