MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2508126605

Bill C-51: A Threat to the Rule of Law?

2016· article· en· W2508126605 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ryan Patrick Alford

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternational Covenant on Civil and Political RightsLawPolitical scienceHuman rightsFundamental rightsInternational human rights lawPreambleBill of rightsDerogationRight to propertyConstitutionCharterReservation of rightsPoliticsEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article demonstrates that the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2015 (formerly Bill C-51, “the Act”) is unconstitutional, in violation of Canada’s international obligations, and incompatible with the minimum norms of the rule of law. The amendments to the CSIS Act allow the Canadian Securities Intelligence Service to apply for warrants authorizing the violation of non-derogable rights, including the right not to be subjected to indefinite arbitrary detention.The Act grants the government emergency detention powers that are considerably broader than those it possesses pursuant to the Emergencies Act (or that it possessed under the War Measures Act). The United Nations Human Rights Committee (the “UNHRC”) has already opined on the tension between the Act and Canada’s obligations under the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (the “ICCPR”) which establishes that certain rights are nonderogable even during public emergencies. The Act does not recognize this category of peremptory norms, and would allow for their violation in a manner inconsistent with the ICCPR and the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation of Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the “Siracusa Principles”).The Act fails to acknowledge the existence of a set of rights that the government cannot violate. Even if these detention warrants issued under the Act are compatible with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, they could violate fundamental rights implicitly recognized by the Preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867, namely the right to counsel and to petition the courts, which may not be abridged even if habeas corpus is suspended. No attempt by the government to seek emergency detention powers that would allow them to hold detainees incommunicado can be justified by reference to a balancing test. The Act’s approach to these rights ignores Canada’s international obligations and the non-derogable rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The article will also demonstrate that such powers would take Canada out of compliance with the norms of a rule of law state.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.028
Scholarly communication0.0150.008
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0230.029
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicInternational Law and Aviation→French-language works237,207→