- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Urmimu said:Please do not neglect the paragraph that follows from that same reference:
"Some hold the view that the stand-alone definition is overboard and that the reference to motive of political, religious or ideological purpose may invite “profiling” on the basis of politics, religion or ideology. This issue of the motive requirement is currently before the courts in R. v. Khawaja. [2] There are also some concerns that the elements which relate to seriously interfering with or disrupting an essential service might extend anti-terrorism measures to unlawful but peaceful labour strikes or other protests. These concerns were also raised in 2001 and, in response, Parliament included in the section an exception for advocacy, protest, dissent and stoppage of work, provided these activities are not intended to cause any of the other serious forms of harm referred to in the definition."
Actually the court has issued a ruling.....in favor of the legislation:
The Court ruled that the terrorism offences set out in sections 83.03, 83.18, 83.19 and 83.21 of the Criminal Code are constitutional
http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/12768/1/document.do
Larry