Excerpts from report on "Anti-Terrorism" Act entitled "The Views

of Canadian Scholars on the Impact of the Anti-Terrorism Act".

Those concerns are that the Act is un-necessary (redundant), gives too much power and resources to secretive and corrupt police agencies, creates an atmosphere amongst those benefiting from the Act (police & government) of the need for terrorist events and/or threats to justify increased power and resources, fails to adequately protect individuals from genuine acts of terrorism and/or primarily focuses on the defence of government agencies, and whether the Act violates the Constitution and Law of the Land (due process, presumption of innocence, etc) as preserved forever in our Magna Carta.

The so-called scholars appear to have only found the need to consider a few of these concerns. Those concerns appear to be as follows: Where the Act is necessary to stop terrorism, and whether the Act gives too much power to police and government.

The report itself states the following:

Participants were asked to respond to the following three questions: 1. What has been the impact of the Anti-Terrorism Act on Canada?2. What emerging trends in terrorism do you foresee and what threats do they pose to Canada? In discussing these trends and threats, please describe what you consider terrorism to be. 3. How should our country respond to these trends and threats?

The Impact of the Anti-Terrorism Act3.1

Impediments to Assessing the Act’s Impact any of the participants indicated that it was too early to gauge the impact of the Anti-Terrorism Act as many of the most contentious powers created by it have not yet been used. There have been no substantial investigative or prosecutorial successes and no use of the preventive arrest power. The investigative hearing provision has been used only once (in the Air India case) and the witness in that case has challenged the requirement to provide compelled testimony. Some of the participants added that outside observers have little knowledge of how frequently and to what effect the Act’s investigative tools have been used.

Notwithstanding the lack of successful prosecutions under the Act, Rudner notes that the Act has had a powerful deterrent effect on those who may have otherwise supported now-banned organizations. By outlawing incitement, recruitment, fund-raising, money laundering, and participation in terrorist activities, those in the relevant communities may have desisted from these activities. Also, according to Rudner, these prohibitions may have encouraged the more moderate elements within the Muslim community to resist the “extremist subversion of communal institutions.” Wark points out that CSIS has claimed that it has forced terrorist groups and individuals to alter their behaviour in Canada, though the truth of this claim cannot be substantiated. Rudner adds that the Act has significantly enhanced the intelligence function. “The interception of terrorist communications and the tracking of terrorist financing has reportedly yielded high value.

By contrast, Martyn notes that the Act fails to provide added security to Canadians........

To review then, the scholars note that "there have been no substantial investigative or prosecutorial successes and no use the preventative arrest power". They further note that claims that it has forced terrorist groups and individuals to alter behaviour "cannot be substantiated".

Translation: The 11 or so Billion spent (since initial budget of 7.7 Billion) on implementation of this questionable Act, has yielded no fruit in protecting Canadians from alleged terrorist threats.

So does this act accomplish anything?

Stribopoulos adds that while the Act’s primary goal is to increase their collective sense of security, Canadians continue to fear terrorism and have increasingly come to fear their own government due to the abuses associated with the Act.

Well, here's something.... Billions of dollars of tax payers money seems to have increased the fear of Canadians to "abuses associated with the Act".

The report further states:

Therein lies the dilemma with regard to anti-terrorism law. Roach asserts that measures, such as those adopted in Canada, may be too tough in dealing with religious or political extremists viewed by authorities as threats or in dealing with those associating with persons or groups thought to be terrorists. However, such measures may be inadequate in deterring hardcore terrorists who may be prepared to die for their cause. Roach further asserts that the preventive arrest power provided for under the Act was not used in the first year, indicating either that law enforcement agencies prefer to keep terrorist suspects under surveillance or that these agencies are encountering difficulties in identifying terrorist suspects. [..] Wark notes that the government has moved slowly in creating [sic] a list of terrorist entities.

Interesting that one of the "scholars" notes the government has moved slowly in "creating" a list of terrorist entities.

