EDITORIAL — Terrorism is a local issue now

EDITORIAL — You know the threat of terrorism has hit home when it becomes a local issue in a federal election.

And the Conservative government’s anti-terrorism bill is looking likely to become just that as MPs and nominated candidates weigh in across the country, including Kamloops.

What’s to be gained and lost politically isn’t totally clear yet, despite an Angus Reid poll this week that says most Canadians are in favour of the Harper government’s divisive Bill C51. The results of that poll are fascinating and just a little confusing.

One wonders how much the public really understands the issues surrounding this bill. Do 82 per cent of Canadians really support a bill that will broaden the powers of the spy agency CSIS, potentially threaten those involved in strictly domestic dissent, and allow the state more authority to invade our privacy?

In fact, 36 per cent of respondents to the Angus Reid survey said the bill “doesn’t go far enough.”

NDP leader Tom Mulcair gives voice to the concerns about the bill, saying it will give broad new powers to CSIS without enhancing oversight, that it includes provisions that could impact legitimate dissent, and that the government has not produced any plan to counter radicalization in Canadian communities.

Critics of the bill note that it would allow police to arrest suspects if a terrorist attack “may be” about to happen, and gives CSIS the power to “disrupt” threats to national security.

As with many things, concerns centre largely around interpretation and who’s in charge of doing the interpreting. What is the terrorism “in general” the bill would protect us against? Could the new laws be used against environmental activists, for example?

There’s a clearly worded assurance in the bill that, “For greater certainty, it does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression.”

Even that isn’t re-assuring to the critics — an unlawful act ( for example, one that might involve a sit-in protest) isn’t necessarily an act of terrorism.

The Act would define the undermining of security as including “interference with critical infrastructure” and interference in “the economic or financial stability” of the country. That sounds pretty broad.

Privacy Commission Daniel Therrien says, “This Act would seemingly allow departments and agencies to share the personal information of all individuals, including ordinary Canadians who may not be suspected of terrorist activities, for the purpose of detecting and identifying new security threats. It is not clear that this would be a proportional measure that respects the privacy rights of Canadians.”

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau has chosen not to fight the bill even though he says he has misgivings, and his Kamloops candidate Steve Powrie hasn’t issued any statements on it. NDP candidate Bill Sundhu, though, calls the bill “seriously flawed” and says it must be stopped.

“The threat of terrorism is real and the protection of the public must be paramount,” he said. “However, standing up for our values and refusing to allow cowardly attackers to change our way of life doesn’t mean we must sacrifice our freedoms.”

Kamloops-Cariboo MP Cathy McLeod understandably stands behind her prime minister and government, calling the bill “another important step taken by our government to protect Canada against terrorism.” She talks of “better tools” to fight terrorism.

Interestingly, the Angus Reid survey shows that people aren’t unconcerned about liberty and how anti-terrorism measures might impact them. Sixty-nine percent said they want additional oversights to ensure that new powers aren’t abused, and 63 per cent said they trust law-enforcement agencies to use people’s personal information only for anti-terrorism purposes and nothing else.

Nobody except a terrorist would say we shouldn’t protect ourselves against terrorists, but we need protect of our basic rights and freedoms from within, too. If the government is putting in place mechanics with which to make certain the new powers given the state by Bill C51 will be tightly under harness, it sure isn’t obvious.

As the weeks tick by and the federal election comes ever closer, the parties and candidates will have an opportunity to justify their positions on the issue.