Why Canada Should Pursue And Combat All Potential Terrorists On A Global Scale

What's the great urgency to mass the large force of RCMP to go in and take down the camp? I'm rather curious. Are they undertaking a test drive of Bill C-51 or exactly what's going on here?"

In the last three years there have been 4 students from Mississauga that are thought to have left the country to join ISIS, which is the successor to AL-Qaeda. People who go abroad to join terrorist groups are called extremist travelers. There have been approximately 130 Canadians put on a no fly list. Counter-terrorism became much more important in the days after 9/11. The Department of Foreign affairs is charged with keeping Canadians safe against terrorism working with other

Recently there have been two “anti-terrorism” bills that are really affecting Canadian citizens who weren’t born here. Bill C-24 is an attack on duel citizens that were not born in Canada or are eligible for another citizenship. This bill allows these the Canadian government to revoke your citizenship if you have committed or are suspected of serious crimes. They could also deport you. This creates the idea of second class citizens. Some are not able to be targeted well others are immune. Bill C-51 is one that is really complicated, but the something it does are: It gives CSIS and the RCMP larger power in order to “prevent” terrorism. The issue is no checks and balances, no safeguards, and nothing in place to make sure what CSIS is doing is legal. It also even has allowed CSIS to break the charter of rights with permission without the public ever being notified. It also vastly expands our definition of security and that of which terrorism falls under. The terms definition of terrorism is very vague. Threats of terrorism can now be considered: interfering with public safety, the economy or financial security of Canada East. This could trap illegal protestors or the blockading railways and much more under terrorism charges. The bill also effects a lot more and threatens the rights and freedoms of many

This is one evidence of how much Canada cares about national security and is willing to go to any extent. The October Crisis case seems like nothing compared to the acts of domestic terrorism that have occurred in other countries, and I think that to achieve the level of national security that Canada has acquired these countries should practice policies like the war measures act to solidify their national security. A country that I know will benefit from such a law is India.

Canada has been highly involved in global issues and has held itself on moral grounds, despite some opposing influence. Canada’s sovereign and morally just approach can be seen in many events in the 20th century, such as in the Second World War, the Korean War, the Suez Crisis and the Vietnam War. As well, Canada’s imperfect, yet improving immigration policy displays the acceptance and unbiased approach Canada has towards people of different backgrounds. Despite some minor missteps and impediments, Canada would make an excellent choice for UN Advisor Country for the reason that Canada has spearheaded much global intervention, especially for such a small (population-wise) and unassuming country.

On June 9th 2015, Stephen Harper and the Canadian government passed Bill C-51. It’s an anti terrorism act, with only the best intentions at mind for Canada and its national security. However since it’s approval, there has been much controversy surrounding the bill. There are five key changes in Bill C-51 and many Canadians aren’t pleased with them, such as, the right to exchange information between national agencies, unwarranted arrests and also the increase in surveillance that will occur with both of these new conditions (Watters, 1). Bill C-51 also interferes with sections of the Charter and other key legal philosophies such as the Magna Carta and the Rule of Law.

The purpose of this act is to encourage and monitor the sharing of information between Canadian government institutions in order to protect Canada against activities that threaten the security of Canada, but this bill not only fails to fix those flaws, it recreates and causes more underlying problems without adding any meaningful protection to ensure that the powers it grants will not be abused. The bill allows information sharing across 17 government institutions for a wide range of purposes, most of which have nothing to do with terrorism. After the bill was passed, it has raised serious concerns regarding the potential impact is has on the basic civil liberties of all Canadians. The new legislation significantly expands CSIS’ (Canadian Security

The target audience of this paper is decision makers who are concerned with the topic of counterterrorism. These include the members of the legislature as well as officials in various government agencies dealing with counterterrorism. The current state of counterterrorism entails the use of violence and military action, such as a drone in combating the activities of terrorists. Other alternatives to the use of violence include policies focusing on the patriot act and the collaboration of various government agencies who are concerned with counterterrorism. The advantages, as well as the disadvantages, of each policy options, are discussed. Moreover, a comparison of the various policy options is discussed. The implications of each policy option politically, socially and economically are also discussed. The recommended policy option is a policy that focuses on the United States Patriot Act aimed at preventing terrorists before attacks actually happen, through the interception of communication. This saves on resources that could have been used in responding to a terror attack. The implementation of the recommended policy on counterterrorism entails the making of changes to the Patriot Act so as to make it more effective and constitutional.