This can be taken two disturbing ways: Either he is acknowledging that the government is the one creating the list essentially out of thin air, and that there are in fact no substantive terrorist groups operating in Canada; and/or the government doesn't think it important enough to investigate and list REAL terrorist threats, in stark contract to the Billions they have spent, and are still willing to spend, to create lists of law abiding gun owners. This is a crucial indicator to government motive.

Are there any other clues to government motive?

Several of the participants asserted that the Act produced some symbolic benefits to Canada and the international community in its efforts against terrorism. The mere enactment of the Act, they say, reassures the United States that Canada is taking the terrorism threat seriously. Such signals to the Americans protect Canadian sovereignty, promote intelligence sharing, and maintain the flow of commerce between the two countries. Farson points out that there is a sense among senior intelligence officials that if Canada does not protect US interests in Canada, the US will step in and do so.

Ah, but the Canadian government has already OPENLY welcomed the US to "step in" on the issue of, not just alleged terrorist threats to the US, but natural disasters within Canada, and domestic terror. Clearly, then, this symbolic benefit (for which we owe the US nothing, given the fact the terrorists of 911 were trained in the US, had US passports, and did not enter from Canada) is a total red herring at best. [SEE AMERICAN UNION]

Many participants expressed a concern about any statutory definition of terrorism, due to the lack of consensus on a definition by scholars and the suggestion by a number of participants that terrorism was a relative concept. Whitaker indicates that the Canadian definition of terrorism has been criticized for including motive (“a political, religious or ideological, objective, or cause”).

They also forget to mention that the "Anti-Terrorism" Act incorporates the "hate crimes" legislation, which means that any religious beliefs not deemed to be universally inclusive of others lifestyle or culture can be "outlawed" and therefore deemed of "terrorist origin". An example of this is the recent move of judicial proceedings against the Christian doctrine denouncing homosexual practices, which has seen Christians fined under "hate crimes" legislation, and therefore vulnerable to future anti-terrorist prosecution. [Go HERE for more info]

 “This criminalization of motive is perhaps unnecessary and inherently risky, and may prove in future to be vulnerable to judicial challenge.” Roach points out that proving that terrorist acts have been committed for religious or political motives requires the police to investigate the religious and political beliefs of terrorist suspects.

[...] He notes that previous acts of terrorism in Canada (e.g., the Air India case) has been dealt with under ordinary criminal law.

Roach adds that in the case of Suresh v. Canada, the Supreme Court implicitly rejected the broad definition of terrorism contained in the Act and defined terrorism for the purpose of immigration law as an “…act intended to cause death or serious injury to a civilian, or to any person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act by its nature or context is to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.”

Compel a government or international organization to do or abstain from doing any act! You mean like criminal acts? Talk about curiously broad legal terminology..... What part of Rule of Law did the government forget to include in this strange definition, and where did anyone consent to protection of un-named "international organizations"?

In addition, are governments not engaged in acts that cause death or serious injury when they send armed "peace officers" into homes to kill unarmed people, or when they deliberately create and/or foment terrorist groups and sell them fertilizer, or help them cook a bomb, or provide cover from detection?

Examine the following links before you draw any conclusions, and remember that our so-called "anti-terrorism" act is chiefly identical to those of the US, Britain and other commonwealth countries:

• Police Thugs and Assassins [Part 1 2 3 ]

• Spreading Fear

• False Flag Terrorism

• RCMP welcome drug dealers

• UK Police State [More on Police State]

And saving the best for last, please watch this FREE documentary video, which presents historical documentation proving how our governments have frequently used fear and intimidation against those they swore an oath to defend. [CLICK HERE NOW - AND ENJOY]

Dragging us all down to the LOWEST common denominator...

 U.S. Measures Anti-Terror Laws vs. Britain's

Some in the GOP want a more flexible system, such as that used to uncover an alleged plot. Critics say such changes would trample rights.

WASHINGTON — The uncovering of an alleged bomb plot in London has focused new attention on the differences in the legal arsenals available to terrorism hunters in the U.S. and Britain.

