Indiscriminate Attacks strengthens case for Tamil self-rule- Aussie MP

[TamilNet, May 05, 2006 10:10 GMT]
"Whatever the provocation, targeting Tamil civilians by the Sri Lankan Government clearly demonstrates that it does not regard the Tamil people to be part of its population. It thus strengthens, in my view, the Tamil people's case for self determination," said Australian parliamentarion John Murphy, Member for the Federal State of Lowe, in a media release issued Friday.

Full text of the media release follows:

"In my view, the spiraling violence in Sri Lanka can only be brought to an end by implementing the Cease-Fire Agreement entered between the Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in February 2002.

Media reports of air strikes by the Sri Lankan regime on 25th and the 26th April are appalling in that they have resulted in the deaths of at least 15 civilians and displacement of well over 15,000 people. The air strike was claimed by the Sri Lankan Government to be retaliatory attacks mounted to avenge the bombing at the Military High Command in Colombo. Whatever the provocation, targeting Tamil civilians by the Sri Lankan Government clearly demonstrates that it does not regard the Tamil people to be part of its population. It thus strengthens, in my view, the Tamil people's case for self determination.

The failure to implement vital clauses in the Cease-Fire Agreement is, in my view, the direct cause for the spiraling violence.

In my opinion, had the Government of Sri Lanka at least implemented the Joint Mechanisms agreed between the parties to address the damage caused by the war and the damage caused by tsunami, the negotiations could have resumed. These were agreements that were reached between the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE during the 4 year Cease-Fire. They had the potential to rebuild trust between the Sinhala and Tamil people.

I refer to the observations by the Canadian Liberal party parliamentarian, Hon. Maria Minna, following her fact finding mission to Sri Lanka in March 2005: “To be honest with you, I am not terribly positive about the possibility of getting back to peace discussions if they can’t agree on the reconstruction from the tsunami because that should be an easier one”

The implementation of the Cease-Fire Agreement is vital and the Australian Government needs to do more and use its influence with the Sri Lankan Government to end the spiraling violence.

Sri Lanka could then begin negotiations with the Tamil leadership to find an enduring political solution based on the Tamil people's right to self determination.

All of us want to see a peaceful and just resolution to the conflict in Sri Lanka.


 


Thursday, May 4, 2006
Dear Mr. Jesuthasan,
I am forwarding this reply on behalf of Bob Hepburn, the editorial page editor.
Sharon Burnside, Public Editor

May 4, 2006
Dear A. Jesuthasan,
Your recent complaint to the Ontario Press Council has been referred to me.
You expressed concern about a paragraph in a letter written by Mr. V. Thangavelu, President of Thamil Creative Writers Association, dated April 30, 2006 and addressed to the Editor, Toronto Star, that said: "You will recall that when I wrote a letter to the Editor, I got a reply in raw filth from your editorial office".

You expressed shock that the Toronto Star would send a reply of this nature, and asked that action be taken.
I can assure you the message was sent in error, it was never intended for Mr. Thangavelu, I apologized to him as soon as I realized what had happened. The Public Editor has also apologized in response to a recent letter from Mr. Thangavelu, offering a more detailed explanation than I was able to give him at the time.

On the day that Mr. Thangavelu sent his letter, a private note from a staff member to a friend, quoting a bit of movie dialogue that included some offensive language, was accidentally attached to the reply. We feel very badly that Mr. Thangavelu received this message by mistake and about any offence caused.

I trust this addresses your concern.
Yours truly,
Bob Hepburn,
Editorial Page Editor
cc Mel Sufrin, Ontario Press Council
     V. Thangavelu, Thamil Creative Writers Association

Anthonypillai Jesuthasanj:
Thank you for your e-mail.
The constitution of the Ontario Press Council requires that the newspaper be given a further opportunity to respond to, and possibly redress, the complaint before the council decides whether to adjudicate it. Accordingly, this correspondence is copies to the Toronto Star. Please let me know whether its response redresses the complaint.

Mel Sufrin, Executive Secretary

Original Message -----
From: Anthonypillai Jesuthasan <mailto:ajselvams@yahoo.ca>
To: info@ontpress.com <mailto:info@ontpress.com>
Cc: athangav@sympatico.ca <mailto:athangav@sympatico.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 6:58 PM
Subject: Toronto Star smear campaign against the LTTE and WTM
CANADIAN ORGANIZATION FOR PEACE AND EQUALITY IN SRI LANKA
(COPE-SL)
May 03, 2006.
The Chairman,
The Ontario Press Council,
2 Carlton Street, Suite 1706,
Toronto, Ontario,
M5B 1J3.
Dear Sir,
Reference the letter from Mr. V. Thangavelu, President of Thamil Creative Writers Association dated April 30, 2006 addressed to the Editor, Toronto Star with copy to you.

Your attention is drawn especially to the paragraph therein, highlighted and given in quotes as follows :
"You will recall that when I wrote a letter to the Editor, I got a reply in raw filth from your editorial office".
We are shocked with disbelief that the editorial office of a responsible newspaper like Toronto Star would indulge in sending replies to readers in foul and unparliamentary language of scum and street urchins !

We have no doubt that you would have taken serious view of this indiscretion on the part of your staff and taken necessary and suitable action that would act as a deterrent for future.

We shall be glad to be informed of your action in this regard.
Thanking you.
Yours faithfully
A. Jesuthasan
Joint Convenor, COPE-SL
5703, Passion Flower Blvd.,
Mississauga, ON L5M 7E7.
Tel: 905 826 9445
c.c. Mr. V. Thangavelu
 

 


 

 

Toronto

 

May 9, 2006

 

News editor

CTV 

 

Organized crime gangs aiding terrorists: RCMP 

 

Dear Sir,  

 

You are talking through your hat when you say "Also known as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the Tigers were listed as a terrorist group by the United Nations ………. "

 

For your information the LTTE is not a banned organization by the United Nations and United Nations is not in the business of banning organizations.

 

The Toronto Star published a similar story on April 09, 2006 and repeated it in its editorial on 11th April, 2006, but it has since published an apology in its issue dated April 19, 2006 at page 2. It reads as follows-

 

Toronto Star
April 19, 2006
Page: A2
 
"Tamil Tigers not listed as terrorists by UN

 The United Nations has not designated the Liberation
Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, as
a terrorist organization. A story published Sunday, April 9 and
an editorial printed Tuesday, April 11 erroneously said the UN
had listed the group. The Star regrets the error."

Sincerely,
Deborah Jessop


Public Editor's Office
Toronto
Star
One Yonge St.

Toronto ON
Canada M5E 1E6

Tel: 416-869-4949

I urge a similar retraction by the CTV for the slanderous story published forthwith.

 

May I also inform you that the statement "Sri Lanka 's Tamil Tigers have also used proceeds of crime to finance politically motivated violence" attributed to John Thompson of the Toronto-based one-man Mackenzie Institute is a figment of his imagination? He has been pedaling this type of inflammatory and Gobbelsian propaganda through the columns of neo-fascist newspapers and magazines in Canada without producing a shred of evidence to prove the charge. I challenge this so-called expert on "terrorism" to produce tangible evidence prove his charge.

 

I have also taken a mental note of Minister Stockwell Day's assertion that "It's one of the reasons we took steps and initiatives against the Tamil Tigers to protect, certainly, the good people in the Tamil     community and all Canadians." Suffice to say Thamil Canadians appreciate the Minister's sense of good humour!

 

Yours truly,

 

 

 

V.Thangavelu

President

 


Toronto Tamils protest raid

By NATALIE PONA, TORONTO SUN
 

Nish Vel never thought Tamil students living in Canada would be the target of police raids.

"Canada is known for being up on human rights ... this raid is completely contradictory to what I know about Canada," said Vel, 17, who was one of a few hundred Tamils gathered at Mel Lastman Square on Yonge St. for a rally last night.

The gathering was organized to protest a police raid April 22 at the Tamil Academy of Culture and Technology.

"I didn't think this would happen here," Vel said, adding such events happen "on a daily basis" in Sri Lanka.

Vel said his family escaped persecution in his homeland by coming to Canada in 1994, so "I'm really disappointed and saddened" this happened here, he said.

The rally was put on by the Canadian Tamil Students Association (CTSA). It was also in protest of what the CTSA is calling "discriminatory policies" by the Canadian government, which in April condemned the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) as a terrorist group.

The CTSA wants the Canadian government to hold consultations with local Tamils before making policy decisions, to get involved in the Sri Lankan peace process and reconsider its decision to put the LTTE on the terror list.

Students waved black flags and chanted along with a rap group who sang about freedom of expression.

"We're being targeted and discriminated against," said Senthooran Uruthiralingam, a student at the rally.

He said all Tamil groups are being portrayed as terrorists.

"We're not," he said.

Canada’s proscription comes under heavy criticism as Solidarity Week is lauched
Source: Canadian Tamil Congress - May 10, 2006


 


 

The Canadian Tamil Congress (CTC) yesterday launched “Solidarity Week for Peace” at the Delta Toronto East Hotel in Toronto, Canada. Piragal Thiru of the Canadian Tamil Congress said that because of the recent rise in violence, “Tamil Canadians are deeply concerned about the safety of the lives of their families and loved ones in the North & East of Sri Lanka.”

The focus of the evening shifted to the recent decision by the Government of Canada to proscribe the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) as speaker after speaker denounced the decision. Ms. Barbara Jackman a prominent immigration lawyer said that the Canadian Government’s decision “sends a message to Canadians that you should not be supporting any, even the political objectives of the Tamil cause to self-determination.”

According to Ms. Jackman, the decision by the Canadian Government changes the dynamics in Sri Lanka. “What it does especially at this time of the deteriorating situation in Sri Lanka - it gives the Sri Lankan government an upper edge,” Ms. Jackman said.

“Tamils need to educate others on the oppression taken against Tamils and increasing series of violence since the 50s. It is clear that the Conservative Government does not know much about the Tamil community - does not understand the conflict in Sri Lanka,” Ms. Jackman added.

Marlys Edwardh, a prominent criminal lawyer in Canada a partner of Edwardh & Ruby said, “The Government of Canada made a – what has been a very political choice to list the LTTE as a terrorist organization under Canadian Law.” Speaking on the culture of fear that has gripped the community since the series of raids that followed Canada’s decision, Edwardh said, “We need to look more closely into this legislation and understand the impact on the community in order to reduce uncertainty and fear to act and speak freely.”

“What was taken and why? Why would [RCMP] officers take subscriptions list to a community newspaper? Why would they make it difficult for an independent newspaper to function? Whose voice are they trying to silence?” Edwardh asked in a series of penetrating questions to the audience.

Tarek Fatah of the Muslim Canadian Congress said, “You cannot sanctify, legitimize, politify these whims at [parliament] hill with impunity. You send your super sonic jet fighters to bombard Tamil villages and then accuse the victims of that bombardment as terrorists and leave the government that bombed the people as law-bidding.” “Those who fight for freedom cannot be stigmatized as terrorists,” Mr. Fatah further observed.

Community activist Gary Anandasangaree said, “This is not the Canada we are familiar with.”

Mr. Anandasangaree announced that a “Tamil Canadian Legal Defense Fund” will be established to protect Tamil Canadians and hotline will be made available and cases of rights violations in Canada will be documented.

Observations for Solidarity Week for Peace will continue until the 14th of the month.


Dear Veluppillai Thangavelu,

Thank you for your letter of April 30, 2006. It was forwarded to me.

We are still looking into the question you raised about the World Tamil Movement.

However I would like to address two other things that you mentioned in your letter.

First, I made inquiries when I saw the sentence in your letter that said: "You will recall that when I wrote a letter to  the editor, I got a reply in raw filth from your editorial office. "

I would like to apologize on behalf of the Star and explain. It is my understanding that you received an apology from Editorial Page Editor Bob Hepburn in April, but I have more information now than he did at the time.

On the day that you emailed your letter to the Star, a staff member was writing a friend about a quote from a movie. The staff member copied a paragraph of dialogue from the movie script, then accidentally attached this paragraph to the reply that went to you. Unfortunately, there were offensive references in the movie quote.

I apologize for any offence that we caused as a result of this mistake. The person who made the mistake feels terrible about it. When Mr. Hepburn was in touch, he didn't know how this had happened because the staff member was on vacation.

Secondly, I want to address your request for an apology in regards to our mistake about the United Nations.

The Star did apologize for its error. The published correction said:

 

 

Toronto Star

Pubdate:April 19, 2006

Tamil Tigers not listed as terrorists by UN

 The United Nations has not designated the Liberation
Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, as
a terrorist organization. A story published Sunday, April 9 and
an editorial printed Tuesday, April 11 erroneously said the UN
had listed the group. The Star regrets the error. 

 

 

As you know, the situation in regards to the standing of the LTTE is complicated.

 

Canada has responded to the United Nations Suppression of Terrorism Regulations, concerns raised in the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, and concerns raised in a recent Human Rights Watch report, by listing the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam "(also known among other names as the Tamil Tigers, the Eellalan Force, the Ellalan Force, the Tiger Movement, the Sangilian Force, the Air Tigers, the Black Tigers (Karum Puligal), the Sea Tigers, the Tiger Organization Security Intelligence Service and the Women's Combat Force of Liberation Tigers)" as a terrorist organization. Fundraising for LTTE is a criminal activity in Canada.

 

However, as you rightly pointed out, the United Nations has not designated the LTTE as a terrorist organization. We acknowledged that error, we regret that error and said this in print.

 

If we find we've made an error in reference to the World Tamil Movement and its relationship to the United States, we will acknowledge and will very much regret that error as well. We thank you for drawing the matter to our attention.

 

Yours truly,

Sharon Burnside

Public Editor

 

cc Mel Sufrin, Ontario Press Council

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Thangavelu [mailto:athangav@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 7:44 AM
To: Public Editor, The Toronto Star
Subject: Fw: Toronto Star smear campaign against the LTTE and WTM

 

 

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 1:11 PM

Subject: Toronto Star smear campaign against the LTTE and WTM

 


 

 

 

April 30, 2006

 

 

The editor

Toronto Star

Toronto. (Attention: Deborah Jessop, Public Editor's Office)

 

Toronto Star smear campaign against the LTTE and WTM

 

Dear Sir,

 

Thank you for your undated e-mail message received by me on April 28, 2006.

 

Since I have cancelled my subscriptions for Tor Star I missed the correction published by you on the 19th April, 2006.

 

However, what I asked for is not a correction but an apology since the statement “The United Nations has already designated the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, also known as Tamil Tigers or the LTTE, a terrorist organization” caused irreparable damged to the image of Thamil Canadians in the eyes of mainstream Canadians.

 

It is apparent the Toronto Star either by design or default is out to denigrate the Thamil community by publishing false stories about the LTTE and other organizations.

 

Notwithstanding your correction you made, your overzealous reporters Surya Bhattacharya and Michelle Sheppard claimed  that (RCMP raids Toronto Offices- Tigers outlawed as a terrorist group – Tor Star April 23, 2006)  The United States has banned the WTM, denouncing it as a front for the LTTE.”  Once again this claim has been made recklessly and without a shred of evidence to support it. For your information WTM has NOT been banned by the US any time.

 

The Tor Star must feel ashamed to continue  publishing such false statements to smear the Thamil Canadian community either out of ignorance or without any regard to truth.

 

It looks though something is very wrong the way Tor Star is run. You will recall that when I wrote a letter to  the editor, I got a reply in raw filth from your editorial office.

 

I, therefore, reiterate that Tor Star offers an unqualified apology since these false statements  have damaged the standing of the Thamil community.

 

 

Yours truly,

 

 

 

Veluppillai Thangavelu

President

 

Cc:

The Chairman
THE ONTARIO
PRESS COUNCIL
2 Carlton Street, Suite 1706
,
Toronto, Ontario

M5B 1J3
 


 

Thank you for your letter dated 26 April 2006 and for the copy of your letter dated 11 April 2006.

On Wednesday 19 April 2006
, p.A2 The Toronto Star published a correction that you may have missed:

Toronto Star

 

April 19, 2006 Page: A2
 
"Tamil Tigers not listed as terrorists by UN

 The United Nations has not designated the Liberation
Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, as
a terrorist organization. A story published Sunday, April 9 and
an editorial printed Tuesday, April 11 erroneously said the UN
had listed the group. The Star regrets the error."

Sincerely,
Deborah Jessop


Public Editor's Office
Toronto Star
One Yonge St.
Toronto ON
Canada M5E 1E6

Tel: 416-869-4949


 

 


Nk 03> 2006

nuhwd;Nuh

 

nra;jp

 

tp.Gypis ma;f;fpa ehLfs; gaq;futhj ,af;fk; vdg; gl;bay; ,l;Ls;sJ vdj; jtwhd nra;jp ntspapl;l nuhwd;Nuh ];uhH tUj;jk; njuptpg;G

 

nuhwd;Nuh - nuhwd;Nuhtpy; ,Ue;J ntsptUk; nuhwd;Nuh ];uhH vd;w Mq;fpy  ehNsL fle;j Vg;upy; 9 Mk; ehs; tp.Gypfs; kPJ gaq;futhj Kj;jpiuiaf; Fj;j fdlh KbT vd;w jiyg;gpy; xU nra;jpia ntspapl;bUe;jJ. me;jr; nra;jpapy; ma;f;fpa ehLfs; mit jkpo;g; Gypfs; vd;W miof;fg;gLk; jkpoPo tpLjiyg; Gypfis Vw;fdNt xU gaq;futhj ,af;fk; vdg; gl;bay; ,l;Ls;sJ vd vOjg;gl;bUe;jJ.

 

,uz;L ehs; fopj;J vOjg;gl;l Mrpupa jiyaq;fj;jpYk; ma;f;fpa ehLfs; mit jkpo;g; Gypfs; vd;W miof;fg;gLk; jkpoPo tpLjiyg; Gypfis Vw;fdNt gaq;futhj ,af;fk; vdg; gl;bay; ,l;Ls;sJ vdf; Fwpg;gplg;;gl;lJ.  

 

ma;f;fpa ehLfs; tp.Gypfis gaq;futhj ,af;fk; vdg; gl;bay; ,l;Ls;sJ vd;w nra;jp jtwhdJ mjpy; cz;ik ,y;iy mg;gb cz;ikf;Fg; Gwk;ghd nra;jp ntspapl;ljw;F nuhwd;Nuh ];uhH ehNsL  jkpo; r%fj;jplk; kd;dpg;Gf; Nfl;f Ntz;Lk; vdj; jkpo;g; gilg;ghspfs; fofk; mjd; MrpupaUf;Ff; fbjk; vOjpaJ.

 

,g;NghJ nuhwd;Nuh ];uhH ehNsL jdJ Vg;upy; 19 Mk; ehs; ,jopy; gpd;tUkhW jpUj;jk; ntspapl;Ls;sJ.

 

"Tamil Tigers not listed as terrorists by UN”

 The United Nations has not designated the Liberation
Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, as
a terrorist organization. A story published Sunday, April 9 and
an editorial printed Tuesday, April 11 erroneously said the UN
had listed the group. The Star regrets the error."

jkpo;g; Gypfs; ma;f;fpa ehLfs; mitahy; gaq;futhjpfs; vdg; gl;bay; ,lg;gltpy;iy

 

ma;f;fpa ehLfs; mit jkpo; Gypfs; vd miof;fg;gLk;  jkpoPo tpLjiyg; Gypfis gaq;futhj mikg;G vd gl;baypltpy;iy. nuhwd;Nuh ];uhH Vl;by; Vg;upy; 9 Mk; ntspte;j nra;jpapYk; Vg;upy; 11 Mk; ehs; (nrt;tha;f;fpoik) jPl;lg;gl;l jiyaq;fj;jpYk; ma;f;fpa ehLfs; mit mt;thW gl;bay; ,l;ljhfr; nrhy;yg;gl;lJ gpioahFk;. ,e;jj; jtWf;F nuhwd;Nuh ];uhH jdJ tUjj;ijj; njuptpj;Jf; nfhs;fpwJ.

 

Mdhy; kPz;Lk; nuhwd;Nuh ];uhH Vg;upy; 23 Mk; ehs; ntspapl;l nra;jpapy; ma;f;fpa mnkupf;fh cyfj; jkpoH ,af;fk; jkpoPo tpLjiyg; Gypfs; ,af;fj;jpd; kiwKf mikg;G vd;gjhy; mjidj; jilnra;Js;sJ (The United States has banned the WTM, denouncing it as a front for the LTTE)  vd vOjpaJ. ,e;jr; nra;jpAk; jtwhd nra;jp vd;gij vLj;Jf;fhl;b mjw;F kd;dpg;Gf; Nfl;FkhW nuhwd;Nuh ];uhH ehNsl;bd; MrpupaUf;F jkpo;g; gilg;ghspfs; fofk; kPz;Lk; fbjk; vOjpAs;sJ.

