TIME TO TAKE A LOOK AT 'LAW' BREAKING

Since 9/11 Enforcement Agencies Have Trampled On Civil
Rights

Canadian law enforcement agencies were given carte blanche after 9/11
to break the law if necessary, but after four years, the country's
legal community says there are not enough safeguards to protect civil
liberties.

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day revealed last week that
law-enforcement agencies allowed their helpers in the previous year to
commit a broad spectrum of crimes, including gun offences, passport
forgery, counterfeiting, possession of stolen property and theft over
$5,000.

But while the federal government acknowledges police agents have
stepped over the line, we have no way of knowing whether those
breaches were necessary, useful or culminated in convictions.

We can't even learn whether any charges resulted from such
activity.

"These provisions fly in the face of the central premise of the rule
of law -- that there is one law that applies equally to all," said
Vancouver lawyer Greg DelBigio, chairman of the Canadian Bar
Association's national criminal justice section.

"Neither police nor their agents are justified in committing crimes in
the name of law enforcement."

The Canadian Bar Association, which represents some 36,000 legal
professionals including prosecutors, insists the law should be scrapped.

At the very least, the association says the Criminal Code should be
amended so illegal activity by police or their agents must be
judicially authorized in the same way as a wiretap or a search warrant.

In its brief to the mandated review of the controversial sections, the
association maintained its initial horror that the sweeping changes
passed with no substantial debate in the wake of the World Trade
Center strikes.

"We opposed the bill then and our opinion has not changed," DelBigio
told the standing committee on justice and human rights Thursday. "We
are strongly urging the government to repeal those four sections that
allow police and their agents to break the law."

He is bang on.

As it stands, police, park wardens, fisheries officers, customs
officials, jail guards and their agents are immune from prosecution
for virtually anything short of obstructing justice, non-consensual
sex or violence.

The only caveat is their conduct should be "reasonable and
proportional."

Trouble is, we've got no way of knowing that because there is no way
for the public to review the behaviour -- we are not provided with
details. The bar association would at least like the public to know
what has gone on.

"Any record-keeping and reporting should also provide enough detail
for genuine scrutiny," added DelBigio.

That doesn't happen.

I am aware of cases in this province where police agents engaged in
serious crimes under the guise of working on an investigation. And I
don't think the lawbreaking was necessary or justifiable.

I am sympathetic to the police view that terrorists and organized
criminals don't play by Marquis of Queensberry Rules. Sometimes
extraordinary measures are necessary, no question.

Still, it doesn't take a genius to realize police agents are usually
unsavoury characters who cannot be trusted.

That is a central lesson of the Air India trial -- the judge threw out
the charges in that case because the prosecution was laced with
untrustworthy paid informants and police agents.

If law-enforcement officers or their agents need to employ such
tactics, I'm with the bar association -- they should be prepared to
justify them beforehand to a judge. If illicit deeds are required to
prevent crime or carnage, that decision should be reviewable and
law-enforcement officials held accountable.

I think this is an especially important issue given what is happening
in the United States, where the administration is running roughshod
over civil liberties, purportedly in its pursuit of Islamic extremists.

Given the arrests of supposed Muslim terrorists in Ontario and the
desire to kowtow to Washington, I fear the law-and-order Conservative
government is ready to take a similar stand.

I expect Prime Minister Stephen Harper to thumb his nose at the bar
association and civil libertarians.

Let's face it, standing up for the civil rights of potential
terrorists or suspected goombahs is not a popular stance.

This committee's legislated three-year review of the February 2002
law, for instance, is already a year behind schedule and who's
complaining?

Yet, I believe these laws bring the administration of justice into
disrepute while corroding faith in our constitutional and democratic
values. The potential for misuse and abuse of power is too great.

Our legal system has developed a series of safeguards over centuries
as a result of balancing the interests of the state and individual
rights. We should dismantle that panoply only after careful analysis
and consideration of real evidence. Here, we have none.

These laws may make the insecure feel less threatened, but it is a
false sense of security.