Article content continued

The numerous threats to Canadians’ freedoms in play here, on the other hand, are demonstrably serious, as our own review of the evidence has led us to conclude. To begin, Bill C-51 prescribes a maximum term of five years imprisonment for “every person who … knowingly advocates or promotes the commission of terrorism offences in general … while knowing that any of those offences will be committed or being reckless as to whether any of those offences may be committed.”

Continue reading…

[/np_storybar]

Some of C-51 is unsalvageable: for example, the ban on “promoting” or “advocating” “terrorism offences in general.” It bridges no identifiable gap in the existing criminal code; it is unclear what “promote,” “advocate” and “in general” mean in this context; and as such it invites an intolerable chill on free speech. Failing deletion, however, this measure could be made less objectionable by incorporating the statutory defences — for example of truth, good-faith religious opinion and public interest — found in existing hate speech and anti-terror legislation; by replacing “terrorism in general” with the defined term “terrorist activity”; or by stipulating that the accused must willfully be advocating terrorism, not just be “reckless” as to whether terrorism “may” occur.

Allowing the proactive deletion of material deemed by a judge to be “terrorist propaganda,” defined in the same vague terms as above, is also a lost cause. But if the government must enshrine such prior restraint on free speech, it could soften the blow by redefining “terrorist propaganda” along the lines detailed in the previous paragraph, and installing similar avenues of defence; and by eliminating a measure that empowers the Canada Border Services Agency to seize such material without a warrant, particularly in light of CBSA’s history of overstepping its bounds in such roles.