National Security Law and Anti-Terrorism Law

Prof. Kent Roach - "Two steps forward, one back in dealing with terrorism"

Thursday, April 25, 2013

In a commentary in the Ottawa Citizen, Prof. Kent Roach analyzes developments in the use of the law in response to terrorism, in relation to recent arrests and federal government legislation ("Two steps forward, one back in dealing with terrorism," April 24, 2013).

Read the full commentary on the Ottawa Citizen website, or below.

Challenging America’s Targeted Killings Program in U.S. Courts

The International Human Rights Program

and

The Muslim Law Students Association

present:

Challenging America’s Targeted Killings Program in U.S. Courts:

Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta


Jameel Jaffer

Director, Centre for Democracy, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

Canadian Anti-Terror Law on Trial

Kent Roach
Tuesday, June 13, 2006

This commentary by Professor Kent Roach is cross-posted from the Jurist Forum.

The arrest of twelve adults and five youths on terrorism charges in Toronto has resulted in world-wide attention on Canada’s anti-terrorism efforts. The allegations are shocking. They include claims that the men tried to purchase three tons of ammonium nitrate to use in truck bombs and that they trained to prepare for terrorism north of Toronto. ...

The men have been charged with a variety of crimes under the Anti-Terrorism Act that was added with considerable controversy to Canada’s Criminal Code in late 2001. Only one other person, Mohammad Momin Khawaja, has been charged under the new law. He was charged in March, 2004 and his trial has yet to be held. The result is that the new Anti-Terrorism Act remains untested.

Read the full posting on the Jurist Forum website.

 

Torture and the Case of Syria

Ed Morgan
Friday, August 10, 2007

This morning’s news brings Maher Arar back to the front pages, this time with revelations that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), and not just the RCMP in collaboration with immigration and security authorities in the United States, had advance knowledge that he would be tortured. If true it is an important disclosure, and calls are rightly being made for an investigation of CSIS’ role in all of this. Indeed, this new angle on the Arar case harks back to accusations of CSIS involvement in the case of another Canadian, Muayyed Nurreddin, who claims that CSIS officials set him up to be abused abroad. Two other Canadians, Abdullah Almalki and Ahmad El Maati, have made similar accusations of collusion by Canadian government authorities in their arrests, interrogation, and torture. Each of these cases is slightly different and each points to different branches of security services on both sides of the Canada – U.S. border. Each one, of course, deserves independent investigation and a legal remedy for wrongs done to the individuals concerned.

Canada's New Terrorism Bills: Slow Down and Debate

Kent Roach
Monday, October 29, 2007

Canadian Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day tabled new legislation in the House of Commons last Monday to allow British-style special advocates to play a role in security certificate cases that are used to detain and deport non-citizens suspected of involvement in terrorism. The bill responds to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision earlier this year that the existing legislation was unconstitutional.

On Tuesday the government tabled another bill in the Senate to revive investigative hearings and preventive arrests. These Criminal Code powers were introduced after 9/11 but expired in March, 2007 after the government failed to convince Parliament to renew them for three years. The government now proposes to include the powers in the Criminal Code, subject to a some changes and a 5 year renewable sunset.

The official opposition - the Liberal Party - has indicated some preliminary support for both bills and they appear likely to pass. There is a need to slow down and carefully consider both bills, as well as important work already done by Parliamentary committees on anti-terrorism law.

Suicide Bombings: An Act to Amend the Criminal Code

Ed Morgan
Monday, April 14, 2008

Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein (Lib.) has recently introduced into Parliament a proposed amendment to the anti-terrorism provisions of the Criminal Code, Bill S-210, which is now before the Senate's Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. The Bill is a short and straightforward one, which provides:

Section 83.01 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (1.1):

(1.2) For greater certainty, a suicide bombing comes within paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition "terrorist activity" in subsection (1).

Although the point seems an obvious one, and, indeed, has been objected to by a number of MP's and senators on the grounds that it defines an act that is already covered by the Code's definition of "terrorist activity", the proposed amendment has merit. Criminal law has a public education and labelling function which will be advanced by this definitional statement. In addition, given that Canadian courts often look to international law and its institutional pronouncements on questions of interpretation, the amendment is necessary in order to avoid the interpretive pitfalls into which international human rights and United Nations bodies have fallen.

