Definition of terrorism heads to Supreme Court

[toyotatundra]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/06/30/pol-scoc-kawaja-appeal.html

The country's top court has agreed to hear an appeal on the legal definition of "terrorist activity."

The appeal was launched by Momin Khawaja, an Ottawa software developer and the first person ever charged under Canada's anti-terror laws.

He was convicted of five terrorism charges and sentenced in 2008 to 10 1/2 years in prison but Ontario's highest court later increased his sentence to life with no chance of parole for 10 years.

Ontario's appeals court rejected the argument by Khawaja's lawyer that the Criminal Code definition of "terrorist activity" is unconstitutional.

 

[Neill McKay]

Another quote from the article has him "arguing that because the definition required [sic] the terrorist conduct to be performed for political, religious or ideological reasons, it infringes the Charter right to express religious beliefs and political opinions."

That seems a bit twisted; the argument seems to lead towards a broader definition of terrorism, while I'd expect someone defending himself on such a charge to argue for a narrower definition that would exclude whatever he did.

At any rate, I think the argument is not likely to go very far, if only because terrorist activity is already illegal in its own right, whatever the motivation behind it.  I'd also suggest that we've already accepted, through hate crime legislation, that a criminal's motives can make a crime worse.

Should be interesting to watch, though.  Somewhere around here we've discussed what it takes, or should take, to make something a terrorist act (in particular, WRT a bank that was torched a while ago).

 

[The Bread Guy]

Case is being heard by The Supremes:

The Supreme Court of Canada is hearing an appeal from the first person convicted under the country’s anti-terror law.

Momin Khawaja, a former Ottawa software developer, is serving life in prison with no parole eligibility for 10 years.

He was convicted in 2008 of training at a remote camp in Pakistan, providing cash to a group of British extremists and offences related to building a remote-control detonator.

Khawaja’s appeal is focused on the legal definition of what constitutes “terrorist activity.”

His lawyer argues that the law is unconstitutional because it violates his right to express political and religious views.

Lawyer Lawrence Greenspon said the so-called motive clause on the law “will have a chilling effect” on free speech rights.

But Justice Department lawyer Croft Michaelson said there has been no evidence produced on that point.

He also argued that the free speech protections offered under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are not absolute and do not extend to protecting violence or threats of violence ....

The Canadian Press via Postmedia News, 11 Jun 12

 

[The Bread Guy]

Bump with the latest from Reuters - Supremes - 1, Terrorists - 0 ....

Canada's Supreme Court on Friday upheld an anti-terrorism law brought in after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, ruling unanimously that those who choose to engage in terrorism must "pay a very heavy price."
The law's constitutionality was challenged by Mohammad Momin Khawaja, convicted in Canada of terrorism for involvement with a British group that had plotted unsuccessfully to set off bombs in London.

It was also challenged by two men accused of terrorism by the United States for trying to buy missiles or weapons technology for the Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers.

The court rejected arguments that the measure's definition of terrorism was overly broad. It also upheld Khawaja's life sentence and confirmed the orders to extradite the other two to the United States ....

 

[cupper]

I like that they said that acts of violence are not protected by the Charter.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I like that they shut this a-hole and his talking mouthpiece of crap lawyer, down. 

 

[FJAG]

Decisions here:

http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12768/index.do

and here:

http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12769/index.do

Well written and reasoned and a complete shut down of the arguments thrown up by Khawaja and the other two.

Just as a reminder in the first case Khawaja was convicted of terrorist related activities and sentenced to life in prison while the second case concerns two individuals each being extradited to the US on charges of aiding Tamil terrorists. The key case setting out the relevant law re terrorists is in the Khawaja decision.