Leave religion out of terror law, groups say
Current legal definition of terrorism encourages police and security officers to engage in religious or ethnic profiling
By JEFF SALLOT
Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Posted at 4:10 AM EDT
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
OTTAWA — Courts should be able to convict people of terrorism even when there is no strong evidence of a political or religious motive for the crime, Canadian Muslim and Arab groups told a parliamentary panel reviewing the federal Anti-Terrorism Act yesterday.
The current legal definition of terrorism encourages police and security officers to engage in religious or ethnic profiling and to ask highly inappropriate questions about the spiritual beliefs and practices of individuals, the groups said.
Moreover, proving motive is much tougher for police and prosecutors in terrorism cases than simply establishing the facts around the commission of a crime, the requirement in most other criminal cases, the Canadian Arab Federation, the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association and the Canadian Council on American Islamic Relations said in brief to the Commons subcommittee on national security.
The groups suggest a definition of terrorism along the lines of one adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada in a refugee case: as an act intended to cause death or serious injury to civilians in order to intimidate a population or to compel a government action.
The subcommittee is giving the Anti-Terrorism Act its first comprehensive review since Parliament adopted the tough new measures after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.
The legislation's requirement to prove a religious or ideological motive is both "insidious and ineffective," said Ziyaad Mia, spokesman for the Muslim lawyers. "When you add religion as a motive you are saying faith is a proxy for criminality."
Conservative MP Kevin Sorenson suggested that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and other agencies have limited resources and need to focus their investigations on specific groups. "You don't send the anti-terrorist squad to investigate the Amish or the Lutheran ladies. You go to where you think the risk is."
But Riad Saloojee, the executive director of the Canadian Council on American Islamic Relations, said that if law-enforcement agents are going to use profiling, they should do so on the basis of behaviour, not ethnicity or religion.
Police and intelligence services need to earn and keep the goodwill and trust of the Islamic community to help produce "intelligent intelligence" and to avoid wasting time chasing shadows, Mr. Saloojee added.
Faisal Joseph, a former federal prosecutor who is now legal counsel for the Canadian Islamic Congress, said the Anti-Terrorism Act is "unprecedented, unreasonable and unnecessary."
The Americans have chosen security over liberty, but that's not a road Canada must follow in lock-step, he said.
In the name of security, Mr. Joseph said, the Americans will disregard the rule of law, as is clear by the recent remarks of U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins about the Maher Arar case.
Mr. Wilkins told The Canadian Press that the United States deported Mr. Arar, a Canadian citizen, to Syria in 2002 on the basis of the facts at hand "in the best interests of the people of the United States, and we stand behind it."
The Canadian Jewish Congress said it generally supports the Anti-Terrorism Act, but would supplement it with a preamble and regulations making clear that profiling on the basis of religion or ethnicity is not allowed.
CJC general counsel Mark Freiman said profiling on the basis of country of origin is another matter, and security agencies should be able to use this as one of the criteria for selecting who will face additional scrutiny. "Some countries do export terror." Asked later what countries he has in mind, Mr. Freiman declined to say. But he noted the United States maintains a list of countries that it believes export terrorism.
David Matas, a representative of Jewish human-rights group B'nai Brith, said the act should be toughened to outlaw incitement to terrorism as a separate crime.
Current legal definition of terrorism encourages police and security officers to engage in religious or ethnic profiling
By JEFF SALLOT
Wednesday, September 21, 2005 Posted at 4:10 AM EDT
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
OTTAWA — Courts should be able to convict people of terrorism even when there is no strong evidence of a political or religious motive for the crime, Canadian Muslim and Arab groups told a parliamentary panel reviewing the federal Anti-Terrorism Act yesterday.
The current legal definition of terrorism encourages police and security officers to engage in religious or ethnic profiling and to ask highly inappropriate questions about the spiritual beliefs and practices of individuals, the groups said.
Moreover, proving motive is much tougher for police and prosecutors in terrorism cases than simply establishing the facts around the commission of a crime, the requirement in most other criminal cases, the Canadian Arab Federation, the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association and the Canadian Council on American Islamic Relations said in brief to the Commons subcommittee on national security.
The groups suggest a definition of terrorism along the lines of one adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada in a refugee case: as an act intended to cause death or serious injury to civilians in order to intimidate a population or to compel a government action.
The subcommittee is giving the Anti-Terrorism Act its first comprehensive review since Parliament adopted the tough new measures after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.
The legislation's requirement to prove a religious or ideological motive is both "insidious and ineffective," said Ziyaad Mia, spokesman for the Muslim lawyers. "When you add religion as a motive you are saying faith is a proxy for criminality."
Conservative MP Kevin Sorenson suggested that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and other agencies have limited resources and need to focus their investigations on specific groups. "You don't send the anti-terrorist squad to investigate the Amish or the Lutheran ladies. You go to where you think the risk is."
But Riad Saloojee, the executive director of the Canadian Council on American Islamic Relations, said that if law-enforcement agents are going to use profiling, they should do so on the basis of behaviour, not ethnicity or religion.
Police and intelligence services need to earn and keep the goodwill and trust of the Islamic community to help produce "intelligent intelligence" and to avoid wasting time chasing shadows, Mr. Saloojee added.
Faisal Joseph, a former federal prosecutor who is now legal counsel for the Canadian Islamic Congress, said the Anti-Terrorism Act is "unprecedented, unreasonable and unnecessary."
The Americans have chosen security over liberty, but that's not a road Canada must follow in lock-step, he said.
In the name of security, Mr. Joseph said, the Americans will disregard the rule of law, as is clear by the recent remarks of U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins about the Maher Arar case.
Mr. Wilkins told The Canadian Press that the United States deported Mr. Arar, a Canadian citizen, to Syria in 2002 on the basis of the facts at hand "in the best interests of the people of the United States, and we stand behind it."
The Canadian Jewish Congress said it generally supports the Anti-Terrorism Act, but would supplement it with a preamble and regulations making clear that profiling on the basis of religion or ethnicity is not allowed.
CJC general counsel Mark Freiman said profiling on the basis of country of origin is another matter, and security agencies should be able to use this as one of the criteria for selecting who will face additional scrutiny. "Some countries do export terror." Asked later what countries he has in mind, Mr. Freiman declined to say. But he noted the United States maintains a list of countries that it believes export terrorism.
David Matas, a representative of Jewish human-rights group B'nai Brith, said the act should be toughened to outlaw incitement to terrorism as a separate crime.