澳洲代写：反恐怖主义法律的辩论
政府(理查森，2007)没有就即将出台的反恐新立法征求或简要介绍美国各地与刑法、隐私和公民自由相关的主要独立组织的意见。然而，公元前的公民自由协会(Civil Liberties Association)曾提到，没有人能从有争议的立法中获益。由于10月份发生在魁北克和渥太华的恐怖袭击是由单独的极端分子所为，新的法律已经承诺给予警察更多的权力来逮捕、拘留和监视恐怖主义嫌疑人，一些公民自由的拥护者和法律专家对此表示担忧(Bignami, 2007)。除其他事项外，待通过的立法反映了警察对妨碍他们挫败恐怖主义行为能力的现行法律要求的关切。
人们期望，该法案将会有所软化，并将取消对非常情况的保障措施，但在罕见的情况下，政策权力将被用来逮捕、拘留和限制人民，而不需要对实际罪行进行调查或指控。加拿大律师协会表示，这一变化将被证明是一个巨大的错误，因为将会有一个交付过度反应的攻击发生在10月(布什，2009年)。正如加拿大律师协会主席Eric Gottardi所提到的，“我不知道为了应对这些特殊事件，我们需要……彻底修改一些公认的普通法标准。”
政府在起草法案时寻求的不仅仅是审查，这是很少见的。然而，保守派过去曾就重要的立法倡议和政策举行高级别的简报会，其中不乏某些倡导者和其他一些团体(Richardson, 2007)。在此之前，已经进行了若干次协商，以比较现任政府的情况。该法案将通过减少获得法院命令的和平债券所需的法律先决条件，简化警方破坏恐怖主义嫌疑阴谋的过程(理查森，2007)。这些类型的命令最终可能会限制针对国家安全目标的行动、联系、生活安排和其他自由，以期阻止可疑的暴力行动或袭击。
自过去5年以来，恐怖主义袭击的强度和数量显著增加，使每个国家都陷入了一场艰难而黑暗的斗争，与寻求袭击的不仅是人们的生活，还有他们的生活方式(Martin, 2015)。加拿大和其他一些民主国家所面临的关键挑战是，在不放弃已被确定为民主和自由社会标志的基本人权原则的情况下，如何有效地应对恐怖主义和恐怖主义的威胁(Bignami, 2007)。在人权和国家安全之间取得正确的平衡是一项至关重要的考虑，这不仅关系到反恐战略的成功，而且关系到维护与多元文化国家有关的民主和宽容的思想。然而，在目前的气氛中存在着一种令人不安的趋势，它破坏了在分析人权与反恐立法的兼容性方面所作的重大努力。
关于反恐怖主义法律的辩论往往被归为现实主义者的论点，他们认识到需要制定严厉的反恐怖主义新立法，并没有认识到与恐怖主义威胁有关的严重性。一些分类被认为是无效的和不准确的。有证据表明，恐怖主义严重侵犯了人类的基本权利(布什，2009)。恐怖主义威胁有其专利合法性。政府有义务和权利采取行动保护公民。一些国家的政府一直保持一致，认识到有必要在反恐法和人权之间取得平衡，民主国家的反恐政策必须体现保护公民的民主价值观(Bignami, 2007)。
澳洲代写：反恐怖主义法律的辩论
The leading independent organizations related to criminal law, across the United States of America, privacy and civil liberty have not been consulted or briefed on the looming new legislation of anti-terrorism by the government (Richardson, 2007). However, it has been mentioned by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association that no one gains the benefit to have controversial legislation sprung on them. As a result of the attacks taking place in Quebec and Ottawa in October by lone extremists, new laws have been promised to give more power to the police for arresting, detention and surveillance of suspected terrorists, with certain advocates of civil liberty and legal experts showing concern (Bignami, 2007). Apart from other thing, the pending legislation gives response to be concerns of police regarding current lawful requirement impeding their ability for thwarting the acts of terrorism.
There is an expectation that the bill will be softened and safeguards will be removed for the extraordinary, but in case of rare utilization, powers of policy for arresting, detaining and restraining people without the commission or charge of the actual crime. It has been stated by the Bar Association of Canada that this change will turn out to be a huge mistake, as there will be a delivery of over-reaction to the attacks taken place in October (Bush, 2009). As mentioned by the chairman of Canadian Bar Association, Eric Gottardi, “I don’t know that in response to these particular incidents that we need to … overhaul some pretty well accepted common law standards.”
It has been rarely seen that government seeks beyond the scrutiny over a drafted bill. However, high level briefings have been held by the conservative in the past on significant legislative initiatives and policy with certain advocacies and a number of other groups (Richardson, 2007). Previously, there had been a number of consultations in comparison with what it is in the current government. The bill will simplify the process for the police for disrupting suspected plots of terrorism by the reduction of required legal pre-requisites for obtaining peace bonds ordered by the court (Richardson, 2007). These types of orders can end up limiting the movements, associations, living arrangements and other liberties over the targets of national security with the hope to derail a suspected violent action or attack.
Since the last 5 years, the intensity and number of terrorist attacks have increased significantly, locking every nation in a difficult and dark struggle with the one seeking the attack not only on the lives of people but the ways in which they live their life (Martin, 2015). The crucial challenge being faced by Canada, and a number of other democratic nations, is how effective responses must be given to the threat of terrorists and terrorism without the fundamental principles of human rights being abandoned that has been identified as hallmark of democratic and free societies (Bignami, 2007). There is a crucial consideration involved to strike the right balance between human rights and national security for both, the success of strategies for counter- terrorism and for maintaining the democratic and tolerant ideas related to multi- cultural nation. However, in the present climate there lies a disturbing trend for undermining major efforts in the analysis of compatibility of human rights for legislation of counter- terrorism.
Debates regarding the laws of counter terrorism are often categorized as arguments of realists, appreciating the requirement for tough new legislation of counter terrorism, and facing failure in the recognition of gravity related to the threat of terrorism. Some of the categorizations have been identified as both, unproductive and inaccurate. There is self- evidence of the fact that terrorism involves grossly violating the fundamental rights of human (Bush, 2009). There lies a patent legitimation for the threat of terrorism. The government has a duty and right for taking action in the protection of citizens. A number of governments have been maintaining consistency in recognizing the need for balancing laws of counter- terrorism with the rights of human, and the counter- terrorism policies of democratic nations must be embodying the values of democracy for the protection of citizens (Bignami, 2007).
