The makings of an authoritative regime

Proposed Bill C-51 will give CSIS and Feds more power in combatting terrorism.

This bill is terrifying. Really terrifying. Yet it garnered support from Canadians.

In fact, according to an Angust Reid poll in February 82 per cent of Canadians that were surveyed support the bill, with 25 per cent of that group saying they “strongly” support C-51. That’s a majority of people surveyed, despite the ongoing criticism coming from the media, and opposing politicians within parliament.

Such viewpoints, which see Bill C-51 as justified or as not going far enough, are anathema to the very liberties which the founders of our nation envisioned we should have. This bill indirectly opposes many aspects of our constitutional document: the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

However, Canadians rallied together earlier this month against C-51, and a new poll released by Angus Reid on March 17 reported that now only 45 per cent of Canadians surveyed support the bill.

The criticism of Bill C-51 is also coming from academics who feel this bill lacks oversight. Such academics are professors of law Craig Forcese, and Kent Roach, from the University of Ottawa, and the University of Toronto, respectively. They have established a website at Antiterrowlaw.ca and have started a “crowdsourcing” paper which takes a legal approach at breaking down the bill and its flaws. In particular, their research has concluded that the bill will give the government powers to jail people who promote or advocate (in any form) terrorism, and the scope of this new offence is too sweeping and broad.

Certainly these are some of the concerns that have to be considered. Any bill that seeks to restrict our liberties–something which we value within our democracy — should be rigorously scrutinized. And that’s the issue of with this bill. It’s rushed, and it lacks oversight to prevent government, and CSIS particularly, from abuse of power. In an age of increased spying and societal surveillance, these sort of bills need to be thought through and all implications should be assessed within a risk management framework.

But within assessing the risk of implementing such a bill lies the problem: this bill is viewed as essential to combating terrorism, and thus needs to be implemented as quickly as possible. There are also significant events which have been used as justifications. These events include the tragic Ottawa and Paris shootings, and the various sectarian wars being waged in Syria and Iraq. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has also identified this bill as something that would help stop radicalization here in Canada, and thus either stop altogether or slow down foreign fighters traveling from Canada to the Middle East.

Certainly there are credible concerns from liberal minds and conservative ones. However, the issue with this bill is the unchecked power it will give to the government. In the Middle East, we are increasingly seeing the strengthening of police oriented regimes that reinforce their will and arrest dissidents without warrants. This could also happen here within Canada. With this new bill, one could be arrested for up to seven days without a formal warrant, as long as they feel your constitutional rights have been breached. But think about this for a minute. Our legal system allows for due process, and a fair trial, but if you’re arrested without sufficient grounds, it’s infringing on basic rights.

There’s little disagreement regarding the issue of combating terrorism. It’s an issue, and we need to take steps. But we cannot take steps which seek to limit our fundamental rights in our democracy. If we don’t have these rights protected, we risk transforming our democracy into authoritative regimes which we often demonize as the pinnacle and birthplace of radical terrorism.