 

jkpoPo tpLjiyg; GypfSf;Fk; mjd; MjuthsHfSf;Fk; vg;ghL gl;lhapDk; fsq;fk; fw;gpf;f Ntz;Lk; vd;w cs;Nehf;NfhL nuhwd;Nuh ];uhH njhlHe;J jtwhd nra;jpfis ntspapLfpwJ vd ek;gg;gLfpwJ.

 


 

 

 

 

April 28, 2006

 

 

Toronto.

 

Press Release

 

B’nai Brith Canada is turning a blind eye to State Terror

 

We are not amused  B’nai Brith Canada is applauding the Conservative government for adding the LTTE to the terrorist list. Obviously,  B’nai Brith is exploiting the bogey of “terrorism” to cover Israeli genocide, war crimes and ethnic cleansing of Palestinian people.  

 

If B’nai Brith Canada is seriously interested in fighting terrorism it should stand before a mirror and look itself.  Then they will know who the real terrorists are!

 

Unfortunately, but quite expectedly B’nai Brith Canada is turning a blind eye to the State terror unleashed by the Israel against the Palestinian people. Not only B’nai Brith Canada, even the International Community itself has completely ignored Israeli war crimes against the Palestinian people.  Who should be arrested for the targeted killing of dozens of Palestinians? Who should be sent to jail for the killing of thousands of Palestinian civilians?  Who will stand trial for demolishing Palestinian homes using bulldozers? Who will be arraigned for the collective punishment of more than three million civilians during the last several decades?  And who will face the International Tribunal for the illegal Israeli settlements of occupied Palestinian Lands, and the disdain for UN resolutions for more than 35 years?

Suicide bombs killing innocent citizens must be unequivocally condemned as immoral acts, and their perpetrators should be brought to justice.  But they cannot be compared to State terrorism carried out by the Israeli Government. The former are individual acts of despair of a people that see no future, vastly ignored by an unfair and distorted international public opinion. The latter are cold and "rational" decisions of a State and a military apparatus of occupation, well equipped, financed and backed by the only superpower in the world.

Yet in the public debate, State terrorism and individual suicide bombs are not even considered as comparable cases of terrorism. Worse the State terror and war crimes perpetrated by the Israeli Government are legitimized as "self-defense"!  

When it comes to state terrorism Sri Lanka is not second to Israel. Both states practice terror as a fine art under the cloak of fighting against “terrorism.”

The Canadian Government decision to outlaw the Tamil Tigers represents not “a meaningful step forward” but a definite retrogressive step that will jeopardize the ongoing peace process.  Already we see unmistakable signs of the ill-advised and ill-considered ban imposed on the LTTE by Canada.  Embolden by the ban, the Sri Lankan government had gone on a killing spree against the Thamil people.  A total of 103 Thamil civilians have been killed by the Sri Lankan army and paramilitaries since the Geneva talks held in March, 2006.

 

In response to the suicide attack on the Sri Lankan army general in Colombo, the armed forces shelled and bombed ostensibly LTTE targets, but in effect Thamil villages in the Trincomalee district.  A total of 15 Thamil civilians got killed and more than 40,000 Thamils have been displaced following the bombing.

 

We have no hesitation in giving part of the ‘credit’ to Harper’s government for the massacre of the Thamil people by the Sri Lanka State terror machine! Canada

has abdicated its responsibility to protect Thamil civilians from genocide, war crimes and ethnic cleansing by the Sri Lanka State terror. 

 

-30- . 

 

 



 

 


 

April 14, 2006                                                                                                             

                                                                                                               56 Littles Road
                                                                                                               Scarborough
                                                                                                               On. M1B 5C5

The Chairman
THE ONTARIO PRESS COUNCIL
2 Carlton Street, Suite 1706,
Toronto, Ontario
M5B 1J3

Telephone: (416) 340-1981
FAX: (416) 340-8724

E-mail: info@ontpress.com

“Canada to slap terrorist label on Tamil Tigers….” (Toronto Star April 09, 2006).

Dear Sir,  

I append below the letter I wrote to the editor, Toronto Star  on April 11, 2006 in my capacity as the President of TCWA. The letter is self explanatory. On April  09,   the Toronto Star carried a news story headlined “Separatist Tamil Tigers outlawed Ottawa lists them as terrorist group.   Move long overdue, Conservatives say.” The news story was written by Surya Battacharya and  Michelle Shephard in Toronto. 

The news story, inter alia, claimed that “The United Nations has already designated the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, also known as Tamil Tigers or the LTTE, a terrorist organization.” 

This is factually false and misleading and  included wittingly to add spice to the story and make it to  look more sensational. . The UNO does not maintain a list of terrorist organizations or individuals.  

I, therefore, kindly request you to take appropriate action against the editor, Toronto Star. 

A copy of the Toronto Star news story dated April 09, 2006 is appended below for ease of reference.  You will agree the  insinuation is unwarranted and a slur on the entire Thamil Canadian community.  A request by me to the editor to offer an unqualified apology has gone unheeded.

 

Yours truly,

 

 Veluppillai Thangavelu

416 281 1165

 


 

 April 11, 2006

The editor
Toronto Star
Toronto.
 

Dear Sir,
 

I refer to the news story Canada to slap terrorist label on Tamil Tigers….” (Toronto Star April 09, 2006). The news story states, inter alia, that “The United Nations has already designated the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, also known as Tamil Tigers or the LTTE, a terrorist organization.” This is factually wrong and  shows an   extreme manifestation of antipathy  and  a sign of paranoia towards the LTTE and their supporters.  We are sorry say that your reporters  Surya Bhattacharya and Michelle Shephard are exhibiting at best their contempt for truth and   at worst their private ignorance in public.  The UNO for your information has NOT designated the LTTE as a terrorist organization. As a matter of fact the UNO   is not a sanctions body nor does it maintain a list of terrorist organizations or individuals.

In the wake of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 1373, which, among its provisions, obliges all States to criminalize assistance for terrorist activities, deny financial support and safe haven to terrorists and share information about groups planning terrorist attacks. The 15-member Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) was established at the same time to monitor implementation of the resolution. This is a far cry to claim that the UNO has designated the LTTE as a terrorist organization.

The Tor Star owes an unqualified apology to the Thamil community who are supporters of the LTTE for false and misleading news story.

 

Yours truly,

 

V.Thangavelu
President
Thamil Creative Writers Association

416 281 1165

 


Tamil terrorist label will hurt talks, groups say

OTTAWA -- Sri Lankan groups say Canada will lose its ability to pursue a peaceful end to their native country's conflict if Ottawa declares the separatist Tamil Tigers to be a terrorist organization.

"If they ban [the Tigers] here, Canada cannot be involved any more in the peace process," Chris Sandrasagra of the Canadian Relief Organization for Peace in Sri Lanka said yesterday, adding that he does not understand why the government would make this move at this juncture.

"Right now, there is no war going on down there. There is a peace process going on down there. It's a ceasefire."

Today, federal sources say, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day will designate the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, as a terrorist group. Aides to Mr. Day and Prime Minister Stephen Harper refused to comment on the expected move yesterday.

The United Nations, as well as the United States and Britain, have also applied the terrorist label to the Tigers over the group's use of suicide bombers and allegations that it has been involved in the assassinations of heads of state, including former Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1991.

The designation means that fundraising for the Tigers will become an illegal activity, and it could make it more difficult for Canada's 200,000-member Tamil community to travel home to visit relatives.

The Forum of Federations, led by former Ontario premier and potential Liberal leadership candidate Bob Rae, has been trying to help Sri Lanka build a peaceful co-existence modelled on the relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada. Mr. Rae refused to comment on the decision yesterday.


  

Canada to slap terrorist label on Tamil Tigers
Toronto community angered, could face charges if caught raising funds

Apr. 9, 2006. 01:00 AM

AND MICHELLE SHEPHARD
STAFF REPORTERS

 The federal government will list the Tamil Tigers as a terrorist group, enraging those in Toronto's Tamil community who believe labelling the group will hurt Sri Lanka's peace process.

"I am disappointed that the government has not consulted the community on its views," said Sri-Guggan Sri-Kanda-Rajjah, a prominent member of the Tamil community in Toronto.

Government officials plan to make the announcement tomorrow, sources confirmed yesterday.  

It's the first group that has been added to Canada's list of terrorist organizations since the Conservative government came into power.
The United Nations has already designated the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, also known as Tamil Tigers or the LTTE, a terrorist organization.  

The highly organized group strives to carve out an independent Tamil state in the island country. More than two decades of civil war between the Tigers and Sinhalese government has claimed the lives of more than 60,000.  

There are documented human rights abuses on both sides, but the LTTE's use of suicide bombers and child soldiers has led to their terrorist designation in some Western countries, including the United States and United Kingdom.  

Now, fundraising on behalf of the LTTE will be considered criminal activity, said Wesley Wark, professor of international relations at the University of Toronto. Being enlisted also opens up the groups' activities to surveillance by CSIS. "And down the road there is a possibility of trials if fundraising and other kinds of operations are suggested to have occurred in this country," Wark said.

It is unlikely the LTTE will engage in terrorist activities against Canada, but they are more likely to take their activities underground, he said.  

More than 20 years after Tamils began immigrating to Canada, they continue to make up one of the largest groups to claim refugee status.  

In 1999, 10 per cent of all refugee claimants in Canada were from Sri Lanka.

"There was already some burden placed on refugees from Sri Lanka because of the ongoing violence in the country," Wark said.  

"But now there is a stepped-up degree of burden to prove why they're here," he added, noting that refugee claims have grown more complicated in the post-9/11 environment. And it will be difficult to explain their past given they are now part of the minority that has been listed as a terrorist group.  

Canada has often been cited as a harbinger of peace for the island nation by using the federalist system of Quebec within Canada as an example.  

"I feel the Canadian government is basically wasting an opportunity to play the role of a facilitator and a mediator in finding a solution," Sri-Kanda-Rajjah said.

Should peace be established in the future, Wark said the organization could be de-listed. But for now the signal is that the Tamil Tigers are a terrorist organization because Canada does not support groups overseas that use violence for political means.

With the peace negotiations moving slowly, he added it might force them to genuinely engage in peace negotiations.  

Both sides are respecting a fragile 2002 ceasefire, until coming together again later this month for a Norwegian-brokered meeting.  

The Sri Lankan High Commission in Ottawa refused to comment on how it may affect the peace process. It will also complicate travel for the 200,000 strong Tamil diaspora who live in Canada and continue to have ties in Sri Lanka. They may be unable to visit families in LTTE-controlled areas.  

Prominent members of Toronto's Tamil community had lobbied the government to hold off on a decision until the discussions either progressed or broke down.  

"It is not a wise move for the government to do it at this stage because the peace talks are the most important thing," said Sinnathamby Sittampalam, the 72-year-old president of Toronto's World Tamil Movement.  

Sittampalam said Canada's WTM is a local organization and has no ties to the LTTE. The WTM is labelled a fundraising front for the Tigers in the U.S.  

The move to list the LTTE follows a report by New York-based Human Rights Watch that called on the Canadian government to investigate claims of extortion and intimidation within Toronto's Tamil community. Those who do not make a donation face threats to their families in Canada or back home in Sri Lanka, the report alleged. It also claimed Toronto's WTM was collecting funds to help support the LTTE.  

"The fundraising has been portrayed, money that is being collected, as somehow going to the war effort. That's extremely unfair. There are serious, genuine organizations that are providing relief for those affected by civil war and the tsunami," Sri-Kanda-Rajjah said.

"It will disadvantage the people living in Sri Lanka tremendously."


 

http://www.insidetoronto.ca/to/scarborough/story/3438790p-3975133c.html?loc=scarborough

http://www.insidetoronto.ca/to/scarborough/story/3438789p-3975119c.html?loc=scarborough

 

Listing Tamil Tigers as terrorist group sparks local debate
Conservative government puts LTTE on banned list

MIKE ADLER

Apr. 12, 2006

Tamil organizations in Canada attacked the Conservative government's decision this week to ban the Tamil Tigers as a terrorist group, calling it misguided and a threat to peace.

The Canadian Tamil Congress, the community's most prominent organization, said the decision shatters hopes for peace in Sri Lanka and will encourage extremists on both sides. "Canadian Tamils are fearful of the safety and security of their relatives back home and of their civil liberties in Canada," David Poopalapillai, spokesperson for the Scarborough-based group said in a release Monday.

The Thamil Creative Writers Association went further in a statement issued within hours of the decision, calling the Conservative government "brainwashed" by Canada's spy agency CSIS and a victim of "vicious and systematic anti-LTTE propaganda."

Reversing the decision, said the letter signed by president Veluppillai Thangavelu "will also help remove the perception that the Conservative party is basically anti-immigrant and unsympathetic towards visible minorities."

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam has used suicide bombers and recruited child soldiers during three decades of fighting for an independent Tamil state in Sri Lanka. The decision to list the Tigers as terrorist makes it a crime to collect money for them in Canada.

Last month, the New York-based group Human Rights Watch alleged Greater Toronto's Tamils are a major source of Tiger funds and that collections for the LTTE last fall - some of it by volunteers of the World Tamil Movement of Ontario in Scarborough - involved intimidation or even extortion from some Tamil families or businesses.

Local Tamil groups denied the report's conclusions but this week the Sri Lankan United National Association of Canada, which pressed the new government to ban the Tigers last month after the report was released, applauded the decision, charging previous Liberal governments "abandoned their international obligations and principles to curry favour" with Tamil voters for support in Toronto-area ridings.

"It is only pressure brought to bear by the international community against terrorism" that compelled the LTTE to agree to a ceasefire in 2002, the group added in a statement.

During the federal election campaign in January, the Conservatives moved to control damage to their prospects in Scarborough after Deputy Leader Peter McKay said a Conservative government would ban the LTTE. Though McKay was restating an existing Tory position, an internal e-mail obtained by the Canadian Press suggested the party and its candidates "had promised not to talk about the issue during the election."

Vincent Veerasuntharam, who ran for the Conservatives in Scarborough Southwest, was in Ottawa yesterday and unavailable for comment.

Roy Gardiner, a Tamil-Canadian and former newspaper publisher, held a small rally in front of a Scarborough hotel at the time, calling on MacKay and Conservative Leader Stephen Harper "to retract and apologize for this statement" and assure the community the Conservatives would "maintain a neutral stance" on the LTTE to further the peace process.

Yesterday, Gardiner said he can understand Canadians would think Tiger methods are too harsh, but argued the Sri Lankan military has attacked Tamil civilians. "If the LTTE had not taken such measures the Tamil race from Sri Lanka would have been exterminated by now," he said.

"For some, it's a terrorist organization, for some it's a freedom fighters organization

 


Editorial: Banning Tamil Tigers

Apr. 11, 2006. 01:00 AM

Canada's fight against terrorism would not mean much if Ottawa allowed individual Canadians, willingly or not, to assist terrorist groups.

Yet that is exactly what has been happening in Toronto's 200,000-strong Tamil community, where fundraisers purporting to be supporting the Tamil Tigers have coerced money from community members who thought that when they came to Canada they had finally escaped Sri Lanka's brutal civil war.

Given that pressure, Safety Minister Stockwell Day did the right thing yesterday by banning the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) from operating here.

In light of a report last month by Human Rights Watch that the Tigers have used intimidation and coercion to extort money from the Canadian Tamil community, Day was justified in taking prompt action.

His move empowers the authorities to criminally prosecute anyone who raises funds for, or contributes to, the Tigers, who have been blamed for conscripting child soldiers, carrying out suicide bombings and assassinating heads of state in their bid to secede from Sri Lanka.

The ban follows repeated calls from the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service for government action, and is consistent with the position of the United Nations, which had already designated the LTTE a terrorist organization.

Fighting terrorism abroad is, of course, important. But just as significant is the protection Day has provided for law-abiding Canadian Tamils who sought refuge here from the cruel war in Sri Lanka, which has so far taken 60,000 lives.

Some 300,000 Tamils have moved to Canada — nearly half the Tamil diaspora worldwide.

Like any other community, they should be free to get on with their lives, leaving old conflicts behind.



http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1144705811532&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795

 


 

 

April 11, 2006

Hon. Stockwell Day, M.P. P.C.
Minister of Public Safety
Ministry of Public Safety
Ottawa.

Listing LTTE as a Terrorist Organization

Dear Minister,

We write to refute some of the grandiose assertions you made in your news release to justify the listing of LTTE as a terrorist organization. They are insulting, patronizing, condescending and display a singular inability to grasp the dynamics of the conflict.    Let me, therefore, respond to some of your assertions to the benefit of all Canadians.     

Assertion - “Our government is clearly determined to take decisive steps to ensure the safety of Canadians against terrorism.” 

Response – By safety of Canadians I assume you are referring to all  Canadians. At no stage there has been any threat whatsoever to  Canadians here or  abroad. There has not been a single case of terrorist act  in the name of LTTE in Canada. Even in regard to threats or intimidation, the Police have said not a single complaint was lodged with them against any supporters of the LTTE.

Assertion - “The Honorable Peter MacKay, Minister of Foreign Affairs, supporting this decision, reiterated the Government of Canada’s resolve to help achieve a negotiated settlement to the situation in Sri Lanka.”

Response – It is highly ridiculous, if not laughable,  that Canada could help in anyway to achieve a negotiated settlement to the "situation in Sri Lanka” by banning the LTTE. If at all Canada’s partisan and unilateral decision will disqualify it as an honest broker in any negotiations  for peace.   I may submit that you are overly optimistic if you think that LTTE will welcome your help. You cannot label the LTTE a “Terrorist organization” and at the same breath you want to help in negotiations. It does not make sense and flies in the face of cold logic. We all have our self respect and certainly the LTTE does.   

Assertion – “This organization is known for its commitment to using indiscriminate terror tactics and suicide bombings. Since the commencement of conflict more than 20 years ago, over 64 000 deaths have occurred." 

Response - This shows your total lack of understanding   the genesis of the conflict. Only when Non-violent methods failed in the face of state sponsored terrorism that Thamils were forced to take up arms in self-defence. The LTTE is a creation of oppressive and hegemonic Sinhala governments. Does the Thamils have no right to fight an oppressive and racist state?  I wish to tell you that if the Thamils had even a fraction of the rights enjoyed by Canadians under our constitution and charter  there would have been no civil war. If people of Quebec were subject to the same tyranny as the Thamils, Quebec would have been an independent state long years ago.  Even today president Mahinda Rajapakse says no to federalism, no to homeland and no to self-determination. Of the 64,000 people who died during the war 90% were Thamils killed by the Sinhala army, but you are implying that they were killed by the LTTE.  

Assertion – “This listing is meant to support the Tamil community in Canada who are law-abiding and hard working people who have left their country of origin to build a better life for themselves and their families in Canada -- where the rule of law and human rights are respected,”

Response - This is a tongue in cheek statement made that is unworthy of a Canadian Minister.  Did the Thamil community asked you for support? No one on behalf of the Thamil community asked you for such a ‘favour’!  The simple fact is the listing will alienate you and your party from the Thamil community.  

Assertion – “Rather, the listing of the LTTE reinforces the importance of ensuring that Canada's development assistance is not diverted to the LTTE. The Canadian International Development Agency has supported activities in LTTE territory for many years without such a diversion, and will continue to do so.”

Response - This is a completely misleading statement. CIDA has not spent a cent of the development assistance in LTTE controlled territory in living memory. Not even in the government controlled area in Northeast. I ask the Minister to list the development assistance given for the Northeast by CIDA for the information Thamil Canadians.

The former Liberal Government took a pracmatic decision by refusing to list the LTTE when   peace talks were in progress between the GOSL and the LTTE with international facilitation. But your government has done the opposite and thrown a spanner in the works. This will hinder and not help the peace process. 

In a sense this is not surprising when your party opposed the conferment of honorary citizenship to ANC leader Nelson Mandela on the grounds he is a terrorist. One of your member  openly said so  in parliament.  When  this is your party’s stance towards  a  world renowned leader like Nelson Mandela who freed his people from the yoke of White Apartheid rule what more the Thamils could expect? 

What you and your party needs is a fundamental course correction.

 

Yours truly,

 

V.Thangavelu
President
Thamil Creative Writers Association

  


 

Separatist Tamil Tigers outlawed Ottawa lists them as terrorist group

Move long overdue, Conservatives say

Apr. 11, 2006. 01:00 AM

Canada has outlawed a violent Sri Lankan separatist group in a move a critic says is mere "window dressing" that will divide the expatriate Tamil community.