While the London case has underscored the importance of efficient police work and secret surveillance, it is far from clear whether Britain's less-restrictive laws for combating terrorism deserve the credit.

"The general consensus, at least initially, seems to be that many of the tools are comparable," said an administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, who is familiar with the early discussions about broadening executive powers.

The Justice Department announced last week that it was launching a review of U.S. and British anti-terrorism laws. But some officials have downplayed the chances that the effort will lead to new legislation.

With Congress on summer recess, little is likely to happen before the fall, when a number of House and Senate committees are expected to consider what, if any, curbs should be placed on domestic surveillance.

"The British have better tools. If you want to get a warrant, all you have to do is call up a minister," Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), the chairman of the Senate Intelligence committee, said last week. "I'm not advocating that in the United States with the FISA court or anything else, but it seems to me that they have taken actions that would really speed that along."

Bush administration officials said the British experience may contain lessons for America.

But when pressed, he refused to say the law should be changed. "I don't think there's any specific authority I would suggest we need now," he said Aug. 13 on ABC's "This Week."

Critics say the administration has not shown how the British case demonstrates a need for changing U.S. laws.

"Their legal regime [in Britain] is similar to ours," said Bruce Fein, a former Reagan administration lawyer. "The government should have to bear the burden to show the need for making a change.

"In my judgment, this case cuts the other way. The powers they are requesting are irrelevant to the cracking of this case in Britain."

When it comes to surveillance, the British laws share some basic features with those in the United States.

Investigators in Britain, like their counterparts here, may intercept phone calls and eavesdrop on private conversations, but only under what British authorities describe as a system of "strict control and oversight" that includes individual warrants.

American law also requires investigators to have a warrant before they intercept private phone calls, but administration officials have said that rule is impractical in the war on terrorism.

In December, the president confirmed he had authorized the National Security Agency to intercept, without judicial warrants, some international phone calls and e-mails of people in the U.S. Last week, a federal judge ruled that was unconstitutional and ordered the NSA to stop. Bush said Friday that he disagreed with the ruling and that the administration expected to win an appeal.

Meanwhile, Congress has been debating whether to revise the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires officials to obtain a warrant for such interceptions. Britain tightened its surveillance laws under the 2000 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.

"Authority to intercept someone's conversation — listening to a phone conversation, reading a letter or e-mail — requires the agreement of the secretary of State," Britain's Home Office says in describing its surveillance law. "The Home secretary will sign a warrant only once satisfied that it is absolutely necessary and proportionate."

Congress is considering several bills that would permit the government to move quickly to obtain a warrant when a terrorism suspect is being pursued.

But some contend that U.S. law appears to already allow for the sort of targeted surveillance that British authorities reportedly exercised.

"They were focused on a specific set of targets who they believed were conspiring with Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda-affiliated entities, which is different from the administration claim that it can just monitor anyone it wants," said Lisa Graves, a legislative counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union. "The fact of the matter is, under current law, the president can easily get a court order to monitor any American who is conspiring with Al Qaeda, and if there is an emergency, surveillance can begin immediately."

Another flashpoint is British authorities' power to detain terrorism suspects for up to 28 days without charge.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said that most suspects have to be charged or released within 48 hours of being detained, making such a system an apparent non-starter under U.S. law.

Asked about a more liberal detention law in an interview last week with CNN, U.S. Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales said he believed there were "serious questions as to whether or not that would be constitutional."

But the Bush administration has in a way achieved a functional equivalent through interpretations of other laws, such as those allowing for the detention of people who are material witnesses to crimes. After the Sept. 11 attacks, the government also used immigration statutes to hold terrorism suspects for months even though many were eventually released without any proof that they had posed a threat.

"The notion that we need a preventative detention law [like Britain] is a little disingenuous," said James X. Dempsey, policy director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a Washington advocacy group. "We already act like we have one."

Please check out our other web pages of interest.

Magna Carta

Right to Self Defence.

Please help us defend your Freedom and Liberty with a donation of

your choosing... Click 'make a donation' button below. Thank You!

.