Bill C-51: A Rebuttal to a Rebuttal

NAAIJvKCSI recently wrote an article in support of Bill C-51, Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act. In this article, I attempted to explain that C-51 is not an infringement of our civil liberties any more than the original Criminal Code.

Not everyone agreed with my argument, and to that end, a blogger known as Nigel Todman from a site calling themselves the North American Association of Independent Journalists, or NAAIJ, offered up a rebuttal to my arguments. In a manner consistent with my right to freedom of speech and association, I am directly responding to the concerns raised in Todman’s article.

I love our democracy. I love the fact that Todman and myself can freely engage in debate on a topic so controversial. I love the fact that Canadians are protected by a Constitution of Rights guaranteeing us the right to freedom of expression and association.  And I love the fact that C-51 won’t change that.

Yours truly wrote, “[Bill C-51] attempts to streamline the sharing of information, intelligence and resources in a manner consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the protection of privacy. The keyword is ‘consistent’. After this bill becomes law, citizens will still be protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

And I stand by those words. Todman argues, quote, “The big problem with this, Is that the very act of collecting the information to determine if it is ‘undermines the security of Canada’ is in and of itself a violation of the Charter.” End quote.

While that may be arguably true, a response of that nature misses the point I was attempting to explain. There are already numerous security agencies in Canada; agencies such as the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Security Agency. All security agencies gather information to determine whether or not a threat to Canadian security is apparent.

Bill C-51 is an attempt at streamlining the process of the collection and sharing of information in such a manner consistent with the rights and freedoms we currently enjoy. C-51 is an attempt at making sure the government’s left hand knows what the right hand is up to.

Think of it this way. Let’s say, hypothetically, that CSIS is investigating a credible threat made against our government or against a Canadian citizen or a group of Canadian citizens. And let us say that the RCMP is investigating that same threat. Would it not be prudent for CSIS and the RCMP to work together and share information to avoid duplicity and share resources to eliminate the threat? A streamlined approach to information and resource sharing would most certainly save the taxpayers some coin. Sending two agencies to investigate a single threat, operating independently is inefficient.

Todman cites section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, “Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.” And Todman would be correct. However, whether or not the existing intelligence and security agencies are an infringement on our civil liberties is irrelevant in regards to C-51. CSIS, RCMP & the CBSA already collect information and Bill C-51 merely attempts to make the system of data sharing more efficient.

Legitimate, peaceful protesters are not the target of a modern approach to Canadian security. And as I tried to articulate in my article, C-51 will not take away your right to carry a sign and protest in front of a government office.

Todman cites missing and murdered aboriginal women and those who protest on their behalf as being targets of this bill and to that end, protesters being labelled terrorists. This in and of itself is not entirely accurate. Singing songs and carrying sings is not what makes a protester a terrorist. Illegal occupations of rail lines, or bullying and intimidation such as what occurred in Caledonia are illegal. When a group of radical Indian thugs violate Canadian law, they are behaving in a manner consistent with that of a terrorist. Illegal occupations where illegal before C-51; and now with C-51 becoming Law, this activity is still illegal.

Another shining example is the illegal activity of a certain radical environmental group, Greenpeace. When activists break and enter into private property and vandalize a building to ‘protest’ our government’s apparent lack of concern with climate change, it becomes necessary to note that this has extended beyond the realm of ‘peaceful protest’. Illegal trespassing onto private property is illegal. It was illegal before C-51 and is still illegal after C-51.

Moving on indeed, I wrote, “Part three of C-51 deals with updating terminology to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, modernizing it and bringing it into the 21st Century.”

Todman responded to that selection with, “Well, that’s certainly a very brief way to gloss over one of the more harmful parts of the bill. Part III deals with ‘terrorist propaganda’ and some undefined open ended terms that will somehow be determined to be ‘terrorist propaganda’”.

No sir, this was not an attempt to ‘gloss over’ a section of C-51. Part three introduces modern terms such as ‘social media’.

