Parliament Fails to Renew the Anti-Terrorism Act

Succumbing to partisanship, members of Parliament struck down the Anti-Terrorism Act which comprises of Bill C-36 and C-42 legislated by the Liberals in 2001.

Canada as a whole is a moderate society. If we were an ice-cream colour we'd be vanilla. Nonetheless, it's a model democracy of sorts in some cases. That 's also a function of the reality that we're a middle power and do not face the same major security issues of countries like Great Britain, United States, Italy, Spain, France and others. So we can afford to act silly at times. Australia is moving to have an independent reviewer for security issues while we have politicians cut such important issues as though they are mere pieces of paper used in a lame game of political machismo It's like a scene right out of West Side Story. Was that Harper and Dion moving towards one another dancing and snapping their fingers?

Get over yourselves you, you elected officials.

One of the responsibilities of any government is to provide security to all its citizens. Did we do the right thing in letting the law lapse? Did we in fact strike a balance between security and civil liberties? Then there's the matter of full public disclosure of government secrets - to which I am not privy to; nor should any civilian for that matter. These are the questions many people are now debating.

What it is disappointing is the manner in which we allowed the law to be struck down. It was petty. It was weak. It only further exemplifies what I have spoken about on this blog. Notably that this country lacks enlightened leadership. The Liberals showed once again they are not prepared or fit to lead Canada.

Security versus civil liberties is a hard balance to strike. The key is to not stoop to the level of our enemy. If we do, it's a race to the bottom. It all depends how you perceive life. If you feel this is a "so-called" war against terrorism and that we only reacted to America's over reaction, then you are likely to be pleased with the decision. Of course, one can counter by claiming that a unique attack such as the one witnessed on 9/11 will naturally lead to subsequent measures enacted by the United States. In other words, you start at the far end of the spectrum and adjust the laws accordingly as you move forward and towards the center. It is only better to be prudent about something we are unfamiliar with.

Deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has argued that the curtailment of civil liberties can only be justified under emergency provisions and when public safety absolutely requires it.

"If this is the test," he said, "the clauses should sunset because they have not proven absolutely necessary to public safety. The government, in essence, has not proven its case and on these questions where our liberties are at stake the government has to prove the case of public necessity beyond a shadow of a doubt."

I'm surprised by this. Of all people, I thought Ignatieff would take the "better safe than sorry" route.

From the onset people argued that the laws were draconian and infringed on the rights of Canadians. Perhaps they did but if you are innocent you have nothing to be concerned about. Others argue that the laws were never used anyways thus lulling us into a possible false sense of security. This would be a naive - if not flawed - way to look at things. Just because we have not seen with our own eyes an attack does not mean there have not be any plots to execute one. In fact, several plots have been thwarted in the last few years. Citizens need to see to believe. And even then, well, just look at the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11.

Regardless, having the laws on the books subjected to reviews was the smart thing to do. Yet, Parliament opted against this. Now, as I understand it, they have one year to draw up a new security legislation.

The terrorist plot is real. How it applies to Canada is hard to discern since we are not a major power. Though if I'm a terrorist I would look to score huge points by attacking Canada. Think of it: the last great peaceful kingdom. Attacked! If the Americans were caught asleep at the switch, Canadians - should an attack ever come - would be downright shocked into the real world. Is there a trauma unit for countries?

Kidding aside, Al-Queada has indeed targeted Canada in various edicts coming from one of their many designer caves. They have uttered their threats. It would be foolish to ignore them. It would be further ridiculous to hide behind the notion that the United States is the real culprit or that somehow corporate interests are at the root of terrorism. Terrorists operate independently from all that is around us. They have an independent agenda. They use tools of the international system to their advantage with remarkable effectiveness. They use several stories du jour to pass as grievances. Like they give a shit about the plight of the Palestinians. Like they actually give a rat's ass about our laws.

Anything to justify the murder of innocents and detract from their goal: to gain access to the oil (since it creates wealth) and instill their visions of Islam upon their subjects.

The anti-terrorism act was like having a fire extinguisher in the house or taking out life insurance; you never know. We do so in the event of something out of our control may happen.

It's best our politicians quit their insidious behaviour and stop playing politics with our security; our lives.