Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda
Ask the senior citizens who live downtown and were afraid to walk outside of their apartments if they felt terrorized or not. Or how about Asians, women, or anyone wearing a mask and receiving verbal/physical harassment just for walking down the street
|
I’ve stated it before, and will again.
“Terrorism” is a
very specific charge, which according to the criminal code has a specific set of rather serious criteria. By all accounts, (with the exception of
maybe those charged in relation to weapons at Coutts) the law, even the federal government, which saw fit to invoke Emergencies Act, has not acted in any manner that would support defining this ‘group’ or protestors as “terrorists”.
Any maintaining the integrity of that definition is fundamental to preventing it being a card played by shifty governments and special interests groups to justify certain measures.
If we allow applying a terrorist label where it isn’t appropriate, by law, we introduce a shallow measure of subjectivity to one of the most serious and broadly punishable aspects of the criminal code. There is not a doubt in my mind that we will see conservative governments call protestors terrorists the moment it suits them, and I’m not okay with that. It’s not an ad hominem, but a serious charge that provides a tremendous amount of power to authorities.
None of that diminishes the law breakers, the bylaw infringements, the harassment or whatever else. I’m putting stock in the institutes of our nation, who have access to knowledge and evidence far greater than I’ve been paying attention) that their reponse is more appropriate than some Twitter tales. I repeat my assertion that the actions of this group by and large don’t meet any definition of terrorism, or the government would have invoked the whole of their powers under such law.