statism watch

Stuart Trew, Council of Canadians
June 2, 2008

According to the Montreal Gazette today, “While Quebec’s privacy commission is being kept in the dark on a proposed enhanced driver’s licence (EDL), or Permis de conduire plus, Ontario’s Information and Privacy commissioner, who has been part of the EDL process in that province since 2006, is calling a public forum on the issue for July 16.”

The article reports that “The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is the driving force behind the proposed EDL, setting the criteria Canadian provinces must meet to allay U.S. security concerns,” and that after January 1, 2009, all Canadians will need an EDL or valid passport to enter the United States. So far, B.C., Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec are the only provinces developing the new cards, but the federal government wants to see the program go nationwide.

Rather than debate the usefulness of EDLs, and the potential dangers they pose to our privacy rights, the federal and provincial governments have been quietly sorting out the logistics and compatibility issues with adjacent U.S. states.

Canada’s privacy commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, has warned that EDLs will establish a de facto national ID card in Canada without having debated whether we really want or need one. Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner’s office will be taking those concerns to the public and inviting comment from human rights and privacy groups in Canada.

Michelle Chibba, policy director of the Ontario commission, told the Gazette that the B.C. pilot project is “very invasive” in terms of the questions it is asking applicants.

“I have seen the B.C. questionnaire and it asks: ‘Where were your mother and father born?’ ‘Were you ever pardoned?’ ‘Did you come in during the American war?’ … There are some questions that a ministry issuing driver’s licences really shouldn’t be in the business of asking.”

The fact that the cards are being issued to meet U.S. security demands is no reason to implement them, says University of Toronto professor Andrew Clement in the Gazette article. He says the Canadian government should just make it easier for Canadians to get passports.

“If you have a determined foe, the ID operation isn’t going to present much of an obstacle,” he told the Gazette. “But it has all kinds of other uses, social control, population control.”

Full Story | See Also: Ontario Privacy Czar Worried about High-Tech Licences | North American ID card in the works through SPP | Electronic Passports Raise Privacy Issues | Heibert says U.S. giving Canada time to implement enhanced driver’s licence

Hello PrisonPlanet readers. For more detail on the Toronto 18 saga, jump here for the most recent media impression on this story (Feb 2010), as well as a detailed ‘Flashback’ chronology. Drop by our chat room and forum as well to leave your thoughts, and enjoy your stay.

Isabel Teotonio, Toronto Star
Jun 02, 2008 04:30 AM

It’s been two years since members of the “Toronto 18″ were arrested in a dramatic sweep of homes across the GTA, but today prosecutors and lawyers are still arguing whether they’re dealing with a band of committed terrorists or a “hapless F-Troop.”

When police descended on quiet residential streets on this day in 2006, news rippled around the world that an Al Qaeda-inspired terror cell had been busted.

But as the case is plucked apart strand by strand in a Brampton courthouse, some say a less menacing picture is emerging of the 14 adults and four youths who were arrested.

Just last week court heard again that some of the accused were, essentially, a bunch of incompetent guys who were primarily misled by a delusional megalomaniac.

Still, members of the Toronto 18 stand accused of attending a jihadist training camp in December 2005, ordering fertilizer to build truck bombs, constructing a remote-control detonator and scouting a safe house to practise military drills and store weapons.

At the camp, participants are alleged to have dressed in camouflage gear, played war games with paintball guns and fired a 9-mm handgun at a can of Pringles potato chips tied to a tree.

…

Many also question the role of the paid informants, possibly foreshadowing the use of entrapment as a future defence.

Shaikh was a training camp instructor and the other informant, whose identity is protected, facilitated the purchase of three tonnes of ammonium nitrate.

In the end, the fertilizer was replaced with an inert substance during a sting operation.

The training camp and the bomb plot are central to the Crown’s case.

Full Story | See Also: Crown presents evidence in Toronto terror suspect trial | Terror case begins to emit ripe aroma | Tanks, Face-Scanning Cameras Part of ‘Discreet’ 2010 Games Security | Anti-terror cops probed Ottawa punk band for Cartoon, Political Speech | Rumsfeld to Pentagon Media Analysts: America Needs another Attack | Canada’s anti-terror law unconstitutional, defence says | Toronto’s Terrorism Case: For the Families, Fear and Bewilderment | Terror trial proceedings troubling | Alleged Toronto terror plot included two police agents | Canadian ‘Terror Plot’ Begins To Unravel | Police arrest terrorist suspects in Toronto

BBC News
Monday, 2 June 2008

Prime Minister Gordon Brown is urging his backbenchers to support plans to allow the police to detain terror suspects for 42 days without charge.

Writing in the Times, he said the extension from 28 days was the “right way to protect national security”.

But he faces opposition from about 50 of his own MPs, in addition to Lib Dems and Conservatives, amid fears that a change would infringe civil liberties.

Justice Secretary Jack Straw has said ministers are winning over rebel MPs.

MPs will be voting on the proposals – part of the Counter-Terrorism Bill – next week.

…
But Mr Brown is making it clear he will not back down.

He wrote in the Times that the plans equated to “safeguarding the British people by a careful and proportionate strengthening of powers in response to the radically new terrorist threats we now face“.

“I will stick to the principles I have set out and do the right thing,” he said.

He listed safeguards that would be made to maximise protection against “arbitrary treatment”.

These included that detention beyond 28 days would be allowed only in specific circumstances. The home secretary, director of public prosecutions, the police and Parliament must sanction it.

Full Story | See Also: Britain is slithering down the road towards a police state