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

Oh Canada!

[deadhammer]

I'd like to say that, as a full red-blooded, maple syrup-sweating, moose riding Canuck, I've never been prouder of my country. These sorts of laws always seem good in the panic moments when they're pushed through, but cooler heads will prevail. We've said no to bad, kneejerk legislation, and I'm proud to be a voter.

Re:Oh Canada!

[mdielmann]

As another Canadian, I entirely agree with you. While I'm generally a supporter of the conservative party (parties in some places), once again I'm vindicated in my opinion that minority governments are best for the average citizen.

<rant>
My theory goes something like this. No matter what you do, it's most often politicians and not visionaries who get voted into office, if for no other reason than they lie better. This leaves you with leaders who are more concerned with their best interest rather than the people's, which results in a corrupt government. Also, majority governments can ram through just about whatever they want, whereas minority governments have to negotiate and compromise. Another way to say this is majority governments are effective, while minority governments are ineffective. So given the two likeliest choices of a corrupt effective government and a corrupt ineffective government, I'll choose the latter. At least they have a harder time shafting us.
</rant>

Hey, if you can't rant about politics, what can you rant about?

Re:Article ignores politican context

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

You can't close your eyes and pretend that bad people don't exist

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!

Re:Thanks for visiting?

[Coryoth]

"a cold molson"?
A real Canadian would use the term "beers".

Come now, I think calling Molson "beer" is being a bit generous. Sure, it has less resemblance to water than the mainstream US brands (Budweiser, Millers, etc.), but calling it "beer" is just taking things a bit too far.

Re:Makes me proud to be Canadian.

[natophonic]

And good news for terrorists who want to operate more effectively in Canada.

If the powers granted by the legislation were never used, and terrorist cells in Canada were disrupted and dismantled during the five years this legislation was in effect, then that's a pretty shallow victory for the terrorists.

Re:Wow policies that dont work get revoked.

[IceDiver]

I don't know where the synopsis gets this but from the sound of it it was never used, that's called untested, not "doesn't work."

I would argue that, since the laws have never been used, they were unneeded, not untested. Furthermore, key provisions of the laws were recently struck down as unconstitutional by the Canadian courts.

So, not only were the laws not necessary, they contravened the highest law of the land. It's no wonder Parliament voted them down! I'm just surprised that the same hasn't happened yet to the blatantly unconstitutional laws that have been enacted since 9/11 south of the Canadian border!