Bad, bad bor­der law

The Globe and Mail (Prairie Edition) - - OPINION -

Re A Fair Trade For A Slim­mer Bor­der (edi­to­rial, Aug. 11): You could not be more wrong about grant­ing ad­di­tional pow­ers to U.S. Cus­toms and Bor­der se­cu­rity. The sooner this bill is with­drawn, or dies on the or­der pa­per, the bet­ter for all Cana­di­ans.

If you pro­duced a ranked list of the ac­count­abil­ity, trust­wor­thi­ness and trans­parency of po­lice and quasi-po­lice agen­cies from mall cops to in­ter­na­tional spies, at the bottom of the list would be U.S. Bor­der Ser­vices. To sug­gest that these new pow­ers would not be used with­out racial pro­fil­ing is naive in the ex­treme.

With no def­i­ni­tion of “tem­po­rary” de­tain­ment, no right of ap­peal or re­view process, with­out be­ing sub­ject to Cana­dian laws, with no ac­cess to in­for­ma­tion on the ac­tiv­ity of the U.S. Bor­der Ser­vices, these are the last peo­ple who should be granted any, let alone added, pow­ers in Canada.

I agree with the Rolling Stones ref­er­ence: What I want is fair and equal treat­ment for ev­ery­one who is sub­ject to pub­lic over­sight, what you can’t have is a fast lane for white folks, while oth­ers, par­tic­u­larly some­one with a Mus­lim name, is strip searched.

If the gov­ern­ment goes ahead with this flawed leg­is­la­tion, I rec­om­mend we start set­ting aside funds for the mil­lions of dol­lars in law­suits re­sult­ing from U.S. ac­tions with Canada’s ac­tive par­tic­i­pa­tion, or have we for­got­ten Guan­tanamo al­ready?

If the U.S. agents work­ing in Canada don’t feel safe with­out their guns, tell them to stay home, where I am sure they’ll feel much safer – given the gun death rate in the United States? – Cathy McRae, Thun­der Bay, Ont.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.