Terrorism Charges infringe on Charter Rights

[Keepitsimple]

I suppose we have to go about closing all these loopholes in the Charter - if the Supreme Court gets its rulings right......but it's frustrating to see criminals trying to game the system - and their lawyers raking in the fees.

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-terrorism laws.

He was convicted of five terrorism charges and sentenced in 2008 to 10 ½ 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 Mr. Khawaja's lawyer that the Criminal Code definition of “terrorist activity” is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court of Canada has also granted the application for leave to appeal of two other men wanted in the United States on terrorism charges relating to the banned Tamil Tigers organization.

Like Mr. Khawaja, they are also arguing that because the definition required the terrorist conduct to be performed for political, religious or ideological reasons, it infringes the Charter right to express religious beliefs and political opinions.

Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/supreme-court-to-hear-appeal-of-convicted-terrorist-momin-khawaja/article2081611/

[cybercoma]

Political, religious and ideological conduct is not absolutely guaranteed by the Charter. You can't murder the Queen for political reasons or it's treason. You can't blow up your MP's constituency office. Your political, religious and ideological conduct cannot be criminal or else it's not protected. Now, where a law would take murder (not treason as above) and increase the sentence because it was a political homicide, perhaps there's a long shot that the lawyers can make an argument that the terrorism law is unjust because it ascribes a higher penalty because of a person's religious or political beliefs.

[Oleg Bach]

Our courts do not deploy the concepts of what is right or wrong. They function like a mindless - cold machine that is policy driven. Not so much even about law or the interpretation of law - but about control - The Supreme Court Of Canada is just a bunch of acedemic henchmen for big buisness and big buisness gets what it want according to rulings on even social policy...social policy effects the bottom line - end of story...and good luck.

[jacee]

The new terrorism law has to be tested in the Supreme Court in case it is flawed. It may just be a formality, or there may be an issue to be corrected.

[Bob]

The new terrorism law has to be tested in the Supreme Court in case it is flawed. It may just be a formality, or there may be an issue to be corrected.

God forbid we might have our own ideas about this before the Supreme Court makes a decision. You are seemingly implying a sort of infallibility of the SCoC.

As far as the OP goes, I can't say I'm surprised. In a free and democratic country like Canada that unfortunately seems to welcome all peoples, you're bound to have that freedom abused by the lowest of the low.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Bob

[charter.rights]

God forbid we might have our own ideas about this before the Supreme Court makes a decision. You are seemingly implying a sort of infallibility of the SCoC.

As far as the OP goes, I can't say I'm surprised. In a free and democratic country like Canada that unfortunately seems to welcome all peoples, you're bound to have that freedom abused by the lowest of the low.

The Supreme Court of Canada might not always be infallible, but they are always right!

[jbg]

I suppose we have to go about closing all these loopholes in the Charter - if the Supreme Court gets its rulings right......but it's frustrating to see criminals trying to game the system - and their lawyers raking in the fees.

Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/supreme-court-to-hear-appeal-of-convicted-terrorist-momin-khawaja/article2081611/

Was he convicted on other charges, if the terror charge is tossed?

[cybercoma]

Was he convicted on other charges, if the terror charge is tossed?

I'm not sure if this is what you mean, but in the States some charges often carry a lesser charge with them. I don't believe we do that in Canada. For instance, if you're charged with Murder 1, you can actually be convicted of Murder 2. I might be wrong, but I don't think we do that here.

[William Ashley]

I don't know search and seizure without warrant, arrest without warrant, unlimited detention periods and secret trials, and use of the military in civil policing operations all sound like things that may be a bit unconstitutional to me.

Of course creep operations and police detention isn't new - the scope and powers themselves are well beyond the stuff that was legal in the past. Lots of this stuff are more related to national security, and national security operations and planning doesn't adhere to the law.

It is more akin to war measures that is perpetual.

Of course they are great in making laws to tell people what they are doing rather than just breaking the law.

The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Measures_Act was replaced by the emergency act but that tends to be more limited than the war measures act.

Of course we won't know anything about half the stuff because of wartime secrecy procedures.

The issue however is that there is some weird mixture between the criminal code and national security and that is a bit wonky. I think it is to keep it "fundamental justice" rather than national security because national security isn't as well covered in the law as fundamental justice is. It is a bit of a false dichotomy.

http://ccla.org/our-work/national-security/

It is likely in part caused due to the nature of "war" being state sponsered, and terrorism being blatantly subnational - however it is issued due to the non recognition of states that are conducting acts of war that are being classed as terrorism. It is more or less political warfare - and related directly to national security, not per se criminal acts which are acts against the civil population. It isn't really "crime" as it isn't civil, they are acts that are terrorism against the state, two totally different things. So it can't sit right really and all this stuff is pretty much just fog of war and politics. This however goes on to international definitions of war crimes, legal acts of war etc.. that the terrorist arn't party to those treaties thus don't fit that definition due to "recognition of state status" issues, same act, different treatment.

