Anti-terror law worries Native leaders

Page 2

Under pressure from within and outside her own caucus, Justice Minister Anne McLellan announced amendments to her proposed anti-terror bill (C-36) on Nov. 21.

But Native leaders, human rights advocates and civil liberty experts say the changes didn't go nearly far enough. AFN spokesman Jean Larose, speaking for National Chief Matthew Coon Come who was en route to Yellowknife, called the changes a disappointment.

"It doesn't go far enough for what we had asked for," he said. "We'd asked for a sunset clause after three years on all of the bill. She announced a sunset on only two elements and after five years."

When he appeared before the standing committee on Justice and Human Rights to give his input into C-36 on Nov. 1, Coon Come asked that First Nations people using protest as a form of political expression be expressly exempt in the bill so police could not use the sweeping new powers they will be given to combat terrorism against Native people. There was no such exemption in the changes announced by the Justice minister.

"It looks like the police can use it and abuse it at will against our citizens," Larose said.

The AFN communications director said he hoped there will be other amendments before the bill leaves the committee stage.

"It appears the minister has recognized opposition to the bill is wide-ranging. I can only hope this is a first step. Otherwise, it signals First Nations people could be in for a rough ride from this legislation," he said.

Two days before the minister announced the amendments, the national chief said he had a good exchange with the standing committee and he was hopeful his message would get through.

"We were concerned about the definition of the terrorist activities. We felt, because the only way we express our civil liberties was through demonstrations and protests, we were concerned about the characterization of First Nations. At Oka, when we demonstrated we were accused of insurgency. In Ipperwash we were accused of being terrorists. I've been accused of using guerrilla warfare when I use the judicial process and we've all heard stories in regards to the treatment of our people through the whole judicial system," he told Windspeaker. "So we asked on the terrorist activity that there would be an exemption for the First Nations. They asked me why. I said, 'Within your Constitution, you mention Aboriginal peoples. You don't mention the Italians, the Greeks, etc. So there's a special relationship between First Nations and Canada under your Constitution.' At the same time I said, 'If you're asking for justification for exempting, why do you have special legislation called the Indian Act for us? So there's already precedents that are there.' I was presenting arguments for an exemption so we would not in terms of our activities be accused of being terrorists. We supported Canada's effort to eradicate terrorism and we know that legislation is not geared to attack us specifically in our expression of defending our rights when we use forms of protest and demonstration.

"I supported the sunset clause because I was very concerned that when you increase the powers of the police officers and they can get a warrant for you just because someone accused you of being a terrorist, the next thing you know the police go to a judge and they put you away for 24 hours and you can't call a lawyer or anything like that and you're interrogated and God knows what could happen if you're put in that position."