Canada is perceived as a liberal country. Compared to neighbouring United States of America, USA, Canada’s racial tension seems lower, and the government accepts that it has the responsibility to provide basic services, including welfare, healthcare and social insurance. Opportunity for education is so good that many from the under-developed world make it a place of first choice.
But on Friday June 5, 2015, Canada not only joined the infamous league of countries abridging fundamental human rights in the name of fighting terrorism, but worse still, introduced a second, lower tier of citizenship. Bill C-24 provides that if two Canadian citizens commit the same offence, one has the right to remain a citizen while the other can be stripped of his citizenship. Those that can be stripped of their citizenship include people who had migrated and Canadians with dual citizenship. Also, Canadians can be exiled for criminal activity.
A Canadian convicted for terrorism by another country can also lose citizenship. This means that the Al-Jazeera journalist, Mohammed Fahmy, who is being retried on terrorism charges in Egypt after being sentenced to seven years imprisonment, can lose his Canadian citizenship if he were convicted again. If this were so, and having renounced his Egyptian citizenship, he would become stateless.
Nigeria, despite serious terror attacks by the Boko Haram sect decided not to curb freedom or abridge human rights. However, neighbouring Cameroon which had spillover effects of Boko Haram, used the opportunity to pass an anti-terror law that carries the death penalty. This is not so much the worry; it is its definition of terrorism which is “any activity which can lead to a general revolt of the population or disturb normal functioning of the country”. This means that an industrial action, protest or rally can attract the death penalty.
Malaysia with some 160 persons detained for terrorist acts in April, 2015 enacted the Prevention of Terrorism Act, POTA, which allows the security services to detain a terror suspect for two years without trial.
Kenya in December 2014 witnessed scuffles in its parliament. Proceedings had to be suspended twice before an anti-terrorism bill could pass. The new law, amongst other provisions, imposes strict rules on how the media can report stories on security issues, and gives police more powers to detain terror suspects.
The French motto: Liberty, equality, fraternity, which it inherited from its revolution is now under threat. Following the Charlie Hebdo killings of 17 persons, including 11 editorial staff of the magazine, the National Assembly, the lower house in May, 2015, passed the Anti-terrorism Bill by 438 to 86 votes. It allows the security to hack into the e-mail of suspects, tap their phones, place hidden cameras in homes and tracers in their cars.
The Bill allows security men to watch a couple in intimate relationship in their bedroom if either of the couple is a terror suspect. What then is left of liberty in France?
Egypt has transformed from the spring of hope to the winter of despair; from the dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak, through the fanaticism of Mohammed Morsi to the stone age military rule of Abdel Fattah el- Sisi. In February 2015, Egypt enacted its Anti-Terrorism Act which defines terrorism as any group “…that attempts to, aims to, or calls for destabilising public order…”.
The new law regards Egyptians who protest for any reason and block a road or entrance to a building or disrupts transportation or communication, as terrorists. In 2014, at least 1,212 persons were sentenced to death in mass trials. The new law seems to be aimed at tightening the noose, and dispensing with formalities in sending dissidents to jail or early graves.
The US Patriot Act 2001 which came into force in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, authorises police to search the homes and businesses of people without their consent, detain immigrants indefinitely, monitor phones and financial records without court order. There have been amendments which are not fundamental.
Perhaps America’s most infamous acts, is the kidnap of persons in any part of the world and transferring them to Afghan detention camps and Guantanamo Bay. Called Rendition, some of the victims are held without trial for up to a decade.
Another American contribution is its world-wide bugging of phones, including those of supposed allies like German Chancellor, Angela Merkel.
Older anti-terror laws which abridge fundamental human rights include Ethiopia’s Anti-Terrorism Proclamation of 2009 under which dissidents and journalists who report or comment “beyond acceptable boundary” are sent to prison. Some journalists are known to be in jail while several have gone into exile or are keeping their heads low. The proclamation in practice, supersedes Article 29 of the constitution which guarantees freedom of speech and assembly.
Yet an older one is the Australian Criminal Code Act 1995 which defines terrorism as an act to coerce or influence the public or government to advance a political, religious or ideological cause, and if such act causes death, serious damage to property or disrupts infrastructure like telecommunications and electricity.
While the law allows for advocacy, protest or industrial action, these become acts of terrorism if such activity is intended to cause serious harm to a person or creates a serious risk to public safety. The penalty is life imprisonment.
In many parts of the world, humanity is losing basic freedom and fundamental rights in the name of anti-terrorism campaigns. Soon, the difference between Western democracy and feudal dictatorship will not be fundamental; it might come down to a question of opinion.
The 1215 Magna Carta that gave hope for freedom and the right to justice is fading into memory to be replaced by repressive laws and fascism. What is democracy if the constitution can be set aside? What is freedom if a policeman, for whatever reason, can haul you into prison without trial? Doubtlessly, terrorism constitutes serious threats to humanity, but to abandon basic human rights in order to tackle it is like administering poison in order to cure an ailment.
– See more at: http://www.vanguardngr.com/2015/06/injustice-in-the-name-of-fighting-terrorism/#sthash.cN7DX1ip.dpuf
Beautiful piece,am glad that i still went back to read this article.There seems to be no fine line anymore.