Alexandre Bissonnette: QC Mosque shooter- 29 Jan 2017

[Infanteer]

The general working definition of terrorism that I've seen over the last 20 years of observing is:

1.  Violent act (so, graffiti isn't terrorism)
2.  Perpetrated against civilians (attacking armed combatants isn't terrorism)
3.  By non-government actors (states don't conduct terrorism)
4.  For a political purpose (bikers using a car bomb on a rival gang isn't terrorism)
5.  In a public setting to induce fear (clandestine assassinations aren't terrorism)

 

[brihard]

The general working definition of terrorism that I've seen over the last 20 years of observing is:

1.  Violent act (so, graffiti isn't terrorism)
2.  Perpetrated against civilians (attacking armed combatants isn't terrorism)
3.  By non-government actors (states don't conduct terrorism)
4.  For a political purpose (bikers using a car bomb on a rival gang isn't terrorism)
5.  In a public setting to induce fear (clandestine assassinations aren't terrorism)

Just being nit-picky, I assume ‘against civilians’ would include economic/critical infrastructure targets even in the absence of harm to people, so long as it’s still done in order to pressure-through-violence? Destroying or disrupting the right ‘thing’ or process or system or event can be as frightening and disruptive (or moreso) than attacking people.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I would argue that states can practice terrorism ...think SOE in WWII and some American and Russian operations today. How else to describe the shooting down of MH17? Or what about some (not all) UAV 'strikes?'

 

[Kat Stevens]

I would argue that states can practice terrorism ...think SOE in WWII and some American and Russian operations today. How else to describe the shooting down of MH17? Or what about some (not all) UAV 'strikes?'

I would also mention that Pol Pot and his followers conducted an ongoing terror campaign against their own people.

 

[FJAG]

When you discuss terrorism you can look at numerous definitions but in my mind the two relevant ones are the general one:

Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people; or fear to achieve a religious or political aim

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

and the one specific to Canadian Law from s 83.01(1) of the Criminal Code which defines a "Terrorist activity" as:

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(2.21) that implement the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, done at Vienna and New York on March 3, 1980, as amended by the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, done at Vienna on July 8, 2005 and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, done at New York on September 14, 2005,

(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. (activité terroriste)

:cheers:

 

[Jarnhamar]

How would this hold up in Canadian court as a libel or slander suit?

 

[FJAG]

How would this hold up in Canadian court as a libel or slander suit?

I don't have enough evidence to say definitively but based on the generalities of the case I would think that six reasonably instructed jurors looking at the circumstances of the act itself and at the background material on his computer would conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that this was most likely a terrorist act. As a result a defamation case would almost certainly fail.

:cheers:

 

[Infanteer]

Just being nit-picky, I assume ‘against civilians’ would include economic/critical infrastructure targets even in the absence of harm to people, so long as it’s still done in order to pressure-through-violence? Destroying or disrupting the right ‘thing’ or process or system or event can be as frightening and disruptive (or moreso) than attacking people.

Not sure - if a guy blows up an oil pipeline, is he an eco-terrorist, or just a saboteur?  Can sabotage be a subset of terrorism, or are human lives an essential part of the equation?

I would argue that states can practice terrorism ...think SOE in WWII and some American and Russian operations today. How else to describe the shooting down of MH17? Or what about some (not all) UAV 'strikes?'

I used to think this, but was convinced that it opened the aperture up too wide, limiting the utility of the term terrorism, hence why I added "by a non-state actor" to the qualifiers.  Was the Combined Bomber Offensive a campaign of terrorism?  It certainly fit the rubric (less non-state actor).

States can sponsor terrorism, but if state actors are conducting violence against the civilians of other states, it is generally an act of war.  States conducting violence against there own civilians are simply exercising their monopoly on the use of force - it may be disproportionate and indiscriminate, but it is still an exercise of the monopoly none-the-less.

NB.  The literature acknowledges that the definition of terrorism is loose - I only adopted the one I posted above as it seems to be the easiest to apply without running into the "what about this."

 

[The Bread Guy]

The latest, shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of Canada's Copyright Act ...

A group of lawyers opposed to consecutive life sentences has been granted intervener status in an appeal of the sentence handed down to Quebec City mosque killer Alexandre Bissonnette.

The Montreal Defence Lawyers Association is arguing that the Criminal Code contravenes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by allowing judges to stack life sentences for multiple murders instead imposing them concurrently.

