Re: Leader’s words should strengthen, not scare, the nation, Opinion Feb. 25

Leader’s words should strengthen, not scare, the nation, Opinion Feb. 25

Stephen Harper is always quick to wrap himself in the flag and co-opt the valour of the armed services who fought and died for our freedoms. Then, without a hint of irony or shame, he abuses the democracy they defended and diminishes those freedoms by ramming Bill C-51 through Parliament.

It seems that Canadians who support this bill have not learned important lessons about civil liberties and security from watching how the politics of “terror” have played out in the U.S. However, it seems that Harper was paying attention and that he has learned cynical lessons about the politics of “terror” all too well.

And so, the Harper government is hyping our fear of terrorism — according to their definition of the day — out of all proportion to the actual threat in order to stampede us into accepting endless war and a creeping police and surveillance state.

On the one hand, this tactic is an effective distraction from failed domestic policies. On the other hand, it is providing political cover for a massive expansion of the powers of the state — suspiciously, expanding them enough to criminalize the activities of peaceful Canadians on Harper’s petty and alarming (and alarmingly petty) “enemies list.”

As our public discourse succumbs to fearmongering and crucial parliamentary debate on Bill C-51 is stymied, we must ask ourselves: Are our fundamental rights and freedoms worth risk and sacrifice only when we can send the men and women of our armed services to take those risks and make those sacrifices in distant lands?

We celebrate and mourn those who have died bravely in defence of our freedoms. Who are we, then, if we refuse to live bravely in defence of those freedoms? Who are we if we would throw away, at the first sign of personal danger, rights and freedoms secured by sending others into danger?

The threat of terrorism is real, but statistically insignificant. We accept far more personal risk every day living bravely in defence of our “freedom” to drive cars. But, even if the threat were greater, our principles define us only when they are difficult, not when they are easy.

Terrorists simply cannot take our freedoms away. They can only scare us into giving them away for nothing; shaming ourselves and the memories of those who sacrificed for them. Ostensibly for the sake of not letting those terrorists win, this is exactly what Stephen Harper is trying to do.

We should not take needless risks. But actually defending our freedom by continuing to live freely in a time of threat is not a needless risk. It is a defining challenge to our national character.

Kevin Farmer, Toronto

I was relieved to finally read at least one columnist say what I know most of us are thinking: “It is entirely possible that ISIS and its followers are targeting Canada because its warplanes are bombing them in Iraq, not because of its values.”

What Canadians are also wondering about is what exactly are America’s foreign policy objectives. The U.S. leads the march to destroy Libya and Iraq and Al Qaeda rises from the ashes. They support a “light” version of Al Qaeda in Syria with training and weapons. Now they are part of ISIS. Assad is now a bad man – “undemocratic” – but just a few years back if the U.S. wanted someone tortured, Assad was the “go to” guy. Bin Laden had a similar love-hate relationship with the U.S.

The U.S.’s foreign policy objectives are “American interests,” which inevitably means the rights to other sovereign nations’ resources.

Canada used to stay neutral for the obvious reasons that on the surface the American foreign policy objectives have massive internal inconsistencies. America says it’s for democracy but when Iran, Chile, Nicaragua, etc. have democratically chosen leaders the U.S. doesn’t like it deposes them.

ISIS now targets us because we have teamed up with America. The best way to protect Canadian citizens is to stand apart from the U.S. Past Liberal and Conservative governments used to understand this but under Stephen Harper we are dealing with a man of no ethical centre.

Harper stated that 1813 was the beginning of a great relationship with the U.S. The U.S. burnt down Toronto in 1813 during the Battle of York.

Peter Currie, Toronto

As Canadians ponder the consequences of Bill C-51, the “anti-terror” legislation, the Conservatives are doing their best to ram through Parliament with as little debate as possible, perhaps it is apt to take a look to history to see what we can learn about how similar state powers – powers supposedly meant to keep us safe from external threats — were used in the past.

One doesn’t need to cast their gaze back very far to see that for all the talk, spying and surveillance is consistently more about power, and keeping an eye on those who challenge it, than protecting citizens from threats or terrorism. In fact many of the people we now proudly hold up as icons and model citizens the world over were themselves victims of surveillance and harassment from various intelligence agencies in their time.

