Islamic and other militants will continue to seek to exploit Canada's liberal immigration laws and relatively weak law enforcement to establish themselves in Toronto, Montreal and other urban centres.

Canada terrorist haven: global risk consultant
Lax immigration, security policies can be exploited

Stewart Bell
National Post

Wednesday, November 12, 2003

Terrorists from around the world will continue to infiltrate Canada because of Ottawa's soft immigration and security policies, a British consulting firm predicted yesterday in a new study on global hazards.

The report by the Control Risks Group, which analyzed security trends in 195 countries, said Paul Martin, the Liberal front-runner, was coming to power amid ongoing worries about terrorist activities in Canada.

"Martin will ... take over at a time of heightened concern that Islamic extremists linked to or inspired by al-Qaeda will attempt to stage an attack in Canada or use Canada as a staging point from which to launch further attacks in the U.S.," the report said.

"Undoubtedly, Islamic and other militants will continue to seek to exploit Canada's liberal immigration laws and relatively weak law enforcement to establish themselves in Toronto, Montreal and other urban centres."

The RiskMap 2004 report predicted the Canadian government would put more money into its police and intelligence agencies and strengthen its counter-terrorism ties with the United States.

Overall, the risk of political or security upheavals in Canada was rated low, on par with other Western nations, but worse than such countries as Bermuda, where the threat was categorized as insignificant.

"The threat from militant francophone separatists in Quebec will remain credible but low," the report added. "Any action is likely to be limited to small-scale vandalism of English-speaking businesses in predominantly French-speaking areas."

Burundi, Somalia and Liberia were the only countries rated as extreme security risks for the coming year.

Rated high-risk were Congo, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Zimbabwe, Colombia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Georgia, Tajikistan, Algeria, Iraq and Yemen.

The study said the al-Qaeda leadership had been dispersed and weakened since the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan, but loose regional cells of the Islamic terrorist group remain "highly active and more elusive than before."

"In a world where there are no illegitimate targets and where information and weapons are readily available, the risks to business and personnel have increased and will endure," said Nigel Churton, the firm's chief executive officer.

The analysis of Canada's security situation is similar to one released in August by the World Markets Research Centre, which said al-Qaeda was recruiting in Canada, making the country a potential target, and the risk of a terrorist strike in the country was "low to medium."

The new study said Mr. Martin's rise to power and "continuing disarray on the political right, which is still split between the moderate Progressive Conservatives (Tories) and the more hardline Canadian Alliance, should ensure a fourth successive Liberal majority government."

Canada’s Liberal government is rushing to enact an “anti-terrorism” bill that breaks with key tenets of British-Canadian jurisprudence—tenets historically-developed in the struggle against arbitrary and unfettered executive power.

Bill C-36 establishes a new order of “terrorist” crimes for which the state will have special investigative and prosecutorial powers. These include preventive detention—i.e. the right to incarcerate people on the mere suspicion they may be about to commit a crime; a new police power to compel testimony from anyone they believe has information pertinent to a terrorism investigation; closed trials; and a right of the prosecution, with a judge’s approval, to deny an accused and his counsel full knowledge of the evidence against him.

The definition of terrorism around which the legislation is constructed is so broad that it could be used to prosecute trade unionists involved in an illegal strike or those engaged in civil disobedience.

Bill C-36 also greatly increases police powers of surveillance, while dramatically increasing the government’s prerogative to suppress information about its activities.

One measure of Bill C-36’s sweep is the number of existing laws it would amend. The more than 150-page bill would modify 22 existing laws, including the Criminal Code, Canadian Human Rights Act, Access to Information Act, Privacy Act, Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, Canadian Security Intelligence Act, and National Defence Act.

Bill C-36 has been severely criticized by civil rights groups, associations of lawyers, and the Canadian Arab Federation and other immigrant and ethnic organizations. According to the Quebec Bar Association, “certain of Bill C-36’s clauses would lead to violations of the rights recognized by the [Canadian]Charter” of Rights and Freedoms. “It would be a mistake,” it adds, “to believe that this law will not eventually be used against Canadians and Canadians who are not terrorists.”

