Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Excessively wide scope

Need more proof of how far anti-terror legislation has gone overboard? Thomas Walkom points out that now, even former Defence Minister David Pratt acknowledges that the legislation went too far:
Known as a military hawk during his time in the Commons, David Pratt now says Canada's post-9/11 anti-terror laws are so broadly — and so badly — written that they leave those working for the Red Cross and similar humanitarian agencies open to criminal prosecution for just doing their jobs.

Even someone who simply donates money to a legitimate aid agency could be liable to 10 years in jail says the former Liberal MP, now special ambassador for the Canadian Red Cross...

"What's key to us is to get aid to vulnerable people," Pratt said in a telephone interview from Ottawa yesterday.

"And sometimes aid does get diverted. It's a fact of life in a conflict zone."

Yet when such diversions occur, he said, the law as written makes the Red Cross, as well as its workers, donors and supporters, vulnerable to criminal prosecution.

The provisions are now under review before a Senate committee, and hopefully a bit more thought will be put into any replacement provisions. But it's a testament to the political obsession with being seen as strong on terror that this issue doesn't seem to have been identified when the bill was first passed. And it'll be an even stronger indictment of all MPs who don't act on the obvious problems pointed out by Pratt now that they've been publicly identified.

No comments:

Post a Comment