This gets more issued due to "terrosism" targets not solely being civilian population but even terrorist attacks like against the US Hood for instance. They arn't really terrorist attacks, so there are lots of whatifs, but they are all being lumped under the same roof, that is the problem because it draws in the public to loss of civil liberties, and that is the real terrorism, loss of public freedom, the real loss to the public contrary to fundamental justice, the people's freedom.

People just won't remember the world where people wern't monitored tracked and arrested due to not being PC that is the evolution of Canadian Freedom. It is dangerous and it is what the government is progressing towards.

Edited July 2, 2011 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

The Supreme Court of Canada might not always be infallible, but they are always right!

Actually they can descent their own opinion or change it.

While it sound right it couldn't be further from the truth.

Also there is still the prerogative or political remedy for crimes.

The supreme court is meant to represent one of the last steps of appeal lower court process.

It isn't a proverbial rubber stamp. The idea is for the judge to make up a story that works for their impression of how law is suppose to work. Not every judge nor every judge in the supreme court has the same opinion. There is no 100% definitive, they are just meant to be stones in otherwise completely arbitrary of the moment decision - ultimately they are that but are expected to conform to interpretation of law. Judges aren't often legislators, while they oddly interpret the meaning of legislation or acts and contexts, giving people a civil opportunity to resolve a situation, due to limitations on powers, since there is a background where living is more complex than doing what you'd like to do free of repercussions. Also the presentation of case needn't actually be the relevant information or a full picture, a narrow scope is looked at, and worse often times things aren't even looked at unless the legal point is made, judges aren't even expected to know the law because it is so complex and contradictory at times.

The courts are badly ill served by the British Common Law system, and consolidated legal codes and good fully instructive legislation needs to be made on these issues. Legislators just aren't doing a good enough job and there is too much law out there, too many cases, that it is beyond the layman's mind, and that really isn't efficient or effective when trying to provide a public law system. It is just too much. Respective that indeed some people do have their heart in the right places, the overall concept is that situations are unique they aren't the same thing, its largely about archetypes, unfortunate that the legislature nor the courts recognized people are individuals not moldings of a set type. That is really what it is about, trying to enforce a cult identity, not some notion of right and wrong. It isn't about what is good more so than what is about enforcing the cult and its objectives. Perhaps you don't see yourself as part of a cult, but if you have a culture chances are you are, you are just so brainwashed you don't even know what justice or freedom really are.

There just isn't enough work between legislators and the judicial council (that most people might not even realize exists). They need to clean up over a century of malservice and entropy.

http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/

Judges make mistakes and just because its the top of the court system doesn't mean it is right, the Supreme Court ain't God and god is supreme in Canada not people in robes in a fancy room.

The profession's professional code says "cover for each others mistakes, don't make us look bad, or else you don't work in the profession" that is scary, it is more or less stating how the blue wall works for police.

Realizing this is a start, at least then you won't view it in a false light, misrepresentation doesn't serve any good person, it is justice misleading justice. That is not the public interest.

Edited July 2, 2011 by William Ashley

[charter.rights]

Actually they can descent their own opinion or change it.

It doesn't work that way. You obviously have no clue how they work. They will note revisit a case already decided. Their decisions overrule law and set precedent AND their decisions eventually lead to new law.

No one - least of all the Justices on the Supreme Court - care about your opinions or beliefs. They care about the law the way it is in reality, not in your fantasy.

As I said, they are always right just as you are always wrong.

Edited July 3, 2011 by charter.rights

[Oleg Bach]

The new terrorism law has to be tested in the Supreme Court in case it is flawed. It may just be a formality, or there may be an issue to be corrected.

The Supreme court only hands down rulings that protect their position and place in society. The are not about the greater good or security of person. This court is a club who`s primary function it is to ensure the safety of our elite establishment - and the wealth of such.,... The terrorist only blow up average people waiting for a bus...These people and their handlers do not take the bus. Nor are they about to pass a law that say might offend their buisness interests when it comes to places like Saudi Arabia

[Bob]

The Supreme Court of Canada might not always be infallible, but they are always right!

I just think there's something quite unimpressive about deferring one's position on an issue to an as of yet unrendered decision from the SCoC. Of course their ruling is quite final and binding, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss the issue at hand, right now.

There's something quite absurd about challenging the definition of "terrorist activity" on the grounds that one's deeper moral convictions (i.e. religion) are personal characteristics upon which a person cannot be discriminated against. I believe the reasoning behind the classification of a crime as "terroristic" is to give extra gravity to the crime, and with it more severe consequences.

