Really? Does Prime Minister Stephen Harper really expect Canadians to swallow the line that we risk a second Holocaust unless Parliament rams its hugely flawed anti-terror measures into law? It defies belief.

Yet Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney has thrown around the H-word with reckless abandon this week, in both official languages, as he seeks to justify the Anti-Terrorism Act 2015, which critics fear will chill freedom of speech and other rights.

“The Holocaust did not begin in the gas chamber; it began with words,” Blaney told the Commons panel that has begun hearing expert testimony on the bill. As the Star’s Tonda MacCharles reports, Blaney defended Bill C-51’s ban on “promoting” terrorism as necessary to protect the country from jihadist threats. Nor was he prepared to back down when New Democrat MP Randall Garrison objected that “there is no equivalence to anything we’re talking about here today to the Holocaust,” and challenged the minister’s “overinflated rhetoric.”

Blaney was unmoved. “Violence begins with words. Hate begins with words,” he insisted.

This is a new low, even for this government. Setting aside the fact that Canadian law already prohibits the promotion of hatred, invoking the Holocaust to silence critics insults the memory of six million Jews and distorts history. It was Nazi state policy that conceived of the genocide and built those gas chambers. Likening jihadist propaganda, however vile, to the Nazi killing machine is a stretch too far.

After the attack on Parliament Hill and other terrorist scares, including Wednesday’s arrest of a man suspected of planning to bomb the American consulate in Toronto, no one will deny the terrorist threat is real. But the Tory rhetorical overkill is surreal. It discredits the party.

The Harper government has been cynically fanning generalized fear and suspicion of Muslims as it brands itself tough on terror in the run-up to the election. It has sent Canadian troops to risk their lives against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, while insisting they are there in a non-combat role. And it has rolled out an overreaching anti-terror bill that threatens freedom of speech, privacy and security of the person.

Now the government has stooped to insinuating that critics of these policies are putting the nation’s well-being at risk. In reality, though, it is the Harper government and its politics of fear and division that are taking us down that road.

As the Star has written before, the new Anti-Terrorism Act may enjoy strong public support but it is dangerous. It fails to strike the appropriate balance between keeping Canada safe and protecting civil rights. Opposition MPs shouldn’t be cowed by the government’s overheated rhetoric into giving it a pass.

Specifically, its definition of threats to security is too broad, capturing any “interference” with Ottawa’s “capability” in everything from diplomatic relations to critical infrastructure and economic stability. Critics fear it could be used against political activists, First Nations, environmentalists and others who may engage in actions that break some laws but are not terrorism.

It criminalizes speech, making it an offence to “advocate or promote” terrorism “in general.” What about cheering on rebels in a foreign conflict? The potential chill on free speech is obvious.

It expands the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) to disrupt threats (on obtaining a warrant), even if that contravenes the Charter or Rights or other laws. That’s a shocking erosion of our rights.

It lets police detain suspects if they believe a crime “may occur.” That’s a low bar. Before, they had to establish a crime “will” occur.

It opens the floodgate to what Canada’s privacy commissioner calls “excessive” and “virtually limitless” data-sharing on citizens.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

And it contains no provision to improve the inadequate oversight CSIS and other agencies get, either by giving Parliament a bigger role or by beefing up existing mechanisms.

The bill, as drafted, is deeply flawed. Invoking the Holocaust is a diversion. What we need is less rhetoric and more scrutiny.