By Stephen Bindman, Southam Newspapers

OTTAWA-The Liberal government has dropped a contentious plan to allow the electronic monitoring of people who pose a serious danger - even if they had never been convicted or charged with a crime.
The Commons justice committee voted Tuesday to remove the provision from a package of Criminal Code amendments introduced last year by Justice Minister Allan Rock to deal with so-called high risk offenders.
The reforms were hailed by police and victims groups, but condemned by civil libertarians and defence lawyers.
Rock now agrees that the electronic bracelet technology is not yet "sufficiently advanced" to be useful against high risk offenders.
"I've concluded the committee is right that we should yank the reference to electronic monitoring and perhaps consider it at some other time," he said in a telephone interview."I don't think deleting this materially weakens the bill or diminishes its importance. But I think some of the points that were made against the bill were telling".
Under the "judicial restraint" plan, provincial attorneys-general will be able to apply to a judge when there is reasonable grounds to fear an individual will commit a serious personal injury crime. The suspect need not have any prior convictions or be facing outstanding charges and no specific victim need be identified.
The judge would then have the power to impose "general conditions" on the person for up to a year, such as to "keep the peace, and be of good behaviour", or stay away from playgrounds or other areas where children congregate.
A breach of any of these conditions imposed by the judge could be punishable by up to a year in jail.
But the committee voted to delete a provision that would have required the judge in each case to consider the possibility of electronic monitoring in the six provinces that now have such programs.
"We're not prohibiting it, but what we've done is we've reduced the prominence of the prospect considerably by not requiring a judge to consider it in such a case," Rock said.

COMMENTARY

Mr Bindman, the author of the article told an outright lie in the first paragraph of the story. I don't know if it's because he's a party hack, or if the Southam Chain justs wants to put a good spin on a bad story. I'm starting to think that the Southam chain is less interested in objective journalism, and is just acting as a mouthpiece for the Liberal party. The author says the government has dropped a plan to allow monitoring. To me, that says monitoring will not be allowed. Later in the article, Mr Bindman says the committee deleted a provision that would have REQUIRED a judge to consider electronic monitoring. The judge will still be allowed to order it done. Why is Mr Bindman attempting to deceive the public? Why is the headline designed to deceive the reader? If the bill passes, electronic monitoring WILL be allowed of innocent people, despite what the misleading headline says.

Allan Rock did not drop electronic monitoring!
It will still be allowed!

All Rock has said is that the judge in such a case CAN order electronic monitoring if he wishes, he will not have to automatically consider it. Herr Rock did NOT prohibit it. In the final paragraph, the article quotes Rock as saying

"We're not prohibiting it, what we've done is we've reduced the prominence of the prospect considerably by not requiring a judge to consider it in such cases".

Electronic monitoring is already allowed as a bail condition in certain provinces. This bill will allow monitoring of people even when no charges have been laid! Rock's announcement did not change that possibility.

We also have a new definition of suspect in this country: NO prior convictions, NO pending charges, and NO specific victim. Not only has no crime occured, we don't even know who it didn't happen to!

I also like the example of general conditions a judge can impose: "keep the peace and be of good behaviour", What does it mean? Whatever they want it to mean! Didn't I say the same thing in the last news article? If you're starting to notice a trend, you're becoming aware of the new, improved Canada.

What we will have is innocent citizens being electronically monitored by the state! Actually this aspect of the package is just the icing on the cake. This bill WILL be used to eliminate political opposition in this country. When I talk about "political opposition", I'm not talking about main stream politics. What I'm refering to is people and organizations that are not "politically correct"

The article makes reference to staying away from playgrounds, so obviously they're trying to make people thing this bill is aimed at child molestors. By mentioning pedophiles you make it seem as if any one who opposes the bill wants to let child molestors walk free. The real threat of the bill is much more sinister. Sure, you can use it against them, but what concerns me more is the "other" people this bill can be used against.

Let's take a different hypothetical situation (No, I'm not going to use the Heritage Front, although I'm sure a certain person in the region can't wait for the bill to be passed).
Lets take the example of a church group. These Christians are sickened by abortions that are being performed in their community. They want to do something, voice their opposition. They go to the local clinic to protest. Emotions are high, the protestors get vocal. They call the doctors and patients murders, and that they will pay for what they've done. A patient feels threatens, She goes to a judge and says these protestors make her fear for her safety. The judge agrees and orders all the people who were there, not to approach an abortion clinic or associate with like minded people. Right there, the judge has disbanded a church. None of the members have ever been charged or convicted of any crime, But if they go back to the church, they will go to jail for up to a year! This could happen with this bill.

This is the potential abuse that this package allows. In short order political dissent can be stifled. We already have conditions for bail where (for instance) your freedon of association can be limited. But this is AFTER you've been charged with a crime. This new law will allow conditions to be imposed even if you've done nothing. If you go to a political meeting, and get into a heated arguement with an opponent, the opponent could go to a judge, convince him that she felt threatend, and then sanctions could be put on your freedom, ie don't attend any meetings where your opponent is speaking. If you are a member of a group, you could be banned from association with that group. If other members of the group were present, even if they weren't involved in the discussion, the complaintant could say the group made her feel threatened, and the group could be disbanded. This is all posible within the scope of this new package.

If this package passes we've seen the end of political freedom in this country. We will be a police state.

Herr Rock says he'll reconsider the use of electronic monitors when they get better. Maybe he's thinking of something like the ones on Star Trek, where Kirk and the boys are on this planet ruled by women. Maybe he wants those waist band controllers, the ones that give pleasure and pain. Someone gets out of line, give em a shot of pain.

This package if it passes will truly mark the end of personal freedom in this country. If you are at all concerned about your individual rights, I urge you to notify your MP, and also the PRIME MINISTER and tell them you won't sit by and watch Canada be destroyed. The Nazi's would have loved the laws our Liberal government is passing. I wonder how all our World War Two veterans feel having given so much to fight oppression, only to see it take root here in our own country.

ACC NIAGARA/freedom@niagara.com/March 8 1997/Revised September 4 2006