The Conservative government yesterday officially announced that the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, also known as the Tamil Tigers, or LTTE, have been formally listed as a terrorist group.

The terrorist listing makes it illegal for anyone in Canada to support or participate in Tamil Tigers activities, including fundraising. The government says the listing is long overdue and will not negatively affect Canadian Tamils, nor affect talks on the Sri Lankan peace process that are about to resume in Geneva.

"We do not believe that this decision today is going to affect peace-loving, law-abiding Tamils living in Canada and their ability to support their families, to visit their families, to have their families come here," Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay told reporters yesterday. "This is aimed at terrorists who are involved in illegal activity, who are involved in many cases in violence and plotting of violence, that was being funded here in Canada."

MacKay and Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day also announced the launch of an ad campaign that will encourage the reporting of any suspected LTTE activity.

Day said fundraising by the Tigers in Canada "is in the millions."

But according to one legal expert, aside from the political and symbolic implications, the move has limited practical application.

"It's very unfortunate window dressing," says Queen's Faculty of Law professor Sharryn Aiken, who argues the negative impact of the listing outweighs any positive outcome. "As a matter of law, there is very little added benefit."

Aiken worries that Canada has lost its neutral position to help in the peace process when the two sides come together next week in Geneva for a Norwegian-brokered meeting.

But MacKay dismissed that concern yesterday.

He said he has spoken to Norwegian officials about Canada playing a more active role in the talks, including possibly holding talks here.

There are fears that if the talks break down, a 2002 ceasefire will be abandoned and the Tigers and Sri Lankan Singhalese government would again descend into civil war.

The former Liberal government had barred the LTTE from raising cash in Canada, under anti-terrorism legislation brought in after 9/11.

The implications of the action by the Conservatives are a concern for many in the Tamil community, since the majority of Canada's more than 200,000-strong diaspora supports the political aspirations of the Tigers to create an independent Tamil homeland.


Tamil terrorist label will hurt talks, groups say

OTTAWA -- Sri Lankan groups say Canada will lose its ability to pursue a peaceful end to their native country's conflict if Ottawa declares the separatist Tamil Tigers to be a terrorist organization.

"If they ban [the Tigers] here, Canada cannot be involved any more in the peace process," Chris Sandrasagra of the Canadian Relief Organization for Peace in Sri Lanka said yesterday, adding that he does not understand why the government would make this move at this juncture.

"Right now, there is no war going on down there. There is a peace process going on down there. It's a ceasefire."

Today, federal sources say, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day will designate the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, as a terrorist group. Aides to Mr. Day and Prime Minister Stephen Harper refused to comment on the expected move yesterday.

The United Nations, as well as the United States and Britain, have also applied the terrorist label to the Tigers over the group's use of suicide bombers and allegations that it has been involved in the assassinations of heads of state, including former Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1991.

The designation means that fundraising for the Tigers will become an illegal activity, and it could make it more difficult for Canada's 200,000-member Tamil community to travel home to visit relatives.

The Forum of Federations, led by former Ontario premier and potential Liberal leadership candidate Bob Rae, has been trying to help Sri Lanka build a peaceful co-existence modelled on the relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada. Mr. Rae refused to comment on the decision yesterday.

 


 


 

Tamil community reflects on change as New Year approaches
Community evolving in Scarborough and Canada

 

Apr. 12, 2006

In many ways, it's a community that is still new.

As their New Year arrives Thursday, representatives of Scarborough's Tamils - 70,000 of them, counting just those who speak Tamil as a first language at home - want to talk about their many successes.

Young people at universities. Thousands of businesses and professionals. Institutions taking shape.

They would like to hear less about their community's so-called gang problem or what a human rights group last month alleged were "clear patterns of intimidation and extortion" by local fundraisers for Tamil Tigers rebels in Sri Lanka.

For members of the Canadian Tamil Congress, however, talking about all these things is part of moving to the mainstream in Canada - exactly where they say the country's 250,000 Tamils are headed.

Most came here as refugees after anti-Tamil riots in 1983 made them feel it wasn't safe to stay in Sri Lanka. "We came with a suitcase," is how Scarborough resident Ted Antony put it this week.

But in the 1980s, the choice for Tamils fleeing the former British colony was London, not Toronto.

"Really, if you're talking numbers-wise, our community is only a decade old," community activist Parthi Kandavel said this week around a table with other CTC members in an Ellesmere Road real estate office where the group shares space.

Organizations such as the Tamil Eelam Society formed to take care of immigrants' needs and speak for the community. "They saw the gap. They didn't wait for the government to fill it," said Neethan Shan of Markham.

Tamil-Canadians are looking to fill the next gap, which is becoming a voice in government, said Shan, among several Toronto-area Tamils running for municipal office this fall.

Though many came to Canada with a distrust of politicians learned at home, the community's thinking is changing; its members are ready for the mainstream, joining school councils and hospital boards, Shan said.

"We've learned the art of politics, Canadian politics. This year, we're confident there will be at least one Tamil representative."

The community is also working with Toronto police to clear up misconceptions and hopes to see young Tamils go into policing, added Shan, who said police have lacked information about Tamils. That "my last name is my dad's first name," for example, could be confusing when identification from both are checked.

The issue of violence and gangs among Tamils here is "a Canadian-born problem" that stems from settlement difficulties and lack of support. Every immigrant community goes through such stages and it's a mistake to say "this is because of where they are coming from," said Shan, arguing groups of Tamil youth hanging around are called gangs by the media and such stories actually fuel crime by conferring them status.

"These are a bunch of boys trying to find recognition," he said.

"The amount of incidents is a fraction of what it used to be" during the late 1990s, Kandavel added.

The Canadian Tamil Youth Development Centre, with its annual Awards of Excellence for young Tamil-Canadian role models, also helps to combat stereotypes of Tamil youth.

There are many, however, who remain concerned about the well being of Tamils who may still carry emotional scars from the conflict in their homeland.

In 1999, a Scarborough man named Jeyabalan Balasingam jumped on the tracks in Victoria Park Station with his three-year-old son Sajanthan in his arms and both died. The Family Service Association of Toronto's advisory council was concerned about the tragic incident and some others.

With the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, it launched the Tamil Mental Health Project in 2001, a study with 1,600 interviews, so that the community could ask governments for more culturally sensitive programs. (The study was completed last year but remains unreleased due to lack of funds.)

"We know the level of trauma in the community," said longtime FSA worker Naga Ramalingam, suggesting the realities of getting a job, finding affordable housing and adjusting to life in Canada can compound problems Tamil-Canadians already have. "People here always think about relatives back home. That also re-traumatizes you," he said.

Last month, when community leaders thought they had finally banished the "bad headlines" of the previous decade, the New York-based Human Rights Watch released a report suggesting Tamil-Canadians live in fear of local supporters of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.

Widely reported in the media, the report was based on around two dozen interviews, "on innuendoes, (from) nameless, faceless people," charged David Poopalapillai, the official CTC spokesperson. "We didn't witness any extortion. That report portrayed the Tamil community as living in dark ages."

HRW "were taken for a ride," said Poopalapillai by people intent on tilting the balance at the current peace talks in Sri Lanka in favour of the Sri Lankan government. "There are government agents working all over the world."

Shan said non-Tamil co-workers and schoolmates in Scarborough have been asking Tamil friends if they are indeed living in fear. "I got asked, a lot of people are asking," he said. "This has put us backward. In the name of human rights, this report is a threat to our human rights in Canada."

The community, with more than 20 newspapers and three television stations, is well informed and well connected, so HRW's recommendation there should be a campaign to make Tamil-Canadians aware of their rights is "an insult," Shan argued.

"We believe in open communication. Things we didn't get in Sri Lanka we are celebrating."

Though the Boxing Day tsunami in 2004 devastated the Tamil community, it also brought more interaction with fellow Canadians and made the community stronger, Shan said. "A lot of people who got involved in the community because of the tsunami are still sticking together."

Tamils are particularly grateful Canadians donated about $400 million for relief.

"It was so overwhelming how Canada showed its compassionate face," said Poopalapillai. But he and others say they're upset because the Sri Lankan government has so far prevented money from reaching the worst-hit areas on the island's Tamil north and east coasts. "We all donated money and nobody knows what happened to it."

Growing up feeling they are no different from other Canadians, the younger generation of Tamils expects equal treatment here, said Shanathela Easwarakumar, a student at University of Toronto in Scarborough. This summer, the university will offer its courses on the Tamil diaspora and the Tamil language, the beginnings of a Tamil studies program for which Easwarakumar is on the board of directors. "I have full faith that it will rise to the highest of expectations."

Organizations are also working on plans for a home for the aged and a Tamil community centre. "We need a central location where the community can celebrate its contribution to the country," Shan said.

 


Await outcome of peace talks

Apr. 10, 2006. 01:00 AM

(This Letter  was published by the Tor Star)

Canada to slap terrorist label on Tamil Tigers

April 9.

We are greatly disappointed and disturbed as the government of Canada has not consulted the leaders of the 200,000-strong Tamil community on labelling the Tamil Tigers a terrorrist group. The move taken by the government is not wise because of the ongoing peace talks in Geneva, Switzerland, between the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam with Norway as the facilitator. We Tamils urge the government to re consider the decision and await the outcome of the peace talks.

 

Chandra Tissaweerasingham, Toronto


 

Canada's new government lists the LTTE as a terrorist organization

(This is the official notice by the Ministry of Public Safety)

      OTTAWA, April 10 2006 -- The Honourable Stockwell Day, Minister of
Public Safety, today announced that Canada's new government has listed the
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) as a terrorist group, effective
April 8, 2006, pursuant to the Criminal Code.

      "The decision to list the LTTE is long overdue and something the
previous government did not take seriously enough to act upon," said
Minister Day. "Our government is clearly determined to take decisive steps
to ensure the safety of Canadians against terrorism."

      In listing the LTTE, the Government of Canada conducted an extensive
analysis of security information and intelligence to ensure the stringent
legal test outlined in the Criminal Code was met. Canada is also meeting
its international commitments to prevent terrorists from using the banking
system to further their terrorist activities.

      The Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of Foreign Affairs, supporting
this decision, reiterated the Government of Canada's resolve to help
achieve a negotiated settlement to the situation in Sri Lanka. "The LTTE's
repeated use of violence since signing a ceasefire agreement is
unacceptable and seriously calls into question its commitment to the peace
process," said Minister MacKay. "The Sri Lankan government must also
fulfill its pledge to bring a negotiated resolution to the conflict. Canada
will continue to work with international supporters of the peace process to
help the parties reach a resolution."

      The LTTE has been in armed conflict with the Sri Lankan Government
since 1983. This organization is known for its commitment to using
indiscriminate terror tactics and suicide bombings. Since the commencement
of conflict more than 20 years ago, over 64 000 deaths have occurred.

      The objective of the Criminal Code list is to help combat terrorist
activities, including impeding terrorist financing. It is illegal for any
person to provide support, facilitate or participate in the activities of a
terrorist group. This includes providing any financial support.

      "This listing is meant to support the Tamil community in Canada who
are law-abiding and hard working people who have left their country of
origin to build a better life for themselves and their families in
Canada -- where the rule of law and human rights are respected," said
Minister Day.

      Today's listing brings the number of listed entities under the
Criminal Code to 39.

      -30-

      See also:

        a.. Names of listed entities under the Criminal Code and background
information
        b.. Frequently asked questions


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

      For further information:
      Mélisa Leclerc
      Office of the Minister
      Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada
      613-991-2863

      Daniel Dugas
      Office of the Minister
      Foreign Affairs Canada
      613-995-1851


      Frequently asked questions
      Listing of the LTTE

      Q1: Why is the Government of Canada listing the LTTE (Tamil Tigers)?
      A1: Canada has assessed the LTTE and determined that it is a
terrorist group pursuant to the Criminal Code. Listing under the Criminal
Code is a clear statement that anyone supporting the LTTE is not welcome in
Canada and if they do support the terrorist activities of the LTTE, they
can be subject to criminal prosecution.

      The LTTE has been known to use terrorist methods and suicide
bombings. Since the beginning of the conflict in Sri Lanka more than 20
years ago, over 64,000 deaths have occurred. The LTTE is known to engage in
activities to further their terrorist objectives, such as fundraising and
recruitment, which directly affect thousands of people in Sri Lanka, Canada
and elsewhere. The Human Rights Watch report issued in mid-March, which
concluded that Canadians of Tamil descent are being threatened with
reprisals if they fail to contribute to the LTTE war chest, is but one such
report.

      The objective of the Criminal Code list is to help combat terrorist
activities, including impeding terrorist financing. It is illegal for any
person to provide support, facilitate or participate in the activities of a
terrorist group. This includes providing any financial support.

      Q2: What do we mean by terrorist activity?
      A2: A terrorist activity is defined in section 83.01(1)(a) and
83.01(1)(b) of the Criminal Code as:

        a.. an activity that is an offence under one of the UN
anti-terrorism conventions and protocols listed in the Criminal Code; or
        b.. an activity that is taken or threatened for political,
religious or ideological purposes and threatens the public or national
security by killing, seriously harming or endangering a person, causing
substantial property damage that is likely to seriously harm people, or by
interfering with or disrupting an essential service, facility or system as
described in the Criminal Code.
      Q3: What does this listing mean for the Tamil community in Canada?
      A3: This listing is meant to support the Tamil community in Canada,
who are law-abiding and hard working people who have left their country of
origin to build a better life for themselves and their families in Canada -
where the rule of law and human rights are respected. Only a small minority
of Tamils support the extreme tactics and measures which the LTTE uses.

      Q4: Can members of the Tamil community living in Canada continue to
sending money to family members living in Sri Lanka?
      A4: Yes, providing money directly to family members can continue. The
listing of the LTTE will have no effect on the Tamil community's ability to
provide financial to support to their family members living in Sri Lanka.
Only donations to the LTTE are affected by this listing.

      Q5: If an individual provides money to a front organization which is
believed to be associated with the LTTE will that individual be charged
under the Criminal Code?
      A5: No, only donations to the LTTE are effected by this listing.

      Q6: Is the listing of the LTTE going to affect Sri Lankans living in
Canada from traveling back to Sri Lanka?
      A6: Canadians residing in or traveling to Sri Lanka are encouraged to
read DFAIT's travel report for Sri Lanka available on the Consular Affairs
website (www.voyage.gc.ca) and heed the government's consular advice as
well as the country specific recommendations for registering their presence
with the High Commission in Colombo.

      Q7: Is the LTTE active in Canada?
      A7: The LTTE is known to engage in activities to further their
terrorist objectives, such as fundraising and recruitment, which directly
affect thousands of people in Sri Lanka, Canada and elsewhere. The Human
Rights Watch report issued in mid-March, which concluded that Canadians of
Tamil descent are being threatened with reprisals if they fail to
contribute to the LTTE war chest, is but one such report.

      Q8: How does this decision affect the peace process in Sri Lanka?
      A8: The Government of Canada views this listing as a step towards
advancing the peace process. The listing emphasizes Canada's commitment to
call on both parties to renounce violence and focus their energies on
political negotiations leading to a permanent settlement. Canada will
continue to work with international supporters of the peace process to help
the parties reach a resolution.

      Q9: Does the listing prevent Canadian aid organizations from working
in Sri Lanka?
      A9: No, it does not. Rather, the listing of the LTTE reinforces the
importance of ensuring that Canada's development assistance is not diverted
to the LTTE. The Canadian International Development Agency has supported
activities in LTTE territory for many years without such a diversion, and
will continue to do so.


 

What if a  front organization raises funds for humanitarian relief is accused of raising funds for arms?

Moreover, does holding rallies, disseminating phamplets considered as support for LTTE a criminal offence?

What about the following statement?

The definition of terrorism, it need be added, has been dramatically expanded to the point where someone who has neither committed nor planned a terrorist act can be deemed a terrorist by the government, if he or she has had links with an organization that the government has categorized as “terrorist.” Thus, a person involved in fund-raising or disseminating pamphlets for an organization like the Kurdish nationalist PKK or the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) can be designated by the Canadian government to be a terrorist and indefinitely incarcerated without the most basic rights of due process.

Right now these are unanswered questions.


 



 

April 09, 2006

 

Toronto

 

Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper, B.A. M.A. P.C. M.P.

Prime Minister

Prime Minister’s Office

Ottawa.

 

Reconsider Decision To Add  LTTE To The List of Terrorist Organizations.

 

Dear Prime Minister

 

We are disappointed over your government decision to add the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) to the list of terrorist organizations.  This in our opinion is an ill-conceived and ill-advised move at a time when peace talks are taking place between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan government to resolve the ethnic conflict.

 

It should be mentioned that LTTE is an equal partner in the peace process. Despite many set-backs the Cease Fire Agreement (CFA) signed between the LTTE and GOSL has prevented the shedding of much  blood  for the last 4 years or more.

 

The decision to  ban the LTTE will definitely have a negative impact on the peace process and in no way  help  "further the goals of peace in Sri Lanka."  The previous Liberal government resisted pressure to add LTTE to the banned list. The Liberal government rightly thought that such move will not only jeopardize  the peace process, but  it will also embolden the GOSL to opt for a military solution to settle the two decades old ethnic conflict.

We are of the opinion your government has fallen a victim to the vicious and systematic   anti-LTTE propaganda by  elements which conspired  to wreck the current peace process. Law enforcement agencies like the CSIS have a vested interest in labeling the LTTE as a terrorist organization.  CSIS which failed to brain-wash the Liberal government has done so with your government.

The decision to ban the LTTE runs contrary to what your party  said at  the eve of the last general election. Your party through a press release dated January 19, 2006 , inter-alia, stated -

 

1)     The Conservative Party of Canada's priority is to increase Canada's  diplomatic participation in the Norway peace process in Sri Lanka,  backed  by increased Canadian assistance spending to further build the  conditions  for a negotiated peace in Sri Lanka.

 

2)    Canada has a long history as a  peace broker and the Conservative Party believes Canada has a responsibility to further the goals of peace in Sri Lanka. 

 

3)    Despite repeated Liberal promises that Canada would play a greater role in the peace process, Canada's approach has been minimal, leaving Canada’s interests in peace on the margins.

 

4)    There has also been serious concern that Canadian aid for the tsunami disaster was not equitably distributed to those hardest hit in Sri Lanka”

 

but all these promises will be brought to naught by banning the LTTE.  

 

As Thamil Canadians we will be very disappointed to see Canada’s role being diminished in any way vis-a- vis the peace process.

 

We hope there is  still time for your government to reverse the decision to list the LTTE as a terrorist organization. We appeal to you to do so immediately. This will also help remove the perception that the Conservative party is basically anti-immigrant and un-sympathetic towards visible minorities.

 

Yours truly,

 

 

 

Veluppillai Thangavelu

President

Thamil Creative Writers Association

 

CC

 

Hon. Ministers, Leader of the Opposition, Party Leaders and Hon. Members of Parliament.


 

Tamil Tigers outlawed

Group added to Canada's terror list

Stewart Bell, National Post

Published: Saturday, April 08, 2006

TORONTO - The Tamil Tigers have been added to Canada's list of outlawed terrorist organizations, the National Post has learned.

The designation was to be finalized yesterday, a day after Cabinet met to accept a recommendation from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

An official announcement was scheduled for Monday.

The Tigers are the 39th terrorist group to be outlawed under the Anti-Terrorism Act, and the first added to the list by the new Conservative government.

The move was spearheaded by Stockwell Day, the Minister of Public Safety, who in opposition repeatedly condemned the Liberals for not outlawing the Tigers.

The decision means it will now be a criminal offence to participate in the activities of the Tamil Tigers, formally known as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, or LTTE, a Sri Lankan separatist group responsible for more than 160 suicide bombings. For example, anyone convicted of financially supporting the Tigers could be imprisoned for up to 10 years.

But while the Tigers were placed on the list, the government stopped short of listing any of the terrorist group's Canadian front organizations.

The Cabinet order will likely have implications both at home and abroad. It will criminalize the Tiger "war taxes" that have long been paid -- both voluntarily and involuntarily -- by some Tamil-Canadians. Also, Canada has the world's largest Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora, estimated at 250,000, and the listing could deal a blow to the Tigers, who are heavily dependent on Canadian and other foreign donors.

"It is estimated that between one and two million dollars are raised annually in Canada, making it one of the largest contributors of funds to the LTTE worldwide," according to a classified CSIS report circulated in 2000. "The LTTE has traditionally raised these monies through the use of fronts groups."

The Tigers were formed in the 1980s to fight for an independent homeland for Sri Lanka's ethnic Tamil minority, but the guerrilla group quickly embraced terrorist tactics.