Mind you, I don't see much utility in classifying crimes as "terroristic" or not from a legal standpoint. But hey, if the government wants to send a message that there is something particularly egregious about crimes and attempted crimes informed by religious/ideological perspectives, good for them.

[WWWTT]

It doesn't work that way. You obviously have no clue how they work. They will note revisit a case already decided. Their decisions overrule law and set precedent AND their decisions eventually lead to new law.

No one - least of all the Justices on the Supreme Court - care about your opinions or beliefs. They care about the law the way it is in reality, not in your fantasy.

As I said, they are always right just as you are always wrong.

Agree and disagree.

The supreme court care much about our opinion,if you make a lengthy,expensive legal battle in a system designed to distract or discourage the public from doing so!

In my opinion the supreme court is always right when their eyes are open(the supreme court is also very lazy).

Are their eyes always open to injustice if we do not challenge them?

WWWTT

Edited July 3, 2011 by WWWTT

[Oleg Bach]

Agree and disagree.

The supreme court care much about our opinion,if you make a lengthy,expensive legal battle designed to distract or discourage the public from doing so!

In my opinion the supreme court is always right when their eyes are open(the supreme court is also very lazy).

Are their eyes always open if we do not challenge them?

WWWTT

I had one small personal communication with the Chief Justice of Canada - I said to her - You are a judge - please do your job and JUDGE...The supreme court like all our courts functions strickly and blindly on policy - no one has judgement - good judgemen or do they have the desire or power to judge - this is a serious problem _ do not title and entitle yourself with the word HONOUABLE or JUDGE for that matter if you are neither!

[Oleg Bach]

Further more if you put the Supreme Court into a position where they have to deal with a real problem or issue - and policy dictates that a particular issue is to be avoided and NOT judged or truely ruled upon...What the SCC does is defere or out source the work to this very slick law firm in Ottawa - who will spin a story that has nothing to do with the real issue...THEN they publice the ruling that is in fact not even really made by the SCC.

For instance - It was clearly shown to the court that members of the bar had behaved almost in a crimminal manner - that there was a refusal to fully disclose - that lawyers had conspired...This was to much for the SCC to bare...They refuse to correct those within the judical community that behave like crimminals and not judges or lawyers....the SCC is a great disappointment.

Documentation was provided to them that clearly showed that certain persons were not present in the court and did not grant consent to certain actions. YET after all was said and done - a hidden transcript was found where a judge - a lawyer and a few governmental agent types state "They are here in the body of the court and they grant their consent" - mean while - we were NOT present...the first appearance was on the first - we made our first appearance on the fourth...we were simply not their...

What the court ruled was that the complaining party had no right to any knowledge - especially corrupt legal behavour....again - it was pitiful....YET they turned a blind eye to a real issue involving real honesty - I found them dis-honest...how can I or anyone respect them?

As for dealing with terrorism charges - they might rule in a positive manner but it will not be for the protection of the common Canadian but protection and the ensurement of rights for our privledged class...

Much like the Americans never delt with Saudi Arabia - that financed the attack on 9 11 - The American authorities were not about to attack buisness partners...again - sinister and pitiful.

[Saipan]

I don't know search and seizure without warrant, arrest without warrant, unlimited detention periods and secret trials, and use of the military in civil policing operations all sound like things that may be a bit unconstitutional to me.

P.E.T., the very "constitution" guy, himself use military and also declared Martial Law.

[cybercoma]

I had one small personal communication with the Chief Justice of Canada - I said to her - You are a judge - please do your job and JUDGE...The supreme court like all our courts functions strickly and blindly on policy - no one has judgement - good judgemen or do they have the desire or power to judge - this is a serious problem _ do not title and entitle yourself with the word HONOUABLE or JUDGE for that matter if you are neither!

Perhaps you should read some Dworkin to gain a better understanding of judicial discretion.

[Saipan]

Much like the Americans never delt with Saudi Arabia - that financed the attack on 9 11

Saudi Arabia financed the attack on WTC?

Why??

Wasn't that G.W. Bush who did?

Edited July 3, 2011 by Saipan

[cybercoma]

Further more if you put the Supreme Court into a position where they have to deal with a real problem or issue - and policy dictates that a particular issue is to be avoided and NOT judged or truely ruled upon...What the SCC does is defere or out source the work to this very slick law firm in Ottawa - who will spin a story that has nothing to do with the real issue...THEN they publice the ruling that is in fact not even really made by the SCC.