Tommy Douglas was surveilled by the RCMP, Martin Luther King Jr., Charlie Chaplin, and Ernest Hemingway were all harassed and spied on by the FBI, and Nelson Mandela was monitored by the CIA and was on the U.S. “terror watch list” as late as 2008.

None of these now revered figures were monitored because they were threats to their fellow citizens – they weren’t — but rather because they represented a challenge to the established orders of power. Indeed, as the latest revelations from the leaked cables of the South African intelligence agency again show, many spy agencies were more preoccupied with keeping an eye on political activists than with terrorism — peaceful political activists such as those at Greenpeace campaigning to prevent the worst ravages of climate change.

Canadians should be cautious. For our all the Conservatives’ dire warnings about how these arbitrary measures are needed to protect Canadians from others, as history shows us, those measures usually turn out to be more about the powerful protecting themselves from us.

Kevin Caners, Brockville

Many great minds conclude that functioning democracy depends on informed citizenry, on discussion, challenge, argument. Bill C-51, the anti-terrorism act, is Harper’s latest blatant foray into authoritarian criminalization of dissent. For Harper, real knowledge is dangerous while Bill C-51 in the name of “intelligence” aims to legalize what was formerly illegal.

A number of Star columnists and editorials have raised alarm about the bill’s anti-democratic content and fast-track process, about Liberal party collusion and belated NDP opposition. There is much to expose and discuss about the bill’s anti-democratic attempt to suppress protest and opposition. And even more, there is much to discuss about terrorism itself and how skewed information is used to frighten people and subdue thinking and genuine concern.

Part of this discussion needs to be information about terrorism from below (like ISIS) and terrorism from above (state terrorism, which led to over 250 million civilian deaths last century). There is also the hypocrisy and ambiguity: last year the Harper government was one of three to oppose a UN General Assembly resolution condemning Nazism; Canada was one of six to oppose a resolution asking Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty — and what is more terrifying than nuclear war?

And Canada just sold $14 billion in weapons to Saudi Arabia, provider of arms to terrorist organizations. Harper also included a member of a group labelled by the FBI as terrorist, in his official entourage to Israel. Is fear preventing the necessary discussions?

Judith Deutsch, Toronto

Why the rush? What are the Conservatives trying to hide? If speed was a factor then why not cancel MP holidays and keep Parliament open so Bill C-51 could get the vetting it deserves and parliamentary responsibility Canadians deserve. If you are going to do something, then do it right the first time.

John Holstein, Chatham

There are eight hours in a working day. The Conservatives are allowing four days for testimony on their extensive terrorism bill. Let’s be optimistic and hope their chosen judiciary will not take an hour’s lunch break every day, and that they’ll do a little overtime and meet for, say, 10 hours instead of eight. That would mean a whole 40 hours of discussion instead of only 32.

Considering the fact that no former prime ministers, Supreme Court justices or security experts will be allowed entry during the four days, then 40 hours should suffice, don’t you think?

Then, just like with the omnibus successes, C-51 will be passed and, as Mr. Harper says, the majority of Canadians support this. (Although no one asked me.) I imagine Mr Harper also knows Canadians don’t really give a hoot about their Charter rights.

Sheila Tucker, Oakville

The corollary of Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney’s statement that terrorists are targeting Canadians because they “hate our society” is they “love our society” because we are bombing the hell out of them. Mr. Blaney has been watching far too much Fox News.

Nicholas Kostiak, Tottenham

Not one of our previous Prime Ministers has done more to corrupt the ideal of democracy than Stephen Harper. With his latest move to ram through the “terror bill” with only the most minimal amount of discussion in Parliament, Harper has demonstrated once again how, under his tenure, he has dismantled democracy in Canada.

His excuse that he won a majority, so like a willful child, he can do what he wants, is totally against how government, Parliament, is supposed to work. The idea of parliament exists so that all parties, all voices, can discuss how proposed laws would work to benefit everyone and to iron out any flaws.

But of course the Tories are perfect and don’t need anyone else’s ideas. The Tories bring in half baked ideas which no-one can discuss as to wether they have merit for the majority of us. They have reduced the relevancy of parliament and there is no chance to voice any opposing views. This is what democracy is.

Essentially Harper has become an autocrat. Only he can suggest policy and his cabinet has been silenced and is not allowed to express any counter views. His co-parliamentarians, the opposing parties, have been cut off from contributing. No-one seems to have the guts to stand up to this willful child because he has introduced methods of revenge to silence critics.