Buses, trains and office buildings were bombed by the LTTE's suicide squad, the Black Tigers. The LTTE is considered one of the world's leading practitioners of suicide terrorism, and has assassinated scores of political opponents, among them the late Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.

Peace talks and a ceasefire have been faltering in recent months, as the idyllic island nation off India's southern tip has tumbled back into ethnic warfare that has already cost more than 60,000 lives.

Last month, Human Rights Watch reported that LTTE supporters had been going door to door in Toronto since late 2005 extorting money from Tamil-Canadians to finance a "final war" for independence.

Although the Tigers are one of the most active terrorist groups in Canada, the Liberals had refused to outlaw their activities, some say because the party was afraid of angering Tamil-Canadian voters in Toronto.

The situation had proved frustrating for the RCMP, CSIS and local police forces, which have long been investigating the Tigers' Canadian fundraising and support networks.

During the federal election campaign, the Conservatives promised to add the Tigers to Canada's official list of terrorist groups, and they fulfilled their pledge yesterday.

No other terrorist groups are being added to the list at this time.

The decision is part of a hardening of Canada's counterterrorism policies that has been underway since the Conservatives took office.

Last week, the government also severed ties with the Palestinian Authority over the refusal of Hamas to moderate its platform.

The Canadian terrorist list was last updated on May, 24, 2005, when the Iranian Mujahedin-e Khalq, the Jewish extremist group KACH and Afghan warlord Gulbudin Hekmatyar were added.

Canada's closest intelligence allies, the United States and Britain, long ago placed the Tamil Tigers on their lists of designated terrorist groups, but the Liberal government resisted.

On three separate occasions, CSIS asked the Cabinet to list the Tigers, most recently a year ago, but the Liberals would not do so, saying they did not want to interfere with Sri Lanka's peace process.

The former Canadian ambassador to Sri Lanka, Martin Collacott, said the previous government's refusal to outlaw the Tigers left the LTTE relatively free to operate in Canada. He said that has actually hindered peace efforts.

"Once Canada designates the Tigers as terrorists and clamps down on their fundraising, they are much more likely to enter into serious negotiations with Colombo," he said.

He said the Liberal position that banning the Tigers would hurt peace efforts was based on partisan political considerations.

"The Tigers and their supporters in Canada and particularly Toronto had become adept at delivering votes from the Tamil community to Liberal candidates at election time," he said.

"And, as long as this support continued, the Liberals were prepared to let the Tigers have virtual free rein to carry out their activities in this country."

The decision brings federal counterterrorism policy in line with the Federal Court of Canada, which has already ruled that the Tamil Tigers qualify as a terrorist group.

The Anti-Terrorism Act allows Cabinet to designate not only terrorist groups but also the front organizations that support them, but none are named in the latest listing.

CSIS has claimed that eight front organizations support the LTTE in Canada, as well as several front companies that are used to harness financial and political support for the civil war effort in Sri Lanka.

CANADA'S TERROR LIST

- Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)

- Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG)

- Al Jihad (AJ)

- Al-Qaeda

- Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (AAMB)

- Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya (AGAI)

- Al-Ittihad Al-Islam (AIAI)

- Ansar al-Islam (AI)

- Armed Islamic Group (GIA)

- Asbat Al-Ansar ("The League of Partisans")

- Aum Shinrikyo

- Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC)

- Babbar Khalsa (BK)

- Babbar Khalsa International (BKI)

- Ejercito de Liberacion Nacional (ELN)

- Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA)

- Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC)

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar

- Hamas (Harakat Al-Muqawama Al-Islamiya) ("Islamic Resistance Movement")

- Harakat ul-Mudjahidin (HuM)

- Hezbollah

- International Sikh Youth Federation (ISYF)

- Islamic Army of Aden (IAA)

- Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)

- Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM)

- Jemaah Islamiyyah (JI)

- Kahane Chai (KACH)

- Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK)

- Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LJ)

- Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LeT)

- Mujahedin e Khalq (MEK)

- Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)

- Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)

- Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP-GC)

- Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)

- Salafist Group for Call and Combat (GSPC)

- Sendero Luminoso (SL)

- Vanguards of Conquest (VOC)


 

WSWS : News & Analysis : North America : Canada

Canada bans LTTE under draconian anti-terrorist legislation

By Keith Jones
14 April 2006

Canada’s Conservative government announced Monday that it has proscribed the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) under the country’s draconian anti-terrorist laws.

Henceforth, anyone who knowingly provides financial support to the LTTE could be jailed for up to 10 years, while persons who fundraise or otherwise “facilitate” the work of the LTTE face 14 years’ imprisonment.

That the government intends to use these provisions to imprison and deport LTTE supporters was underscored by Public Security Minister Stockwell Day’s announcement that the government has established an anti-LTTE “snitch-line.” Day urged members of Canada’s large Sri Lankan Tamil exile/immigrant community to denounce LTTE activists to state authorities using a special, dedicated telephone line.

In justifying the ban, Day claimed that LTTE activists have used threats of violence to coerce Canadian Tamils into making financial contributions. But such threats are already illegal under Canadian criminal law.

The Canadian government’s banning of the LTTE, which governs much of Sri Lanka’s northern and eastern provinces, must be opposed by the working class and all those interested in defending basic democratic rights.

Canada’s anti-terrorist laws constitute a flagrant assault on democratic rights and civil liberties. Under them, the state has created a new order of crime, subject to harsher penalties than normal criminal acts and to which basic judicial principles, like the full disclosure of evidence and public trials, no longer apply.

Through these anti-terrorist laws, the state is seeking to criminalize political movements deemed inimical to the interests of the Canadian ruling class, movements that in many cases arose in reaction against the state terror practiced by governments with which Canada is allied. Not only do these laws fail to distinguish between attacks on civilians and actions directed against security forces of repressive regimes, persons can be found guilty of terrorism who have never participated in or planned any violent act. Facilitating any part of the activities undertaken by an organization labelled terrorist—be it raising funds or distributing political propaganda or doing relief work—makes one liable to be imprisoned for a decade or more.

Moreover, the invocation of these laws goes hand in hand with Canada’s support for and participation in a purported worldwide war on terrorism that is being used to justify the expansion and rearmament of the Canadian Armed Forces and Canadian participation in wars and military interventions aimed at establishing or supporting regimes more in keeping with the interests of the North American and international bourgeoisie.

At Monday’s press conference, Day took a jab at the previous Liberal government, which the Conservatives long denounced as “soft” on terrorism and insufficiently supportive of the Bush administration. “The decision to list the LTTE [as a terrorist organization] is long overdue and something the previous government did not take seriously enough to act upon. Our government,” continued Day, “is clearly determined to take decisive steps to ensure the safety of Canadians against terrorism.”

The World Socialist Web Site has made clear on countless occasions its opposition to the LTTE’s perspective of carving out a new capitalist nation-state on ethnic lines and its tactics, which have included indiscriminate violence against Sinhalese workers and peasants.

Responsibility for the civil that has convulsed Sri Lanka for the past 23 years, however, falls squarely on the Sri Lankan bourgeoisie and its imperialist backers. At the birth of an independent Sri Lanka in 1948, the parties of the Sri Lankan bourgeoisie stripped the Tamil plantation workers (the so-called Indian Tamils) of citizenship rights. In the 1950s, Sinhalese was made the country’s sole official language. Fifteen years later, further steps were taken to reduce the minority Tamil population to second-class status, with the passing of a constitution that proclaimed Buddhism, the majority religion of the Sinhalese, the state religion, and the enacting of quotas to limit Tamils’ access to higher education. Civil war ultimately erupted in 1983 shortly after a state-orchestrated anti-Tamil pogrom.

At Monday’s press conference, Day and Foreign Affairs Minster Peter MacKay rejected criticisms from Canadian Tamils that their proscribing of the LTTE will impede the effort to reach a permanent peace settlement between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan political establishment.

But there is no question that the Sri Lankan ruling elite and the Sinhalese chauvinists have enthusiastically welcomed the Canadian government’s decision, which they believe strengthens their hand against the LTTE by lending credence to their claims that the LTTE is not a suitable peace partner, and threatening the LTTE’s ability to raise funds in Canada, the country with the largest Sri Lankan Tamil population outside South Asia.

The state-run Daily News crowed that the Canadian ban will “place the Government delegation” at coming peace talks on “a sounder-footing” knowing “that at last the world community is gradually coming to its assistance vis-a-vis the LTTE.”

The Island, a right-wing and aggressively communal newspaper, urged the European Union to follow the lead of Canada’s Conservative government: “Canada has realized the danger of giving a terror group a free hand and told it where to get off at long last. It is now up to EU to follow the suit, without further prevarication....”

The Buddhist monk-led National Heritage party (JHU), one of the most militant voices of Sinhala chauvinism, coupled praise for the Canadian government decision with criticism of the Sri Lankan government for not taking an even more aggressive stand against the LTTE.

The Norwegian-led Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM) has warned repeatedly that the truce that has been in effect since February 2002 is on the verge of collapse and that the country will soon plunge back into all-out civil war.

The Canadian ban on the LTTE encourages those forces in the Sri Lankan elite and their Sinhalese chauvinist petty bourgeois allies who prefer ratcheting up the pressure on the LTTE and risking plunging the country anew into civil war to ceding significant power to the LTTE in a federal or confederal state. It thus abets those who would lead the people of Sri Lanka into a new abyss of violence and terror.

The Conservative government’s ban on the LTTE is the latest in a series of actions the new government has taken to shift Canada’s foreign policy and geo-political posture sharply to the right. Canada was one of the first governments in the world to announce that it was cutting off funding to the Palestinian Authority after Hamas took over the reins of government. Last month, Prime Minister Stephen Harper made a three-day visit to Afghanistan to underline his government’s commitment to a long-term Canadian Armed Forces intervention there and his intention to pursue a more “robust” foreign and military policy that will make, to use his words, the great powers of the world take notice.

 

 

 

 

Canada: Security certificates overturn long-standing democratic rights

By François Tremblay
11 April 2006

Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

Two recent events have underlined the anti-democratic nature of the Canadian state’s “security certificates” and the determination of the new Conservative government to intensify the assault on long-established democratic rights that its predecessor, the Chrétien-Martin Liberal government, initiated in the name of the “war on terrorism.”

The first is the announcement that a special prison will be constructed to hold those detained under a security certificate—a legal document that authorizes the government to imprison indefinitely and without charge any non-Canadian citizen it deems a “threat” to national security.

The special prison will be constructed within an existing maximum-security penitentiary in Kingston, Ontario. It will be used to indefinitely incarcerate people who are presently detained under security certificates at a number of other locations and any new persons whom federal authorities designate a security threat.

Sections of the press have rightly drawn a parallel between the special prison under construction in Kingston and the concentration camp to which the Bush administration has disappeared alleged “enemy combatants” in Guantanamo, Cuba, labeling the planned Canadian facility “North Guantanamo” or “Guantanamo Lite.”

Four individuals will soon be transferred to the new prison: Mohamed Harkat, detained since December 2002; Hassan Almrei, detained since October 2001; Mahmoud Jaballah, detained since August 2001; and Mohammad Majhoud, detained since June 2000. Majhoud staged a 79-day hunger strike in 2005 to obtain basic medical care and the right to receive monthly visits from his two children, aged six and eight.

In the new prison, Majhoud and the other detainees will likely face even harsher conditions. Although it is being built inside the walls of the Kingston penitentiary, the new facility will remain completely separate from it. At all times, prisoners held there will be segregated from the regular inmates of the Kingston penitentiary and, most probably, from each other. The authorities are refusing even to reveal the size of the cells in which the security-certificate detainees will be held.

The second event that merits note is the mid-March decision of a Federal Court judge upholding the deportation of security-certificate detainee Mahmoud Jaballah to Egypt, where he faces possible torture and execution. Judge Mackay invoked the security certificate issued against Jaballah as grounds for refusing to grant him asylum and authorizing his deportation.

In his decision, Judge Mackay claimed that evidence indicated Jaballah shouldn’t receive Canada’s protection as a refugee because he posed too much of a risk to national security. The evidence to which the judge refers has never been divulged to Jaballah or to his lawyers, who suspect that at least some of it comes from people tortured in foreign prisons. The use of such “evidence” was authorized by the Canadian government in the anti-terrorist legislation it rushed through parliament following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Judge Mackay admitted that his decision violates the International Convention Against Torture. The Convention, signed by Canada, forbids deportation to a country that practices torture under any and all circumstances. But, Mackay added, even if it might be a useful interpretive tool, the Convention doesn’t apply to persons considered a threat to national security. The decision in Jaballah’s case marks the third time that the Federal Court has refused to grant asylum to someone detained on a security certificate even while admitting that its decision may result in the rejected refugee-claimant facing torture and death in a foreign country.

 

Arbitrary detention

 

Under Canada’s security-certificate regime, the minister of public security is empowered to issue a ministerial decree, based on information provided by the security services, naming an individual who is a visitor to Canada, a refugee applicant, or a landed immigrant a potential threat to national security. The person named in such a security certificate can then be arrested and held indefinitely without any charge being laid against them and without any access to the information that reputedly shows they are a threat to national security.

“Illegal combatant” or “threat to national security”—in both cases, the person so designated is denied legal rights historically guaranteed to all who are detained, such as the right to know the exact nature of the actions alleged and of the crime committed, the right to be brought before a judge and be heard by an impartial and public court, and the right to be presumed innocent.

In 2005, the Federal Court concluded that security certificates were constitutional, indicating at the same time that, whether in the name of national security or diplomatic convenience (i.e., maintaining friendly relations with countries where torture takes place), whole sections of evidence can be withheld from public examination and remain the sole property of the security agencies and the judges. As a last resort, the executive can impose an absolute veto on revealing any of the evidence, even over the objections of the courts themselves.

This decision of the Federal Court has been appealed, and the Supreme Court is to issue its ruling in the coming months. But already in 2002, Canada’s highest court ruled that deportation of persons facing torture and death is permitted in exceptional cases.

Following September 11, 2001, the Canadian government passed a slew of anti-terrorist legislation, modifying many laws, including the Criminal Code and immigration laws, with the goal of undermining long-standing democratic principles and opening the door to authoritarian methods of governing.

Security certificates were on the law books prior to September 11, but it is only after this date that they became a regular instrument in the government’s purported war on terrorism. The definition of terrorism, it need be added, has been dramatically expanded to the point where someone who has neither committed nor planned a terrorist act can be deemed a terrorist by the government, if he or she has had links with an organization that the government has categorized as “terrorist.” Thus, a person involved in fund-raising or disseminating pamphlets for an organization like the Kurdish nationalist PKK or the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) can be designated by the Canadian government to be a terrorist and indefinitely incarcerated without the most basic rights of due process.

Although security certificates have been denounced by numerous international and national human rights organizations, the Canadian government has announced its intention to expand their scope.

At present, the law does not permit the issuing of a certificate against a Canadian citizen. The Conservative government intends to modify this law and to gain the possibility of withdrawing citizenship from anyone who obtained it fraudulently—for instance, by hiding links with organizations categorized as terrorist. Once again, any evidence would remain


 

March 28, 2006

 

 

The editor,

Toronto Star

Toronto.

 

Dear Sir,

 

Reference your news story “ Gang boss deported to Sri Lanka” (Tor Star – March 28, 2006)

 

I am disappointed over the choice of language of the Toronto Star when it described the deportee as the “reputed leader of a Tamil gang whose battle with rival gang members on the streets of Toronto claimed the lives of more than a dozen youths.”  Street violence is a common phenomenon among all communities in Toronto and it is not understood why you singled out only the Tamil community.  Do you call violence perpetrated by Blacks as Black violence? Or the violence committed by the notorious motorbike gangs like Hell’s Angels as White Anglo Saxon violence? Surely you don’t. Then why label violence by a few youths among the Tamils as “Tamil gang violence?” It looks though this is part of the sinister campaign by Toronto Star to discredit the Tamil community by hook or by crook!  

 

Your reporter exaggerates the lives lost due to gang violence as “more than a dozen” but she only documented 3 killings and that too due to mistaken identities.  What happened to the remaining 10-15 gang members who died?

 

Have you ever posed to ponder why and how this gang violence originated? And how it was sustained for so long? Surely none of the youths arrested came to Canada with criminal records. They took to street violence only after coming to Canada!

 

One of the powerful reasons why these youths took to street violence is the availability of guns and drugs freely in the streets of Toronto. On the top of it we had a corrupt police which instead of nipping the violence in the bud allowed it to fester and bleed.  They carried tales between the rival groups and instigated them to take on one another to the finish. This they did to collect perks, promotions and other monetary rewards.

 

A few community leaders, including this writer, talked to these Tamil youths over several weeks and brought about an amicable settlement at a function held in a leading Hindu temple in Toronto. The truce between the rival groups lasted from April 1998.till end of June 1999. One would think the Police would have been the first to celebrate the reconciliation of the rival groups.  No, they were the most disappointed and they openly encouraged the Tamil youths to resume their fighting.  “If you cannot shoot each other at least beat each other, otherwise we will have nothing to do!” was what they told the youths. I mentioned this to the Asst. Commissioner of Police in the presence of 2 City Councillors and expected him to react angrily to the accusation. Instead, all what I got as a reply was a big smile from him.

 

In one instance the Police arrested the wrong person and put him in jail. Members of the Tamil group told the police that they will get the real culprit to surrender if they could agree to release the one in custody.  The Tamil youths were aghast when the Police officer told them “Don’t think we don’t know who the real suspect is, we know that for sure, but we want to teach this guy a lesson and that is why we arrested him and not the real culprit!”

 

Had the Police moved against the Tamil youths not in 2001 but much earlier when the problem was in its infancy we could have saved lives and escaped the stigma of the whole community being branded as “violent”?

 

A corrupt Police force which allows flow of guns and drugs across the border is at the bottom of all past and present street violence.  This is the unpalatable truth.

 

Yours truly,

 

 

V.Thangavelu


 

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 10:12 AM

Subject: RE: HRW Report

Your letter to The Editor has been received. You will be contacted by telephone if your letter is short-listed for publication.

If you have not supplied a contact telephone number and full home address, please resubmit your letter with this information included. This is for verification only and will not be printed.

Thank you for your contribution to the Letters Page.

-----Original Message-----
From: Thangavelu [mailto:athangav@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 10:37 PM
To: Letters to the Editor
Subject: HRW Report

 

Dear editor

 

Toronto Star it is a liberal newspaper by Canadian standards. From global perspectives it is a white-owned and white-managed right-wing newspaper serving the interests of  Anglo-Saxons! Not even  French Quebecois! This is the newspaper which does not expose the grave human rights violations committed by the US/UK combine in Iraq. The Abu Ghraib prison massacres, Guantamano Bay prison torture, the killing of Iraqi civilians by US bombing conveniently tagged as "collateral damage" are of no interest to Toronto Star. When once in a way criticism is offered it is in a mild and condescending manner.

 

The Indian-born Rudyard Kipling's verse"The Blackman is Whiteman's burden"  is the type of arrogance that pervades the thinking of  the editor of Toronto Star who sits in judgment over the LTTE and Thamil Diaspora at the drop of a hat. It is  the belief  held by  most Europeans/Americans  that they are obligated to save the Blackman.  

 

The fact is for  Jo Becker, editor Toronto Star and other arm-chair critics  fund raising, child soldiers and terrorism  have become  their favourite whipping horses!  They close their eyes and ears to the horrendous human rights violations perpetrated against the Thamil people by a racist Sri Lankan government. Where is the freedom of movement and right to life for those unfortunate Thamils languishing in refugee camps, welfare centres in the Northeast of Sri Lanka?

 

Toronto Star editor like a quack  doctor prescribes banning to cure the disease without knowing the root causes that caused the disease in the first place. Perhaps he should read the following Kural to gain some wisdom.

 

A doctor before treating a patient should diagnose with care, discover the cause,

And thereafter to effect a cure apply the  appropriate remedy!

