Supreme Court to decide if ‘motive’ matters in anti-terror law
Lawrence Greenspon, lawyer for convicted terrorist Momin Khawaja, is seen during a recess at the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa on Monday.
SEAN KILPATRICK/THE CANADIAN PRESS
Published On Mon Jun 11 2012 Tonda MacCharles
OTTAWA—Canada’s constitutional guarantees of free speech, religious freedom, and a citizen’s right to remain in the country are on trial at the country’s top court in a series of far-reaching challenges to Ottawa’s extradition and anti-terror laws.
Seven Supreme Court of Canada judges hearing a trio of terrorism appeals were urged Monday to “moderate the tenor of the times” and strike down a clause that declares “terrorist” activity to be any criminal act or facilitation of it that is driven by a “religious, political or ideological purpose.”
They were also urged to overturn what lawyers said were over-zealous extradition orders against Canadian citizens to face terrorism charges in the U.S. that could have been tried here.
Lawyer Lawrence Greenspon, representing Momin Khawaja, the first Canadian convicted under the post-9/11 law for participating in the 2004 London fertilizer bomb plot, says the “motive” clause that underlies the definition of terrorism goes too far. It punishes citizens who might express support for, but who don’t actively or knowingly “facilitate” actual terrorist activity, he said.
