| Summary: | Following the attacks on September 11, 2001, biased surveillance and discriminatory law enforcement approaches gained momentum. In 2003, Reem Bahdi published “No Exit: Racial Profiling and Canada‟s War Against Terrorism.” She analyzed the influence that the declaration of a war against terrorism by Western nations, including Canada, was having on Arabs and Muslims. Other scholars critiqued aspects of Canada‟s anti-terrorism response, including the incorporation of a motive clause into the Criminal Code sections prohibiting terrorist offences. In R. v. Khawaja (2006), the Superior Court reviewed the constitutionality of the motive element in the definition of terrorism. It held that the motive clause facilitated the targeted law enforcement practices that Bahdi and others advocated against. This paper reports on a review of the appellate decisions, R. v. Khawaja (2010) and (2012), which held that the motive clause was consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The appellate decisions are critiqued for their failure to adequately promote human dignity and equality in keeping with the Charter‘s spirit. As a result, the paper concludes by arguing for a return to the insights of Bahdi and others who encourage a rethinking of Canadian social policy after 9/11 to ensure commitment to human rights doctrines, particularly in regard to the racial profiling that the motive clause seemed to animate.
|
|---|