 

Thangavelu

 

 

 


Hart House Circle, Toronto M5S 3H3, ON · Web:
http://stg.utorontotsa.org · Email: ut_tsa@hotmail.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

University of Toronto Tamil Students' Association dismayed by LTTE
terrorist listing

April 11th, 2006 - The Tamil student body at the University of
Toronto is alarmed and distressed by the
Canadian government's recent verdict to list the Liberation Tigers
of Tamil Eelam, also known as
LTTE as a terrorist organization under Bill C-36.
The LTTE, an organized group seeking an independent state from Sri
Lanka was the first to be listed as
a terrorist group by the new Canadian government.
The decision by the new Conservative government comes after recent
speculations by a New York
based Human Rights Watch that indicts the LTTE of extortion and
harassment of Canadian Tamils to
donate to the organization. The allegation unquestionably places a
black mark on a generous
community who has voluntarily donated funds to genuine organizations
targeted at the development of
war-stricken and Tsunami effected Tamils in Sri Lanka -not war
efforts.
The Tamil student community fears the recent decision due to its
sensitive timing, will be detrimental to
the internationally mediated peace process, where both the LTTE and
government of Sri Lanka are
currently engaged in. The outcome may also hinder the subtle
stability that has brought both the
oppositions to the negotiating table and may prove to be pivotal
during this critical time.
Students are revoked by the Conservative government who did not care
to consult the community
before making its decision even after voicing support for the peace
process on the election platform.
Furthermore, the Canadian government's failure to recognize the
numerous human rights abuses
endured by the Tamil civilians in Sri Lanka, the continued neglect
of several Ceasefire Agreement
violations in 2002 especially after the LTTE listing, is astounding.
Instead of putting a terrorist label on the LTTE, we hope the
Canadian government, internationally
known as peacekeepers, would take this opportunity to actively
engage in the peace process as
mediators for the LTTE and Sri Lanka.






 

 


 

 

March 20, 2006

 

The editor

Toronto Star

Toronto.

 

This refers to the letter   published in today’s Toronto Star appropriately styled “Place Sri Lanka in terrorist list” in response to your editorial (Ban Tamil Tigers and halt extortion). As correctly pointed out there would have been no LTTE if the Sri Lankan government had treated Tamils equally and with dignity. LTTE is a creation of the successive chauvinistic Sinhala dominated governments since independence in 1948. If not for the LTTE, the minority Thamil nation would have been decimated by the Sri Lankan armed forces.

 

Banning the LTTE will only embolden the Sinhala dominated government to escalate the genocidal war against the Thamil people living under occupation. Here is a short list of horrendous killings committed by the SLAF since December, 2005.

 

(1) On December 01, 2005 unidentified assailants shot and killed two farmers at a tea shop close to Athiyar Hindu College in Neerveli at 8 p.m.  A youth who was standing inside the tea shop was seriously wounded

 

(2)  On December 16, 2005,   19 years old Thamil girl Eliyathamby Tharshini was raped and murdered by Sri Lanka naval personnel at Pungudutivu. Her body was found dumped inside a well.  

 

(3)  On December 19, 2005 SL troops open fire on University students led demonstrations protesting the rape and murder of Tharshini in Jaffna.  One lecturer was shot and Vice-Chancellor physically attacked.

 

(4) On December 22, 2005 a Thamil activist   K. Navaratnam (47), Jaffna district organizer for Tamil Resurgence Task force, was shot dead by unidentified gunmen in front of the Thinakkural  newspaper office in KKS road in Jaffna town.

 

(5) On December 24, 2005 a woman succumbed  to gun shot injuries at Chavakachcheri, Jaffna. Four other men were wounded when SL troops opened fire.

 

(6) On December 25, 2005 Remains of burnt bodies including a four-year-old boy were discovered inside a house of the Victoria Hundred Houses resettlement in Pesalai, Mannar in a revenge attacks on the civilians by the Sri Lanka Navy (SLN). Soldiers blocked residents from searching for two other missing persons in parts of surrounding area. Three houses and a shop were burnt and almost all the houses were found looted. The victims were burnt using madras, kajan leaves and palmyrah stems,

 

 (7) On December 25, 2005,  Joseph Pararajasingham, M.P. was assassinated at St. Mary’s Church while attending midnight mass by Sri Lankan army intelligence and/or para-military groups. Pararajasingham’s son and daughter are Canadian citizens.

 

(8) On December 25, 2005 two civilians from Thoppu, in Atchuvely Jaffna, who went to hunt wild boars in shrub jungles close to the Palaly High Security Zone (HSZ) armed with shotguns, were shot dead by Sri Lanka Army (SLA) troops.   

 

(9) On December 28, 2005 unidentified gunmen shot and killed Thambirajah Arul Ajanthan, 16, at his house located in Eruvan in Kodikamam. The gunmen, who entered the victim's house premises, following a Sri Lanka Army patrol in the area, opened fire and killed the victim, the younger brother of a youth who took part in organizing Martyrs day remembrance events.  
 

(10)   On January 02, 2006 5 innocent Thamil students at Trincomalee were shot at point blank range by members of the Special Task Force dispatched by defence advisor and former DIG H.M.G.B. Kotakadeniya. He is the Vice President of Jathika Hela Urumaya, a religious outfit of Buddhist Bhikkus.

 

(11) On January 05, 2006 Rasaratnam Kuganenthiran, 24, also called Sinnathamby, a resident of Puthukkulam in Kiran Batticaloa was shot dead by Sri Lanka Army (SLA) soldiers. Sources said Kuganenthiran did not have the National Identity card in his possession.

 

(12) On January 6, 2006 two LTTE cadres killed by army deep penetration unit in Trincomalee Tampalagamam area under the control of the LTTE. Captain Suman (Vensumin Anburasa from Trincomalee) and  Lieft.  Umainesan (Perinpa Saseetharan from Mutur        

 

(13) On January 11, 2006 Thambu Nadesu, who runs a business near the Puthur junction on the Jaffna - Point Pedro road was shot dead by Sri Lanka military intelligence operatives.  

 

These killings are those that were reported in the local press. There might be other killings that did not catch the news.  

 

In none of the above killings the perpetrators of the crime were apprehended and brought before justice. A climate of impunity reigns in army controlled areas.

 

Late Slobodan Milosevic was rightly put on trial for committing genocide against ethnic Albanians, Croatians etc. before the International Criminal Tribunal at Hague.  Likewise the Head of Sri Lankan government too should be arraigned before the same court for genocide  against ethnic Thamil people.  

 

The editor of Toronto Star could help the cause of peace and democracy if he could use his position and influence towards this end.

 

Yours truly,

 

 

Veluppillai Thangavelu

 

416 281 1165

 

 



 

Place Sri Lanka on terrorist list

Mar. 20, 2006. 01:00 AM (Published in Tor Star - Letter to the editor)

Ban Tamil Tigers and halt extortion

Editorial, March 17.

Your editorial says Canada should ban the Tamil Tigers. As you know, Canada has failed miserably to convince the Sri Lankan government to consider the federal model solution to the ethnic problem in Sri Lanka. If there should be some action taken, then Canada should place Sri Lanka on the terrorist list as the Sri Lankan government has tortured and killed more than 65,000 Tamils and bombed schools, churches in Tamil areas and made thousands of people disappear.

The government was not even willing to do anything when the tsunami hit the Tamil area and it is disappointing to see a reputed newspaper like the Toronto Star not questioning that but making a biased suggestion to ban the LTTE.

It is time Canada takes a fair stand and condemns the atrocities committed by the Sri Lankan government against Tamils in Sri Lanka.

Canada should play a more active role in bringing peace to that country and should engage both parties of the conflict. Banning one party would only strengthen the Sinhalese extremists to commit more atrocities against Tamils in Sri Lanka.

Quoting the baseless Human Rights Watch report on extortion is not enough.

Personally, I contribute money to help our people back home. It is because of the expatriate Tamils's contribution that Tamils in their homeland are living at least a half decent life.

The Sri Lankan government did not give a penny to the Tamils when the tsunami hit or when people were suffering during the war.

People are still displaced and living in refugee camps; it is the money we gave that keeps them alive.

To say I was intimidated to give money is ridiculous. I don't live in Sri Lanka where I can be raped, killed and thrown into a well by the military. I live in Canada where I am well aware of my rights and responsibilities and I know where to go if I am intimidated. The report is an insult to the whole Tamil community as it portrays us as some bunch of idiots who don't know our rights in this beautiful country.

In any case, I really hope Canada plays a strong role in bringing peace and justice to that country by engaging with both parties without being biased toward the Sri Lankan government which has a long history of committing atrocities against the Tamil people. There would not have been the LTTE if the Sri Lankan government had treated Tamils equally with dignity.

 

 

Sureni Para, Toronto

 

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1142808608951&call_pageid=968332189003&col=968350116895

 

 

 


 

CANADA RATIFIES INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM FINANCING

FEBRUARY 15, 2002 -- Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Martin Cauchon, and Solicitor General Lawrence MacAulay today announced that Canada has ratified the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. The Convention aims to curb terrorist acts by cutting off terrorists’ sources of funding through the creation of new offences under international law. Minister Graham presented Canada’s instruments of ratification to United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan during their meeting today at UN headquarters in New York City.

"This Convention provides a valuable tool in our global fight against terrorism, to help prevent another tragedy, such as the one that occurred here in New York," said Minister Graham. "With Canada’s ratification today, we are close to having this important Convention enter into force."

Countries that ratify the Convention are required to criminalize the provision or collection of funds used or intended for use in committing terrorist acts. The Convention also establishes a framework for the extradition or prosecution of those who raise or provide funds to terrorists.

"Targeting terrorist financing is an integral component of Canada’s efforts to combat terrorism," said Minister Cauchon. "I am pleased that we have recently enacted federal legislation, through the Anti-Terrorism Act, to bring Canada into compliance with the requirements of the Convention and to ensure that we can play our role in the global effort to disable and dismantle terrorist organizations."

"Canada is committed to curbing terrorist financing and this Convention will strengthen our capacity to do so," said Minister MacAulay.

The Convention was unanimously adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 9, 1999, and has been open for signature since January 10, 2000. Canada is the twentieth country to ratify the Convention. It will enter into force when ratified by 22 states.

The Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism is intended to complement existing counterterrorism conventions. Canada has signed all 12 of the existing conventions, and has now ratified 11 of them.


 

AS PASSED BY THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

NOVEMBER 28, 2001

1st Session, 37th Parliament,
49-50 Elizabeth II, 2001

House of Commons of Canada

BILL C-36

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other Acts, and to enact measures respecting the registration of charities, in order to combat terrorism

Preamble

WHEREAS Canadians and people everywhere are entitled to live their lives in peace, freedom and security;

WHEREAS acts of terrorism constitute a substantial threat to both domestic and international peace and security;

WHEREAS acts of terrorism threaten Canada's political institutions, the stability of the economy and the general welfare of the nation;

WHEREAS the challenge of eradicating terrorism, with its sophisticated and trans-border nature, requires enhanced international cooperation and a strengthening of Canada's capacity to suppress, investigate and incapacitate terrorist activity;

WHEREAS Canada must act in concert with other nations in combating terrorism, including fully implementing United Nations and other international instruments relating to terrorism;

WHEREAS the Parliament of Canada, recognizing that terrorism is a matter of national concern that affects the security of the nation, is committed to taking comprehensive measures to protect Canadians against terrorist activity while continuing to respect and promote the values reflected in, and the rights and freedoms guaranteed by, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

AND WHEREAS these comprehensive measures must include legislation to prevent and suppress the financing, preparation, facilitation and commission of acts of terrorism, as well as to protect the political, social and economic security of Canada and Canada's relations with its allies;

NOW, THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

 

SHORT TITLE

 

1. This Act may be cited as the Anti-terrorism Act.

PART 1

 

R.S., c. C-46

 

CRIMINAL CODE

 

R.S., c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 2(1); 1993, c. 28, s. 78 (Sch. III, s. 25(1)); 1994, c. 44, s. 2(1)

 

2. (1) The definition ``Attorney General'' in section 2 of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:

 

 

``Attorney General''
« procureur général »

 

``Attorney General''

 

 

 

      (a) subject to paragraphs (c) to (f), with respect to proceedings to which this Act applies, means the Attorney General or Solicitor General of the province in which those proceedings are taken and includes his or her lawful deputy,

 

 

      (b) with respect to the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, or with respect to proceedings commenced at the instance of the Government of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of that Government in respect of a contravention of, a conspiracy or attempt to contravene, or counselling the contravention of, any Act of Parliament other than this Act or any regulation made under such an Act, means the Attorney General of Canada and includes his or her lawful deputy,

 

 

      (c) with respect to proceedings in relation to a terrorism offence or to an offence under section 57, 58, 83.12, 424.1 or 431.1 or in relation to an offence against a member of United Nations personnel or associated personnel under section 235, 236, 266, 267, 268, 269, 269.1, 271, 272, 273, 279 or 279.1, means either the Attorney General of Canada or the Attorney General or Solicitor General of the province in which those proceedings are taken and includes the lawful deputy of any of them,

 

 

      (d) with respect to proceedings in relation to

 

 

        (i) an offence referred to in subsection 7(3.71), or

 

 

        (ii) an offence referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition ``terrorist activity'' in subsection 83.01(1), where the act or omission was committed outside Canada but is deemed by virtue of subsection 7(2), (2.1), (2.2), (3), (3.1), (3.4), (3.6), (3.72) or (3.73) to have been committed in Canada,

 

 

      means either the Attorney General of Canada or the Attorney General or Solicitor General of the province in which those proceedings are taken and includes the lawful deputy of any of them,

 

 

      (e) with respect to proceedings in relation to an offence where the act or omission constituting the offence

 

 

        (i) constitutes a terrorist activity referred to in paragraph (b) of the definition ``terrorist activity'' in subsection 83.01(1), and

 

 

        (ii) was committed outside Canada but is deemed by virtue of subsection 7(3.74) or (3.75) to have been committed in Canada,

 

 

      means either the Attorney General of Canada or the Attorney General or Solicitor General of the province in which those proceedings are taken and includes the lawful deputy of any of them, and

 

 

      (f) with respect to proceedings under section 83.13, 83.14, 83.28, 83.29 or 83.3, means either the Attorney General of Canada or the Attorney General or Solicitor General of the province in which those proceedings are taken and includes the lawful deputy of any of them;

 

 

(2) Section 2 of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

 

 

``associated personnel'' « personnel associé »

 

``associated personnel'' means persons who are

 

 

 

      (a) assigned by a government or an intergovernmental organization with the agreement of the competent organ of the United Nations,

 

 

      (b) engaged by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, by a specialized agency of the United Nations or by the International Atomic Energy Agency, or

 

 

      (c) deployed by a humanitarian non-governmental organization or agency under an agreement with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, by a specialized agency of the United Nations or by the International Atomic Energy Agency,

 

 

    to carry out activities in support of the fulfilment of the mandate of a United Nations operation;

 

``government or public facility''
« installation gouverne-
mentale ou publique
»

 

``government or public facility'' means a facility or conveyance, whether permanent or temporary, that is used or occupied in connection with their official duties by representatives of a state, members of a government, members of a legislature, members of the judiciary, or officials or employees of a state or of any other public authority or public entity, or by officials or employees of an intergovernmental organization;

 

 

``justice system participant''
« personne associée au système judiciaire »

 

``justice system participant'' means

 

 

 

      (a) a member of the Senate, of the House of Commons, of a legislative assembly or of a municipal council, and

 

 

      (b) a person who plays a role in the administration of criminal justice, including

 

 

        (i) the Solicitor General of Canada and a Minister responsible for policing in a province,

 

 

        (ii) a prosecutor, a lawyer, a member of the Chambre des notaires du Québec and an officer of a court,

 

 

        (iii) a judge and a justice,

 

 

        (iv) a juror and a person who is summoned as a juror,

 

 

        (v) an informant, a prospective witness, a witness under subpoena and a witness who has testified,

 

 

        (vi) a peace officer within the meaning of any of paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e) and (g) of the definition ``peace officer'',

 

 

        (vii) a civilian employee of a police force,

 

 

        (viii) a person employed in the administration of a court,

 

 

        (ix) an employee of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency who is involved in the investigation of an offence under an Act of Parliament,

 

 

        (x) an employee of a federal or provincial correctional service, a parole supervisor and any other person who is involved in the administration of a sentence under the supervision of such a correctional service and a person who conducts disciplinary hearings under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and

 

 

        (xi) an employee and a member of the National Parole Board and of a provincial parole board;

 

``terrorism offence''
« infraction de terrorisme »

 

``terrorism offence'' means

 

 

 

      (a) an offence under any of sections 83.02 to 83.04 or 83.18 to 83.23,

 

 

      (b) an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a terrorist group,

 

 

      (c) an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament where the act or omission constituting the offence also constitutes a terrorist activity, or

 

 

      (d) a conspiracy or an attempt to commit, or being an accessory after the fact in relation to, or any counselling in relation to, an offence referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c);

 

``terrorist activity''
« activité terroriste »

 

``terrorist activity'' has the same meaning as in subsection 83.01(1);

 

 

``terrorist group''
« groupe terroriste »

 

``terrorist group'' has the same meaning as in subsection 83.01(1);

 

 

``United Nations operation''
« opération des Nations Unies »

 

``United Nations operation'' means an operation that is established by the competent organ of the United Nations in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and is conducted under United Nations authority and control, if the operation is for the purpose of maintaining or restoring international peace and security or if the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations has declared, for the purposes of the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, that there exists an exceptional risk to the safety of the personnel participating in the operation. It does not include an operation authorized by the Security Council as an enforcement action under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations in which any of the personnel are engaged as combatants against organized armed forces and to which the law of international armed conflict applies;

 

 

``United Nations personnel''
« personnel des Nations Unies »

 

``United Nations personnel'' means

 

 

 

      (a) persons who are engaged or deployed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations as members of the military, police or civilian components of a United Nations operation, or

 

 

      (b) any other officials or experts who are on mission of the United Nations or one of its specialized agencies or the International Atomic Energy Agency and who are present in an official capacity in the area where a United Nations operation is conducted;

 

R.S., c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 5(1)

 

3. (1) The portion of subsection 7(3) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

 

 

Offence against internationally protected person

 

(3) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other Act, every one who, outside Canada, commits an act or omission against the person of an internationally protected person or against any property referred to in section 431 used by that person that, if committed in Canada, would be an offence against any of sections 235, 236, 266, 267, 268, 269, 269.1, 271, 272, 273, 279, 279.1, 280 to 283, 424 and 431 is deemed to commit that act or omission in Canada if

 

 

 

(2) Section 7 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3.7):

 

 

Offence against United Nations or associated personnel

 

(3.71) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other Act, every one who, outside Canada, commits an act or omission against a member of United Nations personnel or associated personnel or against property referred to in section 431.1 that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence against, a conspiracy or an attempt to commit an offence against, or being an accessory after the fact or counselling in relation to an offence against, section 235, 236, 266, 267, 268, 269, 269.1, 271, 272, 273, 279, 279.1, 424.1 or 431.1 is deemed to commit that act or omission in Canada if

 

    (a) the act or omission is committed on a ship that is registered or licensed, or for which an identification number has been issued, under an Act of Parliament;

    b) the act or omission is committed on an aircraft

      i) registered in Canada under regulations made under the Aeronautics Act, or

      ii) leased without crew and operated by a person who is qualified under regulations made under the Aeronautics Act to be registered as owner of an aircraft in Canada under those regulations;

    (c) the person who commits the act or omission

      (i) is a Canadian citizen, or

      (ii) is not a citizen of any state and ordinarily resides in Canada;

    (d) the person who commits the act or omission is, after the commission of the act or omission, present in Canada;

    (e) the act or omission is committed against a Canadian citizen; or

    (f) the act or omission is committed with intent to compel the Government of Canada or of a province to do or refrain from doing any act.

 

Offence involving explosive or other lethal device

(3.72) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other Act, every one who, outside Canada, commits an act or omission that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence against, a conspiracy or an attempt to commit an offence against, or being an accessory after the fact or counselling in relation to an offence against, section 431.2 is deemed to commit that act or omission in Canada if

    (a) the act or omission is committed on a ship that is registered or licensed, or for which an identification number has been issued, under any Act of Parliament;

    (b) the act or omission is committed on an aircraft

      (i) registered in Canada under regulations made under the Aeronautics Act,

      (ii) leased without crew and operated by a person who is qualified under regulations made under the Aeronautics Act to be registered as owner of an aircraft in Canada under those regulations, or

      (iii) operated for or on behalf of the Government of Canada;

    (c) the person who commits the act or omission

      (i) is a Canadian citizen, or

      (ii) is not a citizen of any state and ordinarily resides in Canada;

    (d) the person who commits the act or omission is, after the commission of the act or omission, present in Canada;

    (e) the act or omission is committed against a Canadian citizen;

    (f) the act or omission is committed with intent to compel the Government of Canada or of a province to do or refrain from doing any act; or

 

 

Version françaiseTable of ContentsPrint formatPrint format

Previous Section Next Section

 

 

    (g) the act or omission is committed against a Canadian government or public facility located outside Canada.

