Pros And Cons Of Bill C-51

At what cost are citizens willing to go in exchange for protection? With the increasing amount of terrorist attacks such as the Orlando Shootings, the Paris Attacks, the Brussels Bombings, etc. occurring around the world with no end in sight, it is not a coincidence that paranoia and fear has risen as well. With more fear in the population, more political pressure is placed on the shoulders of the government, which Canada is no exception to. Due to this, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservatives has decided to enact Bill C-51, the anti-terror legislation, which essentially allows police, federal institutions and CSIS further powers to gather info and detain “potential terrorists”. This may sound reasonable on the outside, but the
bill fails to explain specifically what it covers in detail, and is an invasion of privacy and various freedoms. Essentially, it is protection, at the cost of freedom. While the enactment of Bill C-51 is important to protect Canada’s citizens from terrorism, the vague and ineffective wording of the bill allows for the dismissal of fundamental liberties important to Canadians, ironically putting them in further danger.
Not only can this lead to the blatant abuse of the Bill, but it can also lead to mistrust of the government, can cause instability, or even a divide, of the Conservative Party as even many Conservatives argue the validity of Bill C-51. Primarily, it can lead to the abuse of power from the Government or the involved parties due to the obscure wording of this bill. John Locke claimed that Liberals believed that while Governments can protect individuals, they can pose a threat to liberty, and is at best a “necessary evil”. But in terms of enacting Bill C-51, is it really necessary? While critics may use Hobbes’ claim that superior use of power through the government is crucial and argue that protection is more important since one cannot be free if they are not protected from others, Friedman’s view on governments counters this claim. When the power of the government is increased, the “Leviathan” starts to show. The Leviathan in short sets forth these principles of authority, sovereignty and how they are absolutely crucial for preserving peace. But
with more power, it greatly becomes out of control and destroys individualistic freedoms and creativities. Disastrous consequences such as conformity and a hive like mindset could result. If this were to occur, we would be no different from oppressed countries such as Syria, where citizens are under constant surveillance and oppression. A country where freedoms are infringed for protection is no free country at all. The government cannot tell everyone to wear the same shirt, as one size does not fit all, meaning the policy is better for those in power, but not for the actual members of our society. And while the current Canadian government may not be considered corrupt, the same government may not always remain. In many years, there may be a different party in power, with different values and ambitions, who may use C-51 to its advantage and dismantle our very freedoms. They can utilize the bill to practically have surveillance on anyone, under the claim that they are doing it to prevent terrorism. However, what qualifies as suspicious acts or plans of terrorism according to the Bill? The citizens would not even know when they are being tracked. This shows obvious signs of interference with negative liberty, which is the absence of barriers, constraints or obstacles. One should have the freedom in their private and public life without worry of coercion from the government due to “suspicion”. You cannot achieve your goal of privacy and freedom if the government is monitoring your activities. Therefore, C-51 can lead to the serious misuse of power within the government, endangering citizens. Secondly, with the misuse of power and violation of liberties, it can lead to mistrust of the government, resulting in dissidence and protest. If the government were to constantly use the bill to have surveillance on citizens for unjustified reasons, it could create further tensions between society and government. As we know from Berlin’s two concepts of liberty, the existence of natural rights is a necessity for humans. Humans are raised in a specific way, and trying to limit or influence them from reaching their goals, desires, dreams and opportunities is a form of coercion, stripping them of individuality. With the bill in place, it may be possible for the government to limit citizens simply if they appear suspicious. Citizens would obviously be upset, and would protest the government, demanding for the removal of the bill. This can cause instability and uncertainty to the government, and with power at stake, it may cause them to respond by punishing those who oppose the bill, as many examples of history show. There is the cover up of China’s Tiananmen Square Massacre, with the famous photo of the man standing in front of the tank. As this example shows, people will do anything to get their freedom and rights back. Although revolt or civil war is unlikely from this bill, it could still result in a lot of issues with the government when attempting to add new legislations and when seeking the trust of citizens in elections. In fact, crime may actually increase from the government trying to prevent terrorism if it infringes people’s freedoms. It appears that the government may be trying to enforce positive liberty, thinking that they are more rational than others, therefore believing they know what is best for society and the other rational people. According to positive liberty, one should remove themselves of their desires for the benefit of their entire society. However, one should not remove freedom, as this places citizens in danger of tyranny, as we all know can result from positive liberty. Human beings do not like being told what to believe in and what is considered rational. Security in exchange of freedom is not “rational” at all, especially with such controversy towards the bill. Altogether, the enactment of Bill C-51 results in mistrust of the government which may place citizens in danger. Finally, with the conflicting opinions within the conservatives, the conservative party may grow increasingly unstable and even divide, which could lead to a government that has no credibility with citizens.
If even conservatives within the party do not agree to the bill, then the government should not expect the citizens to support the bill either. This brings us to Oakeshott’s conservative disposition, and what a government should do and refrain from doing. The conservative disposition is the determination to use the available resources at hand, rather than looking for alternative options. Canada already has strong anti-terrorism laws in effect before Bill C-51, so why was it necessary to enact this bill? Just because a few tragic events such as the Ottawa shooting may have occurred, it is the government’s responsibility to punish those who caused it, not to punish the rest of society by enforcing unjustified legislations. Although it is understandable that the government needs to maintain peace within the system, they must do so without oppression and infringing one’s liberties. While attempting to create peace, it may actually create conflict with citizens if they are not content in the way the bill is being used. According to the conservative disposition, the government is responsible for reducing frustrations among people, not causing it. They need to maintain social order and peace through rules which do not require to be adjusted. However, the bill clearly adjusted
many of our Canadian laws, giving more power to the police, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the federal institutions. With this in mind, many conservatives may decide to split, causing the government to lose credibility. If the government loses credibility, the citizens will have no one to trust, and no one to believe who is effective in enforcing these rules. This could lead to chaos and panic within a society, further endangering citizens. As previously stated, the government may be doing more harm than good than they realize with the enactment of this bill. Furthermore, the instability within the conservative party may result in their loss of credibility, further endangering citizens. Bill C-51 may appear like a reasonable legislation at first glance, however as proven above, can be quite harmful to citizens. It is not a surprise that Stephen Harper uses the fear of terrorism in enacting Bill C-51 with today’s ever growing list of attacks. However, in doing so, it may result in many of the opposite reactions anticipated by the conservative government. Not only can it lead to serious misuse of political power, it can also result in mistrust in the government and the loss of their credibility if even their own party questions the own bill it enacted. The answer therefore may lie in the trust of its own citizens and the better enforcement of current laws, not the modification or implementation of new ones, such as Bill C-51.