XPost: can.politics, bc.politics   
      
   > On 4/12/2015 4:31 PM,  wrote:   
   >>> On 4/12/2015 2:36 PM,  wrote:   
   >>>> Harper is using the same damned tactics that George W Bush used on his   
   >>>> dumb citizenry to provoke fear and stimulate support for a war overseas.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Note the number of times we've had 'bomb threats' in Canada before - and   
   >>>> none of them were attributed to 'terrorism'.  Harper is working the   
   >>>> stupid.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Canadians need to show that we're not going to fall for that kind of   
   >>>> manipulation in this country.  Vote Harper out on Oct 19, 2015 - or   
   >>>> sooner if he wishes.   
   >>>> _________________________________   
   >>>>   
   >>>> CHATHAM, Ont. — The Canadian Press -  Sunday, Apr. 12 2015   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Ontario man charged after allegedly phoning in bomb threat to Library of   
   >>>> Parliament   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Police in southwestern Ontario say they’ve arrested a man who allegedly   
   >>>> threatened to blow up the Parliament Buildings in Ottawa.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Chatham-Kent police say they were contacted by the RCMP on Friday to   
   >>>> follow up on an alleged threat made by a man in Chatham, Ont.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> They say the man allegedly made a phone call to the Library of   
   >>>> Parliament and said he wanted to blow up Parliament as part of a   
   >>>> “revolutionâ€� against Parliament Hill.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Police say they arrested a 49-year-old man without incident on Friday   
   >>>> afternoon.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The man is currently in custody and is facing one count of hoax –   
   >>>> terrorist activity, and one count of uttering threats.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Police say the matter is still under investigation.   
   >>   
   >> On 4/12/2015 3:22 PM, David Johnston wrote:   
   >>> I don't think it counts when he's actually charged with a terrorist hoax.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> What's a "terrorist hoax"?   
      
      
   On 4/12/2015 3:56 PM, David Johnston wrote:   
   > To quote the relevant law:   
   >   
   > Hoax Regarding Terrorist Activity   
   >   
   > Hoax — terrorist activity   
   >   
   > 83.231 (1) Every one commits an offence who, without lawful excuse and with   
   > intent to cause any person to fear death, bodily harm, substantial damage to   
   > property or serious interference with the lawful use or operation of   
   property,   
   >   
   > (a) conveys or causes or procures to be conveyed information that, in all the   
   > circumstances, is likely to cause a reasonable apprehension that terrorist   
   > activity is occurring or will occur, without believing the information to be   
   > true; or   
   >   
   > (b) commits an act that, in all the circumstances, is likely to cause a   
   > reasonable apprehension that terrorist activity is occurring or will occur,   
   > without believing that such activity is occurring or will occur.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > In other words, "phoning in a fake bomb threat"   
   >   
   > But the point is, this trivial bullshit is not going to alarm the public and   
   > thus has no political utility nor is it intended to.   
      
      
      
   Exactly.  How the hell does the government defend a bomb hoax as "terrorist   
   activity" when it could well be perpetrated by a kid 8 years of age?   
   Here's the BC Civil Liberties Association's warning about it:   
   _________________________   
      
   6. Hoaxes concerning Terrorist Activity [s.32 of the Act; s.83.231 of the   
   amended Criminal Code].   
      
   Recommendation #6   
      
   The BCCLA is of the view that this section is unnecessary. If it is included,   
   the BBCCLA recommends that the words “or procuresâ€� be deleted from the   
   proposed   
   s.83.231(1) of the Criminal Code.   
      
   The Bill would amend the Criminal Code to include a new offence of “Hoax   
   Regarding Terrorist Activity.â€�  This would build yet another possibility of   
   criminal liability on the controversial and over-broad definition of   
   â€œterrorist   
   activityâ€� passed as part of the Anti-Terrorism Act (Bill C-36) in the last   
   session of Parliament.   
      
   Now found as s.83.01(1) of the Criminal Code, this definition includes a wide   
   range of actions and omissions.  It also specifically includes “a conspiracy,   
   attempt or threat to commit any such act or omissionâ€�.  The additional of a   
   hoax related offence is yet another situation where a sledgehammer is being   
   used where the existing tools under the Code are probably adequate.  The   
   Association is not convinced of the need for this section, given the existence   
   of the offence of mischief in the Criminal Code.  This is a hybrid offence   
   which provides authorities with the opportunity to tailor the charge to the   
   conduct and the proposed Hoax offence largely duplicates its effect.   
      
      
   High school kids phoning in a bomb threat to their school because they want the   
   day off would appear to be at risk of conviction if this section were to be   
   included in the Criminal Code, and the Association does not think that is   
   appropriate.   
      
   The offence is defined as including someone who actually conveys as well as   
   someone who “procuresâ€� to be conveyed information that is likely to cause a   
   reasonable apprehension that terrorist activity is occurring or will occur.   
   The offence requires the fault element of intending to cause a fear of death,   
   bodily harm, damage to or interference with property.   
      
   The words “procures to be conveyedâ€� seems problematic, especially in light   
   of   
   the existing Criminal Code section on attempts.  It is foreseeable that if this   
   Act were to pass unamended, that a person could easily be charged with   
   â€˜attempting to procure information to be conveyed that is likely to cause a   
   reasonable apprehension that terrorist activity is occurring or will occur.’   
      
   The Association is of the view that all that is needed to meet the legislative   
   objective is a charge of attempted conveying of information.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)