... that you do so, not because of the judge's decision in and of itself, but because it takes away an opportunity to lay blame at the feet of a group with which you oppose? That is, prior to this ruling, if someone in Canada is convicted of being a terrorist, then they have to have had a political, religious, or ideological motivation to do so. By extension, if you define the act by the motivation, then the motivation itself will be perceived to be the crime - not the crime itself.
Ontario Superior Court Justice Douglas Rutherford ruled today that a clause that deals with religious, political or ideological motivation - a chief part of the Act’s definition of terrorism - violates Section 2 of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, guaranteeing freedoms of religion, thought and belief.
I'm not sure how that line of thinking can be supported.
After this ruling, if an alleged terrorist is found guilty of committing a terrorist act, it will be done without additional add-on that the alleged did it for "religious, political or ideological motivation". That motivation will come into play certainly at a sentencing, if the alleged is found guilty, but it's no longer a part of the crime committed nor the definition of the crime.
Tags: canada, justice, politics, terrorism