The corporate media, meanwhile, has offered only muted criticism. This is in keeping with the role it has played since September 11 in whipping up a climate of hysteria and promoting Canada’s fulsome and open-ended commitment to the US world “anti-terrorism war.” As for the parliamentary opposition, it exists only in name—at least when it comes to defending democratic rights. Only the social-democratic New Democratic Party voted against Bill C-36 on second reading. In so far as there has been a debate in parliament, it has revolved around whether some of the legislation’s most grievous attacks on civil liberties, such as the police power of preventive arrest, should be subject to a three- or five-year sunset clause. To date, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and Justice Minister Anne McLellan have rejected all such suggestions, arguing that no one can guarantee terrorism will have been eradicated in such a time-frame and that a sunset clause would discourage the police from pursuing anti-terrorism investigations.

A catch-all definition of a “terrorist act”

Until now the concept “terrorist act” has been used in Canadian law only in the Immigration Act. (Immigration officials have the right to expel, or deny entry to, non-Canadians suspected of involvement in a terrorist act.) One reason is that Justice Department officials found it impossible to come up with a definition of terrorism that they were confident could withstand a court challenge and didn’t catch all manner of unrelated acts of dissidence within its ambit. Another is that the Criminal Code already contains severe legal penalties for anyone who commits the offences usually associated with terrorism—assassinations, bombings, plane hijackings, etc.

Now, however, the Chrétien Liberal government has established under a catch-all rubric of “terrorist act” a new order of expressly political crimes to which the normal limits on state power will no longer apply. Those convicted of the more severe of the terrorist acts face an automatic 25-year jail sentence.

Bill C-36 begins by listing some 35 offences, taken from ten international agreements and protocols, liable to be defined as terrorist acts. Then, in a second section it further defines as a terrorist act “an act or omission, in or outside Canada, that is committed ... for a political, religious or ideological purpose” and that is aimed at causing any of the following: death or injury; “substantial property damage” if the probable result is to place people’s safety at risk; or “serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private ...”

The last clause is particularly ominous, since it and another sub-clause that mentions threats to Canadians’ “economic security” could be used to smear work stoppages, blockades and other acts of civil disobedience as “terrorism,” and thus threaten participants with massive legal sanctions.

The government’s definition of a terrorist act does go on to specifically exclude legal strikes and protests, but only if they don’t aim to seriously disrupt an essential service. Moreover, by explicitly excluding “legal” strikes, that is those that conform with the battery of repressive labor laws, from its ambit, Bill C-36 implicitly classifies strikes mounted in defiance of such laws and that disrupt public services or the country’s economy “terrorist acts.”

Bill C-36 includes in its definition of a terrorist act plotting or threatening to commit such an act or inciting people to commit one. Explains University of Toronto Law Professor Kent Roach, “The overboard definition of terrorist activities is then incorporated in new offences such as ... participating in the activities of or harbouring those who commit terrorist activities. These broad offenses, which target activities well in advance of actual terrorism, are in turn expanded by the incorporation of inchoate liability such as conspiracies, attempts, counselling or threats, into the definition of terrorist activities. The overall effect is to lengthen the long reach of the criminal law in a manner that is complex, unclear and unrestrained.”

Significantly, both politicians who favor and oppose Bill C-36’s definition of a terrorist act have said that had it then been in force, the “anti-globalization” protesters who sought to disrupt the Quebec City Summit of the Americas and the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty protestors who sought to paralyze Toronto’s financial district last October 16 could have been prosecuted under its provisions.

Increasing the power of the state

Till now it has been accepted as a judicial principle that the greater the potential penalties facing an accused, the greater the burden of proof the state must satisfy and the more important a defendant’s right to a public trial.

Bill C-36 inverts these principles. With the sanction of the presiding judge—or if need be a higher court—the prosecution will be able in the name of national security to withhold from the accused and the public essential parts of the prosecution’s case, such as how the evidence was obtained, the names of prosecution witnesses and even the specifics of what the accused is said to have done.

Police will have the power to detain persons for up to 72 hours without charge on the mere “suspicion” that they might be about to commit a terrorist act. Till now courts have always held that people cannot be arrested—let alone detained without charge—on mere suspicion. Arrests without a warrant can only be made if police have reasonable cause to believe someone has just committed a crime or is about to commit a crime.

