September 11: Consequences for Canada

Jason Gregory Zorbas is a sessional lecturer in the Department of
History at the University of Saskatchewan.

In September 11, Kent Roach, author and professor of law at the
University of Toronto, examines the Canadian government’s response to
the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the subsequent war
on terror. He argues against overreaction in Canada’s legislative
response and for a moderate policy in its relationship with the United
States that is not blindly based on either anti- or pro-Americanism.

Terrorism has affected Canada in the past. Just over 30 years ago, the
FLQ kidnapped two men and murdered one. The existing legal framework
proved capable of handling this threat and is sufficient to deal with
terrorists in the post–September 11 era. However, the government
responded to the new threat with the passage of the Anti-Terrorism Act,
an act that is unnecessary and passed in the mistaken belief that
Canadian security forces need broader powers to fight terrorism.

The danger is that the new powers will jeopardize existing civil
liberties because they will inevitably be used for situations other than
terrorist activity. For example, an airline database used to track
terrorists can also be used to track welfare recipients who take a
vacation. A broad definition of terrorism will allow police to classify
members of organized crime as terrorists. The dangers are very real.

Roach praises the response of the Canadian public to the government’s
anti-terrorist legislation. The debate that occurred was a demonstration
of a healthy democracy and contrasted starkly with the rubber-stamping
that occurred in the United States regarding the passage of the American
anti-terrorist legislation, the Patriot Act. The author calls for Canada
to respond to the war on terror carefully, realistically, and in a
manner reflective of Canadian values, rather than simply following the
United States.

Roach has written an interesting and thought-provoking book; though at
times it dwells too much on the mechanics of the law, it is still
accessible to the general reader.