Ten years ago
I remember September 11, 2001 being at the opening day of the fall session of the court that morning. As I walked out, an ashen-faced judge said to me, "The U.S. is under attack."
Like most others I sat and viewed the unfolding. We had known for some time that this type of event was probable and possibly inevitable but the audacity and the sheer magnitude of the destruction were more than most of us could have imagined.
My thoughts have not changed much over time, including those expressed three years ago. The sentiment, however, should be more clearly extended to the government of my own country.
Prime Minister Harper, now that he finally has a majority, seeks to bring back those two anti-terrorism clauses that were brought in in 2001 but discontinued in 2007:
The first allowed police to arrest suspects without a warrant and detain them for three days without charges if police believed a terrorist act might have been committed.
The other allowed a judge to compel a witness to testify in secret about past associations or perhaps pending acts under penalty of going to jail if the witness didn't comply.
Although police and prosecutors had used neither in the five years prior to their expiration, our safety appears not to have suffered.
The Prime Minister responded to a CBC interviewer,
"We think those measures are necessary. We think they've been useful . . ."
Jack, you left us at the wrong time.
Recent Reading History
- Solar - Ian McEwen
- New York - The Novel: Edward Rutherfurd
- The God Delusion - Dawkins