Police will also have the power to take photos and fingerprints of those subject to preventive arrest. Hitherto, police have only been allowed to open an identification file on someone if and when charges are laid.

In collaboration with Crown prosecutors, security forces will gain the power to compel testimony, under threat of imprisonment, in an investigative hearing held in secret and presided over by a judge. Even if Bill C-36 specifies that evidence collected through such a hearing cannot be used against the individual from whom the testimony has been compelled, such a procedure represents a major attack on the long-established right of silence.

Bill C-36 also gives the solicitor-general sweeping powers to order all those involved in an anti-terrorism investigation not to divulge any information about it and in perpetuity.

To obtain authorization for electronic surveillance in terrorism investigations, the police will no longer have to swear before a judge that all other methods of collecting evidence have failed and that it would otherwise be impracticable to continue the investigation.

The law authorizes the establishment of a government blacklist of terrorist organizations. This measure has two purposes: to permit the state to seize all such organizations’ assets and to facilitate the use of the legal sanctions in Bill C-36 against their members and supporters.

Only after an organization has been entered on the blacklist will it be able to challenge the designation before a Federal Court judge. At these hearings, the government will be able to demand in the name of national security, national defence or international relations that much of the evidence on which its decision was based be withheld from the complaining organization. Also, the government will have the right to use evidence that would not be admissible in a regular court hearing.

Bill C-36 creates a legal obligation for banks, all other financial institutions, and indeed all Canadians, at home or abroad, to secretly denounce to the state anyone they suspect of engaging in terrorist activities. Failure to do so makes one liable to a ten-year prison term.

The preamble of Bill C-36 declares that amendments will be made to the National Defence Act “to clarify the powers of the Communications Security Establishment [CSE] to combat terrorism”—this is a euphemism for expanding the CSE’s powers to spy on Canadians. The top secret CSE was established during the Cold War to intercept international telecommunication signals. Until now it has been legally prevented from intercepting communications amongst Canadians within Canada. Now, on authorization from the overseeing minister, it will have the right to intercept all communications made by “terrorism” suspects by telephone, electronic mail or any other part of the “world infrastructure” of telecommunications. A particular target of this change is the Internet. Since the Seattle “anti-globalization” protest, security forces in Canada, as elsewhere, have repeatedly complained about their lack of legal authority to spy on Internet communications. Bill C-36, particularly in light of its definition of a terrorist act, goes a long way to meeting their concerns.

Thirty years ago, Jean Chrétien was a minister in the Trudeau Liberal government, when it invoked the War Measures Act on the basis of a bogus claim that two Front de Libération du Québec kidnappings constituted an “apprehended insurrection.” Bill C-36 does not give the government the War Measures Act’s arbitrary powers to suspend basic civil liberties. But the changes it makes would be permanent, establish ominous legal precedents, and arm the state with vast arbitrary powers to label as “terrorism” and suppress any serious challenge to the established political and social order.

looks like canada has a bush of their own eh?

Those that are called "Terrorists" by any one of those three, are in reality
simpily fighters for Soverignty and Autonomy from the clutches of Imperialism.

Long live the fighters for Iraq.

who are the "terrorists"?

It depends on what "angle" you view it from.

I think everyone have their own point of view.

I also know people who tries to see these things the "relative" way. Think everybody should try and do that.

Got to hit the bed folks, it is soon midnight here in sweden.

Cheers!

--------------------

I called the names of who the REAL Terrorists are.

And NO, by saying that, i am not defending Islam.
You know how i hate Religion...including your American one.

Do you know how offensive you are being? Long live the Iraqi freedon fighters. You really don't have a clue do you?

Those 'freedom fighters' are Saddam loyalists and other anti democratic organisations hell-bent on stopping Iraq from being a democratic country! They are not fighting for the people of Iraq, only their lust to run the country under their totalitarian rule. They want the Saddam regime back! The middle east needs that like a hole in the head. We need to lay a marker in the sand. We HAVE to stop these people. In Iraq. NOW! If we lose this we will be on the end of a hiding to nothing. If these people get their way there is no telling where it will end.

