The following news item appeared in the Canada-Wide News Service, 3:00 p.m. Central Standard Time yesterday.

Early this afternoon a tense 12-hour standoff between the authorities and youth activists calling themselves the political action "arm" of the youth activist group YOPEC (Youth Organized for Political and Economic Change) came to an end, but not without violence and some unresolved questions.

The youth group who ranged in age from 15 to 17 years old "occupied" the office of the mayor at a time when government leaders from local, provincial/state, and federal levels of government gathered for the first North and South American Tri Level Conference in an attempt to force negotiations with government leaders. The group posted a list of demands apparently connected to its actions on the Internet at the YOPEC website. One of the group's demands included the threat to detonate bombs in unspecified sites in the city.

The surprise "occupation" of the mayor's office caught everyone off guard. Security seemed unprepared and the action resulted in serious injuries to two guards on duty by violence of the group. Extensive property damage also occurred to the office. During the 12 hour standoff, the teens destroyed some office records. Members of the group carried weapons. The distributed leaflets advocated the goals of the national organization. The authorities confiscated false passports and false identifications papers.

Messages on the Internet and the rumour that the incident could "trigger" a series of similar events in large cities across Canada concerned police.

As police led away seven members of the group in handcuffs, group members claimed that the damage to the office and the injuries to the security officers occurred during the police charge. At this point nothing can be confirmed. Two of the arrested claimed that they do not belong to the organization and just tagged along with their friends.

The federal government expressed concerns over the "lawless nature" of the actions of the group and the support for this group, which may exist in other areas across Canada.

Proposed Legislation

In response to this incident, the federal government introduced a new anti-terrorist bill with the express purpose of controlling the actions of individuals or groups whose actions endanger individual lives, threaten the health and safety of Canadian society, and seriously interfere or disrupt the operation of government and essential private, public, or international organizations. The new bill included these provisions:

-There shall be a prohibition against membership in any group which advocates violence.

-Police may arrest, without warrant, any person suspected of being a member of a prohibited group and may detain this individual for up to 72 hours prior to laying a charge.

-Youth involved in membership in the prohibited group and charged with related actions shall be tried for offences as adults under the Criminal Code.

-Those persons convicted with respect to actions relating to membership in a prohibited group shall receive the maximum range of sentence permitted in law (Criminal Code).

-Following conviction and sentence for offences above referenced, upon release, a judge may impose strict controls on the individual's movements. To do so, a judge may order the confiscation of passport travel documents and professional licences. If an individual fails to deliver the same, the judge may impose a jail term of not less than three years.

-Anyone deemed to have information relevant to the prohibited group and its actions may be summoned for a hearing before an investigative tribunal. Failure to appear could result in a jail term of not less than one year. Anyone convicted for funding, harbouring, or counselling any person involved in a prohibited group shall receive a jail term of not less than five years.

-Any refugee claimants (youth or adult) who arrive in Canada without proper documentation shall remain in detention until they prove their identity.

In a free and democratic society, can such proposed anti-terrorist legislation be justified in order to protect the welfare of its citizens?