Some genuinely curious Canadians are puzzled by the vociferous and passionate opposition to Bill C-51 -- why is it so bad? Some have read the Bill and not found anything too controversial in it. Others have pointed to the Government making some changes in the Bill's language. Still others have expressed their "trust" in the "goodness" of Canadian legislators and government agencies. (For those that are THAT naive, I think just pointing out that their trust has already been repeatedly betrayed should suffice: RED FLAG! http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/eva-prkachin/cses-spying_b_6575142.html)
While definitely not exhaustive, my thoughts are summarized here to avoid repeating the same points in different forums. I have raised some basic questions: Why? Where? When? What? Who?
WHY?
Or rather, why now? Despite jumping on the US bandwagon in 2003 to go attack a country (Afghanistan) that hadn't attacked Canada, the country hasn't seen any large-scale "terrorist" incident in the last 10 years? No mass attacks, no plane hijackings, no threats to infrastructure, etc. Canada is not even mentioned in the threats of most terrorist groups. The Harper government seized the excuse of a deranged gunman shooting in the Parliament. But in a country of 30 million, a solitary shooting incident whether it is in the Parliament in Ottawa or in the Eaton Center Mall in Toronto does not become the basis for changing some very serious laws!
It appears that Canadian lives have more of a threat from drunk driving and operating cellphones while driving than from terrorism! Current laws have managed to thwart current terrorist threats. And they are getting more and more invasive, with the Supreme Court opening up Canadians' cell phones to police snooping before Bill C-51 was even passed. RED FLAG! http://www.corporatesoothsayer.com/2014/12/supreme-court-opens-canadian-phones-to-police-snooping.html. So why do we need new laws?
WHAT?
What are the new laws preventing or targeting anyways? If they are the nation's reaction to curb terrorism like the Ottawa shooting, how come there are no gun-control provisions in the new law? Why not de-weaponize our cities? Who needs a gun in Ottawa, Toronto or Montreal? Guns are made to kill. Why should any civilian in today's civilized Canadian society be allowed to buy or possess a gun? Wouldn't that be more effective?
WHERE?
Where should anti-terrorism focus be? Terrorist threats largely originate outside of Canada. Terrorist outfits like the Taliban and ISIS rely on weapons supplies and funding to sustain their crimes. Why is it that new anti-terror legislation does not have a focus on foreign policy and cutting of funding and applying trade embargoes and sanctions against the financiers, funders and supporters of terrorism like Saudi Arabia? Why is it that instead of severing ties with these terrorist regimes, Canada is busy arming them to crush their civilians' uprisings? RED FLAG! http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/31/combat-terror-end-support-saudi-arabia-dictatorships-fundamentalism. Same story in Egypt. http://www.mediacoop.ca/story/canada-backs-violent-military-regime-egypt/33004 Why is our counter-terrorism policy's focus so "inward" looking? How come the larger global perspective is completely ignored in the counter-terrorism narrative?
WHEN?
When did "counter-terrorism" legislation start? The attacks against the parliament happened in 2014. However, as this writer pointed out in an earlier post RED FLAG! (http://www.corporatesoothsayer.com/2012/06/next-stop-canadian-government-to.html), 3 years ago in 2012 the Canadian government established a "counter-terrorism" unit to protect Canada's "energy" industry. The only threat at that time to Big Oil's infrastructure was from the aboriginals / First Nations opposing pipeline projects and threatening even physical disruptions if the pipelines crossed their lands, disrupting their lives. So is counter-terrorism merely an extension of the Canadian government's services as private security guards for the Big Oil industry, as observed in the arrests of Burnaby Mountain protesters against the Kinder Morgan pipeline? RED FLAG! http://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/david-suzuki-burnaby-mountain-support-kinder-morgan-protest. This becomes even more dodgy when seen in conjunction with the Canadian government's muzzling of environment science. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/10/20/stephen-harper-science-research_n_6019806.html
WHO?
Who defines a "terrorist"? A casual reading of any anti-terror law or bill would obviously seem innocuous because who wants any leniency for "terrorists"? But WHO defines a terrorist? As pointed above, in 2012 the counter-terrorism threat was focusing on First Nations. Tomorrow it might focus on environmental activists like GreenPeace. Next, it might focus on protesters like the Occupy movement, the G20 Summit protests in Toronto or other civilian protests. If the gunman who attacked the Parliament in Ottawa cited Star Wars or a Hollywood movie like "Enemy of the State" as his inspiration, would he be a terrorist? If he cited a deranged reading of a religion as his inspiration, is he a terrorist? It becomes even scarier when our Defence Minister cannot define or does not even bother to define it and instead directs inquirers to "look it up" -- as in laws should rely on Google or Wikipedia's (or worse, Urban Dictionary's!) definition of terrorism?! RED FLAG! http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/peter-mackay-skirts-debate-on-definition-of-terrorism-look-it-up-1.2961934 This is highly problematic as it leaves it open to the interpretation and creates a deliberate vagueness that governments and nefarious politicians can exploit to their advantage to silence dissent and legitimate protests. RED FLAG! http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/anti-terrorism-bill-will-unleash-csis-on-a-lot-more-than-terrorists/article22821691/
