# Definition of terrorism heads to Supreme Court



## toyotatundra (1 Jul 2011)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/06/30/pol-scoc-kawaja-appeal.html



> 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-terror laws.
> 
> ...


----------



## Neill McKay (1 Jul 2011)

Another quote from the article has him "arguing that because the definition required [sic] the terrorist conduct to be performed for political, religious or ideological reasons, it infringes the Charter right to express religious beliefs and political opinions."

That seems a bit twisted; the argument seems to lead towards a broader definition of terrorism, while I'd expect someone defending himself on such a charge to argue for a narrower definition that would exclude whatever he did.

At any rate, I think the argument is not likely to go very far, if only because terrorist activity is already illegal in its own right, whatever the motivation behind it.  I'd also suggest that we've already accepted, through hate crime legislation, that a criminal's motives can make a crime worse.

Should be interesting to watch, though.  Somewhere around here we've discussed what it takes, or should take, to make something a terrorist act (in particular, WRT a bank that was torched a while ago).


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Jun 2012)

Case is being heard by The Supremes:





> The Supreme Court of Canada is hearing an appeal from the first person convicted under the country’s anti-terror law.
> 
> Momin Khawaja, a former Ottawa software developer, is serving life in prison with no parole eligibility for 10 years.
> 
> ...


The Canadian Press via Postmedia News, 11 Jun 12


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Dec 2012)

Bump with the latest from Reuters - Supremes - 1, Terrorists - 0 ....


> Canada's Supreme Court on Friday upheld an anti-terrorism law brought in after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, ruling unanimously that those who choose to engage in terrorism must "pay a very heavy price."
> The law's constitutionality was challenged by Mohammad Momin Khawaja, convicted in Canada of terrorism for involvement with a British group that had plotted unsuccessfully to set off bombs in London.
> 
> It was also challenged by two men accused of terrorism by the United States for trying to buy missiles or weapons technology for the Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers.
> ...


----------



## cupper (14 Dec 2012)

I like that they said that acts of violence are not protected by the Charter.


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Dec 2012)

I like that they shut this a-hole and his talking mouthpiece of crap lawyer, down.


----------



## FJAG (15 Dec 2012)

Decisions here:

http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12768/index.do

and here:

http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12769/index.do

Well written and reasoned and a complete shut down of the arguments thrown up by _Khawaja_ and the other two.

Just as a reminder in the first case _Khawaja_ was convicted of terrorist related activities and sentenced to life in prison while the second case concerns two individuals each being extradited to the US on charges of aiding Tamil terrorists. The key case setting out the relevant law re terrorists is in the _Khawaja_ decision.


----------

