Legal distinction between terrorists and criminals is ‘hazy,’ experts say

Good discussion among experts on some of the challenges in defining terrorism (beyond the obvious cases):

“The problem of defining terrorism has been a thorny one from the get-go,” said terrorism expert John Thompson, vice president of Strategic Capital and Intelligence Group.

“Terrorism overlaps with so many other activities. When does a violent protest become terrorism? When does some sort of psychotic episode where someone is acting out become terrorism? It’s a very hazy border.”

In Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code defines terrorism as an act committed “in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause” with the intention of intimidating the public’s security or compelling a person, government or organization to do or refrain from doing an act.

Thompson said this definition was intentionally general and open to interpretation, but the key element is a political or ideological motivation.

“Terrorists can attack literally anything and they have, but the motivation has to be more political than anything else. Terrorism has always got an ideology involved in it,” he said.

Two suspects [Halifax shopping mall planned attack] have been charged with conspiracy to commit murder. Had they been accused of terrorism, the range of offences and potential punishment would have been much greater, said Thompson.

“Some of our terrorism legislation is high-powered and we don’t want it to be used for every single case,” he said.

Legal distinction between terrorists and criminals is ‘hazy,’ experts say – The Globe and Mail.