Canadian judge strikes down law that connects terrorism to religion
posted at 9:37 pm on October 24, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Canada’s new Anti-Terrorism Act failed its first judicial test today when an Ontario judge declared unconstitutional a key part of the definition of what constitutes a terrorist act.
Ontario Superior Court Judge Douglas Rutherford ruled today that the reference to terrorist motivations, which outlaws certain acts committed “for political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause,” is a clear violation of Charter freedoms of conscience and religion, and freedom of thought, opinion and expression.
It’s a hate-crime statute, basically. New York has one too, which the Minutemen are trying to get the Manhattan D.A. to use against the fascists at Columbia who jumped Marvin Stewart. They make sense in societies where a minority group is subjected to such pervasive persecution that it’s worth impinging on freedom of thought to deter further persecutorial acts by criminalizing prejudice against them. I don’t think any American minority is so imperiled at this point in our history that they’re needed, except possibly women vis-a-vis domestic abuse. The question is, are Americans or Canadians as a whole so at risk from Islamist terrorism that it’s worth making religious motivation an element of the statute? Probably.
Will that do anything to deter terrorists? Probably not. Which is why this way is still the best way to deal with jihadis.
Here’s the court’s opinion, FYI. And here, by way of comparison, is how “terrorism” is defined in the U.S. Code. When the Canadian statute is rewritten, it’ll likely resemble it.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
I have to say I agree with the judge on this one. The reason WHY the crime was committed is not really relevant to the fact the law was broken to begin with. I can’t believe I’m saying that I applaud the Canadians for getting one right.
thedecider on October 24, 2006 at 9:58 PM
You know what would make all this crap irrelevant? If the penalty for terrorism was death.
Savage on October 24, 2006 at 10:27 PM
Canuckistan == where Dhimmicrats will threaten to flee after Nov 7th.
James on October 24, 2006 at 10:40 PM
As a Canadian conservative, can I make a suggestion.
Why not do a swap of Democrats that want out of the USA for Conservatives that want out of Canada. I’m willing to make the sacrifice.
rhuppertz on October 24, 2006 at 10:53 PM
rhuppertz,
How about we just move all the Liberals in America to Qebec. Then wait til 2015.
James on October 24, 2006 at 11:00 PM
QebecQuebecJames on October 24, 2006 at 11:01 PM
NO WAY!!!!
Because 1) Quebec will never separate and all the new Dems would vote to stay in Canada which would cause 2) even more of my family’s tax dollars to support that socialist province.
I would rather move south.
rhuppertz on October 24, 2006 at 11:11 PM
This is nothing more than the political offense doctrine which gets a lot of play up North. The doctrine serves as a barrier to extradition for VIPs and other politico personas. It’s almost as if everybody in Canada wants to become famous so they can get immunity. It was Marc Emery’s (the Prince of Pot) initial defense when they abducted that narcoterrorist. MM touched on this issue in her Internment book, I think. There are indeed, as the Canadian judge noted, many modern nations which recognize certain religious and political causes as well as ideologies too extreme for their own good and dangerous to society. What I find annoying in the court’s opinion is the influence of that feminist- or liberal-inspired warning against “us” versus “them” or the “other” in the war on terror. It’s the law’s job to help make the legal distinctions, not sell out to some inclusiveness agenda. Americans and Canadians would be better off writing antiterrorism statutes that have some meat in them.
dapro on October 24, 2006 at 11:16 PM
I second that!
p.v. cornelius on October 25, 2006 at 1:27 AM
But we don’t need to keep flirting with “hate-crime” language to do it. Hate-crime language keeps trying to address underlying ideologies. It’s possible to ban acts, and even ban acts with particular intents, without ever addressing underlying ideologies directly.
The “international terrorism” definition AP linked requires an intent definition, because terrorism is a particular act committed for a particular reason; a complete definition of terrorism requires both “what” and “for what reason” components. But the underlying “Why” is never defined (and shouldn’t be) because it doesn’t matter.
I completely disagree.–Because the criminal acts themselves are already criminal acts, and because the one thing these laws never do is “criminalize the prejudice against them;” if anything, they intensify it, and heap resentment onto the pile.
By the way, I’m not arguing they don’t work. I don’t know. I’m just too idealistic and not nearly pragmatic enough to throw the baby out with the bath-water, which is the way these laws hit me.
Axe on October 25, 2006 at 1:46 AM
Completely OT, but I really hate videos. Am I the only left who logs onto the net to read?
JM Hanes on October 25, 2006 at 4:10 AM
Apparently, I’m also the only one left who really needs a preview window too.
