Dear Editor,
Re: Steven Harper's anti-terrorism legislation campaign
I would start by clarifying that I was previously a civilian employee of the Canadian military and that if our country required me to do anything in its defence, I would be one of the first to be there to defend it and prevent the harms that terrorism poses. However, after watching Stephen Harper defend his coming legislation, I have to wonder about this very important question: In providing additional powers to the RCMP, if that "rule of law" (the preamble to our Constitution states "Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law") is not complied with by the members of the RCMP, what consequences will anyone involved in that (process) be faced with?
My concern is what the circumstances will be if our RCMP act in a manner that is of no less an atrocity towards human kind than are experienced by us and our Parliament buildings? What are the consequences of this, as these would be actions that are an escalation of violence in the world?
I ask this question for an extremely good reason since I do not support terrorism and because someone holds the position of Prime Minister of Canada or wears a uniform of our RCMP, it does not mean that they are not a threat to the public despite that we need them to be as they are employed and make all provisions for the public's safety. (Our Constitution states as well "to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.) So the Canadian Government and our judiciary have to be able to justify that the actions they take are not a threat to our safety, which places a responsibility on these institutions to not act in a manner that is a threat to democracy and our freedoms as we live and practice peaceful association within Canada. This is what public safety is about in a "free and democratic society"; it is a support and defence of differences of opinion and belief that are expressed in accordance with the right to freedoms of peaceful associations and that no threats exist that would take that individual right away from anyone.
So I defend this right to peaceful association; and putting forth Stephen Harper to public scrutiny. However, there is that "appearance" issue: Mr. Harper has an election coming up and his words would have you believe that his actions are those which support the rights and freedoms of Canadians, when in fact that is not the case were he to express the truth.
Rather you would find that Stephen Harper and company are not any better than the terrorists, where in not having been provided justification from the courts to not comply with the Inspections Standards that were placed before them, that they have not acted to take any corrective actions to comply with the standards of a "free and democratic society" despite that it is criminal to do so.
Justified force exists when anyone makes an act that prevents the "unlawful uses of property" as the unlawful uses of property is unjustified force and is the premise upon which we employ our police forces to work on our behalf.
In reality, we are engaged in a war that is against those who would not provide for the rights of other human beings and that is what the War on Terrorism is: to act in a responsible manner to ensure that human rights are respected and that we have peaceful associations between all religious groups and peoples and that unjustified force does not exist against anyone as an individual. And so, if the Harper Government cannot act to make a corrective action in regard to the unlawful uses of individual and personal properties, in what way is this legislation ever going to be workable?
My concern about this legislation is what will be the actions against persons who do not comply with the decisions of the courts and subsequently have no color of right to use the property that belongs to the Canadian public in a manner that is not "demonstrably justified", since Mr. Harper has no qualms about having the uses of property in a manner that is not justified under "the rule of law".
I think we have good reason to be afraid of behaviour that does not demonstrate an ambition to represent Canadian values of peaceful association.
Cathy Corfield