|Big Brother is watching …
There is a clear fault line between the two opposition parties, and PM Stephen Harper’s policies with regard to how to combat ISIS.
The Conservatives favour actual fighting (planes dropping bombs etc.), while the opposition parties are against this.
The NDP is further from the government’s position, while the Liberal Party would have Canadian armed forces join the anti-ISIS coalition led by the US and help its efforts (including transporting goods for the coalition), but short of Canadian planes dropping bombs on ISIS targets.
Now another fault line has appeared: the Conservatives want to tighten legislation to combat the use of the Internet by terrorists, while the two opposition parties want to slow things down, and check what is not working before passing new laws.
The police and security arms have voiced concern about their ability to actively monitor dozens of identified potential terrorist threats, without increases in their numbers and funding.
Tom Blackwell has an article that refers to the views of some experts that our laws need tightening:
Does that mean Canada’s counter-terrorism policy contains fatal flaws? Or did the two lone-wolf attackers slip through a net that can be made only so tight — without unacceptable curbs on freedom?
Experts and advocates said Thursday there may be cause to draw that net a little tauter, even if it does mean some further limits on civil liberties…
“Apparently we can do a good job of detecting them, apparently we can do a good job of doing surveillance on them, we can do a good job of removing their passports,” he said.
“But somehow we can’t put them in jail and keep the public safe. That’s the hard question.”
In fact, a Canadian law passed last year allows police to temporarily detain suspected, would-be terrorists under what are known as preventive arrests. Police seem reluctant to use the power, however, likely because they fear judges would require ironclad proof the individuals would otherwise commit terrorist acts, said Prof. Leuprecht.
John Ivison writesthat the Conservatives, which have the majority in the House and can pass any laws they wish to, have been considering changes to our laws:
The Conservatives are understood to be considering new legislation that would make it an offence to condone terrorist acts online.
There is frustration in government, and among law enforcement agencies, that the authorities can’t detain or arrest people who express sympathy for atrocities committed overseas and who may pose a threat to public safety, one Conservative MP said. “Do we need new offences? If so which?”
Sources suggest the government is likely to bring in new hate speech legislation that would make it illegal to claim terrorist acts are justified online.
The Prime Minister told the House of Commons on Thursday that Canada’s law and policing powers need to be strengthened in the areas of surveillance, detention and arrest. He said work is already under way to provide law enforcement agencies with “additional tools” and that work will now be expedited…
The Criminal Code already prohibits “hate propaganda” and it is not clear how any new legislation would dovetail with existing provisions.
The new legislation is likely to prove controversial with the opposition parties and shatter the harmony that emerged in the House Thursday, after the terror attack on Parliament Hill.
David Cameron, PM of the UK, recently announced new laws designed to come to grips with terrorist-tourism:
Among measures announced:
- Legislation will be drawn up to give the police statutory powers to confiscate the passports of suspect terrorists at UK borders
- The UK will challenge any attempt by the courts to water down these powers
- Plans to block suspected British terrorists from returning to the UK will be drawn up on a “cross-party basis”
- Terrorism prevention and investigation measures (Tpims) will be extended, to include the power to relocate suspects
- Terrorists will be required to undergo de-radicalisation programmes
- Airlines will be forced to hand over more information about passengers travelling to and from conflict zones
The home secretary already has executive powers to seize the passports of those travelling abroad in certain cases but Mr Cameron said the police needed greater discretion to act where needed.
How far will the Canadian government go in its new laws?
We clearly have a problem with the use of the Internet to spread terrorist propaganda, which raises the question of what legitimate limits we can put on the use of the Internet in the public interest.
We also have a problem with potential terrorists whose behaviour gives our security forces cause for concern.
Will Harper extend the list of new laws to include some of the proposed UK new laws (such as forcing terrorists to undergo de-radicalization programmes, and giving police the power to relocate suspects)?
Given the clear fault lines between the government and the other parties, will Harper decide to table a comprehensive set of new laws and other provisions, and then, if these are opposed by the other parties, decide to go to the people to gain their blessing for the new measures, and also for the government’s decision on our forces going to war on ISIS?
Coupled with the reduction of the deficit and the cutting of government costs, he could run a two-pronged campaign (best choice to manage the economy, and best choice to keep Canadians safe from terrorism), during a very short election (say, 4 weeks, with election day in late November).
We will see soon if he decides to do this.