On Tuesday Beverley McLachlin, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada spoke to a women’s club in Ottawa. McLachlin bemoaned the fact that Canada is in danger of sacrificing liberty in order to combat terrorism.
According to the Chief Justice, Canadian lawmakers put too much emphasis on the events of 9/11 in the United States and in doing so have sacrificed civil liberties under the guise of fighting terrorism. McLachlin of course is right when she points out that there is a danger of giving up rights and freedoms in the name of security. The harshest law on the Canadian books is the ability of the government to detain foreign nationals indefinitely when they are suspected of terrorist activity. But the reality is that only a handful of people have been detained on these so called security certificates. And unlike many other countries that hold people who are suspected of terrorist activity, detainees in Canada have full access to the courts including Chief Justice McLachlin’s. And these handful of suspects are gradually being released and once released, are having the conditions of their release relaxed.
McLachlin appears to adopt the mantra of the left; that September 11, 2001 was a one off, it has now been 8 years since those events took place and therefore it’s now time to not worry about the possibility of further terrorist activity. This ignores the fact that 9/11 was not a onetime thing. Since the fall of 2001, arrests have been made around the world, including in Canada, for other terrorist acts that had either taken place or were in the planning stages. Other than the fact that the attacks took place in New York and Washington instead of Europe or the Middle East, the real significance of 9/11 was that it served as a wakeup call to the terrorist threat that exists around the world. The Chief Justice would have been better to put her remarks in the context of the present day threat of terrorism than as a reaction to the events of September 11.
If Chief Justice McLachlin really wants to warn Canadians of the dangers of losing their civil liberties perhaps it would have been better if she spoken about the flu. The University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics polled 600 Canadians between August 2008 and February 2009. The results of that survey showed that 48% of respondents believe that doctors, nurses and other health care professionals who fail to show up for work without a good excuse during a pandemic should be fired or be stripped of their professional qualifications. More disturbing is that about half of those polled believe that violating a quarantine order during a pandemic is tantamount to manslaughter. If the poll is at least in the ballpark in terms of accuracy half the country is quite willing to give up basic freedoms such as the right to assembly and the right to unrestricted movement, all in the name of protecting health. This is not all surprising in a country that is totally dependent upon the government for their healthcare.
Given these numbers, a government, even a minority one which we will likely have for some time to come will have no difficulty gaining the support of the opposition parties and the people for large scale restrictions of basic liberties during a pandemic. And when will we know that there is a pandemic? Why, when some international body says so.
Despite the cries of Islamophobia in the wake of 9/11 or when the Toronto 18 were rounded up (this has quieted down now after some accused pleaded guilty and admitted the plot), only a small handful of people have been subjected to the full effect of enhanced anti-terrorism laws that were passed since September 11, 2001. But any laws that will be passed to combat a flu pandemic will affect each and every person who is physically present in Canada.
It would come as no surprise if those who are complaining the most about Canada’s anti-terrorism legislation, will be the first ones to call for a return of the death penalty for anyone who sneezes in public.
