May 1, 2010
This is NOT a new paper; it was penned in 2003 and uploaded recently (to the best I can tell). However I was pleased with the analysis (besides not questioning 9/11 itself) and the emphasis for maintaing civil liberties through the courts in the least. 2003 was a much harder year to be “against the grain” than 2010 as it was only a year or so after the 9/11 attacks. I doubt the author of the paper would is pleased at the current state of affairs.
by Trevor Farrow source: Social Science Research
After September lIth. governments around the world have taken swift action to address what is now perceived as a world-wide threat of terrorism. The measures adopted are powerful and far-reaching. They also have the very real potential seriously to restrict civil rights and freedoms: the very rights and freedoms in the name of which the new anti-terrorism initiatives have been taken. While Courts have the power to ensure that these initiatives do not improperly infringe on individual rights and liberties. in recent judicial pronouncements. it appears that several high courts – specifically including the Supreme Court of Canada – are suggesting more, not less, judicial deference to government initiatives taken at this troubled time.
To download the paper, click here.