TOUGH-ON-CRIME LEGISLATION TAKES AIM AT CIVIL LIBERTIES

Some Proposals Hinder Privacy Rights

The Conservative government's omnibus "tough-on-crime" legislation
should be redubbed "tough-on-civil-liberties" if it embraces all the
last Parliament's law-and-order leftovers.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper vowed during the recent election
campaign to push through a sweeping all inclusive package of the bills
within 100 sitting days and that commitment was reinforced in the June
3 throne speech.

But there are serious flaws in this hodgepodge of wouldbe laws that
stiffen sentences for child predators, end house arrest for the
violent, recast the young offender legislation and supposedly improve
the antiterrorism panoply.

Aside from concerns over the radical change to the country's approach
to crimeand-punishment, some of the proposals run roughshod over
privacy rights and individual liberties.

For instance, the "lawful access" bill has measures -such as the
authorization for warrantless searches by police of Internet use -that
trample on constitutional protections and go too far.

Under the rubric "Investigative Powers of the 21st Century," the
proposal would require service providers to disclose customer
information without prior judicial approval and provide
law-enforcement access for "real-time surveillance."

There is no question these investigative tools make it easier for
police to track child pornographers, but do we really want to
surrender our privacy to this extent?

Neither the government, RCMP nor the national security agencies has
provided evidence we need to allow this incredible intrusion.

Similarly, the criminalization of hyperlinks to "hate" sites and using
a pen name on the Internet also raise concerns.

The country's privacy commissioners and ombudspersons were so taken
aback when these provisions were unveiled they joined forces to oppose
them.

"We believe that there is insufficient justification for the new
powers, that other, less intrusive alternatives can be explored and
that a focused, tailored approach is vital," they said in a letter to
the hard-nosed Tories. "In our view, this balance has not been achieved."

They called for consultation and study. That remains a good
idea.

"The feds are really trying to sneak this one past us, because they
really don't want to have the debate," said Vincent Gogolek, executive
director of the non-profit B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy
Association.

"Of course, one of the reasons for dumping this legislation into an
omnibus bill is that anyone voting against it would be accused of
voting against 'Sebastien's Law' and siding with criminals against
righteous, law-abiding Canadians."

Named after Sebastien Lacasse, who was slain in 2004, that bill
creates harsher juvenile laws so it's easier to sentence violent kids
as adults, publicly identify them and turn irresponsible behaviour
into a crime.

These are changes many people support, but do we want to see such
amendments rushed into law without proper scrutiny?

Why, for instance, do we want to make it tougher for Canadians
imprisoned abroad -such as jailed mail-order-cannabisseed-selling-czar
Marc Emery -to gain transfer home to serve their sentences?

The Conservatives maintain that the opposition needlessly prevented
passage of these bills when they had a minority but the truth is much
of the legislation simply demands close examination.

In the past such controversial legislation has not made it beyond
second reading, but the Conservatives now have a majority and can
ensure passage of the patchwork compilation.

No matter how many of the Tory changes are truly worthy of
consideration, it seems to me it's asking for trouble to so cavalierly
rewrite the criminal law.