The latest “time bomb” buried in the business section, and which should have been on the first page, is that Harper intends to allow doubling contribution limits to tax free savings accounts, essentially losing even more government tax revenues and benefiting only the wealthiest Canadians. Are we surprised?

Guess who will be carrying that extra tax burden the government will be losing? Guess what social programs will next be cut because of those reduced revenues?

Yet this is a Prime Minister who insists he’s protecting our democracy from terrorists. Opponents and opposing parties to autocrat Stephen Harper need to band together to oppose this man or otherwise lose any relevancy in our country.

M. Schooff, Orangeville

Harper’s words do indeed divide one group of Canadians against the rest, but it is far more than words that we need to worry about. The expanded powers bill called C-51 will only get three days of debate, and nearly a third of that will be squandered on Steven Blaney, a cyborg of a man who makes me almost miss that equally corrupt fuddy-duddy, the mustachioed hanging sheriff Vic Toews.

Steven Blaney is essentially a double agent. His primary loyalty is to his boss, of course. But Harper’s primary loyalty when it comes to national security is to the gun lobby. Let me tell you, the NRA also hate our values, and they love Mr. Harper and Mr. Blaney. In addition to raising money by perennially frightening their membership about “gun grabbers”, the primary funding for the NRA are the American gun manufacturers, whose weapons end up in the hands of ISIS on a daily basis.

It is particularly galling to watch Harper and Blaney whip up fear and loathing of “jihadis” in Quebec, the last province still fighting to hang on to its gun registry data. The semiautomatic rifle used by legal gun owner Justin Bourque never had to be registered. Nor did the semiautomatic rifle used by Richard Bain to kill technician Denis Blanchette and grievously wound a second technician, Dave Courage.

What kind of politics would today’s Quebec have, had the mad businessman and legal gun owner Richard Bain made good on his intention to murder Quebec’s first elected female premier, after shouting, “The English are awakening!”? Blaney is an enabler of right-wing nut jobs as well as those wayward youth, often new converts, who sympathize with ISIS. Mr. Blaney should have been forced to resign after the most heinous attack on Parliament Hill. Opposition leaders were too traumatized by the event to think of demanding that Blaney step down.

Ron Charach, Toronto

I am a mother and grandmother. All of the debate around Bill C-51 has me thinking, could this be a threat to everyone under 45 years of age as it may be used to thwart opposition to instituting a future change in the eligibility age of Old Age Pension from 67 to 72? Cuts to health care? Since military careers are not that popular, and since the Harper government seems intent on committing Canada to perpetual war, might it be used to thwart opposition to a draft in the future?

Rene Adams, Brampton

Star columnist Tim Harper has brought the convergence of wedge issues Prime Minister Harper is exploiting into sharp focus, as he whips up the fear of terrorism – and, perversely, of Muslims – overplays Canada’s role in fighting ISIS, constantly gnaws away at Canadian liberties through scare-mongering laws like the “anti-terror” Bill C-51, governs through fiat, not caring a whit about any opposition, and panders to the most backward and bigoted among us by denouncing a woman for wearing her niqab during a citizenship ceremony.

Our Prime Minister is starting to look a lot like his head-butting authoritarian nemesis (and secret idol) Russian President Vladimir Putin, a political thug who also plays to people’s fears and scapegoats minorities, whips up nationalism, and runs roughshod over opposition and inconvenient niceties like basic human rights.

Stephen Harper has clearly forgotten what country he is prime minister of. Canada, despite his 12th-century political program, continues to celebrate tolerance and diversity. Harper gets away with his troglodyte, fact-phobic anti-democratic attack because the Canadian public is disengaged and apathetic, and because the opposition is Parliament is weak, divided and, frankly, for the most part farcical. This is clearly demonstrated by Justin (Bieber) Trudeau’s weak, vacuous and anemic performance as Liberal leader.

Meanwhile, official Opposition leader Thomas Mulcair, who looks and acts as if he stepped out of the celebrated Robert Harris painting of the 1864 Charlottetown Conference, is the lone bright spot, particularly in his opposition to Bill CIA-51. But the public just doesn’t connect with him or his party.

These are sad days for Canadian democracy. Very sad indeed.

