Canada’s Anti Terrorism Act and Domestic Human Rights since 9/11
Date Recorded: Feb 23rd, 2006
|Despite the careful crafting of treaties and declarations that recognize the responsibility of governments to act to ensure the security of their citizens and the obligation of governments to intervene to protect individuals from human rights abuses, governments around the world have consistently used arguments about security as an excuse for violating the full range of universally protected human rights.
Although Canada is frequently recognized and often lauded on the world stage for its commitment to the protection of these fundamental human rights, at home and abroad, our country’s Anti-Terrorism Act, enforced by the RCMP’s Integrated National Security Enforcement Team has allowed for numerous instances of exploitation of these fundamental rights.
Murray Mollard talks of what is, in the opinion of the BC Civil Liberties Association, the excessively broad definition of terrorist activity contained in the Act, and cites examples of activities captured under this definition. He explains that although these activities are possibly criminal in nature, they do not reflect the kind of extraordinarily violent conduct that threatens numerous innocent civilians, hallmarks of the September 11th attacks in the United States, that are the basis for the justification of the creation of the ATA.
|Murray Mollard has been the Executive Director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association since 2000, and its former Policy Director. He has worked with UBC Professor Emeritus Bill Black on his Human Rights Review in 1994 and with now Attorney General Wally Oppal when Mr. Oppal was the Commissioner of Inquiry into Policing in B.C. in 1994. Mr. Mollard has been a member of the Law Society of B.C. since 1992, and is a graduate of McGill University Faculty of Law and UBC’s Faculty of Commerce. He is a regular speaker on civil liberties involving policing and privacy.