 

Offence relating to financing of terrorism

 

(3.73) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other Act, every one who, outside Canada, commits an act or omission that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence against, a conspiracy or an attempt to commit an offence against, or being an accessory after the fact or counselling in relation to an offence against, section 83.02 is deemed to commit the act or omission in Canada if

 

 

 

    (a) the act or omission is committed on a ship that is registered or licensed, or for which an identification number has been issued, under an Act of Parliament;

 

 

    (b) the act or omission is committed on an aircraft

 

 

      (i) registered in Canada under regulations made under the Aeronautics Act, or

 

 

      (ii) leased without crew and operated by a person who is qualified under regulations made under the Aeronautics Act to be registered as the owner of an aircraft in Canada under those regulations;

 

 

    (c) the person who commits the act or omission

 

 

      (i) is a Canadian citizen, or

 

 

      (ii) is not a citizen of any state and ordinarily resides in Canada;

 

 

    (d) the person who commits the act or omission is, after its commission, present in Canada;

 

 

    (e) the act or omission is committed for the purpose of committing an act or omission referred to in paragraph 83.02(a) or (b) in order to compel the Government of Canada or of a province to do or refrain from doing any act;

 

 

    (f) the act or omission is committed for the purpose of committing an act or omission referred to in paragraph 83.02(a) or (b) against a Canadian government or public facility located outside Canada; or

 

 

    (g) the act or omission is committed for the purpose of committing an act or omission referred to in paragraph 83.02(a) or (b) in Canada or against a Canadian citizen.

 

Terrorism offence committed outside Canada

 

(3.74) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other Act, every one who commits an act or omission outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would be a terrorism offence, other than an offence under section 83.02 or an offence referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition ``terrorist activity'' in subsection 83.01(1), is deemed to have committed that act or omission in Canada if the person

 

 

 

    (a) is a Canadian citizen;

 

 

    (b) is not a citizen of any state and ordinarily resides in Canada; or

 

 

    (c) is a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act and is, after the commission of the act or omission, present in Canada.

 

Terrorist activity committed outside Canada

 

(3.75) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other Act, every one who commits an act or omission outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would be an indictable offence and would also constitute a terrorist activity referred to in paragraph (b) of the definition ``terrorist activity'' in subsection 83.01(1) is deemed to commit that act or omission in Canada if

 

 

 

    (a) the act or omission is committed against a Canadian citizen;

 

 

    (b) the act or omission is committed against a Canadian government or public facility located outside Canada; or

 

 

    (c) the act or omission is committed with intent to compel the Government of Canada or of a province to do or refrain from doing any act.

 

 

(3) Subsection 7(7) of the Act is replaced by the following:

 

 

If accused not Canadian citizen

 

(7) If the accused is not a Canadian citizen, no proceedings in respect of which courts have jurisdiction by virtue of this section shall be continued unless the consent of the Attorney General of Canada is obtained not later than eight days after the proceedings are commenced.

 

 

R.S., c. 30 (3rd Supp.), s. 1(4); 1995, c. 5, par. 25(1)(g)

 

(4) Subsection 7(10) of the Act is replaced by the following:

 

 

Certificate as evidence

 

(10) In any proceedings under this Act, a certificate purporting to have been issued by or under the authority of the Minister of Foreign Affairs is admissible in evidence without proof of the signature or authority of the person appearing to have signed it and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is proof of the facts it states that are relevant to the question of whether any person is a member of United Nations personnel, a member of associated personnel or a person who is entitled under international law to protection from attack or threat of attack against his or her person, freedom or dignity.

 

 

 

4. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 83:

 

 

 

PART II.1

 

 

TERRORISM

 

 

Interpretation

 

Definitions

 

83.01 (1) The following definitions apply in this Part.

 

 

``Canadian''
« Canadien »

 

``Canadian'' means a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident, within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act, or a body corporate incorporated or continued under the laws of Canada or a province.

 

 

``entity''
« entité »

 

``entity'' means a person, group, trust, partnership or fund or an unincorporated association or organization.

 

 

``listed entity''
« entité inscrite »

 

``listed entity'' means an entity on a list established by the Governor in Council under section 83.05.

 

 

``terrorist activity''
« activité terroriste »

 

``terrorist activity'' means

 

 

 

      (a) an act or omission that is committed in or outside Canada and that, if committed in Canada, is one of the following offences:

 

 

        (i) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2) that implement the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, signed at The Hague on December 16, 1970,

 

 

        (ii) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2) that implement the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, signed at Montreal on September 23, 1971,

 

 

        (iii) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3) that implement the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 14, 1973,

 

 

        (iv) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3.1) that implement the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 17, 1979,

 

 

        (v) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3.4) or (3.6) that implement the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, done at Vienna and New York on March 3, 1980,

 

 

        (vi) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2) that implement the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, signed at Montreal on February 24, 1988,

 

 

        (vii) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2.1) that implement the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on March 10, 1988,

 

 

        (viii) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2.1) or (2.2) that implement the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome on March 10, 1988,

 

 

        (ix) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3.72) that implement the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 15, 1997, and

 

 

        (x) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3.73) that implement the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 9, 1999, or

 

 

      (b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada,

 

 

        (i) that is committed

 

 

          (A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and

 

 

          (B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and

 

 

        (ii) that intentionally

 

 

          (A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,

 

 

          (B) endangers a person's life,

 

 

          (C) causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,

 

 

          (D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), or

 

 

          (E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C),

 

 

    and includes a conspiracy, attempt or threat to commit any such act or omission, or being an accessory after the fact or counselling in relation to any such act or omission, but, for greater certainty, does not include an act or omission that is committed during an armed conflict and that, at the time and in the place of its commission, is in accordance with customary international law or conventional international law applicable to the conflict, or the activities undertaken by military forces of a state in the exercise of their official duties, to the extent that those activities are governed by other rules of international law.

 

``terrorist group''
« groupe terroriste »

 

``terrorist group'' means

 

 

 

      (a) an entity that has as one of its purposes or activities facilitating or carrying out any terrorist activity, or

 

 

      (b) a listed entity,

 

 

    and includes an association of such entities.

 

For greater certainty

 

(1.1) For greater certainty, the expression of a political, religious or ideological thought, belief or opinion does not come within paragraph (b) of the definition ``terrorist activity'' in subsection (1) unless it constitutes an act or omission that satisfies the criteria of that paragraph.

 

 

Facilitation

 

(2) For the purposes of this Part, facilitation shall be construed in accordance with subsection 83.19(2).

 

 

 

Financing of Terrorism

 

Providing or collecting property for certain activities

 

83.02 Every one who, directly or indirectly, wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, provides or collects property intending that it be used or knowing that it will be used, in whole or in part, in order to carry out

 

 

 

    (a) an act or omission that constitutes an offence referred to in subparagraphs (a)(i) to (ix) of the definition of ``terrorist activity'' in subsection 83.01(1), or

 

 

    (b) any other act or omission intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to a civilian or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, if the purpose of that act or omission, by its nature or context, is to intimidate the public, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or refrain from doing any act,

 

 

is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.

 

 

Providing, making available, etc., property or services for terrorist purposes

 

83.03 Every one who, directly or indirectly, collects property, provides or invites a person to provide, or makes available property or financial or other related services

 

 

 

    (a) intending that they be used, or knowing that they will be used, in whole or in part, for the purpose of facilitating or carrying out any terrorist activity, or for the purpose of benefiting any person who is facilitating or carrying out such an activity, or

 

 

    (b) knowing that, in whole or part, they will be used by or will benefit a terrorist group,

 

 

is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.

 

 

Using or possessing property for terrorist purposes

 

83.04 Every one who

 

 

 

    (a) uses property, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, for the purpose of facilitating or carrying out a terrorist activity, or

 

 

    (b) possesses property intending that it be used or knowing that it will be used, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, for the purpose of facilitating or carrying out a terrorist activity,

 

 

is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.

 

 


Next Section

Home page

Version françaiseTable of ContentsPrint formatPrint format

Previous Section Next Section

 

 

List of Entities

 

Establish-
ment of list

 

83.05 (1) The Governor in Council may, by regulation, establish a list on which the Governor in Council may place any entity if, on the recommendation of the Solicitor General of Canada, the Governor in Council is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that

 

 

 

    (a) the entity has knowingly carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in or facilitated a terrorist activity; or

 

 

    (b) the entity is knowingly acting on behalf of, at the direction of or in association with an entity referred to in paragraph (a).

 

Recommendat ion

 

(1.1) The Solicitor General may make a recommendation referred to in subsection (1) only if the Solicitor General has reasonable grounds to believe that the entity to which the recommendation relates is an entity referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b).

 

 

Application to Solicitor General

 

(2) On application in writing by a listed entity, the Solicitor General shall decide whether there are reasonable grounds to recommend to the Governor in Council that the applicant no longer be a listed entity.

 

 

Deeming

 

(3) If the Solicitor General does not make a decision on the application referred to in subsection (2) within 60 days after receipt of the application, the Solicitor General is deemed to have decided to recommend that the applicant remain a listed entity.

 

 

Notice of the decision to the applicant

 

(4) The Solicitor General must give notice without delay to the applicant of any decision taken or deemed to have been taken respecting the application referred to in subsection (2).

 

 

Judicial review

 

(5) Within 60 days after the receipt of the notice of the decision referred to in subsection (4), the applicant may apply to a judge for judicial review of the decision.

 

 

Reference

 

(6) When an application is made under subsection (5), the judge shall, without delay

 

 

 

    (a) examine, in private, any security or criminal intelligence reports considered in listing the applicant and hear any other evidence or information that may be presented by or on behalf of the Solicitor General and may, at the request of the Solicitor General, hear all or part of that evidence or information in the absence of the applicant and any counsel representing the applicant, if the judge is of the opinion that the disclosure of the information would injure national security or endanger the safety of any person;

 

 

    (b) provide the applicant with a statement summarizing the information available to the judge so as to enable the applicant to be reasonably informed of the reasons for the decision, without disclosing any information the disclosure of which would, in the judge's opinion, injure national security or endanger the safety of any person;

 

 

    (c) provide the applicant with a reasonable opportunity to be heard; and

 

 

    (d) determine whether the decision is reasonable on the basis of the information available to the judge and, if found not to be reasonable, order that the applicant no longer be a listed entity.

 

Evidence

 

(6.1) The judge may receive into evidence anything that, in the opinion of the judge, is reliable and appropriate, even if it would not otherwise be admissible under Canadian law, and may base his or her decision on that evidence.

 

 

Publication

 

(7) The Solicitor General shall cause to be published, without delay, in the Canada Gazette notice of a final order of a court that the applicant no longer be a listed entity.

 

 

New application

 

(8) A listed entity may not make another application under subsection (2), except if there has been a material change in its circumstances since the time when the entity made its last application or if the Solicitor General has completed the review under subsection (9).

 

 

Review of list

 

(9) Two years after the establishment of the list referred to in subsection (1), and every two years after that, the Solicitor General shall review the list to determine whether there are still reasonable grounds, as set out in subsection (1), for an entity to be a listed entity and make a recommendation to the Governor in Council as to whether the entity should remain a listed entity. The review does not affect the validity of the list.

 

 

Completion of review

 

(10) The Solicitor General shall complete the review as soon as possible and in any event, no later than 120 days after its commencement. After completing the review, the Solicitor General shall cause to be published, without delay, in the Canada Gazette notice that the review has been completed.

 

 

Definition of ``judge''

 

(11) In this section, ``judge'' means the Chief Justice of the Federal Court or a judge of the Trial Division of that Court designated by the Chief Justice.

 

 

Admission of foreign information obtained in confidence

 

83.06 (1) For the purposes of subsection 83.05(6), in private and in the absence of the applicant or any counsel representing it,

 

 

 

    (a) the Solicitor General of Canada may make an application to the judge for the admission of information obtained in confidence from a government, an institution or an agency of a foreign state, from an international organization of states or from an institution or an agency of an international organization of states; and

 

 

    (b) the judge shall examine the information and provide counsel representing the Solicitor General with a reasonable opportunity to be heard as to whether the information is relevant but should not be disclosed to the applicant or any counsel representing it because the disclosure would injure national security or endanger the safety of any person.

 

Return of information

 

(2) The information shall be returned to counsel representing the Solicitor General and shall not be considered by the judge in making the determination under paragraph 83.05(6)(d), if

 

 

 

    (a) the judge determines that the information is not relevant;

 

 

    (b) the judge determines that the information is relevant but should be summarized in the statement to be provided under paragraph 83.05(6)(b); or

 

 

    (c) the Solicitor General withdraws the application.

 

Use of information

 

(3) If the judge decides that the information is relevant but that its disclosure would injure national security or endanger the safety of persons, the information shall not be disclosed in the statement mentioned in paragraph 83.05(6)(b), but the judge may base the determination under paragraph 83.05(6)(d) on it.

 

 

Mistaken identity

 

83.07 (1) An entity claiming not to be a listed entity may apply to the Solicitor General of Canada for a certificate stating that it is not a listed entity.

 

 

Issuance of certificate

 

(2) The Solicitor General shall, within 15 days after receiving the application, issue a certificate if satisfied that the applicant is not a listed entity.

 

 

 

Freezing of Property

 

Freezing of property

 

83.08 (1) No person in Canada and no Canadian outside Canada shall knowingly

 

 

 

    (a) deal directly or indirectly in any property that is owned or controlled by or on behalf of a terrorist group;

 

 

    (b) enter into or facilitate, directly or indirectly, any transaction in respect of property referred to in paragraph (a); or

 

 

    (c) provide any financial or other related services in respect of property referred to in paragraph (a) to, for the benefit of or at the direction of a terrorist group.

 

No civil liability

 

(2) A person who acts reasonably in taking, or omitting to take, measures to comply with subsection (1) shall not be liable in any civil action arising from having taken or omitted to take the measures, if the person took all reasonable steps to satisfy themself that the relevant property was owned or controlled by or on behalf of a terrorist group.

 

 

Exemptions

 

83.09 (1) The Solicitor General of Canada or a person designated by the Solicitor General may authorize any person in Canada or any Canadian outside Canada to carry out a specified activity or transaction that is prohibited by section 83.08, or a class of such activities or transactions.

 

 

Ministerial authorization

 

(2) The Solicitor General or a person designated by the Solicitor General may make the authorization subject to any terms and conditions that are required in their opinion, and may amend, suspend, revoke or reinstate it.

 

 

Existing equities maintained

 

(3) All secured and unsecured rights and interests in the frozen property that are held by persons, other than terrorist groups or their agents, are entitled to the same ranking that they would have been entitled to had the property not been frozen.

 

 

Third party involvement

 

(4) If a person has obtained an authorization under subsection (1), any other person involved in carrying out the activity or transaction, or class of activities or transactions, to which the authorization relates is not subject to sections 83.08, 83.1 and 83.11 if the terms or conditions of the authorization that are imposed under subsection (2), if any, are met.

 

 

Disclosure

 

83.1 (1) Every person in Canada and every Canadian outside Canada shall disclose forthwith to the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and to the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service

 

 

 

    (a) the existence of property in their possession or control that they know is owned or controlled by or on behalf of a terrorist group; and

 

 

    (b) information about a transaction or proposed transaction in respect of property referred to in paragraph (a).

 

Immunity

 

(2) No criminal or civil proceedings lie against a person for disclosure made in good faith under subsection (1).

 

 

Audit

 

83.11 (1) The following entities must determine on a continuing basis whether they are in possession or control of property owned or controlled by or on behalf of a listed entity:

 

 

 

    (a) authorized foreign banks within the meaning of section 2 of the Bank Act in respect of their business in Canada, or banks to which that Act applies;

 

 

    (b) cooperative credit societies, savings and credit unions and caisses populaires regulated by a provincial Act and associations regulated by the Cooperative Credit Associations Act;

 

 

    (c) foreign companies within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Insurance Companies Act in respect of their insurance business in Canada;

 

 

    (c.1) companies, provincial companies and societies within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Insurance Companies Act;

 

 

    (c.2) fraternal benefit societies regulated by a provincial Act in respect of their insurance activities, and insurance companies and other entities engaged in the business of insuring risks that are regulated by a provincial Act;

 

 

    (d) companies to which the Trust and Loan Companies Act applies;

 

 

    (e) trust companies regulated by a provincial Act;

 

 

    (f) loan companies regulated by a provincial Act; and

 

 

    (g) entities authorized under provincial legislation to engage in the business of dealing in securities, or to provide portfolio management or investment counselling services.

 

Monthly report

 

(2) Subject to the regulations, every entity referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (g) must report, within the period specified by regulation or, if no period is specified, monthly, to the principal agency or body that supervises or regulates it under federal or provincial law either

 

 

 

    (a) that it is not in possession or control of any property referred to in subsection (1), or

 

 

    (b) that it is in possession or control of such property, in which case it must also report the number of persons, contracts or accounts involved and the total value of the property.

 

Immunity

 

(3) No criminal or civil proceedings lie against a person for making a report in good faith under subsection (2).

 

 

Regulations

 

(4) The Governor in Council may make regulations

 

 

 

    (a) excluding any entity or class of entities from the requirement to make a report referred to in subsection (2), and specifying the conditions of exclusion; and

 

 

    (b) specifying a period for the purposes of subsection (2).

 

Offences - freezing of property, disclosure or audit

 

83.12 (1) Every one who contravenes any of sections 83.08, 83.1 and 83.11 is guilty of an offence and liable

 

 

 

    (a) on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or to both; or

 

 

    (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.

 

No contravention

 

(2) No person contravenes section 83.1 if they make the disclosure referred to in that section only to the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

 

 

 

Seizure and Restraint of Property

 

Seizure and restraint of assets

 

83.13 (1) Where a judge of the Federal Court, on an ex parte application by the Attorney General, after examining the application in private, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is in any building, receptacle or place any property in respect of which an order of forfeiture may be made under subsection 83.14(5), the judge may issue

 

 

 

    (a) if the property is situated in Canada, a warrant authorizing a person named therein or a peace officer to search the building, receptacle or place for that property and to seize that property and any other property in respect of which that person or peace officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that an order of forfeiture may be made under that subsection; or

 

 

    (b) if the property is situated in or outside Canada, a restraint order prohibiting any person from disposing of, or otherwise dealing with any interest in, that property other than as may be specified in the order.

 

Contents of application

 

(1.1) An affidavit in support of an application under subsection (1) may be sworn on information and belief, and, notwithstanding the Federal Court Rules, 1998, no adverse inference shall be drawn from a failure to provide evidence of persons having personal knowledge of material facts.

 

 

Appointment of manager

 

(2) On an application under subsection (1), at the request of the Attorney General, if a judge is of the opinion that the circumstances so require, the judge may

 

 

 

    (a) appoint a person to take control of, and to manage or otherwise deal with, all or part of the property in accordance with the directions of the judge; and

 

 

    (b) require any person having possession of that property to give possession of the property to the person appointed under paragraph (a).

 

Appointment of Minister of Public Works and Government Services

 

(3) When the Attorney General of Canada so requests, a judge appointing a person under subsection (2) shall appoint the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

 

 

Power to manage

 

(4) The power to manage or otherwise deal with property under subsection (2) includes

 

 

 

    (a) in the case of perishable or rapidly depreciating property, the power to sell that property; and

 

 

    (b) in the case of property that has little or no value, the power to destroy that property.

 

Application for destruction order

 

(5) Before a person appointed under subsection (2) destroys property referred to in paragraph (4)(b), he or she shall apply to a judge of the Federal Court for a destruction order.

 

 

Notice

 

(6) Before making a destruction order in relation to any property, a judge shall require notice in accordance with subsection (7) to be given to, and may hear, any person who, in the opinion of the judge, appears to have a valid interest in the property.

 

 

Manner of giving notice

 

(7) A notice under subsection (6) shall be given in the manner that the judge directs or as provided in the rules of the Federal Court.

 

 

Order

 

(8) A judge may order that property be destroyed if he or she is satisfied that the property has little or no financial or other value.

 

 

When management order ceases to have effect

 

(9) A management order ceases to have effect when the property that is the subject of the management order is returned to an applicant in accordance with the law or forfeited to Her Majesty.

 

 

Application to vary

 

(10) The Attorney General may at any time apply to a judge of the Federal Court to cancel or vary an order or warrant made under this section, other than an appointment made under subsection (3).

 

 

Procedure

 

(11) Subsections 462.32(4) and (6), sections 462.34 to 462.35 and 462.4, subsections 487(3) and (4) and section 488 apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, to a warrant issued under paragraph (1)(a).

 

 

Procedure

 

(12) Subsections 462.33(4) and (6) to (11) and sections 462.34 to 462.35 and 462.4 apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, to an order issued under paragraph (1)(b).