The post-Cold War international system has elevated human security issues, global issues and economic competitiveness to be leading concerns. Nonetheless, 9/11 and the ensuing war in Afghanistan have ensured that the high politics of peace and security take precedence. Canada’s interest in Afghanistan was a direct result of the terror attacks of September 11th in the World Trade Center in the United States (Readings in… 117). This not only signified an outbreak of war on Canada’s neighbour, but it was symbolic of a fight against the entire Western World, undoubtedly including Canada. Over twenty-four Canadians were killed as victims of the attack. Essentially, Canada entered Afghanistan to fight terrorism abroad in order to maintain safety domestically; in a sense it was retribution for the lives lost in 9/11 and an active mission to eradicate the possibility of terrorist attacks in Canada. Secondly, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1368 which classified the terrorist attacks as a threat to international peace and security and recognized the “inherent right of individual or collective self-defence”(“Security Council…”). Arguably, three main factors led to Canada’s intervention in Afghanistan. Firstly, Canada chose to fight terrorism internationally as a reaction to 9/11, displaying the country’s complex neorealist agenda that

The third subject in the commission’s mandate was how the Canadian government agencies managed the sources and witnesses after the bombings. The goal was to examine how well these agencies shared information among each other and how in-depth their investigation was after the bombings. The fourth subject in the commission’s mandate was to examine the trial process during terrorist related cases in court. The goal was to set up guidelines for how the court and all the parties involved in the case should manage information and ensure the consideration of each of the parties’ interest during the trial. The fifth subject of the commission’s mandate was related to the aviation security in Canada. The commission goal was to examine how Canada can become better prepared for aviation terrorism and to recommend security measures for defending against aviation terrorism. The final subject on the commission’s mandate was evaluates Canada’s legal agenda in relation to policies against terrorist funding (CIIBAIF 182, 2010).

What is Mr. Trudeau solution? A “guarantee” that all warrants would respect the Charter and the judges. Whether this “guarantee” will hold up is questionable but at the very least it is better than nothing.

Foreign and domestic policies are not linear, rather the policies are connected in a circle, with each policy reinforcing the values of another. Domestic American terrorism in the prison and detention systems and governmental reforms are influenced by the mobilization and ethnocentrism abroad. The militarization internationally is justified by the domestic handling of the same cultural issues within the United State borders. The United States has strangely used a near Catch-22 to handle dilemmas. The United States has allowed perspective to become reality, whether with oneself or regarding issues abroad, specifically in the Middle East. Terrorism is the use or threat of fear for political or economical gain. An internal characteristic of terrorism is how dependent it is of perspective, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. To understand “terrorism,” a focus must be applied to the history, what drove an organization to commit such acts. Respectively, the Middle East has been a hotbed for the key word “terrorism,” especially because of 9/11. Subsequently, Muslims have been stigmatized by the United States as terrorists. The consequences spawned because of 9/11 require a look to the past to understand the present.

One of the members of NATO was and still is the United States and because it is the most powerful of the members most of NATO activity is directed towards American policy (pg. 194 Counterpoints: Exploring Canadian Issues). This made it hard for Canadians to gain more power and keep their own identity. However, in 1956, when a war broke out over the Suez Canal in Egypt, Lester B. Pearson “proposed that a multinational peacekeeping force be created and installed in the war zone to maintain ceasefires and oversee the withdrawal of troops.” (pg.200 Counterpoints: Exploring Canadian Issues) Since this proposal to the United Nations (which Canada toke part in creating the Charter of) rather than fighting, which the superpowers of Russia and the United States take part in, Canada mostly maintains peace on the battlefields. This has given Canada an identity of a peacekeeping nation. However, the United States has still been able to influence Canada to contribute more than peace to wars. In the 1990 Persian Gulf War “Canada contributed two destroyers, a supply ship, a squadron of CF-18 fighter jets, a field hospital, and hundreds of military personal” (pg. 274 Counterpoints: Exploring Canadian Issues) to help the United States take out the Iraqi forces. Even before this occurred, Prime Minister Pierre Eliott Trudeau, and many Canadians, started wanting more independence from the United States. Therefore, Trudeau reduced Canada’s NATO involvement in Europe.

As a result, CAF’s federal contract for language and employment training for immigrants was severed. This action was then defended by claiming that CAF was supporting terrorism. Overall, as evident from these two scenarios, it is apparent that Canada has placed a strict restriction on what can or cannot be said, either for Israel or the war in Afghanistan, and uses the threat of pulling funding or contracts should a negative comment be uttered. An atmosphere has been created that forces NGOs to carefully consider what they are to say or risk the loss of government funding. Such is only one of the many sort of restrictions now placed on citizens within

Bill C-51 also known as the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, is a bill that was first tabled in Parliament in January 2015. It was introduced to enhance Canada’s original anti-terror laws which were created shortly after the terrorist attack on September 11th 2001 in the United States of America. Moreover, the need to revise and amend these laws became even more evident after recent attacks both in Canada and abroad. In doing so the government recognized the need to adopt a more preventative approach to dealing with internal and external threats. However, there are a large number of individuals, groups and institutions which opposed this bill. This was evident in March of 2015 when political protests were held and over fifty-five rallies took place across Canada (Lepore, 1). The majority of those opposed to the new anti-terror legislation expressed concerns with three major components of the bill and the vagueness; to privacy concerns with the new information sharing between agencies, new amendments to the Criminal Code surrounding terrorism offences and the increased powers provided to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS); specifically their perceived lack of oversight. Although this piece of legislation is crucial to the safety and security of Canada against acts of terrorism it requires some amendments in order to ensure proper oversight and respect for Canadian values. This paper will argue that changes need to be made to the CSIS act, specifically regarding