Editorial from "The Insider," newsletter of CEP Local 2000, by Christina Montgomery:

If it wasn't so offensive, it would be tempting to simply respond with a huge fit of righteous indignation.

But Canada's proposed anti-terrorism legislation is far too dangerous to dismiss that simply. Far too fundamental an affront to some of this country's hard-won freedoms - and the working people who won them - to react with anything less than organized, sustained and determined opposition.

Here is some of what, in the name of making ourselves more secure in a post-Sept. 11 world, it will do:

• Allow, for the first time in Canada, preventive arrests of people police believe are about to commit terrorist acts. That's being arrested for something you haven't done.
• Allow, also for the first time, "investigative hearings" at which those with information on terrorist activities would be forced to answer questions before a judge. That's an end of the right to silence.
• Create a string of new criminal offences, including harbouring a terrorist, that will carry stiff jail terms.

And exactly how does it define the crime for which these new remedies are a response? How does it define the terrorism that justifies the lifting of civil liberties we now enjoy?

It says terrorism is an act inside or outside of Canada that "is taken or threatened for political, religious or ideological purposes and threatens the public or national security - including economic security.

It tries to limit this definition by saying terrorist activity doesn't include "lawful advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work" that doesn't seriously harm or kill people.

Well, call me curious, but doesn't that pose a problem for working people?

Does that make a wildcat strike an act of terror? Does it make an until-now legal strike by the foreign crew of a grain ship an act of terror - since under federal law, grain must move during a labour action? Does is make terrorists of longshoremen who honour the crew's picket line? Do we want the answers left to judges? Isn't it easier to just say no in plain English now?

And call me cynical, but I'm not comforted by Justice Minister Anne McLellan's assurance that us ordinary folks don't need to worry. It was her government that swept us ordinary folks from the streets for protesting the visit of an Indonesian dictator. It was her government that dismantled our ports police and gutted funding for the cops who police corporate and organized crime - which made us ordinary folks a whole lot less safe too.

How about money for that? How about decent wages and fewer cutbacks for the people who work securing our borders? For the working people in our military and in our coast guard? For those who protect our food and water and drug supplies?

Finally, as offensive as some of the proposals themselves is the shameless way in which they're being sold. To slide through otherwise unacceptable laws by playing on people's genuine sense of fear and uncertainty and patriotism is appalling. To tell my parents' generation - who fought on bloodied battlefields and bloodied picket lines for our freedoms - that this is the best we can do to respect them is nothing short of a disgrace.

We do more than a billion dollars in trade a day with the United States.

Maybe a public admission that we're getting tough mostly to keep the American government happy and to protect that business would show a little more respect to workers whose jobs depend on that trade.

McLellan, charged with shepherding this new law onto the books, told reporters with a straight face that "freedom must not be a victim of terrorism."

She was right. See you in the streets.

Christina Montgomery is a reporter and shop steward at The Province newspaper in Vancouver.