 

 


Next Section

 

 

Forfeiture of Property

 

Application for order of forfeiture

 

83.14 (1) The Attorney General may make an application to a judge of the Federal Court for an order of forfeiture in respect of

 

 

 

    (a) property owned or controlled by or on behalf of a terrorist group; or

 

 

    (b) property that has been or will be used, in whole or in part, to facilitate or carry out a terrorist activity.

 

Contents of application

 

(2) An affidavit in support of an application by the Attorney General under subsection (1) may be sworn on information and belief, and, notwithstanding the Federal Court Rules, 1998, no adverse inference shall be drawn from a failure to provide evidence of persons having personal knowledge of material facts.

 

 

Respondents

 

(3) The Attorney General is required to name as a respondent to an application under subsection (1) only those persons who are known to own or control the property that is the subject of the application.

 

 

Notice

 

(4) The Attorney General shall give notice of an application under subsection (1) to named respondents in such a manner as the judge directs or as provided in the rules of the Federal Court.

 

 

Granting of forfeiture order

 

(5) If a judge is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that property is property referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the judge shall order that the property be forfeited to Her Majesty to be disposed of as the Attorney General directs or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the law.

 

 

Use of proceeds

 

(5.1) Any proceeds that arise from the disposal of property under subsection (5) may be used to compensate victims of terrorist activities and to fund anti-terrorist initiatives in accordance with any regulations made by the Governor in Council under subsection (5.2).

 

 

Regulations

 

(5.2) The Governor in Council may make regulations for the purposes of specifying how the proceeds referred to in subsection (5.1) are to be distributed.

 

 

Order refusing forfeiture

 

(6) Where a judge refuses an application under subsection (1) in respect of any property, the judge shall make an order that describes the property and declares that it is not property referred to in that subsection.

 

 

Notice

 

(7) On an application under subsection (1), a judge may require notice to be given to any person who, in the opinion of the Court, appears to have an interest in the property, and any such person shall be entitled to be added as a respondent to the application.

 

 

Third party interests

 

(8) If a judge is satisfied that a person referred to in subsection (7) has an interest in property that is subject to an application, has exercised reasonable care to ensure that the property would not be used to facilitate or carry out a terrorist activity, and is not a member of a terrorist group, the judge shall order that the interest is not affected by the forfeiture. Such an order shall declare the nature and extent of the interest in question.

 

 

Dwelling-hou se

 

(9) Where all or part of property that is the subject of an application under subsection (1) is a dwelling-house, the judge shall also consider

 

 

 

    (a) the impact of an order of forfeiture on any member of the immediate family of the person who owns or controls the dwelling-house, if the dwelling-house was the member's principal residence at the time the dwelling-house was ordered restrained or at the time the forfeiture application was made and continues to be the member's principal residence; and

 

 

    (b) whether the member appears innocent of any complicity or collusion in the terrorist activity.

 

Motion to vary or set aside

 

(10) A person who claims an interest in property that was forfeited and who did not receive notice under subsection (7) may bring a motion to the Federal Court to vary or set aside an order made under subsection (5) not later than 60 days after the day on which the forfeiture order was made.

 

 

No extension of time

 

(11) The Court may not extend the period set out in subsection (10).

 

 

Disposition of property

 

83.15 Subsection 462.42(6) and sections 462.43 and 462.46 apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, to property subject to a warrant or restraint order issued under subsection 83.13(1) or ordered forfeited under subsection 83.14(5).

 

 

Interim preservation rights

 

83.16 (1) Pending any appeal of an order made under section 83.14, property restrained under an order issued under section 83.13 shall continue to be restrained, property seized under a warrant issued under that section shall continue to be detained, and any person appointed to manage, control or otherwise deal with that property under that section shall continue in that capacity.

 

 

Appeal of refusal to grant order

 

(2) Section 462.34 applies, with such modifications as the circumstances require, to an appeal taken in respect of a refusal to grant an order under subsection 83.14(5).

 

 

Other forfeiture provisions unaffected

 

83.17 (1) This Part does not affect the operation of any other provision of this or any other Act of Parliament respecting the forfeiture of property.

 

 

Priority for restitution to victims of crime

 

(2) Property is subject to forfeiture under subsection 83.14(5) only to the extent that it is not required to satisfy the operation of any other provision of this or any other Act of Parliament respecting restitution to, or compensation of, persons affected by the commission of offences.

 

 

 

Participating, Facilitating, Instructing and Harbouring

 

Participation in activity of terrorist group

 

83.18 (1) Every one who knowingly participates in or contributes to, directly or indirectly, any activity of a terrorist group for the purpose of enhancing the ability of any terrorist group to facilitate or carry out a terrorist activity is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

 

 

Prosecution

 

(2) An offence may be committed under subsection (1) whether or not

 

 

 

    (a) a terrorist group actually facilitates or carries out a terrorist activity;

 

 

    (b) the participation or contribution of the accused actually enhances the ability of a terrorist group to facilitate or carry out a terrorist activity; or

 

 

    (c) the accused knows the specific nature of any terrorist activity that may be facilitated or carried out by a terrorist group.

 

Meaning of participating or contributing

 

(3) Participating in or contributing to an activity of a terrorist group includes

 

 

 

    (a) providing, receiving or recruiting a person to receive training;

 

 

    (b) providing or offering to provide a skill or an expertise for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a terrorist group;

 

 

    (c) recruiting a person in order to facilitate or commit

 

 

      (i) a terrorism offence, or

 

 

      (ii) an act or omission outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would be a terrorism offence;

 

 

    (d) entering or remaining in any country for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a terrorist group; and

 

 

    (e) making oneself, in response to instructions from any of the persons who constitute a terrorist group, available to facilitate or commit

 

 

      (i) a terrorism offence, or

 

 

      (ii) an act or omission outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would be a terrorism offence.

 

Factors

 

(4) In determining whether an accused participates in or contributes to any activity of a terrorist group, the court may consider, among other factors, whether the accused

 

 

 

    (a) uses a name, word, symbol or other representation that identifies, or is associated with, the terrorist group;

 

 

    (b) frequently associates with any of the persons who constitute the terrorist group;

 

 

    (c) receives any benefit from the terrorist group; or

 

 

    (d) repeatedly engages in activities at the instruction of any of the persons who constitute the terrorist group.

 

Facilitating terrorist activity

 

83.19 (1) Every one who knowingly facilitates a terrorist activity is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

 

 

Facilitation

 

(2) For the purposes of this Part, a terrorist activity is facilitated whether or not

 

 

 

    (a) the facilitator knows that a particular terrorist activity is facilitated;

 

 

    (b) any particular terrorist activity was foreseen or planned at the time it was facilitated; or

 

 

    (c) any terrorist activity was actually carried out.

 

Commission of offence for terrorist group

 

83.2 Every one who commits an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a terrorist group is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.

 

 

Instructing to carry out activity for terrorist group

 

83.21 (1) Every person who knowingly instructs, directly or indirectly, any person to carry out any activity for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a terrorist group, for the purpose of enhancing the ability of any terrorist group to facilitate or carry out a terrorist activity, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.

 

 

Prosecution

 

(2) An offence may be committed under subsection (1) whether or not

 

 

 

    (a) the activity that the accused instructs to be carried out is actually carried out;

 

 

    (b) the accused instructs a particular person to carry out the activity referred to in paragraph (a);

 

 

    (c) the accused knows the identity of the person whom the accused instructs to carry out the activity referred to in paragraph (a);

 

 

    (d) the person whom the accused instructs to carry out the activity referred to in paragraph (a) knows that it is to be carried out for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a terrorist group;

 

 

    (e) a terrorist group actually facilitates or carries out a terrorist activity;

 

 

    (f) the activity referred to in paragraph (a) actually enhances the ability of a terrorist group to facilitate or carry out a terrorist activity; or

 

 

    (g) the accused knows the specific nature of any terrorist activity that may be facilitated or carried out by a terrorist group.

 

Instructing to carry out terrorist activity

 

83.22 (1) Every person who knowingly instructs, directly or indirectly, any person to carry out a terrorist activity is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.

 

 

Prosecution

 

(2) An offence may be committed under subsection (1) whether or not

 

 

 

    (a) the terrorist activity is actually carried out;

 

 

    (b) the accused instructs a particular person to carry out the terrorist activity;

 

 

    (c) the accused knows the identity of the person whom the accused instructs to carry out the terrorist activity; or

 

 

    (d) the person whom the accused instructs to carry out the terrorist activity knows that it is a terrorist activity.

 

Harbouring or concealing

 

83.23 Every one who knowingly harbours or conceals any person whom he or she knows to be a person who has carried out or is likely to carry out a terrorist activity, for the purpose of enabling the person to facilitate or carry out any terrorist activity, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

 

 

 

Proceedings and Aggravated Punishment

 

Attorney General's consent

 

83.24 Proceedings in respect of a terrorism offence or an offence under section 83.12 shall not be commenced without the consent of the Attorney General.

 

 

Jurisdiction

 

83.25 (1) Where a person is alleged to have committed a terrorism offence or an offence under section 83.12, proceedings in respect of that offence may, whether or not that person is in Canada, be commenced at the instance of the Government of Canada and conducted by the Attorney General of Canada or counsel acting on his or her behalf in any territorial division in Canada, if the offence is alleged to have occurred outside the province in which the proceedings are commenced, whether or not proceedings have previously been commenced elsewhere in Canada.

 

 

Trial and punishment

 

(2) An accused may be tried and punished in respect of an offence referred to in subsection (1) in the same manner as if the offence had been committed in the territorial division where the proceeding is conducted.

 

 

Sentences to be served consecutively

 

83.26 A sentence, other than one of life imprisonment, imposed on a person for an offence under any of sections 83.02 to 83.04 and 83.18 to 83.23 shall be served consecutively to

 

 

 

    (a) any other punishment imposed on the person, other than a sentence of life imprisonment, for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events; and

 

 

    (b) any other sentence, other than one of life imprisonment, to which the person is subject at the time the sentence is imposed on the person for an offence under any of those sections.

 

Punishment for terrorist activity

 

83.27 (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, a person convicted of an indictable offence, other than an offence for which a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed as a minimum punishment, where the act or omission constituting the offence also constitutes a terrorist activity, is liable to imprisonment for life.

 

 

Offender must be notified

 

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply unless the prosecutor satisfies the court that the offender, before making a plea, was notified that the application of that subsection would be sought.

 

 


Next Section

 

Version françaiseTable of ContentsPrint formatPrint format

Previous Section Next Section

 

 

Investigative Hearing

 

Definition of ``judge''

 

83.28 (1) In this section and section 83.29, ``judge'' means a provincial court judge or a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction.

 

 

Order for gathering evidence

 

(2) Subject to subsection (3), a peace officer may, for the purposes of an investigation of a terrorism offence, apply ex parte to a judge for an order for the gathering of information.

 

 

Attorney General's consent

 

(3) A peace officer may make an application under subsection (2) only if the prior consent of the Attorney General was obtained.

 

 

Making of order

 

(4) A judge to whom an application is made under subsection (2) may make an order for the gathering of information if the judge is satisfied that the consent of the Attorney General was obtained as required by subsection (3) and

 

 

 

    (a) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that

 

 

      (i) a terrorism offence has been committed, and

 

 

      (ii) information concerning the offence, or information that may reveal the whereabouts of a person suspected by the peace officer of having committed the offence, is likely to be obtained as a result of the order; or

 

 

    (b) that

 

 

      (i) there are reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorism offence will be committed,

 

 

      (ii) there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person has direct and material information that relates to a terrorism offence referred to in subparagraph (i), or that may reveal the whereabouts of an individual who the peace officer suspects may commit a terrorism offence referred to in that subparagraph, and

 

 

      (iii) reasonable attempts have been made to obtain the information referred to in subparagraph (ii) from the person referred to in that subparagraph.

 

Contents of order

 

(5) An order made under subsection (4) may

 

 

 

    (a) order the examination, on oath or not, of a person named in the order;

 

 

    (b) order the person to attend at the place fixed by the judge, or by the judge designated under paragraph (d), as the case may be, for the examination and to remain in attendance until excused by the presiding judge;

 

 

    (c) order the person to bring to the examination any thing in their possession or control, and produce it to the presiding judge;

 

 

    (d) designate another judge as the judge before whom the examination is to take place; and

 

 

    (e) include any other terms or conditions that the judge considers desirable, including terms or conditions for the protection of the interests of the person named in the order and of third parties or for the protection of any ongoing investigation.

 

Execution of order

 

(6) An order made under subsection (4) may be executed anywhere in Canada.

 

 

Variation of order

 

(7) The judge who made the order under subsection (4), or another judge of the same court, may vary its terms and conditions.

 

 

Obligation to answer questions and produce things

 

(8) A person named in an order made under subsection (4) shall answer questions put to the person by the Attorney General or the Attorney General's agent, and shall produce to the presiding judge things that the person was ordered to bring, but may refuse if answering a question or producing a thing would disclose information that is protected by any law relating to non-disclosure of information or to privilege.

 

 

Judge to rule

 

(9) The presiding judge shall rule on any objection or other issue relating to a refusal to answer a question or to produce a thing.

 

 

No person excused from complying with subsection (8)

 

(10) No person shall be excused from answering a question or producing a thing under subsection (8) on the ground that the answer or thing may tend to incriminate the person or subject the person to any proceeding or penalty, but

 

 

 

    (a) no answer given or thing produced under subsection (8) shall be used or received against the person in any criminal proceedings against that person, other than a prosecution under section 132 or 136; and

 

 

    (b) no evidence derived from the evidence obtained from the person shall be used or received against the person in any criminal proceedings against that person, other than a prosecution under section 132 or 136.

 

Right to counsel

 

(11) A person has the right to retain and instruct counsel at any stage of the proceedings.

 

 

Order for custody of thing

 

(12) The presiding judge, if satisfied that any thing produced during the course of the examination will likely be relevant to the investigation of any terrorism offence, shall order that the thing be given into the custody of the peace officer or someone acting on the peace officer's behalf.

 

 

Arrest warrant

 

83.29 (1) The judge who made the order under subsection 83.28(4), or another judge of the same court, may issue a warrant for the arrest of the person named in the order if the judge is satisfied, on an information in writing and under oath, that the person

 

 

 

    (a) is evading service of the order;

 

 

    (b) is about to abscond; or

 

 

    (c) did not attend the examination, or did not remain in attendance, as required by the order.

 

Execution of warrant

 

(2) A warrant issued under subsection (1) may be executed at any place in Canada by any peace officer having jurisdiction in that place.

 

 

Person to be brought before judge

 

(3) A peace officer who arrests a person in the execution of a warrant issued under subsection (1) shall, without delay, bring the person, or cause the person to be brought, before the judge who issued the warrant or another judge of the same court. The judge in question may, to ensure compliance with the order, order that the person be detained in custody or released on recognizance, with or without sureties.

 

 

 

Recognizance with Conditions

 

Attorney General's consent required to lay information

 

83.3 (1) The consent of the Attorney General is required before a peace officer may lay an information under subsection (2).

 

 

Terrorist activity

 

(2) Subject to subsection (1), a peace officer may lay an information before a provincial court judge if the peace officer

 

 

 

    (a) believes on reasonable grounds that a terrorist activity will be carried out; and

 

 

    (b) suspects on reasonable grounds that the imposition of a recognizance with conditions on a person, or the arrest of a person, is necessary to prevent the carrying out of the terrorist activity.

 

Appearance

 

(3) A provincial court judge who receives an information under subsection (2) may cause the person to appear before the provincial court judge.

 

 

Arrest without warrant

 

(4) Notwithstanding subsections (2) and (3), if

 

 

 

    (a) either

 

 

      (i) the grounds for laying an information referred to in paragraphs (2)(a) and (b) exist but, by reason of exigent circumstances, it would be impracticable to lay an information under subsection (2), or

 

 

      (ii) an information has been laid under subsection (2) and a summons has been issued, and

 

 

    (b) the peace officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the detention of the person in custody is necessary in order to prevent a terrorist activity,

 

 

the peace officer may arrest the person without warrant and cause the person to be detained in custody, to be taken before a provincial court judge in accordance with subsection (6).

 

 

Duty of peace officer

 

(5) If a peace officer arrests a person without warrant in the circumstance described in subparagraph (4)(a)(i), the peace officer shall, within the time prescribed by paragraph (6)(a) or (b),

 

 

 

    (a) lay an information in accordance with subsection (2); or

 

 

    (b) release the person.

 

When person to be taken before judge

 

(6) A person detained in custody shall be taken before a provincial court judge in accordance with the following rules:

 

 

 

    (a) if a provincial court judge is available within a period of twenty-four hours after the person has been arrested, the person shall be taken before a provincial court judge without unreasonable delay and in any event within that period, and

 

 

    (b) if a provincial court judge is not available within a period of twenty-four hours after the person has been arrested, the person shall be taken before a provincial court judge as soon as possible,

 

 

unless, at any time before the expiry of the time prescribed in paragraph (a) or (b) for taking the person before a provincial court judge, the peace officer, or an officer in charge within the meaning of Part XV, is satisfied that the person should be released from custody unconditionally, and so releases the person.

 

 

How person dealt with

 

(7) When a person is taken before a provincial court judge under subsection (6),

 

 

 

    (a) if an information has not been laid under subsection (2), the judge shall order that the person be released; or

 

 

    (b) if an information has been laid under subsection (2),

 

 

      (i) the judge shall order that the person be released unless the peace officer who laid the information shows cause why the detention of the person in custody is justified on one or more of the following grounds:

 

 

        (A) the detention is necessary to ensure the person's appearance before a provincial court judge in order to be dealt with in accordance with subsection (8),

 

 

        (B) the detention is necessary for the protection or safety of the public, including any witness, having regard to all the circumstances including

 

 

          (I) the likelihood that, if the person is released from custody, a terrorist activity will be carried out, and

 

 

          (II) any substantial likelihood that the person will, if released from custody, interfere with the administration of justice, and

 

 

        (C) any other just cause and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, that the detention is necessary in order to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to all the circumstances, including the apparent strength of the peace officer's grounds under subsection (2), and the gravity of any terrorist activity that may be carried out, and

 

 

      (ii) the judge may adjourn the matter for a hearing under subsection (8) but, if the person is not released under subparagraph (i), the adjournment may not exceed forty-eight hours.

 

Hearing before judge

 

(8) The provincial court judge before whom the person appears pursuant to subsection (3)

 

 

 

    (a) may, if satisfied by the evidence adduced that the peace officer has reasonable grounds for the suspicion, order that the person enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for any period that does not exceed twelve months and to comply with any other reasonable conditions prescribed in the recognizance, including the conditions set out in subsection (10), that the provincial court judge considers desirable for preventing the carrying out of a terrorist activity; and

 

 

    (b) if the person was not released under subparagraph (7)(b)(i), shall order that the person be released, subject to the recognizance, if any, ordered under paragraph (a).

 

Refusal to enter into recognizance

 

(9) The provincial court judge may commit the person to prison for a term not exceeding twelve months if the person fails or refuses to enter into the recognizance.

 

 

Conditions - firearms

 

(10) Before making an order under paragraph (8)(a), the provincial court judge shall consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of the person or of any other person, to include as a condition of the recognizance that the person be prohibited from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all of those things, for any period specified in the recognizance, and where the provincial court judge decides that it is so desirable, the provincial court judge shall add such a condition to the recognizance.

 

 

Surrender, etc.

 

(11) If the provincial court judge adds a condition described in subsection (10) to a recognizance, the provincial court judge shall specify in the recognizance the manner and method by which

 

 

 

    (a) the things referred to in that subsection that are in the possession of the person shall be surrendered, disposed of, detained, stored or dealt with; and

 

 

    (b) the authorizations, licences and registration certificates held by the person shall be surrendered.

 

Reasons

 

(12) If the provincial court judge does not add a condition described in subsection (10) to a recognizance, the provincial court judge shall include in the record a statement of the reasons for not adding the condition.

 

 

Variance of conditions

 

(13) The provincial court judge may, on application of the peace officer, the Attorney General or the person, vary the conditions fixed in the recognizance.

 

 

Other provisions to apply

 

(14) Subsections 810(4) and (5) apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to proceedings under this section.

 

 

Annual report
(sections 83.28 and 83.29)

 

83.31 (1) The Attorney General of Canada shall prepare and cause to be laid before Parliament and the Attorney General of every province shall publish or otherwise make available to the public an annual report for the previous year on the operation of sections 83.28 and 83.29 that includes

 

 

 

    (a) the number of consents to make an application that were sought, and the number that were obtained, by virtue of subsections 83.28(2) and (3);

 

 

    (b) the number of orders for the gathering of information that were made under subsection 83.28(4); and

 

 

    (c) the number of arrests that were made with a warrant issued under section 83.29.

