Constitutional Casualties of September 11: Limiting the Legacy of the Anti-Terrorism Act
Bibliographic record
Abstract
R. (2d)(3) The investigative detention provisions, while not per se contravening selfincrimination protections, will be used unconstitutionally if employed in an effort to require persons to provide incriminatory information about themselves.Section 7 may be available in such cases to prevent the investigative detention from being undertaken.More importantly, the provisions are, in my opinion, unconstitutional per se because, through the co-option of judges in the process of investigation, fundamental principles of judicial impartiality and independence are hopelessly compromised.There will be tremendous incentive for courts to find ways to uphold these provisions, and they could well survive Charter challenge given the open-textured nature of constitutional adjudication.If this happens, the biggest threat to civil liberties emerging from the Anti-Terrorism Act may not be the operation of these sections; it could well be "creeping incrementalism."If these and other exceptional measures are woven into the fabric of Canadian criminal law, our tolerance for such practices can be expected to lead to similar initiatives being undertaken in other contexts.If impugned provisions in this legislation are indeed upheld, they must be upheld grudgingly, and because the context is exceptionalnot because they reflect acceptable law enforcement initiatives.If the impugned provisions of this legislation are upheld on any other basis, Canadian civil liberties and the Charter can be counted in the collateral damage from September 11.1 See the comments of Mosely in "Concluding Comments from
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".