Andrew van Velzen, Toronto

Richard Clarke, former head of counterterrorism at the U.S. National Security Council, said that George W. Bush did achieve one thing during his two terms in office: successfully perpetuating fear for political gain. Sadly, he says it may be one of the only achievements of his presidency.

In his book, “The Truth with Jokes,” Al Franken, now a U.S. senator, reveals that from the first terror alert on Feb. 12, 2002, until the Nov. 2, 2004 election, the Bush Administration raised the the nationwide threat level to orange meaning a “high risk of terrorist attack,” six times. As the record shows, there were no terrorists attacks during that period and subsequently. Not one alert was raised by Bush from the time of his re-election in 2004 until his presidency came to an end.

The sad fact is that by playing the “fear card,” Duyba got re-elected in 2004. A very sad indictment, indeed, on politics in one of the world’s oldest democracy.

The Harper government has certainly learned from Bush! Scare the hell out of people and then past whatever draconian terror legislation suits your political agenda. Like Bush, perpetuating fear for political gain! A very sad indictment on our democracy. Shame on this governemnt.

Emile Therien, Ottawa

And so, Harper’s Conservative government gradually and with reckless abandon continues its demise of this country and its democratic values which, for generations, were so highly regarded and revered around the world. Thank you sir for your esteemed ideology.

Philippe Chartrand, Lafontaine

With C-51 getting closer and closer to a reality I see a very scary pattern emerging:

Step 1: Harper‘s corrupt majority government passes Bill C-51 removing all civil liberties circumventing the charter of rights and freedoms for whomever they decide.

Step 2: largest boom in prison construction in Canadian history is completed and privatized following the for profit model of america.

Step 3: labour disputes and striking workers are declared essential services rendering them terrorists under Bill C-51 if they dare any actions. Militarized police are used to help send a clear message.

Step 4: peaceful non-violent protests begin. Immediately they are labeled as terrorist acts under Bill C-51. Harper then invokes “martial la,w” aka the Emergencies Act (look it up; it‘s a thing) giving him absolute dictatorial powers over all legislative and judicial governments in Canada. Think about it. Planned right he can completely avoid the budget and foremost the 2015 election and keep power. Backed by his personal militarized RCMP and CSIS cronies, he becomes the worst Canadian in history, and a deranged, dangerous, and ruthless dictator.

Step 5: The military civil assistance plan, enacted in 2008, is envoked allowing American military to enter and “support” Harper in quelling any remaining protests of Canadian citizens who by now are desperately defending their remaing civil liberties, effectively annexing our true north strong and was free.

Paul Pennington, Omemee

For a government who, time and time again, states one of their founding principles as “a balance between fiscal accountability, progressive social policy and individual rights and responsibilities,” to propose something as reactionary as Bill C-51 provides Canadians with a dose of hypocrisy to which I’m sure we’ve all become quite acclimated over the past few months.

With language so vague that even the Minister MacKay can’t define it, I think we can assume with confidence that the concerns expressed by four former prime ministers, five Supreme Court justices, and three ministers of justice and public safety aren’t simply about how well the bill will translate to French.

It’s time for this government to embrace their own founding principles; create a system of oversight that will ensure that $1 billion of taxpayer money is not going to waste, but instead protecting our individual rights. I think we’d all rather avoid the policy that progressively probes into our social lives.

Samuel Moir, Springbank, AB

Thanks to Mr. Harper’s anti-terrorist law, we now know what unsavoury acts CSIS no doubt has already been doing for years and will now be officially doing. The law will also come in handy when the next major union votes to strike and thereby threatens “the economic stability” or the “critical infrastructure” of Canada. And please note that a “strike” is not “lawful advocacy, protest, dissent or artistic expression” which our Beloved Leader says is OK.

The law allows all government departments and agencies to disclose anything to any person for any purpose. It “applies to all persons, both inside and outside Canada.” Boy, does CSIS have its work cut out for it!

This law will allow Minister of Transport Raitt to “enter any place ... for the purpose of making inspections or audits relating to the verification of compliance with this Act, regardless of whether or not the inspection or audit relates to that place or to the person who possesses, occupies or controls it.”

I can see it now: “Hi Mohammed, I’m Lisa – don’t mind me, I’ve got an hour to kill, so I’m just going to look around.”

Don’t worry about a thing, Canada — go back to sleep.

