ISIS Case Study

The main question that is asked is how can Canada deal with ISIS? Should the country take an approach such as the previously Conservative government did, enacting Bill C-51? Or should they attempt other courses of action, something that may be more long term? How could they approach this threat of national security while also maintaining civil liberties and privacy rights at the same time? It’s certainly not an easy question to answer, but it’s become certain that Canada needs to, at the very least, take a direction that in the opposite of Bill C-51. Bill C-51 is a response to the panic and paranoia over preventing another 9/11 attack. Bill C-36, the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) also falls under this category, which came into effect at the end of 2001. Both of these pieces of legislature were created to tackle the issue of terrorism because the government felt that the current and average criminal justice system were not able to tackle the issue of terrorism . These acts are able to define and classify what would be deemed as terrorism before the act even occurred and much controversies arose due to the ability how broad this definition could become and the amount of power this would give CSIS and the government. Civil rights were being offended in this mad rush to stop any potential threats of terrorism and this led to cases such as Maher Arar. Arar, a
This was the case with KAIROS, which was a Christian organization that received funding for 35 years until it was suddenly cut in 2009 because of what they said about Israel, being deemed a “primary supporter of the anti-Israel divestment movement” . NGO Monitor and Canada have placed a strict restriction on what can and cannot be said, and listens in to everything. They monitor what is said both out loud and online, and are able to encroach on privacy on the basis of