Canada Rejects Anti-Terror Laws

Coryoth writes "The Canadian parliament has voted against renewing anti-terror laws that had been introduced after September 11, 2001. The rejected laws included provisions to hold terror suspects indefinitely, and to compel witnesses to testify, and were in some sense Canada's version fo the Patriot Act. The laws were voted down in the face of claims from the minority Conservative government that the Liberal Party was soft on terror, and despite the fact that Canada has faced active terrorist cells in their own country. The anti-terror laws have never been used, and it was viewed that they are neither relevant, nor needed, in dealing with terrorist plots. Hopefully more countries will come to the same conclusion."

Comments

Think of the children (of the terrorists)

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember that in Canada, 9/11 is actually 11/9, since they use a different date format system up there, eh?

Re:Think of the children (of the terrorists)

[rjshields]

What kind of fucking crack are you smoking? The date system here is the exact same. The only people who choose DD/MM/YYYY are the French.

That's what I love about /., the bounty of well-thought out, balanced, calm, rational argument.

Re:Think of the children (of the terrorists)

[Killjoy_NL]

Wow, I speak french and don't even know it then?

Let me try a sentence then "Lik mijn reet!"

Nope, still dutch

Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[jusDfaqs]

Hopefully more countries will come to the same conclusion.

Yea, like this one, US!

"He's a Jedi, 17 times, eh?"

[Baby Duck]

I can finally Blame Canada ... for starting something Good.

Once again showing

[teamhasnoi]

that the U.S. is Canada's Mexico.

Re:Once again showing

[LunaticTippy]

So what? Every country is somebody's Mexico.

Except Santa's Workshop. North Pole, bitches!

Re:Once again showing

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally disagree. The leader of the Liberal Party, Stephane Dion, has integrity and fights for what he believes in. Also, the terrorist act goes against our cultural grain - we have a very strong belief in human rights, and the current (minority) government does not represent what the majority feel about this situation.

"There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Eliot Trudeau, 1969.

Re:Once again showing

[JM78]

That Canadians are more American than most Americans (I'm American which makes me ignorant by association and therefor an expert on the subject).

And Now an election

[mandelbr0t]

That's it for Stephen Harper, I think. It is possible to follow-up this vote with a vote of non-confidence. That should provoke the Spring election that many Canadians were expecting. It doesn't mean he won't win again, though...

Gotta love Canadian politics :)

Re:Free reign

[koreth]

Yeah, because without anti-terror laws, I'm sure it's perfectly legal to plot to behead a public official in Canada. How could they possibly have let that gaping hole in the criminal code reopen?!?

Maybe....

[Anonymous Coward]

That's one way to look at it, but I thought most Canadians consider themselves as "The 51st State", as shown here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/51st_state#Canada .

Re:Fundamental difference

[UbuntuDupe]

The PATRIOT ACT (please use it in caps, as it is an acronym)

And don't forget to capitalize it for Canada's proposed law as well, the MOUNTIE (Marshalling Our Unified Nation against Terrorism Immediately, Eh?) Act.

As the french say

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, chill. As my good friends from Quebec like to say:

    Je me Souvien

Which translates roughly to

    I am Soup

Words that we call all live by.

Re:As the french say

[Anonymous Coward]

It's true. The speaking french eliminates your sense of humor.

Re:Oh Canada!

[Original Replica]

Oh sure. Show off your functioning democracy, with your multiple opposition parties, and your voter confidence. Wanna buy some Diebold black boxes?

Re:Article ignores politican context

[ArcherB]

We are fully aware that people like you (the bad people) are out there trying take away our liberties for the smallest and most false sense of security. Thats why we applaud this. Its a victory against you bad people. Don't worry we know you exist!

Just curious. What liberties have you lost due to anti-terror legislation in whatever country you are living in?

I ask because I keep hearing about how the US has become a police state. Well, I'm in the US and as far as I can tell, this new Bush police state looks exactly as it did under Clinton, except the economy is better. I think it is only fair that I stand with my fellow Americans and suffer as they have, but before I do that, I need to know what it is I'm missing.

Well...

[powerpants]

It's aboot time!

Re:How does the first post get a "Redundant" mod?

[Anonymous Coward]

Canadians can be Slashdot moderators, too. Just like their date convention is backwards, they read the comments backwards, too (from newest to oldest). Just go change your preferences.

Re:Article ignores politican context

[Dexter Alan Ux]

The economy under Clinton sucked. First of all, we were running a bugetary surplus, which means we were not increasing the national debt. Increasing the national debt is a good thing because that's usually accomplished by selling savings bonds, which people can buy as safe investment tools. Secondly, we had the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years. This means that I had to pay a premium for high quality American labor, thereby driving up my company's costs. To top it all off, a gallon of gas cost only 99 cents. How much margin is an American oil company supposed to be able to make on that? Bush, on the other hand, has helped curtail inflation by keeping stock market growth (DJIA) limited to an average of 2.8% per year over the past 6 years. In contrast, under Clinton, the Dow ran amok from roughly 3500 when he took office to approximately 10,600 when he left. That's an increase of almost 15% per year for eight years! By the time he got through with the economy, stocks were too expensive for the average person to buy!!