Wayne Robbins, Toronto

It appears “Dear Leader” Mr. Harper and his henchmen have succeeded with fear mongering to ram Bill 51 through a cowed parliament. Regressing enshrined constitutional rights and freedoms of Canadians back a hundred years. Allowing shadowy spooks skulking about in the bowels of Ottawa and Washington open access to our private lives.

The only silver lining to the dark cloud Harper has cast over the land is what Thomas Walkom, offered. The hope this control freak who hijacked the country will soon be voted out. That all politicians are motivated more to maintain control than to public service. The damage can be undone. If enough care enough to care.

Parallel to the devolvement of Canada into a police state is the encouraging news the thug cop, Kwesi Millington, and RCMP senior management, who perjured and colluded to cover up the Robert Dziekanski Vancouver Airport murder was found guilty last week.

The former news item gives cause for concern, the latter hope.

That both stories were on page 10 is disconcerting.

Paul Coulter, Kincardine

The Harper government is carefully framing Bill C-51 as an anti-terror bill. It is in fact a framework for a secret police.

Add to that even one court that is ideologically predisposed to support any CSIS request for authority to “disrupt,” and there is no practical limit to what CSIS can do. Not to mention that CSIS is not obligated to make its request in open court, so we will not know why they wanted to do what they did.

And just what could CSIS do? Well, that depends on what kind of “disruption” they think is necessary. People can justify any kind of disruption in the name of national security.

If you think it can’t happen here, keep in mind that the KGB and the Gestapo both operated within the law.

Wolf Kirchmeir, Blind River

“We as a government are not interested in politicians doing that oversight.” With these words Stephen Harper has officially declared that Canada is an autocracy.

It is an autocracy because the prime minister has told the people that his government is not interested in our democratically elected MPs protecting our rights, our rights will be protected by people of his choosing and he has the power to do this.

Here is the issue for this year’s election: “Our Democracy” vs the “Harper Autocracy.” The opposition parties must unite and rally Canadians in this fight for democracy.

Keith Parkinson, Cambridge

As I was reading Richard Gwyn’s book about John A. Macdonald, I came across a reference to the 1865-66 invasions of the Fenians (Irish Americans) and the public pressure to arrest people on mere suspicion of supporting them. Macdonald defended Canadian law and rejected this idea.

The debate about Bill C-51 sounds similar, with suspicion of committing terrorism as a reason for initiating preventive custody. It made me wonder what John A.’s response to the current bill would be.

Margaret Small, Burlington

I am stunned that over 80 per cent of Canadians would back Bill C-51. Obviously, these Canadians have not studied what is in this bill. Why would we give up close to 150 years of freedoms over two mentally imbalanced people killing three Canadians?

I notice when Robert Pickton was arrested in 2007 for the murder of close to 50 women no laws were forthcoming to protect the aboriginal women or the prostitutes involved. For that matter, Harper still seems to be refusing to do much regarding the safety of aboriginal women or prostitutes.

CSIS actually seems to be doing a good job of infiltrating these cells of disaffected Canadians, so why should we give up any freedoms? I believe Harper should be doing more to help create good jobs for young people instead of taking our freedoms away.

Looking at history, the last group of people who gave up their freedoms were the German people in the 1930s. We all know how that turned out.

Gary Brigden, Toronto

It’s really very important that we Canadians must be informed about this bill. It is really extremely frightening. Now that he has done a lot of damage to our country externally, Harper is turning our country in to a secret state. The Star is really doing a good service to let us know about this man and his policies.

Rafat Khan, Mississauga

Do we never learn?

Its saddening that the majority of Canadians aren’t even following the recent attempts by the Harper government to pass Bill C-51 without any public debate. However, it shouldn’t come as a surprise, considering Prime Minister Harper’s noted stance against freedom of the press. However, this begs the question: considering that a large portion of Canadians came to Canada to avoid oppressive dictatorial regimes elsewhere, why are these same Canadians so eager to go back to such a “nanny state”?

Hussein Mohamedali, Vaughan

Bill C-51 should be a concern for all Canadians. Even in a democracy, out-of-control security services can usurp political power. In the U.S. when someone suggested Lyndon Johnson fire J. Edgar Hoover the threat of Mr. Hoover’s files stopped President Johnson taking action. As LBJ so eloquently put it, “It’s better to have him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in”.

