CAIRO: It was not only American anti-terrorism legislation that changed dramatically after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Canada too underwent a process of considerable legal change.
Having struck so close to home, the attacks forced Canada s lawmakers to give serious consideration to their country s own legal system, and how to prevent such incidents occurring on their own soil.
Kenneth Roach, award-winning author on law and civil rights and professor of law at University of Toronto, spoke at the Canadian Embassy Sunday on changes made to the Canadian legal system in light of Sept. 11, 2001, in a lecture entitled “The Post 9/11 Development of Canadian National Security Policy.
Roach was consulted for his opinions and input when Canada s Anti-terrorism Act was formulated in 2001 and again when it was reviewed in 2004 and 2006.
He pointed out that Canada, though amongst the most peaceful countries in the world, is itself no stranger to acts of terrorism.
The Front de Liberation du Quebec (FLQ) carried out several acts of aggression on Canadian soil primarily in the 60s and 70s, the bombing of an Air India aircraft flying from Toronto to Heathrow was the largest ever act of aviation terrorism up until Sept. 11, 2001, and just last year 17 alleged terrorists were arrested, charged with planning to carry out a series of attacks.
The Canadian reaction to terrorism in the past, particularly in the case of the FLQ, said Roach, had been heavy-handed ( overkill ).
And although he is also opposed to the current act, he admits it shows signs of maturity compared with earlier anti-terrorism legislation, and takes public debate into account.
One thing Canada added to the bill was an exemption for protests and strikes … so that they cannot be considered terrorism, he said, adding that Australia had followed Canada s example and made the same amendment.
This was the direct result of public lobbying.
He also praised Canada for refraining from using its immigration laws to combat terrorism ( a real problem in Western democracies ), noting that the perpetrators of the Air India bombing were Canadian citizens, not illegal immigrants or individuals awaiting citizenship.
The removal of provisions for preventative arrests and investigative hearings – measures often drawn upon in other countries like America and Britain – had stoked lively debate in Canada, said Roach.
One addition to the act he and many others are calling for, he noted, is a discrimination clause to prevent religious and racial profiling of Canadian citizens.
Overall, he said, the Canadian Anti-Terrorism Act is far from perfect, though represents a significant improvement on both earlier Canadian anti-terror measures, as well as anti-terror bills in other Western countries.
Although not all the criticisms that I and others made about the bill were followed, he said, I have to say that I m quite proud of the debate that we have had.
