The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not get you off the hook; good on the SCOC this time:
…
In their unanimous rulings, the court affirmed that a key clause requiring the Crown to prove that defendants were motivated to further the aims of terrorism.
It said that the so-called “motive” clause was carefully constructed to protect those with innocent motivations or who had no genuine awareness that their actions or support could be manipulated by terrorist forces.
“The impugned provision is clearly drafted in a manner respectful of diversity, as it allows for the non-violent expression of political, religious and ideological views,” Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote for the court.
“Only individuals who go well beyond the legitimate expression of a political, religious or ideological thought, belief or opinion and instead engage in one of the serious forms of violence – or threaten one of the serious forms of violence – listed in the (section) need fear liability under the terrorism provisions of the Criminal Code,” she said…
Gee. Not much chance of him becoming a poster-boy candidate for the NDP now, is there?
“Gee. Not much chance of him becoming a poster-boy candidate for the NDP now, is there?
Posted by: Jamie MacMaster at December 14, 2012 4:31 PM ”
Wrong.They can hang him up as the anti-NDP,and slide Beaver Lizzy May into his spot! Geeezzz….you would make a horrible political advisor!..:):);)
“Mr. Khawaja was sentenced to life in prison in connection with a British plot to commit jihadist violence abroad. He maintains that his sentence was too harsh and did not take into account his lack of awareness of violent acts the British plotters intended to carry out.”
Ah,I see,Mr.Khawaja figured the lads would carry out PEACEFUL terrorist acts,as they usually do all over the world. I bet he feels remorse right now.
I agree that Mr.Khawaja should not serve a “life” sentence.
If I was in charge,Mr.Khawaja would serve about thirty seconds,….at the bottom of a guillotine.
This is going to piss LAS off!
I heard the lawyer Greenspon on the radio saying how this was a bad decision especially for minorities. Just wondering if he was referring that ALL minorities were terrorists or if terrorists who happen to be minorities would not be given the red carpet of legal defense.
Now if only it were a criminal offense to support the Muslim brotherhood’s organizations like Hamas, Hezballah and the Taliban etc.
Not sure how to feel about this. As long as the law is specific I see no problem. I do not like a lot of anti-terror legislation because ‘terrorism’ has come to mean anything and everything.
“Not sure how to feel about this. As long as the law is specific I see no problem.”
— LAS, 6:53p.m.
Well, I’m not sure how I feel about this either — the judgment, I mean.
If it’s so “clearly drafted in a manner respectful of diversity” (whatever that means), what does the second part of the post mean, exactly? To wit:
“well beyond the legitimate expression of a political, religious or ideological thought, belief or opinion and instead engage in one of the serious forms of violence – or threaten one of the serious forms of violence.”
Well beyond? Where’s the red line, line in the sand, etc., exactly? Can you, you know, be somewhat over the line, as opposed to well beyond?
Serious forms of violence? So, it’s okay to rip down an election sign, get into a fight with police, or take target practice using pictures of Stephen Harper? Where’s the red line, line in the sand, etc., exactly?
I’m curious, exactly, how this soft-on-national-security diversity hound ever got to be Chief Justice in the first place. Oh, right! Jean Chretien and all those right-wingers in the Liberal Party. I completely forgot! Forgive me! Of course, Brian Mulroney — a great transitional PM on the way to a more conservative politics — appointed her in the first place, which I’m sure is Stephen Harper’s fault also.
What I don’t believe is the “no genuine awareness” of an obviously radicalised suspect.
David Southam >
“……or take target practice using pictures of Stephen Harper?”
Like when together Hamas and EGAL murdered Harper in effigy a few years ago in the streets of Toronto?
“Well, I’m not sure how I feel about this either — the judgment, I mean.’ – DS
Hmmm the company you try to keep with LAS is odd indeed. You seem to be a strait egg overall, albeit somewhat confused in your morality on various threads. LAS is an overt anarchist, a hater of western values, yet you find a kindred spirit in his spoiled soup pseudo-Libertarian shtick.
I heard the lawyer Greenspon on the radio saying how this was a bad decision…
Posted by: Moosemilk at December 14, 2012 5:56 PM
Got to give that guy credit – he can sniff out the favourable CBC camera grease from miles away.
Knight, 1:19a.m.–
“…albeit somewhat confused in your morality on various threads.”
Could you be a bit more specific, if you would, please?
As for the ruling, I have not read it, but the quote provided doesn’t sit right with me. The “law”, as I understand it, is a combination of the statutory basis and the case law surrounding it.
So if the statute is clear and carefully worded, and you think so, why not say, inter alia, something like: “Sorry, dude, you’re busted. Now go directly to jail, and I hope you have that $200 on you now for your lawyer.” Why obscure the clarity with a bunch of prevarication that “progressive-minded” lawyers and judges in future will absolutely use to try and whittle down the list of unacceptable behaviour by arguing that the Court has actually set up a bunch of tests that have to be met for the statute to hold?
Which is what I was trying to get at in my previous post.
David Southam >
“Why obscure the clarity with a bunch of prevarication that “progressive-minded” lawyers and judges in future will absolutely use to try and whittle down the list of unacceptable behaviour…..”
A question and assertion to which I agree completely.
As with all of our “progressive mindedness” we import and create our own problems and then decide later to fix them at the cost of our liberties and freedoms. Essentially we are accommodating the world’s totalitarians both foreign and domestic by limiting our freedoms and rights “for our own safety”.
We have imported and protected Hamas, Hezbollah, Tamil Tigers, WWII Nazi’s, along with many dozens of other crime groups unchecked, or they wouldn’t fill our streets as “legitimate protestors” as they do from time to time.
It’s the pseudo-libertarian commenter’s here that wish to open our borders wide to totalitarians and terrorists alike, hypocritically demanding freedom for everyone at the obvious cost to our own sovereignty. It’s the big government Progressives who then eagerly accommodate.
“Could you be a bit more specific, if you would, please?” – DS
The argument dovetails perfectly with our previous discussion about selling national real assets to totalitarian regimes instead of looking within for profits. It’s always a dirty slippery slope when you get into bed with the worlds garbage, regardless of how you try to justify it.
hypocritically demanding freedom for everyone at the obvious cost to our own sovereignty
You’re a lying POS.
“Waaaaaaaaa!”
Truth hurts I know.
Knight, 9:42a.m. —
Have a look here:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-28.html#h-26
at Section 83 of the CCC, which was the subject of this case. Make your own judgment, but the list of proscribed activities seems to me to be pretty narrow as it is, at least by the standard of the kinds of things that I would consider to be terrifying and intimidating from a political, religious or ideological perspective if they happened in my neighbourhood. There may be other provisions of the CCC that cover less egregious items, but I have personally been on the receiving end of what I would consider to be ideologically-based property damage (relatively minor on a tangential property-rights issue), in full view of the police, and the law seemed powerless to respond in the face of the alleged perpetrators’ legal representatives’ arguments (“mistaken identity”).
Also, have a look at:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Clear+and+Present+Danger,
which I think is helpful in explaining the difference between threats to national and personal security posed by terrorism and those of a more general nature posed by the CNOOC-Nexen deal.
I’ll post a comment later at the CNOOC-Nexen discussion exploring this a bit further — it would be seriously off-topic on this thread, and the chief justice lady around here is not really known for couching her judgments in prevaricating terms.
David Southam said -Well beyond? Where’s the red line, line in the sand, etc., exactly? Can you, you know, be somewhat over the line, as opposed to well beyond?
My guess is threatening to behead the PM is definitely “well-beyond”. Blowing up the CBC is maybe? over the line.