This new collaboration between federal and state officials means that New York`s law enforcement personnel will now work with significantly improved investigative and enforcement powers. National Security Advisor Hermogenes Esperon defends the provision, telling NPR that by law, “activism is not terrorism.” Participants were first provided with a brief description of the Anti-terrorism Act (see Document 1 in Appendix C). If we knew more about it, we would have more respect for the government because we would at least be aware that it is doing something. (Toronto, Group 2) Group 2 participants from Toronto and Winnipeg questioned why there was no reference to visible minority rights in the brief description of the legislation. Specifically, they questioned whether the “new investigative tools” and the law itself would lead to racial profiling of visible minority groups. This reaction does not seem to appear in other cities. More than 140 governments have passed anti-terrorism laws since 11 September 2001, and many have expanded this legal arsenal over time. Many participants said they trusted the government and police not to abuse these powers and did not feel threatened as citizens. Most pointed out that as Caucasian and Canadian citizens, they were not particularly concerned about being called terrorists. After interviewing the participants about terrorism in general and assessing their knowledge of the anti-terrorism law, they were introduced to specific provisions of the law. For each provision, a document was distributed (see Appendix C) and read by the participants, and a discussion followed.
Some participants had concerns about eavesdropping. Although they agreed that suspected terrorists should be tapped without their knowledge (“it`s just common sense”), they want some kind of assurance that if the eavesdropping reveals other violations unrelated to terrorism (e.g., smoking marijuana), such evidence should not lead to prosecution. Group 2 participants in Regina and Halifax, as well as a minority of respondents from the French groups in Montreal and Quebec City, were offended by the regulations and considered them a violation of individual rights and freedoms. When they read these provisions, they remembered the days of “McCarthyism” and thought that the police could use these new investigative tools and powers to uncover crimes other than terrorism. These ways of thinking have also called into question the perceived benefits of the new powers of investigation and pre-trial detention. Countries like Egypt and Turkey have shown how populist-led governments like Duterte are using antiterism laws to violate civil liberties and consolidate power, according to sobel of the Carnegie Endowment. In addition, Group 2 participants in Vancouver expressed concern that they never seemed to hear news from the government on the fight against crime, saying they wanted more information in this regard. “This government has effectively developed a new weapon to mark and hunt down all perceived enemies of the state.
In the prevailing climate of impunity, such a vague law on the definition of “terrorism” can only exacerbate attacks on human rights defenders. An analysis of the pursuit of terrorism at the federal level, which took place in the two years after the 11th century. September 2001 shows that convictions for international terrorism have increased by more than 750 per cent. However, the study found that the median sentence for those convicted of such crimes was 14 days. However, some did not know that all three criteria must be met (i.e., the action is motivated by political, religious, or ideological purposes; the act is intended to intimidate the public or force the government not to do something; and the act is intended to harm through violence or death or disrupt an essential service) for something to be considered a terrorist act. If this was not well understood, participants were much more likely to be cautious with the definition. When they understood it, they generally reacted as follows: some participants had heard about this provision when they were made aware of the anti-terrorism law as a whole; therefore, they did not consider that they needed additional information on the provision. The general view was that information on the provision on the financing of terrorism should be provided within the framework of the law as a whole. Participants felt that each communication plan should include all five provisions, as the introduction or separate explanation of the provisions could cause confusion among the general public. With respect to the U.K.`s anti-terrorism laws, while many participants could not and/or dared to guess, there was again a perception that Canadian laws were less stringent. One of the reasons for this perception was that the UK was instrumental in the “war on terror” waged by the US and other coalition countries in Iraq.
It does not mention ethnicity. What about the rights of visible minorities? (Toronto, Group 1) In addition, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has made high-profile efforts to work closely with the New York City Police Department, which now has its own counterterrorism task force, and with law enforcement agencies across the state. Some participants acknowledged that it was difficult to balance individual rights and freedoms and to combat terrorism, and they were not sure whether the description of the law reflected such a balance. They agreed that we live in “frightening” times and that individuals may have to sacrifice some of their rights for the greater good, security and protection of the country as a whole. A new crime, incitement to terrorism, is particularly problematic, rights defenders say. The text states that incitement to others by “speeches, writings, proclamations, emblems, banners and other representations that serve the same purpose” could result in a sentence of 12 years in prison. This provision also raised some questions among participants. Some were concerned about how “innocent” people would be treated under this provision. For example, participants wondered what would happen if a company did not know that it was passing money on to a terrorist group. If that company were reprimanded, what would be the penalty and would they have the option to erase their name? These participants also wondered how the organization would whitewash his name while its assets would be frozen. Also, if the organization were found innocent, would it recover its assets? However, new York`s Terrorism Act also creates blame for inciting or supporting terrorism; and the standard of intent for this crime is so broad that a person whose “support” involves only protected First Amendment activities — such as speech or political expression — may feel prosecuted as a terrorist, even if no act of terrorism has taken place.
The fact that the list is public was considered a must, although some participants saw the danger that a person whose name was once on the list, even if it was removed after the call, would still tarnish his reputation. (Participants in Winnipeg Group 1, who fundamentally disagreed with the concept of “list,” particularly felt this.) The general reaction of participants of both ages and in all cities shows that this brief description, if presented to the public, would most likely raise more questions than answers. .
