By J. Miller

“Look it up!”

That was Justice Minister Peter MacKay’s curt response to reporters who asked him how terrorism will be defined in Bill C-51, the anti-terror bill the government is trying to ram through Parliament.

This was same man who refused to categorize the alleged Valentines Day massacre plot in Halifax as the work of terrorists, because “the attack does not appear to have been culturally motivated — therefore not linked to terrorism.”

Always the one to heed Mr. MacKay’s advice, I looked up the definition of terrorism in the Criminal Code of Canada

Section 83(b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada,

• (i) that is committed
  • (A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and
  • (B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and
  • (ii) that intentionally
    • (A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,
    • (B) endangers a person’s life,
    • (C) causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,
    • (D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), or
    • (E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C),

Our criminal code requires terrorism to be motivated by “political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause”, but there was no mention of “cultural” motivation.

Surely our erudite Minister of Justice can’t get this wrong. Perhaps he is referring to the dictionary definition of terrorism. Time to dig up my copy of the trust Oxford Dictionary of English.

The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims

No mention of “cultural” motivation their either. How about Merriam-Webster?

the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

No dice. Then it occurred to me that, perhaps, Peter MacKay wants us to “look it up” in his own teachings.

The alleged conspirators of the foiled Halifax Valentine’s Day murder plot seem to be motivated by Neo-Nazi political ideology.

Which, according to both legal and dictionary definitions of terrorism, would make them terrorists. But not in our Justice Minister’s definition. Who would, then, fit the bill of “culturally motivated” terrorists?

It is now known that Canada’s Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre (ITAC), a unit of the Canadian spy agency CSIS, kept considered Idle No More First Nations protesters a terror threat.

Bill C-51 makes promoting or advocating terrorism an offence punishable by five years in prison. So, if we are to go by Peter MacKay’s definition of terrorism, posting a Facebook message supporting Aboriginal protests calling for an inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women could get you thrown in jail.

I will sleep well tonight that our Minister of Justice Peter MacKay is protecting our right to act according to our Neo-Nazi  political ideologies by locking up bands of marauding Indians and all their bleeding heart sympathizers.