Minority Views on the Canadian Anti-Terrorism Act

4.  Detailed Findings(continued)

4.  Detailed Findings (continued)

4.3 Reactions to the ATA (continued)

4.3.2 Definition of Terrorist Activity

Each respondent was issued a simplified one-page printed handout summarizing the definition of a terrorist activity, and was given a few minutes to read it over before the group discussion took place. Note that participants and groups focused mainly on self-selected aspects of this provision.  

Overall Reaction

Previous knowledge or awareness of the existence of a definition was virtually non-existent across all groups.  Overall, after reading the handout, participants in all groups seemed to approve in principle of this provision's existence.  Only a handful questioned the need for such a definition, even though many were unsure of the details and had some serious concerns.

Of the 5 printed summaries of ATA aspects, this was probably the most confusing and difficult to understand in most groups. Some participants seemed a bit overwhelmed by the complexity of even the summarized definition.

For those who approved outright, the definition was thought to be clear and if not, it was a good framework, and was at least heading in the right direction, filling a gap.  It not only discerned between simple criminals and terrorists, but some participants actually liked the lack of specificity.

If you leave it a little broad you can add and work around it.
(Calgary group 2)

For others, the provision was too broad, too vague and subject to interpretation, and could therefore harm innocent people in 3 main ways -- relating to intention, legitimate protest and the targeting of ethnic minorities.

  1. Its ambiguity of criteria and conditions were thought to leave it too open to interpretation, legal loopholes and potential abuse, and made it difficult to prove in terms of intention or motivation.
    • The definition is subjective and depends on the country – for example, the IRA were considered freedom fighters by the US, but considered terrorists in the UK. (Toronto Group 2)
    • Not concerned with the definition, but concerned by its interpretation – could be twisted. (Toronto Group 2)
  2. In most locations, the line between legitimate protest and terrorism was thought to be blurry.
    • You can have a protest if you get a permit, but if it is peaceful and you don't have a permit you are a terrorist (Calgary Group 1 member, referring to a forbidden protest against a recent WTO meeting in Alberta).
    • Everybody who stands against a society is a potential terrorist. (Calgary Group 3)
    • La ligne qui sépare la protestation n'est pas claire. (The line between terrorism and legal protest is not clear.) (Montreal Group 1)
  3. Several participants in Group 1 worried especially about ethnic minorities being targeted, given what had already happened in the US.

Confusion emerged around 3 key issues of the definition, regarding the 3 criteria, the definition of a terrorist, and enforcement abroad.

  1. Clearly, people were confused as to whether all 3 criteria had to be met, even though this was not specifically commented on everywhere.  Some who did notice were not sure about its effectiveness – for example, one Toronto Group 3 respondent worried that.
    • They have to meet all the criteria is a problem – they don't meet one and they get off.
  2. However, as a result of misunderstanding the application of all 3 criteria, there were participants in all locations who struggled with the definition of a terrorist, and questioned whether their understanding of the criteria fit certain situations.  For example, they wondered if rioting sports fans, the uni-bomber, the anti-abortion doctor (motivated by his own goals), Ernst Zundel, hate crimes, acts of vandalism, Rwandan genocide, and even the invasion of Iraq would be considered terrorism or terrorist acts.
    • To many, terrorism seemed to be loosely defined as "violent acts against innocent people."  For example, according to one Anglophone participant from Montreal, "When I think of terrorism, I think of any psycho – regardless of political intent."
  3. It was hard for some in various locations to understand how a Canadian law could apply to threats outside Canada, in other countries.
    • Comment une loi canadienne peut s'appliquer à une menace à l'étranger? How can a Canadian law apply to a threat abroad?)

Participants in the Montreal Group 1 spontaneously pointed out that financing (a relevant issue for them) was not specified in the definition, but this was not mentioned in other groups.

Rien ne parle de financement dans la définition. (Nothing is said about financing in the definition.)

In sum, even though many participants did not understand the definition of a terrorist activity provision, and had reservations and some confusion over various aspects, participants still voiced general approval of the definition. 

Perceived Usefulness

Overall, despite the concerns raised, the definition of a terrorist activity provision was generally considered a useful tool to identify terrorists, but not necessarily to prevent terrorism. "This is the first thing you have to do … to start with a definition." (Calgary Group 2)

Some francophone Arab/West Indian participants felt it could help relieve suspicion on the Arab/Muslim community.  According to others, it could "do no harm." However, some in various locations (especially in the Halifax Group 1) did not think it was useful because (1) it was "too vague and subject to misinterpretation and abuse" – an emotionally charged topic, to be sure; (2) it could be applied incorrectly; and (3) it could affect innocent people.

Some expressed uncertainty about its usefulness, with a typical comment being "I think yes, but I'm not sure." (Calgary Group 3)

When queried about the need for similar definitions, most participants agreed that such definitions were necessary and had to be on the books, no matter how ambiguous, because (1) it reassured some in Group 1 that they would not be seen as terrorists simply because they were Muslims, and (2) it was "better than nothing."  Participants in the Calgary non-visible minority group agreed, with one stipulation – Definitions needed to be "constantly updated," to keep pace with the times (this idea was applauded when mentioned).

On the other hand, some participants in various locations did not see the need because (1) "a definition cannot prevent anything," (Halifax Group 2); and (2) terrorists or smart lawyers could "always find a loophole" (a repeated statement throughout the discussions.)

Desire for Information

Most participants thought there should be more information available on the definition of a terrorist activity because it was important, as long as there was "not too much."  The information should be in different languages because "not everyone," especially in immigrant communities, "can speak French or English."

In addition, participants wanted the information to be aimed at everyone.  Montreal Arab/West Indian participants emphasized that it should not be targeted specifically to their community because it would increase the perceived link between them and terrorism

"Oui, mais attention de ne pas nous cibler. (Yes, but be careful not to target us.)"

While some in Halifax were less convinced of its importance, a few in Toronto thought such information should have been available before the Act became law.