Bill C-51 Analysed

So this is fascinating. A legal analysis of the C-51 Anti-Terrorism bill I’ve been complaining about for months. Commissioned by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and done by the Centre for Law and Democracy.

Full disclosure: I haven’t heard of those groups. But the author is a lawyer, which is the important thing here. I was hoping someone qualified would take a look at this.

All the initial reports were saying that the bill was overbroad and maddeningly vague, written so that it could apply just as easily to the Trans-Mountain or Idle No More protestors as to violence. It was amended in April, to narrow it a bit. But I hadn’t seen anything saying just how broad the amended bill was.

It looks like the answer is still “pretty broad”. The lawyer, Toby Mendel, didn’t speculate about who might be targeted by the bill. But whoever it targets, there are still lots of problems with it.

This bill will introduce new restrictions on free of speech. It will allow the government to seize and suppress “terrorist propaganda”. It could easily apply to news reports. This is over and above the restrictions on incitement to violence, which we have had all along.

The standard for calling material “terrorist propaganda” is administrative action taken on “reasonable grounds”. Not judicial action taken when proved beyond reasonable doubt, as I would hope for. It’s all up to the minister, apparently.

This bill also introduces a no-fly list, and includes the ridiculous idea that nobody can appeal for 90 days. Why the delay? If their inclusion holds up in court, they lose the appeal, it lasts longer than 90 days. The only possible reason to include this provision is if you expect to lose on appeal but want to punish people anyway.

The lawyer mentioned that this could be used arbitrarily against peaceful protestors and the government’s political rivals, but said that this is “unlikely in a Canadian context”. Why not set it up so that it can’t be used arbitrarily? Why rely on the unlikelihood of breaching unwritten rules of etiquette?

The whole thing just stinks of a power grab, relying on people’s fear and the other parties’ goodwill to entrench their own authority.