 

Annual report
(section 83.3)

 

(2) The Attorney General of Canada shall prepare and cause to be laid before Parliament and the Attorney General of every province shall publish or otherwise make available to the public an annual report for the previous year on the operation of section 83.3 that includes

 

 

 

    (a) the number of consents to lay an information that were sought, and the number that were obtained, by virtue of subsections 83.3(1) and (2);

 

 

    (b) the number of cases in which a summons or a warrant of arrest was issued for the purposes of subsection 83.3(3);

 

 

    (c) the number of cases where a person was not released under subsection 83.3(7) pending a hearing;

 

 

    (d) the number of cases in which an order to enter into a recognizance was made under paragraph 83.3(8)(a), and the types of conditions that were imposed;

 

 

    (e) the number of times that a person failed or refused to enter into a recognizance, and the term of imprisonment imposed under subsection 83.3(9) in each case; and

 

 

    (f) the number of cases in which the conditions fixed in a recognizance were varied under subsection 83.3(13).

 

Annual report
(section 83.3)

 

(3) The Solicitor General of Canada shall prepare and cause to be laid before Parliament and the Minister responsible for policing in every province shall publish or otherwise make available to the public an annual report for the previous year on the operation of section 83.3 that includes

 

 

 

    (a) the number of arrests without warrant that were made under subsection 83.3(4) and the period of the arrested person's detention in custody in each case; and

 

 

    (b) the number of cases in which a person was arrested without warrant under subsection 83.3(4) and was released

 

 

      (i) by a peace officer under paragraph 83.3(5)(b), or

 

 

      (ii) by a judge under paragraph 83.3(7)(a).

 

Version françaiseTable of ContentsPrint formatPrint format

Previous Section Next Section

 

Limitation

 

(4) The annual report shall not contain any information the disclosure of which would

 

 

 

      (a) compromise or hinder an ongoing investigation of an offence under an Act of Parliament;

 

 

      (b) endanger the life or safety of any person;

 

 

      (c) prejudice a legal proceeding; or

 

 

      (d) otherwise be contrary to the public interest.

 

Sunset provision

 

83.32 (1) Sections 83.28, 83.29 and 83.3 cease to apply at the end of the fifteenth sitting day of Parliament after December 31, 2006 unless, before the end of that day, the application of those sections is extended by a resolution - the text of which is established under subsection (2) - passed by both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the rules set out in subsection (3).

 

 

Order in Council

 

(2) The Governor General in Council may, by order, establish the text of a resolution providing for the extension of the application of sections 83.28, 83.29 and 83.3 and specifying the period of the extension, which may not exceed five years from the first day on which the resolution has been passed by both Houses of Parliament.

 

 

Rules

 

(3) A motion for the adoption of the resolution may be debated in both Houses of Parliament but may not be amended. At the conclusion of the debate, the Speaker of the House of Parliament shall immediately put every question necessary to determine whether or not the motion is concurred in.

 

 

Subsequent extensions

 

(4) The application of sections 83.28, 83.29 and 83.3 may be further extended in accordance with the procedure set out in this section, with the words ``December 31, 2006'' in subsection (1) read as ``the expiration of the most recent extension under this section''.

 

 

Definition of ``sitting day of Parliament''

 

(5) In subsection (1), ``sitting day of Parliament'' means a day on which both Houses of Parliament sit.

 

 

Transitional provision

 

83.33 (1) In the event that sections 83.28 and 83.29 cease to apply pursuant to section 83.32, proceedings commenced under those sections shall be completed if the hearing before the judge of the application made under subsection 83.28(2) began before those sections ceased to apply.

 

 

Transitional provision

 

(2) In the event that section 83.3 ceases to apply pursuant to section 83.32, a person detained in custody under section 83.3 shall be released when that section ceases to apply, except that subsections 83.3(7) to (14) continue to apply to a person who was taken before a judge under subsection 83.3(6) before section 83.3 ceased to apply.

 

 

 

5. The definition ``offence'' in section 183 of the Act is amended

 

 

 

    (a) by adding, immediately after the reference to ``82 (possessing explosive),'', a reference to ``83.02 (providing or collecting property for certain activities), 83.03 (providing, making available, etc., property or services for terrorist purposes), 83.04 (using or possessing property for terrorist purposes), 83.18 (participation in activity of terrorist group), 83.19 (facilitating terrorist activity), 83.2 (commission of offence for terrorist group), 83.21 (instructing to carry out activity for terrorist group), 83.22 (instructing to carry out terrorist activity), 83.23 (harbouring or concealing),'';

 

 

    (b) by adding, immediately after the reference to ``424 (threat to commit offences against internationally protected person),'' a reference to ``424.1 (threat against United Nations or associated personnel),'';

 

 

    (c) by adding, immediately after the reference to ``431 (attack on premises, residence or transport of internationally protected person),'' a reference to ``431.1 (attack on premises, accommodation or transport of United Nations or associated personnel), 431.2 (explosive or other lethal device),''; and

 

 

    (d) by adding, at the end of the definition, the words ``, or any other offence that there are reasonable grounds to believe is an offence described in paragraph (b) or (c) of the definition ``terrorism offence'' in section 2 of this Act;''.

 

1997, c. 23, s. 4

 

6. Subsection 185(1.1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

 

 

Exception for criminal organizations and terrorism offences

 

(1.1) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(h), that paragraph does not apply where the application for an authorization is in relation to

 

 

 

    (a) an offence under section 467.1;

 

 

    (b) an offence committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization; or

 

 

    (c) a terrorism offence.

 

1997, c. 23, s. 5

 

6.1 Subsection 186(1.1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

 

 

Exception for criminal organizations and terrorism offences

 

(1.1) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(b), that paragraph does not apply where the judge is satisfied that the application for an authorization is in relation to

 

 

 

    (a) an offence under section 467.1;

 

 

    (b) an offence committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization; or

 

 

    (c) a terrorism offence.

 

1997, c. 23, s. 6

 

7. Section 186.1 of the Act is replaced by the following:

 

 

Time limitation in relation to criminal organizations and terrorism offences

 

186.1 Notwithstanding paragraphs 184.2(4)(e) and 186(4)(e) and subsection 186(7), an authorization or any renewal of an authorization may be valid for one or more periods specified in the authorization exceeding sixty days, each not exceeding one year, where the authorization is in relation to

 

 

 

    (a) an offence under section 467.1;

 

 

    (b) an offence committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization; or

 

 

    (c) a terrorism offence.

 

1997, c. 23, s. 7

 

8. Subsection 196(5) of the Act is replaced by the following:

 

 

Exception for criminal organizations and terrorism offences

 

(5) Notwithstanding subsections (3) and 185(3), where the judge to whom an application referred to in subsection (2) or 185(2) is made, on the basis of an affidavit submitted in support of the application, is satisfied that the investigation is in relation to

 

 

 

    (a) an offence under section 467.1,

 

 

    (b) an offence committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization, or

 

 

    (c) a terrorism offence,

 

 

and is of the opinion that the interests of justice warrant the granting of the application, the judge shall grant an extension, or a subsequent extension, of the period, but no extension may exceed three years.

 

 

 

9. Section 231 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (6):

 

 

Murder during terrorist activity

 

(6.01) Irrespective of whether a murder is planned and deliberate on the part of a person, murder is first degree murder when the death is caused while committing or attempting to commit an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament where the act or omission constituting the offence also constitutes a terrorist activity.

 

 

 

10. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 320:

 

 

Warrant of seizure

 

320.1 (1) If a judge is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing that there is material that is hate propaganda within the meaning of subsection 320(8) or data within the meaning of subsection 342.1(2) that makes hate propaganda available, that is stored on and made available to the public through a computer system within the meaning of subsection 342.1(2) that is within the jurisdiction of the court, the judge may order the custodian of the computer system to

 

 

 

    (a) give an electronic copy of the material to the court;

 

 

    (b) ensure that the material is no longer stored on and made available through the computer system; and

 

 

    (c) provide the information necessary to identify and locate the person who posted the material.

 

Notice to person who posted the material

 

(2) Within a reasonable time after receiving the information referred to in paragraph (1)(c), the judge shall cause notice to be given to the person who posted the material, giving that person the opportunity to appear and be represented before the court and show cause why the material should not be deleted. If the person cannot be identified or located or does not reside in Canada, the judge may order the custodian of the computer system to post the text of the notice at the location where the material was previously stored and made available, until the time set for the appearance.

 

 

Person who posted the material may appear

 

(3) The person who posted the material may appear and be represented in the proceedings in order to oppose the making of an order under subsection (5).

 

 

Non-appearan ce

 

(4) If the person who posted the material does not appear for the proceedings, the court may proceed ex parte to hear and determine the proceedings in the absence of the person as fully and effectually as if the person had appeared.

 

 

Order

 

(5) If the court is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the material is available to the public and is hate propaganda within the meaning of subsection 320(8) or data within the meaning of subsection 342.1(2) that makes hate propaganda available, it may order the custodian of the computer system to delete the material.

 

 

Destruction of copy

 

(6) When the court makes the order for the deletion of the material, it may order the destruction of the electronic copy in the court's possession.

 

 

Return of material

 

(7) If the court is not satisfied that the material is available to the public and is hate propaganda within the meaning of subsection 320(8) or data within the meaning of subsection 342.1(2) that makes hate propaganda available, the court shall order that the electronic copy be returned to the custodian and terminate the order under paragraph (1)(b).

 

 

Other provisions to apply

 

(8) Subsections 320(6) to (8) apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to this section.

 

 

When order takes effect

 

(9) No order made under subsections (5) to (7) takes effect until the time for final appeal has expired.

 

 

R.S., c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 55

 

11. Section 424 of the Act is replaced by the following:

 

 

Threat against internationally protected person

 

424. Every one who threatens to commit an offence under section 235, 236, 266, 267, 268, 269, 269.1, 271, 272, 273, 279 or 279.1 against an internationally protected person or who threatens to commit an offence under section 431 is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.

 

 

Threat against United Nations or associated personnel

 

424.1 Every one who, with intent to compel any person, group of persons, state or any international or intergovernmental organization to do or refrain from doing any act, threatens to commit an offence under section 235, 236, 266, 267, 268, 269, 269.1, 271, 272, 273, 279 or 279.1 against a member of United Nations personnel or associated personnel or threatens to commit an offence under section 431.1 is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than ten years.

 

 

 

12. Section 430 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (4):

 

 

Mischief relating to religious property

 

(4.1) Every one who commits mischief in relation to property that is a building, structure or part thereof that is primarily used for religious worship, including a church, mosque, synagogue or temple, or an object associated with religious worship located in or on the grounds of such a building or structure, or a cemetery, if the commission of the mischief is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on religion, race, colour or national or ethnic origin,

 

 

 

    (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

 

 

    (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

 

R.S., c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 58

 

13. Section 431 of the Act is replaced by the following:

 

 

Attack on premises, residence or transport of internationally protected person

 

431. Every one who commits a violent attack on the official premises, private accommodation or means of transport of an internationally protected person that is likely to endanger the life or liberty of such a person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than fourteen years.

 

 

Attack on premises, accommoda-
tion or transport of United Nations or associated personnel

 

431.1 Every one who commits a violent attack on the official premises, private accommodation or means of transport of a member of United Nations personnel or associated personnel that is likely to endanger the life or liberty of such a person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than fourteen years.

 

 

Definitions

 

431.2 (1) The following definitions apply in this section.

 

 

``explosive or other lethal device''
« engin explosif ou autre engin meurtrier »

 

``explosive or other lethal device'' means

 

 

 

      (a) an explosive or incendiary weapon or device that is designed to cause, or is capable of causing, death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage; or

 

 

      (b) a weapon or device that is designed to cause, or is capable of causing, death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage through the release, dissemination or impact of toxic chemicals, biological agents or toxins or similar substances, or radiation or radioactive material.

 

``infrastructur e facility'' « infrastructur e »

 

``infrastructure facility'' means a publicly or privately owned facility that provides or distributes services for the benefit of the public, including services relating to water, sewage, energy, fuel and communications.

 

 

``military forces of a state'' « forces armées d'un État »

 

``military forces of a state'' means the armed forces that a state organizes, trains and equips in accordance with the law of the state for the primary purpose of national defence or national security, and every person acting in support of those armed forces who is under their formal command, control and responsibility.

 

 

``place of public use''
« lieu public »

 

``place of public use'' means those parts of land, a building, street, waterway or other location that are accessible or open to members of the public, whether on a continuous, periodic or occasional basis, and includes any commercial, business, cultural, historical, educational, religious, governmental, entertainment, recreational or other place that is accessible or open to the public on such a basis.

 

 

``public transporta-
tion system'' « système de transport public »

 

``public transportation system'' means a publicly or privately owned facility, conveyance or other thing that is used in connection with publicly available services for the transportation of persons or cargo.

 

 

Explosive or other lethal device

 

(2) Every one who delivers, places, discharges or detonates an explosive or other lethal device to, into, in or against a place of public use, a government or public facility, a public transportation system or an infrastructure facility, either with intent to cause death or serious bodily injury or with intent to cause extensive destruction of such a place, system or facility that results in or is likely to result in major economic loss, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.

 

 

Armed forces

 

(3) For greater certainty, subsection (2) does not apply to an act or omission that is committed during an armed conflict and that, at the time and in the place of its commission, is in accordance with customary international law or conventional international law applicable to the conflict, or to activities undertaken by military forces of a state in the exercise of their official duties, to the extent that those activities are governed by other rules of international law.

 

 

1995, c. 39, s. 151(1)

 

14. (1) Subparagraph (a)(i) of the definition ``enterprise crime offence'' in section 462.3 of the Act is replaced by the following:

 

 

 

        (i) section 83.12 (offences - freezing of property, disclosure or audit),

 

 

        (i.01) subsection 99(1) (weapons trafficking),

 

 

(2) The definition ``enterprise crime offence'' in section 462.3 of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (a):

 

 

 

      (a.01) a terrorism offence,

 

 

15. Subsection 462.48(1) of the Act is amended by striking out the word ``or'' at the end of paragraph (b), by adding the word ``or'' at the end of paragraph (c) and by adding the following after paragraph (c):

 

 

 

    (d) a terrorism offence.

 

1997, c. 16, ss. 6(2) and (3)

 

16. (1) Subsections 486(2.11) and (2.2) of the Act are replaced by the following:

Previous Section Next Section

 

Testimony outside court room

 

(2.101) Notwithstanding section 650, where an accused is charged with an offence referred to in subsection (2.102), the presiding judge or justice, as the case may be, may order that any witness testify

 

 

 

    (a) outside the court room, if the judge or justice is of the opinion that the order is necessary to protect the safety of the witness; and

 

 

    (b) outside the court room or behind a screen or other device that would allow the witness not to see the accused, if the judge or justice is of the opinion that the order is necessary to obtain a full and candid account from the witness.

 

Offences

 

(2.102) The offences for the purposes of subsection (2.101) are

 

 

 

    (a) an offence under section 467.1;

 

 

    (b) a terrorism offence;

 

 

    (c) an offence under subsection 16(1) or (2), 17(1), 19(1), 20(1) or 22(1) of the Security of Information Act; and

 

 

    (d) an offence under subsection 21(1) or section 23 of the Security of Information Act that is committed in relation to an offence referred to in paragraph (c).

 

Same procedure for opinion

 

(2.11) Where the judge or justice is of the opinion that it is necessary for the complainant or witness to testify in order to determine whether an order under subsection (2.1) or (2.101) should be made in respect of that complainant or witness, the judge or justice shall order that the complainant or witness testify pursuant to that subsection.

 

 

Condition of exclusion

 

(2.2) A complainant or witness shall not testify outside the court room pursuant to subsection (2.1), (2.101) or (2.11) unless arrangements are made for the accused, the judge or justice and the jury to watch the testimony of the complainant or witness by means of closed-circuit television or otherwise and the accused is permitted to communicate with counsel while watching the testimony.

 

 

1999, c. 25, s. 2(3)

 

(2) Subsection 486(4.1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

 

 

Ban on publication, etc.

 

(4.1) A judge or justice may, in any proceedings against an accused other than in respect of an offence set out in subsection (3), make an order directing that the identity of a victim or witness - or, in the case of an offence referred to in subsection (4.11), the identity of a justice system participant who is involved in the proceedings - or any information that could disclose their identity, shall not be published in any document or broadcast in any way, if the judge or justice is satisfied that the order is necessary for the proper administration of justice.

 

 

Offences

 

(4.11) The offences for the purposes of subsection (4.1) are

 

 

 

    (a) a criminal organization offence;

 

 

    (b) a terrorism offence;

 

 

    (c) an offence under subsection 16(1) or (2), 17(1), 19(1), 20(1) or 22(1) of the Security of Information Act; and

 

 

    (d) an offence under subsection 21(1) or section 23 of the Security of Information Act that is committed in relation to an offence referred to in paragraph (c).

 

1999, c. 25, s. 2(3)

 

(3) Paragraphs 486(4.7)(b) to (e) of the Act are replaced by the following:

 

 

 

    (b) whether there is a real and substantial risk that the victim, witness or justice system participant would suffer significant harm if their identity were disclosed;

 

 

    (c) whether the victim, witness or justice system participant needs the order for their security or to protect them from intimidation or retaliation;

 

 

    (d) society's interest in encouraging the reporting of offences and the participation of victims, witnesses and justice system participants in the criminal justice process;

 

 

    (e) whether effective alternatives are available to protect the identity of the victim, witness or justice system participant;

 

1999, c. 25, s. 2(3)

 

(4) Paragraph 486(4.9)(c) of the Act is replaced by the following:

 

 

 

    (c) any other information that could identify the person to whom the application relates as a victim, witness or justice system participant in the proceedings.

 

1998, c. 37, s. 15(2)

 

17. (1) Subparagraph (a)(i) of the definition ``primary designated offence'' in section 487.04 of the Act is replaced by the following:

 

 

 

        (i) section 75 (piratical acts),

 

 

        (i.01) section 76 (hijacking),

 

 

        (i.02) section 77 (endangering safety of aircraft or airport),

 

 

        (i.03) section 78.1 (seizing control of ship or fixed platform),

 

 

        (i.04) subsection 81(1) (using explosives),

 

 

        (i.05) section 83.18 (participation in activity of terrorist group),

 

 

        (i.06) section 83.19 (facilitating terrorist activity),

 

 

        (i.07) section 83.2 (commission of offence for terrorist group),

 

 

        (i.08) section 83.21 (instructing to carry out activity for terrorist group),

 

 

        (i.09) section 83.22 (instructing to carry out terrorist activity),

 

 

        (i.1) section 83.23 (harbouring or concealing),

 

 

        (i.11) section 151 (sexual interference),

 

 

(2) Paragraph (a) of the definition ``primary designated offence'' in section 487.04 of the Act is amended by striking out the word ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (xv) and by adding the following after subparagraph (xvi):

 

 

 

        (xvii) section 279.1 (hostage taking),

 

 

        (xviii) section 431 (attack on premises, residence or transport of internationally protected person),

 

 

        (xix) section 431.1 (attack on premises, accommodation or transport of United Nations or associated personnel), and

 

 

        (xx) subsection 431.2(2) (explosive or other lethal device),

 

 

(3) The definition ``primary designated offence'' in section 487.04 of the Act is amended by striking out the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (c) and by adding the following after paragraph (c):

 

 

 

      (c.1) an offence under any of the following provisions of the Security of Information Act, namely,

 

 

        (i) section 6 (approaching, entering, etc., a prohibited place),

 

 

        (ii) subsection 20(1) (threats or violence), and

 

 

        (iii) subsection 21(1) (harbouring or concealing), and

 

1998, c. 37, s. 15(2)

 

(4) Subparagraphs (a)(i) to (v) of the definition ``secondary designated offence'' in section 487.04 of the Act are repealed.

 

 

1998, c. 37, s. 15(2)

 

(5) Subparagraph (a)(xx) of the definition ``secondary designated offence'' in section 487.04 of the Act is repealed.

 

 

 

18. Section 490.1 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):

 

 

Offence relating to financing of terrorism

 

(1.1) For the purposes of this section and sections 490.2 to 490.9, a terrorism offence is deemed to be a criminal organization offence.

 

 

1996, c. 19, s. 93.3; 1999, c. 25, s. 8(3)

 

19. (1) Subsection 515(4.1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

 

 

Condition prohibiting possession of firearms, etc.

 

(4.1) When making an order under subsection (2), in the case of an accused who is charged with

 

 

 

    (a) an offence in the commission of which violence against a person was used, threatened or attempted,

 

 

    (a.1) a terrorism offence,

 

 

    (b) an offence under section 264 (criminal harassment),