Islamic Jihad are not terrorists. So what are they then? Moderate Moslems? Representatives of the wider Moslem faith? Freedom fighters...Yep, that's a good one. groups like Isalmic Jihad want the state of Israel erased from history! They want our way of life to be banished! Are you prepared to go where they want to take us? Lose your nice cosy sofa? The PC with which you spray all this anti-western rhetoric around the place? The music you listen to? Be forced to pray, even though you have no religious beliefs? To live under the ruthless fist of a man like Saddam Hussein? Kula, I think you need to live under a dictatorship like his to realise just how wrong you are. Seriously, your comments are offensive, and way outside reality.

--------------------

Offensive?

You support this War.

To me, that is offensive.

I do cetainly not defend Hussein. But why do the people who lives in Iraq have to suffer, so my question is:
FROM WHERE DID HUSSEIN GET HIS WEPONS?

The following is a Quote:
//Speaking of atrocities, what about Mr. Hussein's real human-rights record? In 1988, during the Iran-Iraq war, the Iraqi dictator's campaign killed many thousands of Kurds, often with poison gas. The Reagan-Bush administration cast a blind eye on these horrors, because it was providing military aid to Mr. Hussein's commanders in the war with Iran.//
end of quote

The SOURCE where I found this is: http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1028-09.htm

ABOUT ISRAEL:
Take a look and search this site: http://indymedia.org.il/imc/webcast/index.php3?language=en

DOES THIS MAKE ANY SCENCE? It is an Israelian site. Confusing?

ABOUT THECNOLOGY: This site is kind of scary and confusing to:
http://www.politicalstrategy.us/

What is true and what is not true in the "matters" above? I don't know! How can anyone be sure.

This makes me think of the movie: "The Truman Show", with Jim Carrey.....

Think I shall wathc "The Simpsons" tonight, at least that "cartoon" is amusing.

--------------------

All of you completely miss the point.

To your mindset, the West is always correct and everyone Else on Planet Earth is wrong.
So, the solution you support is to push your ways upon other Cultures and Countries.
"You are either with us, or against us." -Bush

That is Terrorism, pure and simple.

Israel are the inventers of it and the U.S. (with GB) fall right in line with doing things
the Israeli way.
All the while sending billions of Dollars there to support the Terrorism upon the Nations around them.

Bush, Sharon and Blair have done more damage to theyre respective Countries and to the
Global Economy than ever before in history.
Theyre War-Mongering Terrorism of other Soverign Nations must be stopped!

Millions of protestors around the world cant be wrong, guys.

As long as you support the actions of those three Countries, you support the REAL Terrorists.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingKula:
To your mindset, the West is always correct and everyone Else on Planet Earth is wrong.

---

I'd say that most people who disagree with you have taken the time to point out that Western policies aren't always right and aren't always effective. I think the most accurate statement here would be directed at you: to YOUR mindset, the West is always wrong and everyone Else on Planet Earth is correct.

quote:

---

Millions of protestors around the world cant be wrong, guys.

---

I have addressed certain points, Kane.
Ones that i thought were worth addressing.

Kula Manifesto...hahaha. Thats great!
Maybe i will write a book or something. Develope a large following.
Overthrow your Government then drag YOU into the street and mow down your house just like
American Terrorists are doing to the innocent Civilians in Iraq right now.
Just like Israel does to innocent Arabs around them.
Then, Kane, I will build a big fence between what is left of your house and the rest of anything you have interests in.
Then when you go to my approved Checkpoints to get across, i will tell you NO you cant cross.
Then i will call you names as you leave dejected.

Would you like that Kane?
Then if you want to fight me back, i will call YOU the "Terrorist."

