NEWS
Monday, February 23, 2015 5
Bill C-51, or
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Accept that Harper
Might Think I’m a Terrorist
erin garbett › staff writer
I
didn’t feel any different when I woke up on
January 30. I remember being excited to see
Bladerunner on the big screen with my partner that night, and worrying that I didn’t know
my lines for Mock Trial yet. Beyond this, just another
day. Little did I know that with one announcement I
would swiftly become a possible promoter of terrorism in the eyes of the current government.
On that day, Stephen Harper unveiled the new
anti-terror legislation, Bill C-51. Although sceptical
and already shuddering at the bill’s omnibus nature,
like any self-respecting maybe-future-lawyer and
quasi-optimist I kept reading. My outlook did not
improve as I read, quite the opposite.
The legislation comes from a promise given by the
Conservatives in the wake of the attacks in Ottawa
and Quebec last October. One goal, among many
others, is to curtail the “promotion of terrorism” by
giving unprecedented powers to law enforcement.
One of these powers is to “order the removal of terrorist propaganda” from the internet. While there are
myriad other objectives of C-51 that are worth discussing, this article will focus on the bill’s internet
clauses and how they relate to what remains of environmentalism in Canada.
According to C-51, anyone who “by communicating statements, knowingly advocates or promotes
the commission or terrorism offences in general” has
committed a criminal offence and could be imprisoned for up to five years. If a judge has reasonable
grounds to believe that terrorism is being promoted
or advocated online, they have the power to order an
internet provider to give law enforcement “the information that is necessary to identify and locate the
person who posted the material.” Granted, it could
be worse. In June 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada
ruled that Canadians have the right to remain anonymous while browsing the internet and that providers
cannot reveal their identity unless law enforcement
obtain a warrant first. Our rights are subject to
slightly better protection than what is afforded to our
friends in the U.K. and Australia, where online content can be removed without a court order.
But what is the promotion of terrorism? Is it the
same or different from advocating terrorism? C-51
leaves us in the dark, offering no definition of either
term. The term “communicating” is defined, but this
is useless without knowledge of what can and what
cannot be communicated. While C-51 states that it
does not apply to “lawful advocacy, protest, dissent
and artistic expression,” I fear this is mere lip service.
Without defining what it means to promote and/or
advocate terrorism, C-51 could result in law enforcement having to meet a very low threshold before
being permitted to legally snoop through the online
lives of citizens. Furthermore,