I know everyone is angry and hurt right now in the wake of the Toronto Attack, but there are important reasons why the definition of terrorism is written as such. But politically we can acknowledge Minassian's actions as an act of terror. My Op-Ed:https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-it-invoked-terror-but-we-cant-call-the-toronto-van-attack-terrorism/ …
-
-
Replying to @StephanieCarvin
You do realize that we can call something terrorism and then not charge them for it? Media and courts being separate areas and all that?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @viruk42 @StephanieCarvin
Terrorism specialists would prefer a narrow definition of “terrorism,” viz., bringing pressure on a state by targeting innocent third parties. But that’s not what section 83.01 (1) (b), Criminal Code, says. /2
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Under that section, terrorism can be an offensive act that is ideologically inspired in whole or in part, and meant to intimidate the public. The van driver clearly fits--as did the other one in Edmonton who *was* charged with terrorism.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Caneshaker @viruk42
Except that is not the legal standard. A collection of Internet forum sub-culture idea that may have played a role and grievances does not a terrorism ideology make. You need more than that.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
The word is "ideology," not "terrorism ideology." Familiar with "incel" ideology? Violent male supremacy is as ideological as it gets.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.