For instance - It was clearly shown to the court that members of the bar had behaved almost in a crimminal manner - that there was a refusal to fully disclose - that lawyers had conspired...This was to much for the SCC to bare...They refuse to correct those within the judical community that behave like crimminals and not judges or lawyers....the SCC is a great disappointment.

Documentation was provided to them that clearly showed that certain persons were not present in the court and did not grant consent to certain actions. YET after all was said and done - a hidden transcript was found where a judge - a lawyer and a few governmental agent types state "They are here in the body of the court and they grant their consent" - mean while - we were NOT present...the first appearance was on the first - we made our first appearance on the fourth...we were simply not their...

What the court ruled was that the complaining party had no right to any knowledge - especially corrupt legal behavour....again - it was pitiful....YET they turned a blind eye to a real issue involving real honesty - I found them dis-honest...how can I or anyone respect them?

As for dealing with terrorism charges - they might rule in a positive manner but it will not be for the protection of the common Canadian but protection and the ensurement of rights for our privledged class...

Much like the Americans never delt with Saudi Arabia - that financed the attack on 9 11 - The American authorities were not about to attack buisness partners...again - sinister and pitiful.

Oh. I get it. You have a personal beef.

[Chippewa]

I still don't get it. Why is it so easy for the government to throw some guy in jail for 10 years, when Canada has a whole history full of Socio-Economic Terrorism against the First Nations, and there resources. About a 100,000 missing First Nations children don't have a grave site from Residential Schools, set up by the Government and Churches. I imagine that it would have been to hard to throw a "white" skin person in jail for terrorism, when TB was being spread around purposely to commit genocide against First Nations people. Wait, the Charter of Rights, and United Nations only step in when it suits there economic needs for big resource companies.

[M.Dancer]

when Canada has a whole history full of Socio-Economic Terrorism against ... resources.

How do you commit terrorism against resources? Can zinc experience fear?

[Chippewa]

How do you commit terrorism against resources? Can zinc experience fear?

Simply if you steal, launder, and exploit resources that were never sold, or dicussed, Ownership never discussed, and government gives it away to peasent immigrants who have no right to buy the resources in the first place. Then some would call it Economic Terrorism. No different the Theft. The fact government allows all the Theft to go on, and support it, is still lude, and outrageous. After all this theft, and economic terrorism, Canadians have the balls to go and say they pay for everything that First Nations owns, after they steal, launder, an profit off of stolen property or resources.

Terrorism lives everyday, it just disguises itself as government, law, and the Indian Act.

[Remiel]

...and government gives it away to peasent immigrants who have no right to buy the resources in the first place.

You know, to my ear, "peasant" does not sound particularly different from "savage". And any argument that makes use of it is not going to be particularly better than the ones that relied on the latter term.

Then some would call it Economic Terrorism. No different the Theft.

If it is no different than theft, just call it theft. Terrorism is a completely distinct term.

After all this theft, and economic terrorism, Canadians have the balls to go and say they pay for everything that First Nations owns, after they steal, launder, an profit off of stolen property or resources.

If you cannot accept that the labour of the European colonists created anything of value, then a ) you are delusional; or b ) you are dishonest. What exactly does First Nations own, really? The land? Then who owns the buildings on the land? Who owns the equipment that does the work? (Edit: Who owns the people who live there? This is not irrelevant to the value of professionals ghettoes.) These are the things that make the land monetarily valuable. It is impossible to separate the contribution of land of the First Nations and the contribution of labour of the colonists anymore. Better to accept it and do the best we can so that this country is one of equal opportunity for every people, which I can admit right now it is not. But if your argument is that that First Nations ought to be superior to the colonists forever, well, then you really have not learned anything from the war and suffering of the 20th century.

Edited July 10, 2011 by Remiel

[jacee]

You know, to my ear, "peasant" does not sound particularly different from "savage". And any argument that makes use of it is not going to be particularly better than the ones that relied on the latter term.

If it is no different than theft, just call it theft. Terrorism is a completely distinct term.

If you cannot accept that the labour of the European colonists created anything of value, then a ) you are delusional; or b ) you are dishonest. What exactly does First Nations own, really? The land? Then who owns the buildings on the land? Who owns the equipment that does the work? (Edit: Who owns the people who live there? This is not irrelevant to the value of professionals ghettoes.) These are the things that make the land monetarily valuable. It is impossible to separate the contribution of land of the First Nations and the contribution of labour of the colonists anymore. Better to accept it and do the best we can so that this country is one of equal opportunity for every people, which I can admit right now it is not. But if your argument is that that First Nations ought to be superior to the colonists forever, well, then you really have not learned anything from the war and suffering of the 20th century.

It really doesn't matter whether we think we've 'improved' the land (highly debatable) if we haven't paid the rent owing. It has nothing to do with "superior" but only with laws of ownership.