In Canada, when the RCMP handled security, they kept files on Tommy Douglas and Ed Broadbent. These gentlemen weren’t terrorists or “enemy of the state” material — so what was their excuse? With this historical background, politicians should be careful how much power is handed over to the RCMP and CSIS. The cure for our security problems could be worse than the disease.

S. I. Petersen, Nanaimo B.C.

The big question I think Canadians deserve answers to is this — why is the Conservative Party afraid to add oversight to its anti-terror bill?

Such oversight will not affect the terms of the bill. It will just give each and every Canadian the assurance that CSIS or the government will not be allowed to break Canadian laws and the terms of our Constitution.

The prime minister and his spokespeople have succeeded in scaring many Canadians; making them fear that the hordes are at the gate and only the CPC and Bill C-51 can save us.

Fear is a great motivator and Stephen Harper trots it out at every opportunity. I don’t care if you are left, right or centre. It is disgraceful conduct on the part of any politician to try to use power through fear.

American president Franklin D. Roosevelt said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” He said this in reference to America being struck at Pearl Harbour on Dec. 7, 1941. He didn’t tell Americans to be afraid as our government is now telling us we should be. Roosevelt said don’t be afraid.

Canadians are good strong people; we are not fearful people and it’s time politicians stopped using fear as a policy.

Joe Spence, Kanata

Having watch the deplorable performance of Stephen Harper in regard to Bill C-51, culminating in a disgraceful motion to limit debate, I share the following: Wikipedia defines “demagogue” as: a political leader in a democracy who appeals to the emotions, fears, prejudices, and ignorance of the lower classes in order to gain power and promote political motives. Demagogues usually oppose deliberation and advocate immediate, violent action to address a national crisis; they accuse moderate and thoughtful opponents of weakness. Demagogues have appeared in democracies since ancient Athens. They exploit a fundamental weakness in democracy: because ultimate power is held by the people, nothing stops the people from giving that power to someone who appeals to the lowest common denominator of a large segment of the population.

Michael Hayes, Victoria, B.C.

Mr. Trudeau should be careful about agreeing to a bill that could put him in jail. Why? Precisely, no reason is needed. But maybe one needs to be reminded that Mr. Harper considers all Liberals to be enemies. After all, Mr. Trudeau as a Prime Minister might raise taxes and that could threaten economic stability (or improve it, but who decides?). One might also consider the fixed elections act that, after all, is seemingly meant to only apply to Liberals, since it has had no effect on the Conservatives.

Bill Livingstone, Toronto

No wonder Prime Minister Harper routinely displays disdain for parliamentary procedures, democratic institutions, and Canada’s traditions.

A recent poll indicated 82 per cent of Canadians are in favour of his government’s new so-called anti-terror legislation, which will give more powers to the intelligence agencies and the police without strengthening parliamentary oversight. Canada’s current oversight of these powerful bureaucracies is woefully inadequate, a fact recently highlighted by four former prime ministers and numerous other prominent Canadians.

Canada has become a country of frightened sheep and Stephen Harper knows it. At every opportunity he fans the flames of fear knowing the sheep, who are apparently blind to the fact he is manipulating them to solidifying his own power, will huddle around him.

Of course Canada needs to stand on guard against the growing threat of worldwide terrorism but Stephen Harper can not by trusted to put the interests of Canadians above his own. He also needs watching.

Lloyd Atkins, Vernon, B.C.

Despite all his attempts to justify Bill C-51 by alternatively terrifying and inspiring Canadians with talk of terrorism and patriotism, our honest, transparent and accountable Prime Minister was unwilling or unable to provide Thomas Mulcair with a single example of an issue not already addressed by existing legislation.

Had the same question been posed to Green Party Leader Elizabeth May she would have suggested the bill was all about opposing anyone who might interfere with the interests of the government and yet Harper insists Canadians are in favour of the bill.

Since there appears to be no urgent need for new legislation along with an obvious divergence of opinion within Parliament and no real evidence of public support, would it not be prudent to wait till after the election to pass Bill C-51? MPs represent the interests of their respective party while elections provide some limited (FPTP) input from Canadians.

Randy Gostlin, Oshawa

I believe human induced climate change is a reality. I believe that if humanity continues to burn fossil fuels my grandchildren will not survive the consequent environmental collapse. I do not support expanding pipelines or any action that will aid in our burning of fossil fuels.