My brief to the Senate committee is attached.
Download SuicideBombingS210.pdf

 

The Significance of Khadr: Part I

Sujit Choudhry
Saturday, May 24, 2008

Khadr is a highly significant judgment, for a number of different reasons.  For Omar Khadr himself, the Court held that he has a constitutional right to the disclosure of the interrogations conducted by Canadian officials in Guantanamo Bay, some or all of which were shared with American authorities.  For the international campaign to close Guantanamo Bay, the Supreme Court has added its voice to the chorus of informed legal opinion in stating that the regime in Guantanamo Bay – at least at the time of the interrogations – violated the Geneva Conventions, which guarantee fundamental human rights to armed combatants.

But the judgment is potentially of much wider significance. Khadr is the latest in a line of cases in which the Court has been asked to set out the precise application of the Charter in situations where Canada cooperates with foreign governments in the national security context.  Canada works with foreign governments in different ways.  For example, it may share intelligence, which foreign governments may then act upon to arrest, detain, interrogate and even torture an individual – as tragically occurred in the case of Maher Arar.  In other situations, Canadian officials may themselves be abroad – such as the CSIS officers who interrogated Omar Khadr in Guantanamo Bay, or Canadian armed forces in Afghanistan.  Canada may also cooperate with foreign governments through extradition and deportation.

The Significance of Khadr - Part II

Sujit Choudhry
Monday, May 26, 2008

In my previous post, I talked about the new ground broken by Khadr.  In this post, I want to identify and offer preliminary reflections on some important questions raised by the judgment.  First, though, full disclosure: I was counsel for the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association in the appeal.  Second, a disclaimer: these views are strictly my own.

To recall, in my last post, I wrote

Suresh established what we termed the “doctrine of constitutional complicity”, which holds that Canada is constitutionally liable for human rights abuses committed by foreign states which occur outside of Canada when (a) such abuses would violate the Charter had they occurred in Canada at the hands of the Canadian government; and (b) Canada has been complicit in the human rights abuses of the foreign state.

Guilt by Association? Not Quite

Kent Roach
Friday, October 3, 2008

This commentary was published in the Toronto Star on September 30, 2008.

The recent conviction of a young offender in the Toronto terrorism case has raised concerns that his conviction was a form of guilt by association. The Crown's star witness, Mubin Shaikh, was quick to tell reporters that he did not believe the young man was a terrorist. That said, those who read Justice John R. Sproat's 98-page decision will know that the legal issue is not quite so simple.

The young man was charged under a new offence created by the Anti-Terrorism Act enacted in December 2001 in the wake of 9/11. It provides a broad offence of participating in the activities of a terrorist group. To be guilty of this offence, the Crown must prove that the accused knew he was participating or contributing to a terrorist group and was doing so for the purpose of enhancing the ability of the group to facilitate or carry out a terrorist activity.

In other words, one does not have to be a terrorist who is planning a specific terrorist act to be guilty under this offence.

The Omar Khadr Case: Redefining War Crimes

Audrey Macklin
Tuesday, November 4, 2008

This commentary was first published on the Jurist website on October 31, 2008.

George W. Bush’s term as president is coming to an end, and he has little to show by way of meting out justice for the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Perhaps this is why his administration seems so desperate to score a victory on the judicial battleground of the military commissions. That its target is Omar Khadr, a child soldier at the time of the alleged offenses, makes the spectacle all the more pathetic to the observer, and tragic for Khadr.

The charges against Khadr include “murder in violation of the laws of war,” and providing material support to the enemy. The most serious allegation against him is that on July 27, 2002 in Afghanistan, he threw a grenade that killed US soldier Sergeant Christopher Speer. Indeed, until a few months ago, the official story went unchallenged in the public domain. Thanks to an inadvertent government leak, we have since learned of evidence supporting at least two alternate scenarios, namely that another combatant might have thrown the grenade or that Sgt. Speer was killed by “friendly fire.”

Pages