"Ni con el poder que gobiernan los
opresores, ni los muros de las prisiones lograron ocultar mi voz de protesta
para denunciar los Crímenes de Estado que se comete en Canadá" .- Nadir Siguencia
El régimen
Canadiense con el fin de ampliar su terrorismo interno en contra de la clase marginada, y mantener en la impunidad los
crímenes cometidos por las instituciones privadas
y estatales, aprobó el proyecto de ley C-51. Esta nueva ley antiterrorista da poderes más amplios a las
fuerzas represivas de este país para
perseguir y torturar niños, mujeres, familias pobres,
activistas sociales y defensores de derechos humanos. Con el proyecto
de la ley antiterrorista; la
voluntad del régimen es imponer
el miedo, terror, persecución en
opositores y personas vulnerables que denuncian sus políticas criminales. La intención del gobierno es fomentar
más la represión, para silenciar a sus
adversarios y ocultar la pobreza extrema
en que viven millones de personas. También es necesario mencionar la
falta de viviendas públicas, la ausencia de un transporte publico subsidiado por el
gobierno, que beneficie a familias que viven en extrema pobreza,
y que se revisen las pensiones irrisorias que reciben las personas de la tercera edad.
Conservative ministers downplay concerns terror bill
infringes on freedoms
Conservative
ministers Steven Blaney and Peter MacKay attempt to quell criticism that the
new anti-terror bill is too broad.
Adrian Wyld / THE CANADIAN PRESS
file photo
Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney
promised CSIS would not use new powers to target lawful protest or artistic
expression.
OTTAWA — The Conservative
government’s top public safety and justice officials sought to quell criticism
that its new anti-terror bill is too broad and would unnecessarily infringe
rights and freedoms.
At the first hearing to begin the
Commons’ detailed study of Bill C-51,
Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney clarified a couple of provisions that have
been the subject of widespread criticism.
Bill C-51 allows sharing of
Canadians’ private information among some 17 departments and agencies and it
allows CSIS, with a judge’s prior approval, to “disrupt” perceived threats with
actions that would infringe Charter rights.
However, Blaney said the new
definition of threats to national security, which includes activity that
interferes with “the economic or financial stability of Canada” or with
critical infrastructure, will only apply to information-sharing provisions.
Blaney said that definition would
not be used when it comes to granting CSIS broad new powers to disrupt
activities of suspected threats to national security.
He said the spy agency would
continue to use its new powers against threats to national security as they
have been defined in the CSIS Act for the past 30 years.
He said the agency will not target
lawful protest, advocacy or artistic expression, nor will the
information-sharing provisions.
Both Blaney and Justice Minister
Peter MacKay defended the ability to have 17 departments and agencies share
much more information among themselves as a measure that will close gaps and
modernize the federal regime.
Blaney raised the hypothetical
example of someone in the Middle East who may show up at a consular office,
wounded and seeking a new passport, claiming he’d lost his. Blaney suggested in
that case it would raise suspicions but officials couldn’t share the
information to determine if the individual was a threat.
RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson later
raised what he said was a recent “real” example of where a suspicious person,
wounded, showed up in Turkey attempting to return to Canada, saying there were
barriers to sharing that information widely. He said the new legislation would
have helped in that case, and said he welcomed many other of its provisions
including the information-sharing powers and the new lower thresholds that will
ease the ability to get peace bonds, or restrictive conditions on the liberty
of persons suspected of conspiring to commit terrorist acts.
Blaney and MacKay also vigorously
defended terrorist propaganda provisions, saying they would target only
material that would encourage, glorify or incite acts that would constitute
terror offences under the Criminal Code, and not target “broader” expressions.
Several academic critics have
suggested that the new provisions would in effect chill legitimate dissent or
speech, for example it could be used against an individual urging support for
those fighting Russia’s incursions in Crimea or Ukraine.
Blaney used tough language in
defending the ability to curb such speech.
“The Holocaust did not begin in the
gas chambers; it started with words,” he said, turning aside Opposition
objections.
Blaney also took square aim at the
Opposition for failing to be supportive and respectful of law enforcement and
security officials who are protecting Canadians, suggesting that they do not
understand the real threat comes from the “radical jihadi terrorists who have
declared war on us.”
