OTTAWA (AFP) - A judge threw out Canada's legal definition of terrorism, saying it violated the constitutional rights of a Canadian Muslim accused of links to a foiled British bomb plot.
In his ruling, Superior Court Justice Douglas Rutherford said Canada's Anti-Terrorism Act defines terrorism by what motivates it, and so wrongly attempts to police people's thoughts, religious beliefs or opinions.
Mohammed Momin Khawaja, a 27-year-old software developer linked to a major anti-terror sweep in Britain in 2004 that was said to have averted a major bomb attack, was the first person charged under the act after his arrest that year.
Speaking to CTV News, Khawaja's lawyer, Lawrence Greenspon discussed today's ruling:
Meanwhile, in Ottawa, a Parliamentary Committee is urging renewal of the very provisions struck by the Court today, according to CTV:Greenspon argued the judge's ruling showed the mistake of passing what he argued was politically-motivated legislation.
"How many times does the Canadian government have to apologize to the next generation, or the generation after, before we learn the lesson of history which is you don't pass legislation in response to politics," he told CTV Ottawa outside the Superior Court.
On Tuesday, Justice Douglas Rutherford of Ontario Superior Court "severed" the clause in the Anti-Terrorism Act dealing with ideological, religious or political motivation for illegal acts.
Two controversial anti-terrorism powers given to police in Canada after 9/11 are set to expire this year -- but a parliamentary committee says they should be extended to 2011 for the sake of national security.
According to The Toronto Star, the public safety committee says the measures should be reviewed again once Canada has a decade of experience with them.
Strange times, indeed.
More at the links below:
- Garry J. Wise, Toronto
Visit our Website: www.wiselaw.net
No comments:
Post a Comment
Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post here. Comments are subject to the site's terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of Wise Law Blog and the writers thereof. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed without notification.