Many believe that the Anti Terrorism Act is in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As stated in the charter that the guarantees are not absolute. The limits posed by Parliament on our basic rights and freedoms are reasonable but does not have a broad description of what this consists of. The fact is that these must be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” This is a common issue found in the Constitution of Canada of who’s to determine what is reasonable and justified. The question is, are we able to give up our rights for possible threats? Issues that arose in 2015 such as Bill C-51, the truth about the threat in Canada, and the repercussions of Canada’s way of fighting against the terrorists. The
…show more content…
Consequently, Canada must pay for their actions, as Peter Jacobsen and Andrew MacDonald presented a very good point in their article Bill C-51 Would Jeopardize the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when they wrote, “Bill C-51 claim that terrorists want to attack Canada and Canadians because they hate our society and its values. The solution Bill C-51 offers is not more effective protections against terrorists, but an unnecessary and dangerous dilution of the rights and freedoms essential to a free and democratic society -- the very values terrorists are said to hate.” (Jacobsen & MacDonald) This is very important to remember when protecting a country who has been so lucky through not been attacked directly through terrorist attacks. After the introduction of the Anti Terrorism Act many controversial facts have been stated. It was many complaints later that it was sought out to be good news to hear that the Act was to be amended in 2015. Unfortunately, the news was not what Canadians hoped for, as the amendments consisted of limiting Canadians’ freedom of expression and their ability to engage in proper democratic debates. Bill C-51 also states that police would be allowed to detain possible terrorists for seven days instead of the …show more content…
As the Minister of Public Safety states, “As we meet the threat of terrorism, we must also ensure the protection of our rights and freedoms.” With his statement, it is after he brings up the issue of the Parliamentarians with access to the classified information and how they play a role. (Public Safety) It is in this article that the government of Canada addresses Canada on a national terrorism threat level as we set at a medium which is unchanging. This states that our country is not a high risk country which means it is in no need for high risk surveillance. Terrorism is a complex problem which is no indicator of a quick fix solution such as the Anti Terrorism Act. This is not a statement saying that Canada is immune to the attacks of terrorists as we have experienced it on a low scale with the attacks in Ottawa and Strathroy leaving two dead. It is a statement that Canada has not received the same scrutiny as other nations such as Europe and the United States. This is a statement that our country is not at a high enough threat risk to be spying on our own civilians because one person of importance had an
Consequently, Canada must pay for their actions, as Peter Jacobsen and Andrew MacDonald presented a very good point in their article Bill C-51 Would Jeopardize the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when they wrote, “Bill C-51 claim that terrorists want to attack Canada and Canadians because they hate our society and its values. The solution Bill C-51 offers is not more effective protections against terrorists, but an unnecessary and dangerous dilution of the rights and freedoms essential to a free and democratic society -- the very values terrorists are said to hate.” (Jacobsen & MacDonald) This is very important to remember when protecting a country who has been so lucky through not been attacked directly through terrorist attacks. After the introduction of the Anti Terrorism Act many controversial facts have been stated. It was many complaints later that it was sought out to be good news to hear that the Act was to be amended in 2015. Unfortunately, the news was not what Canadians hoped for, as the amendments consisted of limiting Canadians’ freedom of expression and their ability to engage in proper democratic debates. Bill C-51 also states that police would be allowed to detain possible terrorists for seven days instead of the …show more content…
As the Minister of Public Safety states, “As we meet the threat of terrorism, we must also ensure the protection of our rights and freedoms.” With his statement, it is after he brings up the issue of the Parliamentarians with access to the classified information and how they play a role. (Public Safety) It is in this article that the government of Canada addresses Canada on a national terrorism threat level as we set at a medium which is unchanging. This states that our country is not a high risk country which means it is in no need for high risk surveillance. Terrorism is a complex problem which is no indicator of a quick fix solution such as the Anti Terrorism Act. This is not a statement saying that Canada is immune to the attacks of terrorists as we have experienced it on a low scale with the attacks in Ottawa and Strathroy leaving two dead. It is a statement that Canada has not received the same scrutiny as other nations such as Europe and the United States. This is a statement that our country is not at a high enough threat risk to be spying on our own civilians because one person of importance had an