IT shouldn't come as a surprise that in the wake of the Boston bombings and an apparently foiled plot to derail a train in Canada, the government has fast-tracked a new anti-terrorism bill.
There's nothing as stark as bombings of innocents to shut up the 'sociologists' and no time like when people are scared to convince them we need to get tough.
But that doesn't make the new measures right. Nor do they necessarily make us any safer.
There's nothing in the anti-terrorism bill that would have prevented an attack like the one in Boston. In the case of Canada, the RCMP obviously managed to derail the alleged terrorism plot without these additional powers.
Stephen Harper has said terrorism attacks are threats to "all the values that our society stands for." But that could just as easily be said about the powers of the state under the new laws.
Among the most concerning of the measures are those that can force anyone to appear at a secret hearing and answer questions without any charges being laid. Under the ominously named 'preventative detention' measures, anyone can also be held for three days by authorities on the basis of vague suspicions.
All of that sounds great, unless it's you who fits a certain 'profile' and becomes subject to that treatment.
Those are serious infringements on civil liberties that give the state sweeping powers. They are powers that have been wielded improperly in the past, as the Maher Arar case so amply demonstrated.
We should be cautious before trampling headlong over fundamental rights into this brave new world.
