Yesterday's court decision, the conclusion of the first major legal test of the act's powers, confirmed those concerns.
What's more, along with another court ruling last week striking down as unconstitutional key sections of the related Security of Information Act in the case of Citizen reporter Juliet O'Neill, it explodes the federal government's repeated assurances that the contentious anti-terror laws rushed into service following the 9/11 attacks were "Charter-proof."
Justice Minister Vic Toews yesterday acknowledged that the ruling "changes fundamentally the definition of terrorism." He stopped short of saying the government will appeal the decision. "We'll take a quick look at what this means and decide whether an appeal is necessary.
"I certainly don't think we're dropping the ball in terms of the actual practical steps we're taking to fight terrorism," he told reporters. "I think it's important that we review our legislation to make sure it is responsive to the needs of a modern-day society fighting terrorism."
The ruling raises immediate questions about the status of the upcoming January trial of accused Ottawa terrorist Momin Khawaja, the first Canadian charged under the act.
In September, his legal team launched a constitutional challenge over the act's definitions of a "terrorist" and of "terrorist activities," arguing they were overly broad and unconstitutionally vague.
Ontario Superior Court Justice Douglas Rutherford responded by ruling yesterday that the section of the act requiring authorities to prove terrorism offences are motivated "in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological objective or cause," violates Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
That "essential element" of what defines a terrorist activity "is not only novel in Canadian law, but the impact of which constitutes an infringement of certain fundamental freedoms ... including those of religion, thought, belief, opinion, expression and association ... and, therefore, democratic life," Judge Rutherford wrote in a 32-page decision.
Allowing it to stand would, he said, "promote fear and suspicion of targeted political or religious groups, and will result in racial or ethnic profiling by government authorities at many levels."
Such an infringement, he said, "cannot be justified in a free and democratic society."
http://tinyurl.com/y2qq27
Note: http://tinyurl.com/y2qq27
Anti-Terror Law Dealt Second Setback
Posted on Wednesday, October 25 at 13:40 by drcalebContributed By
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1
That Judge did a good thing
and in my opinion he did what the senators should haveo or the GG
---
Diogenes said:
"I am Diogenes the Dog. I nuzzle the kind, bark at the greedy and bite scoundrels."
Exactally as we were discussing in 'Censorship'.
---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden
---
Everybody got to deviate from the norm
Set back differs greatly from struck down and stuck down leads to appeal(s)
“Justice Minister Vic Toews yesterday acknowledged that the ruling "changes fundamentally the definition of terrorism." He stopped short of saying the government will appeal the decision. "We'll take a quick look at what this means and decide whether an appeal is necessary.”
"I certainly don't think we're dropping the ball in terms of the actual practical steps we're taking to fight terrorism," he told reporters. "I think it's important that we review our legislation to make sure it is responsive to the needs of a modern-day society fighting terrorism."
By any interpretation the above bafflegab says political speak.
OK, I’m setting this a side for now it is to late in my day to be preparing a legal brief. I hope I have in this and my earlier post on the other thread this evening brought something of value to the table
Dodgy Knees
---
Diogenes said:
"I am Diogenes the Dog. I nuzzle the kind, bark at the greedy and bite scoundrels."
The whole damned anti-terror thing should be struck down and it should never have come about in the first place. When these laws were first being considered, it was already clear that 9/11 was an inside job, and what the people really needed most was more protection from the state, rather than the state being more protected from the people!
As Bush said so well "The terrorists hate us for our freedoms", and true to form they've been hard at work taking those freedoms away.
I that that to mean the western governments have taken away "our" freedoms. Nice bit of irony, that.
---
Diogenes said:
"I am Diogenes the Dog. I nuzzle the kind, bark at the greedy and bite scoundrels."
---
Everybody got to deviate from the norm
To be honest, I think Bush was speaking the truth and did not mean to be ironic, instead his statement was meant as a sick insider joke. That's why he always has a quivering smirk on his monkey-like face.
Bush knew that 9/11 was an inside job, and the intention was to kick off wars and take over as dictator.
Bush knew full well that the "terrorists" were made up of himself and his handlers.
The Canadian government also knew this to be true. All governments over the world knew what was going on, and most of them took advantage of, blaming the "terrorists" while doing exactly what the terrorist set out to do.