WhatFinger


Once it is established a person travelled to a forbidden designated area, the onus is on them to convince intelligence agencies they were there for a legitimate un-terror related purpose

Where Canadian PM’s anti-terror travel ban came from



Earlier this week Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced if his Conservative Party retains power after the October 19 federal election, legislation would be introduced to ban travel to certain “designated areas.” Those who travel to these areas and cannot prove they did so for a legitimate non-terror related reason, will be subject to criminal prosecution. It is already a crime in Canada to participate in or aid a terrorist group. But if someone travels to an area of the Islamic State and then returns, it is extremely difficult to prove that person did indeed participate in illegal activities. All they have to say is that they went to Iraq or Syria to visit their ailing Uncle Mohammed and it is pretty well impossible for Canadian authorities to prove otherwise.
This proposed legislation contains a reverse onus. Once it is established a person travelled to a forbidden designated area, the onus is on them to convince intelligence agencies they were there for a legitimate un-terror related purpose. Two example of these legitimate reasons were given by the Conservatives; doing humanitarian work or working as a journalist. If a legitimate purpose can be established, the person would not face any charges. Harper is not the dumb knuckle dragging Neanderthal many of his critics try to make him out to be. He and his party are perfectly capable of devising this legislation on their own. But they didn’t. Australia already has a similar law that was enacted in late 2014. After the law came into effect, Australia made the Syrian province of Al-Raqqa and later Mosul in Iraq “designated zones.” Any Australian who enters or remains in one of these zones without a legitimate reason, faces up to 10 years in jail. Harper could have gotten the idea from the Australian law. But he didn’t. No, the idea of making it a crime to journey to a prohibited terrorist region without proof it was for a non-terror related reason, came from the United Nations. In September 2014, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 2078(2014) dealing with the need to stop foreign fighters from travelling in order to fight for terrorist organizations. The resolution was passed unanimously.

Support Canada Free Press


Under the resolution it is stated Member States have a duty, through their domestic laws and regulations, to make it a serious offence for anyone to travel to a State for the purpose of committing or participating in terrorist acts. More importantly, the resolution provides these serious criminal offences must include the ability to successfully prosecute offenders. [Emphasis added]. There is no realistic way to prosecute a person if the onus was on the government to prove they actually participated in terrorist activities outside of Canada. The left, including the media went apoplectic after Harper’s announcement, accusing him of infringing on peoples’ rights and just introducing the measure to scare people in an attempt to get votes. These are the very same people who would not kill a mosquito unless the UN sanctioned it and formed a multilateral coalition to attack the pesky insects. Writing in the formerly conservative National Post, Michael den Tandt called the move “a ploy” arguing the reverse onus of proof was wrong and disagreeing with the government’s position there are very few legitimate reasons for travel to such areas. There was no mention of Resolution 2078(2014) in the National Post. One of the most vocal critics of the proposal was Liberal leader Justin Trudeau. As could be expected, Trudeau also called the measure a ploy that violated peoples’ rights. Trudeau seemed to understand that the rights under daddy’s beloved Charter of Rights can be limited. Section 1 of the Charter states all rights are subject to “such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” The big criticism of Harper’s proposal is it was not detailed enough. Of course it was not detailed. It was only an announcement of intended legislation made during an election campaign. The introduction of a bill is the proper time to provide exact details that can then be the subject of criticism. Justin made no mention of the UN resolution when he spoke. He called the proposal “a piece of electoral posturing.” It is obvious he couldn’t care less about the threat to Canada from people who travel to ISIS-held areas to join a terrorist group. Recently Trudeau spoke about how, if elected to govern, he intends to grow the economy; not from the top down but “from the heart out.” Perhaps he should supply details about how an economy can be grown from the heart out, whatever that means. It is the left that is using Harper’s proposed legislation as an election ploy. Not only do they not mention their beloved United Nations, or about how Harper’s proposal goes against Resolution 2078(2014) but they show little concern about the threat to the country of people leaving Canada to join terrorist groups. People like Den Tandt and Trudeau seriously believe Harper is playing politics but they are not.


View Comments

Arthur Weinreb -- Bio and Archives

Arthur Weinreb is an author, columnist and Associate Editor of Canada Free Press. Arthur’s latest book, Ford Nation: Why hundreds of thousands of Torontonians supported their conservative crack-smoking mayor is available at Amazon. Racism and the Death of Trayvon Martin is also available at Smashwords. His work has appeared on Newsmax.com,  Drudge Report, Foxnews.com.

Older articles (2007) by Arthur Weinreb


Sponsored