Anti-terrorism bill Pro-lifers should be alarmed.

When our editor, Father de Valk, asked me to review the Government's proposed (at least as of writing) anti-terrorism legislation, Bill C-36, specifically to answer the question: Does it pose a danger for Canadian pro-lifers? - I thought this would be a relatively easy assignment. It is not.

Let me explain why.

Bill C-36 is a massive overhaul and amendment (in some cases, replacement) of existing federal legislation, all with a common purpose, namely to combat the post-September 11 threat posed by international terrorism. More than a dozen federal statutes will be affected: for example, the Official Secrets Act becomes the Security of Information Act, dealing primarily with espionage activities of foreign powers. The proposed amendments to the Canada Evidence Act would appear to abrogate both common law and Charter rights currently enjoyed by an accused. The Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act is designed to assist law enforcement authorities, first to identify and then to dry up the sources of money that facilitate terrorism.

Amendments to the National Defence Act will clarify the powers of the ultra-secret super-snoops, known as the Communications Security Establishment.

Now none of these changes will especially affect pro-lifers. Whether they are necessary or desirable is a matter for legitimate debate between those who favour national security over individual liberties and vice versa. This is a debate that has already begun, and pro-lifers may participate as concerned citizens but their stake in the outcome is no greater than that of any other Canadian.

Alas, this is not true of the proposed Criminal Code amendments that are also part of Bill C-36; more specifically, the definitions of "terrorist group" and "terrorist activity", which are the fulcrum of the new provisions. Here pro-lifers should not be concerned; they should be alarmed. A "terrorist group" is defined as one that carries out "terrorist activities".

What then are "terrorist activities"? According to the Bill, they include such things as hijacking airplanes, taking hostages, or acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Fair enough. This is what any reasonable person understands the word "terrorism" to mean and no one should quarrel with that.

But "terrorist activities" are defined much more broadly. The Act includes: (a) "any act, in or outside Canada...committed in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause" as long as the intention underlying the act is to compel a person or a government "...to do or refrain from doing" something. If the legislation stopped there, it would render every march, every petition, every silent act of protest against abortion an act of terrorism. Indeed it would render any political lobbying an act of terrorism.

So Bill C-36 sensibly does not stop there. It adds additional requirements: the act must be intended to cause "death, bodily harm, or substantial property damage". Once again, fair enough. This should not pose any threat to pro-life dissent; pro-life activity that falls afoul of this prohibition deserves to be prosecuted.

So far, so good. But there is one additional route to criminal liability, and it is here that the danger to the pro-life movement lurks; section 83.01 (ii) (E) renders criminal acts that are undertaken for a "religious or ideological purpose" if the actor intends "...to cause serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility ...whether public or private...", other than lawful advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work".

If there is a threat to the pro-life movement in Bill c36, it exists in these legally undefined terms.

Suppose, for example, a peaceful protest outside (a) an abortion clinic or (b) a public hospital. The protestors are holding anti-abortion signs, perhaps singing hymns and praying, but conducting themselves within what has hitherto been the law (for the moment, ignoring the draconian "bubble zone" restrictions). Clearly, such a protest is committed for "political, religious" and, possibly even "ideological" purposes. Arguably, it is intended to cause serious interference with, or disruption of, what the protestors are objecting to --namely the abortions that go on inside the clinic or hospital.

Is a private abortion clinic providing an "essential service"? To judge from the language of our Supreme Court in recent years, the answer is probably "Yes". It would certainly be "Yes" in the case of a public hospital. Do the protestors intend to cause "serious interference" with what goes on inside? Yes, they hope, albeit by peaceful means, to bring it to a stop.

Then the issue becomes: Is such an act of protest an exercise of "lawful advocacy, protest, or dissent"?

The only realistic answer that can be given is: "Who knows"? These are terms that have not yet been judicially interpreted or defined. Much would depend, of course, on the ideological predisposition of the particular Judge who happened to be hearing the case. Given Canada's record of affirmative action appointments leading to militant feminists on the Bench, that will not be a re-assuring prospect to the first accused brought to trial!

The objections raised to Bill C-36 to date have focussed on (a) detention without immediate charges; (b) erosion of the privilege against self-incrimination; and (c) lack of an expiry date or "sunset clause". These are important issues. But if Bill C-36 becomes law in its present form, pro-lifers will have more to worry about. To publicly oppose abortion will be to run the risk of being branded a terrorist.

Ian Hunter is Professor Emeritus in the Faculty of Law at the University of Western Ontario.