Victory for man in terror case may make conviction easier: Knowledge Driven Revolution

A senior federal lawyer says a constitutional victory by the first person charged under Canada's Anti-Terrorism Act may make it easier to ultimately convict him.

Stanley Cohen, a senior general counsel at the Justice Department, said Saturday that Momin Khawaja had "sacrificed his rook" in successfully arguing part of the law contravenes the Charter of Rights.

On Monday, the Ontario Superior Court struck down a portion of the legal definition of terrorism, saying it infringes on constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion, thought and association.

Justice Douglas Rutherford's decision banishes a provision that made proof of terrorism dependent on proving a religious, political or ideological motive for the crime.

The definition generated controversy when the law was debated and passed in the weeks following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Khawaja, of Ottawa, was charged under the terror law in March 2004 for alleged involvement in a British bomb plot.

Despite Rutherford's ruling, his trial will proceed early next year.

Cohen told a conference on national security that with the motive requirement of the law no longer in force, it may actually be easier to establish Khawaja's liability.

Khawaja's lawyer, Lawrence Greenspon, has said the ruling strikes at the heart of the anti-terror law and should have resulted in the seven terrorism charges against Khawaja being thrown out.

The court ruling came shortly after another Ontario judge struck down secrecy provisions of the anti-terror law in tossing out RCMP warrants used to search a reporter's home.

The Ontario Superior Court judgment quashed three sections of the so-called leakage elements of the Security of Information Act, which is part of the Anti-Terrorism law.

The provisions were used by the RCMP in January 2004 to search the home and office of Ottawa Citizen reporter Juliet O'Neill - an attempt by the Mounties to find the source of leaked information about the Maher Arar affair.

The court said the provisions were overly broad and contravened the constitutional right of press freedom.

The sections in question were drawn directly from the decades-old Official Secrets Act, long criticized as poorly drafted and inconsistent with the Charter.

Cohen, who works in Justice's human rights law division, indicated at the conference Saturday the leakage provisions were not updated following 9-11 due to time constraints.

"It was a job that was not completely finished," he told the annual conference of the Canadian Association for Security and Intelligence Studies.

The government has not yet said whether it will appeal either of the court rulings.

Cohen, who said he is not directly involved in the cases, declined to comment after addressing the conference.

Committees of the House of Commons and Senate studying the Anti-Terrorism Act are likely to make recommendations about both the definition of terrorism and the leakage provisions in reports due in coming months.

Cohen denied the two court rulings left in shreds earlier federal assurances the anti-terror law was constitutional.

He noted much of the law is still in place and suggested it is too early to say whether the judgment striking down part of the terrorism definition would stand if appealed.

University of Toronto law professor Kent Roach told the conference the definition decision is a signal that Parliament should revisit the Anti-Terrorism Act.

Roach added there could be a "perfect storm" of three significant judgments on terror law this year, given that the Supreme Court of Canada is about to rule on the validity of national security certificates.

The certificates are used to deport non-citizens deemed a threat to Canada.

Read Today's Knowledge Driven News
HOME Canadians Should Pay NOT to be Poisoned: NDP V for Vendetta - R for Reality Canadian Bird Flu Pandemic Looming ? Shill of the Week: Stephan Harper Aspartame: The Sweetest Killer Chicken Little Terrorist of the Week: Creating Fake Terrorists Shill of the Week: Paul Martin The Number 1 Reason YOU became a Slave	Victory for man in terror case may make conviction easier: federal lawyer JIM BRONSKILL - CP October 30, 2006 A senior federal lawyer says a constitutional victory by the first person charged under Canada's Anti-Terrorism Act may make it easier to ultimately convict him. Stanley Cohen, a senior general counsel at the Justice Department, said Saturday that Momin Khawaja had "sacrificed his rook" in successfully arguing part of the law contravenes the Charter of Rights. On Monday, the Ontario Superior Court struck down a portion of the legal definition of terrorism, saying it infringes on constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion, thought and association. Justice Douglas Rutherford's decision banishes a provision that made proof of terrorism dependent on proving a religious, political or ideological motive for the crime. The definition generated controversy when the law was debated and passed in the weeks following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Khawaja, of Ottawa, was charged under the terror law in March 2004 for alleged involvement in a British bomb plot. Despite Rutherford's ruling, his trial will proceed early next year. Cohen told a conference on national security that with the motive requirement of the law no longer in force, it may actually be easier to establish Khawaja's liability. Khawaja's lawyer, Lawrence Greenspon, has said the ruling strikes at the heart of the anti-terror law and should have resulted in the seven terrorism charges against Khawaja being thrown out. The court ruling came shortly after another Ontario judge struck down secrecy provisions of the anti-terror law in tossing out RCMP warrants used to search a reporter's home. The Ontario Superior Court judgment quashed three sections of the so-called leakage elements of the Security of Information Act, which is part of the Anti-Terrorism law. The provisions were used by the RCMP in January 2004 to search the home and office of Ottawa Citizen reporter Juliet O'Neill - an attempt by the Mounties to find the source of leaked information about the Maher Arar affair. The court said the provisions were overly broad and contravened the constitutional right of press freedom. The sections in question were drawn directly from the decades-old Official Secrets Act, long criticized as poorly drafted and inconsistent with the Charter. Cohen, who works in Justice's human rights law division, indicated at the conference Saturday the leakage provisions were not updated following 9-11 due to time constraints. "It was a job that was not completely finished," he told the annual conference of the Canadian Association for Security and Intelligence Studies. The government has not yet said whether it will appeal either of the court rulings. Cohen, who said he is not directly involved in the cases, declined to comment after addressing the conference. Committees of the House of Commons and Senate studying the Anti-Terrorism Act are likely to make recommendations about both the definition of terrorism and the leakage provisions in reports due in coming months. Cohen denied the two court rulings left in shreds earlier federal assurances the anti-terror law was constitutional. He noted much of the law is still in place and suggested it is too early to say whether the judgment striking down part of the terrorism definition would stand if appealed. University of Toronto law professor Kent Roach told the conference the definition decision is a signal that Parliament should revisit the Anti-Terrorism Act. Roach added there could be a "perfect storm" of three significant judgments on terror law this year, given that the Supreme Court of Canada is about to rule on the validity of national security certificates. The certificates are used to deport non-citizens deemed a threat to Canada. Read the full article here Broken Link? If the link to the original article is broken or has been altered you can view the article by clicking here. About KDR \| \| Home \| \| Weekly Features Archive	Weekly Features Archive
		What Is Wrong With Canada ? Recent 9-11 News Suppressed by the Media Aspartame: The Sweetest Killer The Number 1 Reason YOU became a Slave Knowledge Driven Look at Your Favourite Canadian Political Parties
		August September October 2006 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Weekly Features 2006 2005 Read Today's Knowledge Driven News
		Counter
Copyright � 2005-6 KnowledgeDrivenRevolution.com

Victory for man in terror case may make conviction easier: federal lawyer