| Share with others: |
|
Tweet |
New Anti-terror Bill Could Put Chill on Freedom of Speech
"It’s really more political posturing than sound counterterrorism policy," says legal expert
Prime Minister Stephen Harper said last weekend that new anti-terror legislation to be introduced on Friday will, among other things, “criminalize the promotion of terrorism.”
Such a move, however, could have a chilling effect on freedom of expression in Canada and would not necessarily contribute to effectively fighting domestic extremism, according to legal experts.
The new bill, which could also include provisions for expanded police powers, was promised by the federal government in the weeks following the October attacks in Quebec and Ottawa that left two members of the Canadian Forces dead.
Justice Minister Peter MacKay suggested that the measures would, among a host of other consequences, allow authorities to target materials that may be contributing to the radicalization of Canadians, particularly online.
The new bill, however, is largely a knee-jerk response to October’s attacks and Canada already has the necessary laws on the books to pursue and prosecute people promoting hatred or inciting violence, says Kent Roach, a professor at the University of Toronto who specializes in constitutional and terrorism law.
“The government has the burden before they introduce new laws to demonstrate why it’s not possible to prosecute these kinds of offences under existing Canadian law,” he says.
“There’s a real danger when we make laws in reaction to events with the assumption that those laws will help prevent tragedies from happening again.”
Pushing the limits on what kinds of speech are considered criminal may put a "chill" on the dialogue around terrorism, they wrote, particularly in communities where discussing the issues around radicalization and extremism is most critical.
"There are at least two concerns about speech chill: will people not talk about controversial topics because they’re worried about being charged under a new offence? And second, will it drive potentially radicalized individuals further underground?" says Roach.
When people don’t feel free to talk about the political, religious and ideological elements of extremism, Canadian society won’t be able to address the underlying forces that drive people toward radicalization and, in some cases, to acts of violence, says University of Waterloo sociology and legal studies professor Lorne Dawson.
"There is already an increasing sense that it is a forbidden topic — it’s too potentially dangerous and words could be misconstrued or misunderstood. It’s silencing."
Similarly, stifling speech plays into the narrative promoted by many extremist groups that Western societies are hypocritical to espouse free speech values while repressing contradictory views. In essence, says Forcese, these kinds of laws can make "martyrs of ideas" and speech that lie within the definition of protected speech.
"Sometimes these things can become wins for extremists and terrorists," says Scott Stewart, vice-president of tactical analysis at Stratfor, a U.S.-based private intelligence and consulting firm.
Read the original news story here:
New anti-terror bill could put chill on freedom of speech
Read more news about this topic here:
Are you already violating the feds’ new anti-terror bill?
Read several authors' thoughts on papal Rome's history.
This article highlights quotes from historical and Catholic sources proving the Papacy's aggressive nature.
An Italian mystic. A minister to a British king. An Augustine monk. A Swiss farmer's boy. What do these men have in common? They were used by God in powerful ways to bring about the Protestant Reformation. Enter into the lives of these ordinary people with extraordinary stories.
Inspiration for these articles comes from Gideon and Hilda Hagstoz' Heroes of the Reformation
