I admit to being somewhat undecided on the question of whether the Anti-Terrorism Act’s preventive arrest powers should be continued but I am loath to agree with those who are saying Stéphane Dion’s opposition to the extension marks a change in Liberal policy.
The very fact that the preventive arrest provisions are up for debate proves that the Liberal government, in 2001, did not intend the powers to be permanent. That is why the sunset clause was included, just as the extraordinary powers of arrest under the old War Measures Act were always time-limited.
The notion of preventive arrest (i.e. we are arresting you, although you have done nothing yet to enable us to curtail your personal liberties, but we think you might do something) is abhorrent to our democratic principles and sense of justice. Like the notwithstanding clause in the Constitution, suspension of the right to freedom from unwarranted arrest, should be undertaken only in extraordinary circumstances. [I for one have always maintained the only time the notwithstanding clause could and should be used would be during a period of declared war.] The circumstances in 2001/02 were extraordinary and the preventive arrest provision was worthy of the state of caution at the time.
Five years later, the preventive arrest clause has never been used. Not even in the arrest of over a dozen suspected terrorists in Ontario in 2006. The security services don’t seem to have needed the power to do their job, so it may very well be time to follow the intent of the Liberal government of the day and let the authority expire.
If Anne McClellan and Irwin Cotler and those current MPs favouring extension of the extraordinary powers know something the rest of us don’t, then they need to do a lot better job of making their case. They should not be saying the expire was never intended. Personally, I have a tendency to err on the side of caution, but know that may very well be inconsistent with my belief in rights to freedom of every individual.
Based on the information in the public realm Stéphane Dion is on the side of the angels on this one.
The very fact that the preventive arrest provisions are up for debate proves that the Liberal government, in 2001, did not intend the powers to be permanent. That is why the sunset clause was included, just as the extraordinary powers of arrest under the old War Measures Act were always time-limited.
The notion of preventive arrest (i.e. we are arresting you, although you have done nothing yet to enable us to curtail your personal liberties, but we think you might do something) is abhorrent to our democratic principles and sense of justice. Like the notwithstanding clause in the Constitution, suspension of the right to freedom from unwarranted arrest, should be undertaken only in extraordinary circumstances. [I for one have always maintained the only time the notwithstanding clause could and should be used would be during a period of declared war.] The circumstances in 2001/02 were extraordinary and the preventive arrest provision was worthy of the state of caution at the time.
Five years later, the preventive arrest clause has never been used. Not even in the arrest of over a dozen suspected terrorists in Ontario in 2006. The security services don’t seem to have needed the power to do their job, so it may very well be time to follow the intent of the Liberal government of the day and let the authority expire.
If Anne McClellan and Irwin Cotler and those current MPs favouring extension of the extraordinary powers know something the rest of us don’t, then they need to do a lot better job of making their case. They should not be saying the expire was never intended. Personally, I have a tendency to err on the side of caution, but know that may very well be inconsistent with my belief in rights to freedom of every individual.
Based on the information in the public realm Stéphane Dion is on the side of the angels on this one.