JM Hanes on October 25, 2006 at 4:12 AM
I agree with the court. This “hate crimes” legislation goes to far. Let’s punish for people for what they actually do, not their alleged purpose for committing the crime.
bigbeas on October 25, 2006 at 4:44 AM
Arrest the puke(s) who attacked Marvin Stewart and use the criminal statutes to prosecute him. Nothing fancy or unnecessary. “Hate crime” prosecution would be nice but, it would just be these punks getting their just rewards from legislation written to protect them.
I’ve been to Toronto, Canada and it’s a nice place tho a little colder than I like.
tormod on October 25, 2006 at 5:34 AM
Except that women are actually the majority in this country.
Hate Crime laws are heinous. Punish the act, not the thought.
Mr. Bingley on October 25, 2006 at 8:08 AM
I feel your pain. But no stopping it. I’ve been around since the web was green and the words were white; but one thing about this massive thing we’ve created: there are so many people and opinions and ways of doing things that you can always find a comfortable corner somewhere that’s just about right.
Besides, Michelle and Allah read like the books are melting and link like they love the color blue, so there’s no lack anyway :)
Axe on October 25, 2006 at 9:00 AM
Nah, we all need a preview window. Hey, AP, how about like over at Patterico’s blog, real-time preview as you type. ;-)
Freelancer on October 25, 2006 at 12:35 PM
Axe: Yeah, I’m swimming upstream, alas! Most of the time I’ve already seen the vid on the tube before I get here looking for what ALLAHP’T has to say about it — and frankly, I’d rather just whip through what the Prez had to say, rather than prolonging the painful process of watching him say it. But never mind! You know the web has come of age when it’s old enough to have its own reactionaries.
JM Hanes on October 25, 2006 at 3:44 PM
You said you supported laws to specifically protect women in domestic abuse. I have an extreme issue with this when statistics have domestic abuse split in half for both men and women.
Tim Burton on October 25, 2006 at 7:23 PM
I‘m as conservative as anyone can be, but I agree with this judge. Linking religion to hate crime legislation will only serve to destroy religious freedoms. Hate crime legislation is unnecessary, we already have more than enough laws to prosecute people for what they do, we don’t need to prosecute people for what they think.
Hate crimes laws invoke the “thought police.” And who is it that will get to decide what the accused was thinking? If you kill someone because you hated them, how uncommon is that? Why should the fact that you hated them add extra years to the sentence? How often do people kill people that they really like?
Let’s concentrate on what is provable in the courts and leave the “Thought Police” in the unemployment line. There are already too many examples of Christians being prosecuted under hate crime laws for no other reason than stating the scriptural fact that homosexuality is a sin. But we don’t want to kill homosexuals, and we don’t even hate them, but the fact is, it is sinful, and to remain true to one’s faith, you MUST be allowed to say it.
Linking hate crime laws to religion wouldn’t even get serious consideration if it were not for the extreme and vile acts currently being committed under Islam, the “religion of peace.” Islam will destroy religious freedoms everywhere if we don’t deal with it the right way.
The way we need to deal with Islam is to recognize that it is NOT a Religion. Religion is something that motivates people to feed the hungry, no matter who those hungry people are. Or to help the needy, no matter who those needy might be. True religions motivate people to do good for all mankind, without regard to any fact other than there are people in need. All true religions value all human life and seek to protect the innocence.
Islam fails at being a religion on all of these counts, it is not a religion and should not be afforded such a grand and revered status. Islam needs to be recognized for what it is, a political movement, just like the Nazis. Islam seeks to conquer the world by force, just like the Nazis. Islam is intolerant of religion and seeks to destroy all religion, just like the Nazis. Islam is a political force of evil in the world that forces it’s laws upon you and enslaves you, or kills you, just like the Nazis. Islam seeks to establish its own political empire called the Caliph, something like “The Third Reich.”
Once America recognizes Islam as nothing more than another evil political movement that seeks world domination by force, it can be banned, just like the Bahth party was banned in Iraq. Islamist could then be given a choice, convert to ANY religion, or simply renounce Islam. But if they insist on remaining Islamic, then they must move to an Islamic country.
We simply cannot afford Constitutional protection to the “kill everyone who is not Islamic crowd.” And we don’t need hate crime laws either, we had better never go down that road or we will all be guilty much sooner than you think.
Maxx on October 25, 2006 at 10:48 PM
Come on over rhuppertz – no need to wait for a swap. Besides, the beauty is the libs are free to go wherever they want. Ultimately, most end up staying. Shucks!
Entelechy on October 26, 2006 at 1:34 AM
Comment pages: