a_majoor said:
Something similar to the Patriot Act should be assembled and enforced to harness the resources of the Police and Intelligence communities to identify these actors.
We separated our police from intelligence agencies long ago to preclude the very outcome you desire.
There should also be a means to designate people supporting foreign conflicts either from Canada or against deployed CF units and personell as illegal combatants. Once identified, they and their communities in Canada can be targeted by vigorous HUMINT and CIMIC type operations to isolate them from the community and prevent their raising personnel, material or support from Canada; and (harsh as it sounds) target them outside the country, most likely using JTF 2 resources.
Your right ... harsh, illegal in domestic law ... will never, ever happen.
The person PBI referred to is currently being prosecuted for corruption and organized crime charges in Croatia. Can't say anymore.
CC 46 (1) (b) and (c) and 46 (3)(a): engaging in hostilities against the Canadian Forces, acts preparatory thereto or forming an intention to do so. OObviously these are going to be driven pretty much by facts demonstrating fairly strong evidence and thus a strong case- it is the defences to such a charge that I am more interested in.
Lets stick with the example above:
It would seem that is is okay for Canadian citizens to fight other forces, including our allies, as long as the force under which those activities are taken are by military forces of a state in the exercise of their official duties, to the extent those duties are governed by other rules of international law. [i.e., not a terrorist: CCC 83.01 (1)]. But, if he was in the employ of a military force authorized by government at the time he is probably on solid legal ground from that perspective.
Could it be the Canadian citizen was mistaken as to the nationality of the uniformed military force whom he was either fighting, preparing to fight or forming an intention to fight? Not likely.
Has he mistakenly interpreted the law and as a result honestly believed our laws permitted his activities? No, he didnt'because if he exercised due diligence, he could have informed himself by making inquiries. Anyway, there are no weasel words to these charges [i.e. knowingly, wilfully, recklessly etc.].
Was he drunk during his whole tour with the Croats, or in an automatic state? Not likely.
Is he fit to stand trial from a mental perspective? Who knows?
Assuming that such a person lived to be tried for such a crime [hint], I think he/she would be convicted if the elements of the crime are all present. There appears to be virtually no defence. Look at the sentence for the crime .. "shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life." I don't think there is any room for a reduced sentence because there is no sub classification of high treason. One might argue the sentence violates the Charter, but even if it did I believe an appeals court would save the provision because to reduce a mandatory sentence for such a serious crime would bring the administration of justice in disrepute.