Dr Michael Clinchy 12:53pm Wed Dec 12 '01
In case you had any doubts about the relationship between Bills C-35 and C-36 and the Government's objectives, please read the following extracts from the Debate in the Commons concerning Bill C-35.
During the Debate, two Liberals speak for the Government. It is the comments by Government member, Mr John Bryden, that make it clear that the Government does indeed view the combination of Bills C-35 and C-36 as being of particular use in suppressing domestic political dissent.
When reading Mr Bryden's comments please keep in mind that what is being debated is NOT an anti-glass-breaking Bill but an 'Anti-terrorism' Bill that gives the police extraordinary powers that override the Charter of Rights. Ask yourself a number of questions. Why does the Government feel it has no choice but to equate breaking glass at a McDonald's with the events of September 11? Was Mr Bryden's staff scared at witnessing window breaking from 100 m away because they feared the wrath of McDonald's?
In her Globe and Mail column of November 28, 2001, concerning Bills C-35 and C-36, Ms Naomi Klein asked the following:
"the question is not whether activists have the right to inconvenience conference delegates or push against chain link fences ... The question is whether these are acts of terrorism, on legal par with hijacking planes and planting bombs".
The Government's answer is clear: YES, dissent = terrorism !!!
Dr Michael Clinchy
Department of Zoology
University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario, N6A 5B7
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot, LIBERAL):
Madam Speaker, Bills C-36 and C-35 say nothing about security perimeters. However, what they indeed do is define additional powers, as the member [Dick Proctor] who spoke just said, to the RCMP.
I would submit to that member that what choice do we have? These are not peaceful protests we are dealing with. We are dealing with violent protests and it becomes increasingly dangerous to have any kind of international conference. Only last week, just 100 yards from my very office on Parliament Hill, peaceful protesters wearing masks smashed through the windows of a McDonald's restaurant. My staff were scared and they phoned me up.
So, Madam Speaker, I submit to the member that as long as protesters are allowed to wear masks, as long as they use violence and as long as there is a chance that terrorists may be infiltrating such protesters wearing masks, I do not know what choice we have but to give the RCMP reasonable powers to bring peace to protests.