According to the above statements and groups I support I am considered by the Harper Conservative government an enemy of the state and the new Conservative anti-terror bill will formally allow the state to monitor me because of these beliefs.

For the moment I still believe in our democracy but it is under attack from within. I invite CISIS to add me to their lists.

Doug Wade, Toronto

As a Canadian, I cannot believe what is happening to our country, which is supposed to be one of the most democratic countries in the world. With all that has happened since the Harper government has taken office, they have now tabled Bill C-51 which provides greater powers to the RCMP in respect to opponents of big oil such as anti-pipeline demonstrators and environmentalists who wish to reduce gas emissions into our atmosphere so that we may live better lives.

Bill C-51 will give security agencies such as the RCMP power to investigate members of our communities who demonstrate against a policy of our government to aid oil companies in which they would be able to search the homes of peaceful citizens without a warrant on the basis that they may find “evidence” that puts them in the category of a “terrorist.”

The RCMP deny that they would do so, but I believe that given the power to do so, it will be used. If we were to read “terrorism” in matters such as being against oil pipelines, which is favoured by the Harper government, Bill C-51 might well be used against citizens who demonstrate against other proposed bills that our government wants passed on the grounds that those people might also be “terrorists.”

Again, with all that has happened since the Harper government has taken office, re-election time cannot come quick enough.

John Weingust, Toronto

How do you know if a piece of anti-terrorism legislation is on the mark or if it over-reaches?

Here is a quick test, which is so simple, even a Conservative Party back-bencher ought to be able to understand it.

If the bill potentially characterizes young Canadians who emulate Martin Luther King Jr. or Mahatma Gandhi as “threats to national security,” the bill over-reaches and needs to be fixed.

Daniel Cohn, Associate Professor, School of Public Policy & Administration, York University

On Feb. 24, Conservative MP Leon Benoit (Vegreville-Wainwright) said in the House: “It is the role of Canada’s Parliament to draft laws. The Supreme Court and the police are tasked with administering and enforcing them, Mr. Speaker. It seems this runaway court is more often basing decisions on the personal beliefs of its judges than on the law. So we have in effect, Mr. Speaker, a lawless Supreme Court.” Really.

Keep in mind that seven of the nine judges on the Supreme Court were appointed by — wait for it — Stephen Harper.

Another Harper, Tim Harper, national affairs columnist for the Star, responded that afternoon on CTV’s Power Play: “They (Conservatives) love to set up this battle between them and their public opinion — as they claim — on C-51, against all the ‘elites.’ And that’s the spot that the Prime Minister’s in right now, and I think he likes it.”

When messaging the Conservative base, examples of “elites” often include judges, the courts, law experts, and media pundits.

The Star columnist went on to say that SIRC (Security Intelligence Review Committee) is understaffed and underresourced, and “even the current members are saying that, and they’re an after-the-fact review. They are not an oversight mechanism. But this is legislation that’s being legislated by the clock. Talk about ramming it through. He’s (Stephen Harper) turning Parliament into a drive-thru in his haste to get this legislation passed, and we’re not going to get amendments or any kind of oversight.”

Conservative MP Roxanne James is Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety. After watching James’ vociferous defense of the anti-terror legislation on the Feb. 19 and 23 episodes of CBC’s Power & Politics (google them), I felt inspired to rewrite The Police’s 1978 hit, Roxanne.

Roxanne 2.0 (with apologies to The Police)

Roxanne

You don’t have to put on the fear light

These days aren’t over

You don’t have to sell the bill with all your might

Roxanne

You don’t have to sell that bill tonight Talk like a Con robot You don’t care if it’s wrong or if it’s right

Roxanne

You don’t have to put on the fear light

Roxanne

You don’t have to put on the fear light

Roxanne (Put on the fear light)

Roxanne (Put on the fear light)

Roxanne (Put on the fear light)

Roxanne (Put on the fear light)

Roxanne (Put on the fear light)

I hated it since I read it

I wouldn’t recommend it

I have to tell you just how I feel

I won’t let you take freedoms away

I know your mind is made up

I know that we can’t make up

Told you once I won’t tell you again

It’s a bad bill

Roxanne

You don’t have to put on the fear light

Roxanne

You don’t have to put on the fear light

Roxanne (Put on the fear light) ...

David Buckna, Kelowna, B.C.

Read more about: