The Toronto Star 02/08/2016 - The climate of fear in which Bill C-51 was passed still prevails today. With terror in the news almost daily, the political temptation to leave these policies in place is undeniably great and will very likely remain so for the foreseeable future. Fear of the potential fallout in case of a tragedy can be politically paralyzing. But the Liberals must now find the courage they lacked when they supported the bill even as they were aware of its fatal flaws. Public consultations may well prove an important part of designing a policy that addresses our complex security challenges while respecting Canadians' civil liberties. They should not, however, be used as a delay tactic. There's nothing Canadians can say to justify Bill C-51's violations of our civil rights. The government should do the brave and righteous thing: scrap the worst aspects of the law at the first opportunity.

rabble.ca 29/07/2016 - Another recent state security case that received little attention allows the RCMP and CSIS to carry on their usual abuse of human rights in vulnerable communities. Again, the Trudeau government chose to fight this on the wrong side. In this instance, seven months after the Parliament Hill shooting, a person in Ottawa had their home invaded and materials seized by the RCMP, which carried with it a warrant allowing it to seize "any document, data and/or Internet search history related to Islam." Other search terms looked for included the Government of Canada, "combat politics," and the Canadian Armed Forces. All legal searches, for those wondering... The individual whose house was raided was not charged, nor informed of why possession of any document related to Islam could be connected to a crime. Among the items seized by the RCMP were recordings of recitations of the Holy Quran. Seeking answers, the person sought a copy of the Information to Obtain (ITO) in support of the warrant, which had been sealed by the Ontario court. This was denied because the court maintained the individual failed to demonstrate that the order was unlawful. In a December 2015 court hearing, a judge found that the rights of a non-accused person to know why their home was subject to a raid and seizure of materials was not the same as those of an accused person. The judge also found that the burden of proof that the search warrant was obtained unlawfully is on the individual who was subject to the raid. But how can that be proven when the information needed to prove that is sealed and beyond reach? In addition, what inflammatory allegations are in that sealed packet of information to obtain a search warrant that could be harmful to the individual? After all, it appears to have been connected -- without any explanation -- in some way to the Parliament Hill shootings, and under C-51, a whole range of government agencies can be sharing this information freely not only amongst themselves but with foreign agencies as well. This does not bode well for the individual in question, especially when it comes to overseas travel and the potential for detention and interrogation. In other words, the very issues still being raised by Almalki, El Maati and Nureddin, and still being resisted by the Trudeau government.