Bissonnette, 29, pleaded guilty last year to six counts of first-degree murder and six of attempted murder after he walked into the mosque at the Islamic Cultural Centre during evening prayers on Jan. 29, 2017, and opened fire.

The Crown had requested a sentence of six consecutive 25-year terms with no chance of parole -- 150 years in total -- but Quebec Superior Court Justice Francois Huot opted for life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for 40 years, saying that a sentence beyond life expectancy would have been "absurd" and a charter violation.

The law, however, would have allowed the judge to impose a 150-year jail sentence, which is what the association is now challenging.

The lawyers argue that "a sentence exceeding life expectancy without review mechanism" would be "inconsistent with human dignity" and a violation of Section 12 of the charter, which grants protection from cruel and unusual punishment.

 

[FJAG]

Some lawyers seem to have nothing better to do. Some criminals deserve to go away for ever.

:clubinhand:

 

[dapaterson]

Some lawyers seem to have nothing better to do. Some criminals deserve to go away for ever.

:clubinhand:

Do we have a penal system or a correctional system?

 

[The Bread Guy]

Do we have a penal system or a correctional system?

Yes.

 

[Eaglelord17]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/supreme-court-canada-bissonnette-mosque-shooting-sentence-parole-1.6466847

Consecutive sentences are out. Another great example of how the rights of a murderer is more important than the rights of the murdered.

 

[dimsum]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/supreme-court-canada-bissonnette-mosque-shooting-sentence-parole-1.6466847

Consecutive sentences are out. Another great example of how the rights of a murderer is more important than the rights of the murdered.

I'm not too worried about the chances of him ever seeing the outside of a cell.

"Chance of parole" and "parole" are two very different things.

 

[OldSolduer]

I'm not too worried about the chances of him ever seeing the outside of a cell.

"Chance of parole" and "parole" are two very different things.

Correct. You can apply for parole at 25 years BUT that is no guarantee you will be paroled.

 

[Staff Weenie]

Correct. You can apply for parole at 25 years BUT that is no guarantee you will be paroled.

My concern is that these killers can now apply for parole, and use the hearings to repeatedly taunt the families of the victims (it's been done before). Or, can the Crown apply Dangerous Offender status and negate any real chance of a future parole hearing?

 

[dimsum]

My concern is that these killers can now apply for parole, and use the hearings to repeatedly taunt the families of the victims (it's been done before). Or, can the Crown apply Dangerous Offender status and negate any real chance of a future parole hearing?

I have zero knowledge of the process, but could the board (or whoever gets the application) shut it down before it gets to the point of calling the families?

 

[OldSolduer]

My concern is that these killers can now apply for parole, and use the hearings to repeatedly taunt the families of the victims (it's been done before). Or, can the Crown apply Dangerous Offender status and negate any real chance of a future parole hearing?

From what I have seen it is difficult to have a DO put on someone, apparently the burden of proof is very high.

We had one guy tagged as DO after numerous assaults on police and corrections. Everyone knew he was DO for years except the system.

 

[Navy_Pete]

This one I don't get, the sentencing guidelines were put in place by Parliament, and after 10 years has very rarely been applied, and seems like the sentencing judge was very deliberate when he looked at that option.

If there is a conflict between the Charter and some laws, do they need to start invoking the notwithstanding clause regularly? Thought it was supposed to be the nuclear option but this is pretty ridiculous.

 

[lenaitch]

This one I don't get, the sentencing guidelines were put in place by Parliament, and after 10 years has very rarely been applied, and seems like the sentencing judge was very deliberate when he looked at that option.

If there is a conflict between the Charter and some laws, do they need to start invoking the notwithstanding clause regularly? Thought it was supposed to be the nuclear option but this is pretty ridiculous.

All laws have to be Charter-compliant, and the SCOC is the final arbiter of that. In spite of gaggle of government learned noggins passing opinions on proposed legislation, it is, at best, a very educated, highly paid, best guess on how the courts will rule.

I personally don't like the ruling (I know - that, and $150 buys you a coffee). I think the Crown has been judicious in its application of this consecutive sentencing provision; reserving it for the most heinous instances. I could see the Court's position if it had been applied to every multiple homicide, but I think the general consensus, for whatever that is worth, would consider this ruling, not the consecutive sentencing, as bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.

Without seeing the actual decision, it's hard to say how the government can respond. It is not uncommon for judgements to suggest fixes or 'drop hints' to legislators on how to make a law Charter-compliant.