Call this rhetoric? Call this Drunk Speech?
Those are just cop-outs for your unwillingness to face the truth that YOU support the REAL Terrorists.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingKula:
"You are either with us, or against us." -Bush

---

and that is one of the reason i like bush a heck of alot more than say clinton...

in that statement it was so bold, it knocked me on my ass, i dont think clinton had the balls or the grasp on reality to make that sort of statement.
to me it is a call to support your lifestyle and protect your way of life. bush was speaking for americans and all civilized nations, by saying we are tired of this shit and the crime and tyranny, the global aspects of the statement got me concerned. the americans are not self centred, we are not pushing nothing on anybody but when terrorism begins to interfear with our way of life, 'aka' (freedom and music and our children) and when another rival race wants to erase yours and your history then i begin to get concerned. jihad whats that mean again? it has been being fought for along time, your eyes just got opened to the truth as everyones does with age. and i never really realized we had rivals that wanted that sort of thing until 9/11 and bush. i was all happy and secure, blinded by my way of life. i choose to be on the side of which i was raised, and i never even thought about this sort of stuff before 9/11.

if the opposers could "live and let live" then we would all just get along, but they cant, they use human bombs and terrorism tactics out of jealousy. im sure they think the same, and think we are trying to erase their culture too, but if you look at our society we have been into studying and preserving cultures for the reason of learning from them, i have seen no history channel in iraq. it dont seem they care for learning only hell bent on islamic rule.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingKula:
I have addressed certain points, Kane. Ones that i thought were worth addressing.

---

That's a convienient method of avoidance. Maybe if I mention a point I made again, you won't be able to avoid it, so here goes: if you say that millions of protesters can't be wrong, than you'd have to agree that the majority of posters in here who oppose your viewpoint are right - RIGHT?

quote:

---

Kula Manifesto...hahaha. Thats great! Maybe i will write a book or something. Develope a large following.
Overthrow your Government then drag YOU into the street and mow down your house just like American Terrorists are doing to the innocent Civilians in Iraq right now. Just like Israel does to innocent Arabs around them. Then, Kane, I will build a big fence between what is left of your house and the rest of anything you have interests in. Then when you go to my approved Checkpoints to get across, i will tell you NO you cant cross.

---

Do me a favor, Kula - show me a quote - ANY quote - that I've posted here where I said that I support what Israel does to the Palestinians. Can you? No, because I've never said that. I'm of the opinion that Israel's policy regarding Palestinians is wrong. I also think that the Palestinian reaction to these policies is to solve the problem through violence, which is also wrong. How does what you posted above relate to me? It doesn't.

Glad you are enjoying todays festivities Mez.
No...I'm not drowing, just getting blitzed at the moment.

Wish i had enough time to refute each and every one of you guys brainwashed comments,
but i am at work and getting blitzed by the phone as well! lol!
Of course, its just wimpy Americans on the line whining about something.

Lets see...

Kula vs Kane, Knicker, Hatross, Mex, Hex, Warcorpse.

Would anyone else like to jump on the pile?

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingKula:
Kula vs Kane, Knicker, Hatross, Mex, Hex, Warcorpse.

Would anyone else like to jump on the pile?

---

It's a bloodbath!

quote:

---

Originally posted by hexonxonx:
You may all argue to death about America, but everyone here is wrong about Israel. Everything said about wrongdoings on so-called "Palestinian" territories is lies and Arafat regime propaganda, magnified by Judophobes of all kinds (namely and most vocally: BBC). This is my point and I'll stand by that, and I have proofs (that NONE of you have).

Or, prove me wrong (if you can). Kula (if you find your precious time to do so) or anyone else.

---

That is pretty funny though.
I'm still laughing my ass off.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kane:
It's a bloodbath!

---

I think that Yasser Arafat blew the last agreement with Barak because he is under pressure from the militants he can't control. From our faraway shores it also looks like there is a hardcore mentality amongst a few on each side that want to keep this feud going and aren't interested in peace. A bit like the Protestant/Catholic feud we have in Northern Ireland, just on a much bloodier scale. I have said this before that I believe the vast majority of the people living in Israel just want this to stop and enjoy peaceful lives without the fear of helicopter gunships tearing up their houses, or suicide bombers climbing onto buses. But until both sides take a step back, realise that neither can 'win' for want of a better word and actually work out a solution then we shall see this get worse before it gets any better. Sadly, it seems that at this time the people who are hell-bent on continuing this feud call the shots. A solution seems as far away as ever.

--------------------