If an aboriginal group or an environmental group wishes to organize a peaceful rally using social media to orchestrate a protest, fine. So long as the protest is peaceful and legal. So long as the organizers are not pushing individuals into breaking the law, there is no problem. If however a group implores its members to break the law to illustrate their point, that is illegal and can arguably called ‘terrorist propaganda’. This practice of promoting illegal activities was illegal before C-51; only now we call it ‘terrorist propaganda’ instead of merely, ‘illegal or criminal activities’. When a group wishes to terrorize another group to illustrate their point: that is terrorism.

I understand your concerns Mr. Todman, and I can sympathize. But the real target of your concern of overreaching government oversight is justified in root legislation long before C-51 was a gleam in Harper’s eye. C-51 is merely a bill that streamlines and modernizes all the various security legislation already on the books.

Bill C-51 passed the upper Chamber on June 09/15 by a vote of 44-28 in favour. It’s now June 18 and Todman and I can still engage in this sort of free debate.

I love Canada. We are the land of the free, and even after C-51 became law, we still are.

You’re correct Todman when you note, “Me and you are not the legal experts.”  I am not a lawyer, nor am I a paralegal.  What I am is a Canadian Citizen who is applying common sense to a bill that merely means to streamline existing Canadian Laws.

About Kevin

Kevin is a Canadian citizen, writer & blogger.
This entry was posted in Federal Politics and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Bill C-51: A Rebuttal to a Rebuttal

  1. Guy Annable says:

    aboriginal groups engage in illegal activity every day using their sanctioned reserves as bases to ply their illegal distribution of Cigarettes, impeding transportation and traffickiing in drugs across the province and country. Lets just make sure this is on the record as well Kevin, The constitution protects law abiding citizens and if your not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about in this great Country.. Good writings

  2. Pingback: NAAIJ | Response & Corrections: Bill C-51: “Facts, Myths & Unfounded Fears”

  3. Luc says:

    Hello Kevin,

    It seems once again you are applying your common sense approach to a very serious and wide-reaching topic. More and more I wonder where your common sense comes from though, because if you were to listen to the overwhelming number of professionals, academics, politicians, law experts, and former Prime Ministers who reviewed the actual bill in it’s entirety, you would find that the vast majority of them agree that there are SERIOUS issues within the Bill which greatly undermine our democracy and have huge probability of being abuse in the future. Aren’t these the people we should be listening too in matters such as these? If not, why even have experts in any field?

    Here are just a few of them:

    http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/open-letter-to-parliament-amend-c-51-or-kill-it
    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/04/21/canadian-tech-leaders-oppose-c-51_n_7111150.html
    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/02/19/former-pms-call-for-bette_n_6713018.html

    Once again you take the simple standpoint of the law. An overly-simplified standpoint that many supporters of Harper’s legislation seem to be taking. But all of these arguments are blown to the wind with one obvious point: Is there the potential for abuse within this bill that could undermine our privacy and democratic rights and freedoms? And the answer is most definitely yes. Whether or not the Harper Government decides to abuse the power of a secret police force (and I can only assume they’d create one so they can use it) this breakdown in democracy can then be used by any future government. Possibly one that doesn’t align with your specific ideologies.

    The Bill even specifically says that THE CHARTER CAN BE CONTRAVENED BY CSIS. It specifically says that. How can you possibly support a bill that violates our charter rights in secret courts?? That is not the law my friend. At least, it is not the law of the people and Canada. That is the law of a government wishing to control its people and has unbelievably frightening consequences when (not if) someone eventually chooses to use and abuse it.

    As Guy says above in his all-too-common argument: “if your not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about”. Sure, this may be true, as long as you agree 100% with the outlook and policies of the government. But that isn’t what democracy is about. That’s totalitarianism and fascism. We all have the right to privacy. And at the end of the day, the REAL question is, if I’ve done nothing wrong, than why is my privacy being violated?

  4. Luc says:

    PS. Are you ever given pause when you see the racism, hatred, and vitriol spewed by some of your followers and supporters on here? Cause you seem pretty level-headed (If not a little misguided, in my humble opinion). I truly wonder whether these people make you question your standpoint or whether it fuels you to write more.

  5. Pingback: HDS, part II: Curbing the Bullspit | Kevin's Common Sense

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s