International Policing Policy

International Policing Policy

On the morning of September 11, 2001, the Western World stood still. The death of thousands on American soil caused a ripple effect so wide the international community continues to experience the social, economic and political ramifications close to four years later. The '911' attacks, led by a militant Islamist group (Al Qaeda), were the most lethal ever by a foreign force on United Sates soil.[1] Canadian parliament, certainly not immune from these effects, quickly enacted Bill C-36, the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA). While Canadian society has long believed in fundamental legal safeguards, the terrorist calamity of '911', introduced new and potentially dangerous legal concepts.[2] In the wake of September 11, many question whether it is terrorism alone that should be labeled as the sole concern, highlighted by the Western World's fears of the threats of misunderstood and unknown societies. Or is it the political response to terrorism, in the form of anti-terrorism legislature, such as Canada's Bill C-36, that should be highlighted as the real danger, with the attached possibility of undermining constitutional and democratic rights and values? Canada's Anti-Terrorism Act (Bill C-36) is justified under pretences of 'human security'; however, not only is it unnecessary, upon analysis, it infringes on Canadians' fundamental freedoms through the poorly defined and flawed 'terrorist activity' provision and by offending many sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Canadian Anti-Terrorist Act has its' roots in 'human security'. Security concerns of the Western World traditionally had their foundation on the primacy of sovereignty, territorial security and the belief that military intervention and deterrence achieved security. This external focus on internal security proved during the Cold War and the height of communism to lack the creation of international peace and stability. As a result of pressure groups, NGOs and activists, the concept of security was transformed into a concern with human security, which entered Canada's parliament in the 1990s with the Liberals. Despite post-September 11 alterations in the definition of 'human security', it remains a tenet of Canadian foreign policy.[3] This Canadian emphasis on human security resulted in the ratification of Bill C-36, despite how unnecessary and detrimental such an act has proven to be.

The over-arching justification of human security has application to virtually all of the measures contained in the Anti-Terrorism Act. This foundational principle is not solely the underpinning of Bill C-36, it is also at the core of the unprecedented United Nations actions against counter-terrorism, which began the widespread adoption of anti-terrorism legislation across the democratic world. Acting under Section VII of the United Nations charter, the Security Council reaffirmed Resolution 1373 on September 12, 2001, stating that human security is at the heart of protecting international peace and security against trans-national terrorism.[4] According to this initial resolution, terrorism is an assault, and a threat to, the most fundamental rights of the inhabitants of a democratic polity - the rights to life, liberty and security of the person. Therefore, in this context, human security is defined ...