Definition of Terrorist Activity in Canada. While participants had no idea that a definition of a terrorist activity even existed, most approved of this provision in principle, and some thought it was filling a gap, even though many were unsure of the details and had some concerns.
Those who approved saw the definition as a "good framework," which was "headed in the right direction." Some participants felt reassured they would not be seen as terrorists just because they were Muslims. On the other hand, some found it too broad and vague, and thought it could harm the innocent in 3 ways: (1) its ambiguity and numerous 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; (2) the line between legitimate
protest and terrorism was blurry, and (3) participants in several Participants in Group 1 worried about ethnic minorities being targeted, given what had happened in the U.S. since 9/11.
Confusion emerged around 3 key issues. First, participants were not sure if all 3 criteria had to be met. Second, due to uncertainty about the need to meet all 3 criteria, participants struggled with the definition, and wondered, for example, 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 terrorist acts. Terrorism seemed to be generally defined as "violent acts against
innocent people." Third, some had difficulty understanding how a Canadian law could apply to threats outside Canada, in other countries.
Despite concerns, the definition of a terrorist activity was considered a useful tool to identify terrorists, but not necessarily to prevent terrorism. Participants were interested in obtaining more information about it.
Tags: Activity, Canada, definition, Terrorist