Posted on 11/22/2001 11:55:17 AM PST by Stevieboy
72% willing to sacrifice privacy to help police catch terrorists
Janice Tibbetts and Jim Bronskill
The Ottawa Citizen
Thursday, November 22, 2001
Almost three-quarters of Canadians would sacrifice their privacy if it means catching terrorists, a Gallup Canada poll released yesterday shows.
The poll results indicate 72 per cent of Canadians think it is more important for police to intercept communication between suspected terrorists than it is for the government to protect the privacy of the public.
The poll of 1,011 Canadians was conducted from Oct. 17-23, six weeks after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the U.S. and only days after Justice Minister Anne McLellan introduced legislation giving police and government extensive new powers to combat terrorism. The survey is accurate within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times in 20.
The poll's release came a day after Ms. McLellan introduced amendments to soften the controversial anti-terrorism bill.
Despite the poll results, and the amendments, the opposition benches hammered away yesterday at the bill, calling it an alarming affront to individual rights.
But federal privacy watchdog George Radwanski ended a month-long feud with the federal government by telling Ms. McLellan he is satisfied that amendments to her proposed legislation make the bill palatable.
In a letter to Ms. McLellan yesterday, Mr. Radwanski praised her amendments as "a great victory for the privacy rights of all Canadians."
Meanwhile, Information Commissioner John Reid remained silent for a second day on whether he approves of an amendment limiting the government's power to keep secrets.
The amendment would leave it up to a judge, rather than the government, to decide whether information on government activities or departments could be sealed from public view instead of being released under the Access to Information Act.
The original bill would have given the attorney general the power to issue a certificate at any time banning the release of information under the Access to Information Act if it is deemed to be a threat to national security.
In the Commons, Tory leader Joe Clark led a spirited charge against the bill, saying the amendments do not ease the government's "power grab."
During question period he chastised the Liberals for already being too secretive, citing Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's battle in the Federal Court of Canada to keep his daily agenda records from public view.
"These provisions are one more example of the culture of secrecy which is the trademark of the government," Mr. Clark yelled at Ms. McLellan.
The Bloc Québécois joined the New Democratic Party by announcing it would vote against the bill on the grounds that it tramples civil liberties, particularly by rejecting a widespread call to retire the entire legislation after five years.
On the opposition benches, only the Canadian Alliance is currently prepared to vote for the legislation. The Tories are considering rejecting the bill, but the Liberal majority in the House would likely ensure safe passage.
In its original form, the bill could have resulted in complete suspension of the Privacy Act, which governs the collection, use and release by government agencies of personal information about Canadians. The provision could have handed government departments unlimited power to collect personal information about Canadians.
But under the revisions, the government will only have new powers to block the release of personal data it considers too sensitive to disclose. For instance, the provisions could be used to prevent disclosure of information held in government files to someone authorities suspect of terrorism. In addition, Ms. McLellan added checks and balances allowing the Federal Court and Mr. Radwanski, the privacy commissioner, to retain oversight powers.
The amendment erases an initial provision that would have prevented Mr. Radwanski from even reviewing documents.
Patrick Monahan, a constitutional expert at York University, said he believes the amended bill could withstand a constitutional challenge.
"I think the whole thing hinges on the definition of terrorism. My feeling is we've got that definition right."
The legislation, defining terrorism for the first time in Canada, says it is an activity for "political, religious or ideological purposes" that threatens the public or national security by killing, seriously harming or endangering a person, causing substantial property damage or disrupting an essential service or facility. Ms. McLellan won praise from several corners for amending the definition to stress that it would include neither lawful nor unlawful protests and strikes.
Mr. Monahan also predicted that the courts would be friendly to the two most controversial provisions of the bill: allowing the preventive arrest and detention of people suspected to be planning a terrorist act and forcing them to testify before a judge, even if they haven't been charged.
On Tuesday, Ms. McLellan announced those two contentious provisions will automatically expire after five years.
"I think the courts are much more inclined to give a fair bit of leeway to Parliament in the case of temporary legislation," said Mr. Monahan.
The Canadian Sikh Council, however, called for further amendments to protect racial minorities, who fear they will be targets under extended police powers. Among other things, the council called for Ms. McLellan to reconsider adding an expiry date to the entire bill.
I am Irish-American, 6'4" and 8"!
I am hardly a terrorist!
This is heartwarming. I only wish we had more patriotic folks in this country. Those canadians are the best!
That says it all!
Nose?
On a practical level, what kind of conversations do you have on the phone?
That doesn't bother me as much as the fluoride in the ice cream.
That gets even the kids who skip school.
Desire!
Therefore everyone at or above the 73rd percentile intelligence is UNWILLING to sacrifice privacy to help police catch terrorists
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. — President Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom...go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels nor arms. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."- Samuel Adams
“Moderation in the protection of liberty is no virtue; extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice." -Barry Goldwater 1909-1998
"Those who expect to reap the blessing of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." — Thomas Paine 1737-1809
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.