Friday, May 15, 2015

Bill C-51: to Pass or Not to Pass? C-51条例:通过还是反对?


In February 2015 an RCMP report surfaced that described in breathless terms the “growing, highly organized and well-financed anti-Canada petroleum movement” that consists of “peaceful activists, militants and violent extremists.” It was reported that after a third reading the anti-terrorist Bill C-51 has already been passed by the House of Commons.

When the Chretien Liberals introduced the Canadian Anti-Terrorism Act after 9-11, the government moved cautiously and invited wide public input. That resulted in relatively solid legislation that avoided mistakes the U.S. and Britain both made with their more knee-jerk responses to terrorism.

“Back in the 1960s, it was understood by all three major parties (Liberals, Progressive Conservatives and NDP) that civil society organizations were an important function of democracy,” says Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives national director Bruce Campbell.

However, in addition to traditional terrorist acts, Bill C-51 targets anything that interferes with Canada’s territorial integrity, critical infrastructure, and economic and financial stability. As well, simply promoting a “terrorist” cause is deemed criminal with no evidence of violent intent required to detain someone.

“The bill is written way too loose,” says Sierra Club director John Bennet. “There’s only one explanation, and it has to be that they intend to go after more than terrorists. They want to redefine what a terrorist is so that they can define their enemies as terrorists.”

While it was made illegal to detain someone for 24 hours without a charge in Trudeau's time, it is now. However, the government should be prudent to entrust the power to detain someone for 7 days without a charge as it is against the Canadian Bill of Rights, nor is it beneficial to the freedom of speech and healthy governance, let alone the environmental protection good for Canada.

(Note: Most of the materials were an excerpt of the article,   Making Enemies by Gregory Beatty, Prairie Dog, Page 7, March 5-18, 2015)




“该法案的陈述方式过于宽泛,”塞拉俱乐部主任约翰·贝内特说。 “只有一个解释,那就是他们打算打击的人不仅仅是恐怖分子。他们要重新定义恐怖主义分子是谁,以便他们能够将他们的敌人定义为恐怖分子。”


(注:大部分内容出自格里高利. 比蒂在《草原之狗》 2015年3月5-18日期刊第7页的文章“与你结仇”)

No comments:

Post a Comment