First paragraph (Teaser):

By supporting Bill C-36 and the US war on terror, we are in actuality encouraging terrorism. Talk about a paradox. My views represent a nation-wide contingency of scholars, lawyers, activists and concerned citizens. Copies of this letter have been sent to every member of the Senate and the House of Commons, and to the media.

Rest of the text:

Bill C-36 will only encourage terrorism – act now

To read the proposed legislation and email the Canadian MPs and Senators, go to:

http://www.canadianliberty.bc.ca/

24 November 2001

To: The Editor

Re: Bill C-36

I am a Canadian citizen, but was born and raised in South Africa during Apartheid, so I know what it is like to surrender civil liberties under the guise of "security".

The reason I decided to write this letter is that I don’t want to go through it again. The thing that scares me the most about Bill C-36 is its similarities to two of Apartheid South Africa’s bills, namely the 1950 Suppression of Communism Act and the 1967 Terrorist Act. Quoting Nelson Mandela (from his autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom): "Essentially, the [Suppression of Communism] bill permitted the government to outlaw any organisation and to restrict any individual opposed to its policies" and "the 1967 Terrorist Act gave the government unprecedented powers of arrest and detention without trial."

Two key terms are ‘security’ and ‘terrorism’. Who’s security are we talking about? And we all know that one man’s freedom fighter is another’s terrorist.

These bills were passed to protect South African citizens from
terrorism. Sound familiar? What this meant in practice was that the ruling elite’s security was ensured. Those opposed to the government, even peacefully, were terrorists, as was anyone advocating social change. It enabled the police and military to perform their own acts of terrorism against individuals and other countries, without any recourse to the law. So, a bill worded in such a way that should give people more security, actually took it away. Here are a few examples: People were arrested on suspicion of being terrorists, with or without evidence, and held without trial. The police would often wait until the day before an entitled trial and then release them. As the person left the prison’s front gate they would be re-arrested by a different officer, again on suspicion of terrorism.

States of Emergency, which gave more power to police, were declared every time there was an uprising.As a result, more people were arrested and the increase in arrests were used to justify its extension. And, because of the new laws invoked, no real protesting against the renewal of the State of Emergency was allowed.

Sunset clauses are a joke; there is no end to this sort of vicious cycle.

South Africa’s security bills affected other countries too. The illegal incursions into neighbouring countries, by the ruling National Party, left about 1.5 million people dead. Incidentally, these incursions were supported by both the USA and the UK.

Increased government secrecy, as well as mass media manipulation allowed this to continue, because of the lack of information to the general public. Security force brutality was rampant, with countless thousands, mostly innocent, beaten and killed.This is what propaganda does to those in power. Don’t forget, they believe they are protecting the people. Why should they care about the "terrorists"? This is the same mentality that we see in Canadian security forces. They already use chemical weapons, in the form of tear gas, against their own people, even peaceful protesters. They also physically harm innocent protesters. I know people that have experienced this first hand.

Police do NOT need more power. Bill C-36 seeks to employ the very things I so hated about apartheid: preventative detention and searches, whereby "potential" terrorists can be imprisoned for extended periods without trial orconviction, people stripped of their right to silence, secret trials, shedding of privacy laws,extension of police and secret service powers, increased government secrecy, etc.

As in South Africa, the Canadian government and security forces will be exempt from this legislation (look at Bill C-35), otherwise they will be found guilty themselves. Those in power NEVER define themselves as terrorists. Canadian Civil Liberties Association president Alan Borovoy says: "…if this bill had been in place 10 years ago, Canadians who supported Nelson Mandela and the ANC, or who raised funds for the anti-Apartheid struggle in South Africa, would have been called ‘terrorist’ and subject to arrest and conviction." This makes me realise what the true intentions behind this bill are. With rapidly growing support for the anti-globalization movement, increasing mobilisation amongst workers, etc., this bill will be used to intimidate and stifle dissent, through increased use of force by ‘security’ forces. Who will protect us from our government and police?

Internationally, Bill C-36 proposes to "eradicate terrorism". Therefore, Canada should act against anyone deemed responsible for terrorism by international law, including the United States. Quoting Noam Chomsky, from his address at MIT on October 18, 2001: "[The USA] now stands as the only state on record which has been both condemned by the World Court for international terrorism and has vetoed a [UN] security council resolution calling on all states to observe international law." This is in relation to the Reagan-US war against Nicaragua. Since WWII, the at least 50 countries have been invaded, many democratically elected governments have been overthrown with CIA assistance, millions of innocent people have been murdered and millions more have starved to death.

Bush’s government is the most powerful terrorist organisation in the world. Bush sees himself as a liberator, as did Hitler, Polpot, and Stalin, but his bombing campaign is in direct violation of international law, and up to four million people may starve to death this winter in Afghanistan as a direct result of his policies.

History will look back on these dark times with scorn and Canada will be seen as an ally of tyranny. By supporting Bill C-36 and the US war on terror, we are in actuality encouraging terrorism against other nations, and ourselves. Talk about a paradox.

My views represent a nation-wide contingency of scholars, lawyers, activists and concerned citizens. I urge you not to ignore these concerns. Copies of this letter have been sent to every member of the Senate and the House of Commons, and to the media. Canada is far from perfect, but what makes it a good place to live is the relative freedom that its citizens have. DON’T let them take it away from us. I cannot urge you strongly enough, no matter what form it takes, OPPOSE Bill C-36! I look forward to your response.

Yours faithfully,

A Canadian Citizen

To read this insidious legislation and find out how you can take action, go to:

http://www.canadianliberty.bc.ca/
Recent update:

"Being one who lived under a Communist dictatorship I know what human rights and civil liberties mean." Telegdi says the bill makes it too easy for innocent people to be caught up in investigations without access to due process.

From CBC Website:

Another Liberal breaks ranks over anti-terror bill

OTTAWA - Another Liberal MP has stood in opposition to the government's anti-terrorism bill. Backbencher Andrew Telegdi voted against the government's motion to curtail debate on Bill C-36.

On Monday Liberal John McKay called the bill "a deal with the devil."

The bill will give police new powers to detain suspects without charge, and compel people to testify in secret investigations. And the public dissent within Liberal ranks is raising questions about the government's motives in speeding Bill C-36 through Parliament.

Government House leader Don Boudria says the bill has been given plenty of debate, scrutinized by the Justice Committee and it must be passed.

"If this bill doesn't go to the Senate this week, its chance of being assented to before Christmas is gone," said Boudria.

That's why Boudria moved to curtail debate and call a vote to send the bill to third reading. The motion passed easily, but Telegdi, who once lived in Hungary, voted against it.

"Being one who lived under a Communist dictatorship I know what human rights and civil liberties mean." Telegdi says the bill makes it too easy for innocent people to be caught up in investigations without access to due process.

Opposition leader Stockwell Day voted against moving the bill forward as well, but because he thinks it's too soft on terrorists. He says the Liberals are stifling debate because MPs like Telegdi are speaking up.

"They see the cracks in their own ranks and they're trying to swiftly slam the door on that."

Conservative Peter Mackay is also critical of C-36. As a safeguard, the proposed bill compels the justice minister to make annual reports to Parliament on its use.

"Where are those checks and balances? Parliament? Question period? Debate in the house? We've seen what happened today. If that's the checks and balances, I'm afraid," said Mackay.

But Boudria says the opposition isn't interested in debating the bill, only in delaying it. And that's not what Canadians want.

It's not clear whether Telegdi will be disciplined for voting against his own party. But he doesn't appear concerned about any fallout.

He's a backbencher, and his only responsibility is as parliamentary secretary to the Library Committee.