Comments on: Now Even Shoplifters are Terrorists http://lawiscool.com/2009/05/27/now-even-shoplifters-are-terrorists/?nucrss=1 The law school blog and podcast from Canada Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:00:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Lawrence Gridin http://lawiscool.com/2009/05/27/now-even-shoplifters-are-terrorists/comment-page-1/#comment-5531 Lawrence Gridin Thu, 28 May 2009 23:54:19 +0000 http://lawiscool.com/?p=1609#comment-5531 KC: from my perspective, if someone is charged with a criminal offence for hate speech (e.g. under s. 319 of the Criminal Code) then they should absolutely be entitled to all the procedural safeguards and standards of proof of the criminal justice system. As Law Is Cool said, we all have differing opinions. However, I don't think anyone on this website has ever advocated anything else. I'd have this discussion on the other thread, but it appears that commenting on it is disabled. <hr> (Actually a few other views have been expressed before Lawrence joined the site, but they're buried in all the other content. When we started getting the mass trolling we decided to collectively support the one individual contributor under attack by our guest visitors. Comments are now enabled.) KC: from my perspective, if someone is charged with a criminal offence for hate speech (e.g. under s. 319 of the Criminal Code) then they should absolutely be entitled to all the procedural safeguards and standards of proof of the criminal justice system.

As Law Is Cool said, we all have differing opinions. However, I don’t think anyone on this website has ever advocated anything else.

I’d have this discussion on the other thread, but it appears that commenting on it is disabled.

(Actually a few other views have been expressed before Lawrence joined the site, but they’re buried in all the other content. When we started getting the mass trolling we decided to collectively support the one individual contributor under attack by our guest visitors. Comments are now enabled.)

]]> By: KC http://lawiscool.com/2009/05/27/now-even-shoplifters-are-terrorists/comment-page-1/#comment-5529 KC Thu, 28 May 2009 22:31:11 +0000 http://lawiscool.com/?p=1609#comment-5529 I'd be interested to know what the LawisCool folks would think of the idea of a quasi-judicial tribunal adjudicating with lower procedural standards and standards on proof on terrorism related subject. Would you be agreeable to a new quasi-judicial tribunal which deals with complaints regarding persons expressing radical and/or violent ideologies on a civil standard? If that tribunal could only impose a gag order and fines would it be a reasonable limit on free speech? I ask because some days you appear to be of the view that preventing terrorism is a less important state objective than the prevention of hate. Certainly in the view of myself (and many others as well) the former is at least as 'pressing and substantial'. FWIW I would not support what I am suggesting here. <hr> Law is Cool: None of us share a uniform position on almost anything in the law, but you're free to poll our contributors if they're willing to respond individually. The position of this piece is that the legislation is not even preventing terrorism; it is imprisoning people for acts that were never intended for the purpose of terrorism at all, or with any knowledge of a terrorist plot. Arguably miscarriages of justice of this type would only fuel the type of animosity that goes into genuine terroristic acts. At present, this type of speech you refer to is already covered under current human rights codes and the Criminal Code. See the post <a href="http://lawiscool.com/2008/01/10/even-jihadists-have-the-right-of-free-speech/" rel="nofollow">Even Jihadists Have the Right of Free Speech</a>. Please continue your discussion of that topic on that post, or address the subject matter of this one directly. I’d be interested to know what the LawisCool folks would think of the idea of a quasi-judicial tribunal adjudicating with lower procedural standards and standards on proof on terrorism related subject.

Would you be agreeable to a new quasi-judicial tribunal which deals with complaints regarding persons expressing radical and/or violent ideologies on a civil standard? If that tribunal could only impose a gag order and fines would it be a reasonable limit on free speech?

I ask because some days you appear to be of the view that preventing terrorism is a less important state objective than the prevention of hate. Certainly in the view of myself (and many others as well) the former is at least as ‘pressing and substantial’.

FWIW I would not support what I am suggesting here.

Law is Cool:
None of us share a uniform position on almost anything in the law, but you’re free to poll our contributors if they’re willing to respond individually.

The position of this piece is that the legislation is not even preventing terrorism; it is imprisoning people for acts that were never intended for the purpose of terrorism at all, or with any knowledge of a terrorist plot.

Arguably miscarriages of justice of this type would only fuel the type of animosity that goes into genuine terroristic acts.

At present, this type of speech you refer to is already covered under current human rights codes and the Criminal Code. See the post Even Jihadists Have the Right of Free Speech.

Please continue your discussion of that topic on that post, or address the subject matter of this one directly.

]]> By: KC http://lawiscool.com/2009/05/27/now-even-shoplifters-are-terrorists/comment-page-1/#comment-5528 KC Thu, 28 May 2009 21:58:07 +0000 http://lawiscool.com/?p=1609#comment-5528 Therein lies my discomfort--reclassify a traditionally criminal law matter as an administrative one and poof! Gone are the standard rules of evidence. Maybe if the government wants to get your support on its anti-terrorism initiatives it just has to deem it an administrative matter, establish a quasi-judicial commission and do away with all the procedural safeguards of the criminal law. My issue is with your double standard. For what its worth I agree with you regarding the troubling mens rea requirements in the Anti-Terror Act. Therein lies my discomfort–reclassify a traditionally criminal law matter as an administrative one and poof! Gone are the standard rules of evidence. Maybe if the government wants to get your support on its anti-terrorism initiatives it just has to deem it an administrative matter, establish a quasi-judicial commission and do away with all the procedural safeguards of the criminal law.

My issue is with your double standard. For what its worth I agree with you regarding the troubling mens rea requirements in the Anti-Terror Act.

]]> By: Beenish http://lawiscool.com/2009/05/27/now-even-shoplifters-are-terrorists/comment-page-1/#comment-5520 Beenish Thu, 28 May 2009 04:05:27 +0000 http://lawiscool.com/?p=1609#comment-5520 This case proves that it is time to explore the anti terror act in detail, the structure and the wording of such vague terms, that allow the justice system, within the 'law' to treat Canadian individuals in an inferior manner that would not be deemed acceptable when comparing to the regular 'criminal code'. Allowing for such laws that give the state so much power over individuals, puts the future of millions of Canadians at risk. We may not see it now, but we will in the future, if many many Canadians have to go through the same hardships as these individuals. This case proves that it is time to explore the anti terror act in detail, the structure and the wording of such vague terms, that allow the justice system, within the ‘law’ to treat Canadian individuals in an inferior manner that would not be deemed acceptable when comparing to the regular ‘criminal code’. Allowing for such laws that give the state so much power over individuals, puts the future of millions of Canadians at risk. We may not see it now, but we will in the future, if many many Canadians have to go through the same hardships as these individuals.

]]>