By Kashif Ahmed and Eric Miller, Special to The StarPhoenix
April 30, 2010
Following is the viewpoint of Ahmed and Miller, recent law graduates from the University of Saskatchewan.
Few actions score more political points than announcing that the threat of terrorism requires strong government powers to ensure public safety. That’s exactly what Justice Minister Rob Nicholson did last week when he introduced in Parliament the Combating Terrorism Act.
The proposed bill attempts to quietly reinstate two divisive security measures that were first enacted as a response to the panic in the wake of 9/11. The investigative hearing and preventive arrest provisions would give law enforcement agencies expanded powers.
Although the House of Commons allowed the previous provisions in the Criminal Code to lapse in 2007, they have demonstrated a stubborn longevity as a threat to basic civil liberties — something recognized by both security and legal experts.
Most importantly, these powers were never used after they were first enacted in 2001.
The proposed act does not conform to Canadian principles of justice. It would allow for the police to detain suspects for up to three days without a warrant — a clear violation of the constitutional freedom from arbitrary detention.
Although the police would be required to eventually produce such an individual before a judge, the mere suspicion of terrorist activity could leave the imprisoned person without access to a lawyer for the same time period.
Investigative hearings pose another serious difficulty for individual liberties. To compel a person to testify in court interferes with the basic constitutional right to remain silent and to not incriminate oneself.
The bill further allows for secret proceedings. As U.S. examples have shown, coercive testimony is unreliable, and fails to provide intelligence of value to our security apparatus.
The act is far reaching, will not increase security, and is a hazardous exercise in public policy.
Former CSIS chief Reid Morden has spoken out against the proposed legislation, saying that law-enforcement organizations already have adequate powers to carry out their duties to protect Canadians.
For the Harper Conservatives to suggest extraordinary powers are required to safeguard national security is a fanciful stretch of the public record. Indeed, the tabled legislation ignores the milieu of cases that have struck at the heart of planned terrorism through ordinary security investigations.
The biggest terror case in Canada was disrupted in 2006 through standard, though diligent and excellent, police work and intelligence gathering.
More recently, Momin Khawaja of Ottawa was found guilty, in open court, of terrorism offences with respect to a British plot.
This leads us to ask: Why has the government abruptly proposed reinstating these high-handed measures that our elected MPs rightly had determined were needless?
Despite attempts to portray themselves as the party of law and order, the Conservatives are acting contrary to their traditional philosophical support for individual rights and less government.
It may be a bitter pill to swallow, but Prime Minister Stephen Harper is showing his party to be standing for coercive measures at the expense of age-old constitutional rights.
One wonders if the Conservative party’s concern is to strengthen support within its political base, significant elements of which have been long upset with the minority government’s uncertain agenda.
The Combating Terrorism Act could be the first step in a broader government agenda of repressive lawmaking. It represents a renewed push towards expansive state powers that threaten civil liberties and it promotes those same powers through the menacing spectre of terrorism and chaos.
Ultimately, it is clear that the proposed legislation rests on a threadbare position: That our public safety is in jeopardy without highly intrusive measures and risky state powers.
Fortunately for Canadians, the country and its security agencies have diligently proven otherwise.
Note that this piece is provided for interest alone.