Minority Views on the Canadian Anti-Terrorism Act

4.  Detailed Findings(continued)

4.  Detailed Findings (continued)

4.3 Reactions to the ATA (continued)

4.3.4 Financing of Terrorism

Each respondent was issued a simplified one-page printed handout summarizing the financing of terrorism provision, and was given a few minutes to read it over before the group discussion took place. Note that participants and groups focused mainly on self-selected aspects.

Overall Reaction

Several participants in various locations had heard about the financing issue, but only in vague terms – some had heard about specific groups that were funded, such as Hamas, Hezbollah and Jihad.  Overall, participants gave approval in principle to the financing provision.  No one seemed to question the need for this provision, despite some strong reservations.

People approved mainly because it made sense -- the general public needs to know whom they could be donating money to.  Stronger approval tended to come from the non-visible minority groups.

The people who finance terrorism are the biggest criminals. (Toronto Group 3)

The importance of and concerns about the financing provision tended to be higher among Arab/West Asian groups.

Overall, there were 2 specific concerns mentioned in all locations:  (1) the potential for the innocent to be seriously affected, and (2) the burden of proof was placed on the accused rather than on the accuser:

  1. Innocent people or organizations either wrongly listed or targeted by false or erroneous sources of information was quite worrisome to visible minority participants, especially those from the mid-east, who strongly feared that Muslim communities would be labelled as supporting terrorists when they were simply supporting who they considered innocent people.  For example, Group 1 participants in Montreal and elsewhere were not ready to give up their right to "sympathize" with Palestinian groups.
    • J'ai donné de l'argent au … même si je savais qu'ils sont considérés comme terroristes. Le terrorisme n'est pas leur but principal, ils ne font que défendre leur territoire. (I gave money to …, even though I knew they are considered terrorists. Terrorism is not their primary goal; they are just defending their territory.) (Montreal Group 1)
    • It has the potential of turning into a witch-hunt – anybody can report anybody and it will spiral out-of-control.  (Calgary Group 1)
  2. The idea of being considered guilty until proven innocent, with the burden of proof on the accused, also worried many in this study.  One of the aspects of Canadian law, which participants seemed to value highly, was that people were considered innocent until proven guilty.  Many in this study thought that the financing provision directly contradicted this value, since participants would be harmed (property loss or imprisonment) if they could not prove their innocence.

Discussion focused on 5 aspects of this provision, including (in the order they were presented on the handout) -- (1) the concept of knowing, (2) the reporting obligation, (3) the ability to appeal and not knowing, (4) the penalty, and (5) property seizure.

  1. The concept of knowing – worrisome questions arose in several locations about this aspect -- how could the public possibly know if money went to terrorism, especially if sent overseas.
    • How do you know if they're using it [the money] for terrorism? (Toronto Group 1)
    • If money is sent overseas, how can you tell if money is used to buy arms? (Vancouver Group 2)
  2. The reporting requirement -- wrongly placed the onus on ordinary citizens rather than on the legal system, according to participants in Montreal (mainly Group 2) and elsewhere.
    • If you own property, the onus is on you to know that a terrorist is not occupying your property … …that worries me. (Vancouver Group 3)
    • We all drive a car with Iraqi oil – is this terrorist property? (Halifax Group 2

    Some participants felt people would be too scared to come forward.  Others thought there was a danger of false reporting, and wondered about penalties for this.

    • If you don't like somebody, then report them as a terrorist.  This happens everywhere. Just report them but don't give your name. (Vancouver Group 1)
    • If you report something false on purpose what will happen to the person causing trouble?  Does the law cover this? (Calgary Group 1)
  3. The ability to appeal if someone or a group "doesn't know," generated discussion in all groups.  Overall, the appeal itself was seen in quite a positive light, with exceptions related to (a) the plight of the innocent-accused, (b) the likelihood of a real terrorist lying about not knowing, and (c) several additional questions.
    • The burden of proof is on the accused.
      • The burden of proof should be on the government to prove guilt, not on the individual to prove innocence. (Montreal Anglophone Group 3)
      • Appealing is difficult for a simple citizen against the government's big machine. (Montreal and Halifax)
    • Not knowing could be a convenient escape or loophole.
      • Anybody could say that they didn't know. (Calgary Group 1)
      • Like the people that have the grow-ops [marijuana growing operations].  The owner always says they didn't know.  They now say that owners are responsible to know what their tenants are doing. (Vancouver Group 3)
    • Some participants had a few additional questions about the appeal process.
      • How long is the appeal?
      • What about the statute of limitations, how long can you go back?
  4. The maximum 10-year penalty was too brief for some, mainly in the non-visible minority groups.  Some wanted life imprisonment as the maximum.
    • 10 years is not enough, there is no difference between someone with a gun and the person funding him. (Calgary Group 3)
    • The fundraiser should get harsher punishment than the poor shmo who carries it out, who is often young, ignorant and brainwashed. (Toronto Group 3)
  5. Property seizure was raised by several individuals, but seen in different contexts – as a deterrent, as an infringement on the innocent, and as similar to the "anti-gang" or "drug law."
    • Others might see property being seized, and it would be a deterrent. (Calgary Group 3)
    • I'm confused; you should not be able to seize property and money before guilt is proven. (Toronto Group 2)
    • Puts it in the same category as marijuana, where assets are seized. (Vancouver Group 2)

Additional questions were raised by participants in various locations about the provision's application outside of Canada, and corporate responsibility.

After reading and discussing it, some participants in various groups remarked that the financing provision was not a new concept, and related it to the "drug law" and the "Criminal Code."

In sum, while there were many concerns expressed about the financing provision, participants still voiced support for it in principle.  

Perceived Effect on Charitable Organizations

While some participants in various groups said they had wondered if certain charitable organizations could be linked to terrorist groups, others had no such thoughts.  Overall, only a few individuals indicated they had problems in the past donating to charities, and so they stopped doing it. 

However, there was a split regarding opinions about the impact of the financing provision on future donations to legitimate charities.  Some thought the provision would have an impact, ranging from moderate to strong, while others thought the provision would have little to no effect.  

Perceived Usefulness

Overall, there was mixed reaction about the perceived usefulness of the financing provision both in stopping the flow of money and in preventing terrorism.

It's great we have it in place, but it's not going to do anything. (Toronto Group 2)

On the one hand, participants in various groups considered it useful to cut off the money supply and to give more clout to those in power.

On the other hand, there was a strong perception in several locations (notably Montreal and Halifax) that this provision was not useful, based mainly on (1) a perception that terrorists were too determined and clever, and (2) on the doubtful credibility of the listing evidence.

  1. A general perception of terrorists as determined and clever tended to negate preventive efforts.
    • It won't work, there are a lot of risk takers -- someone who is willing to be a suicide bomber, they won't care. (Toronto Group 1)
    • Terrorists will always find a way. (Halifax)
    • Don't think they [terrorists] would be seeking money from donations. (This sparked some discussion in Vancouver Group 3.)
      • They might have their own company that is legitimate.
      • Could be a front for illegal activities.
      • There are companies that train terrorists and the government can't do anything to them.
  2. The doubtful credibility of listing evidence.
    • It is not possible to know which groups are real. (Calgary Group 2)
Desire for Information

Overall, most participants thought the financing provision was important information, necessary to make the public aware.

It definitely would be helpful to have information. (Vancouver Group 3)

The need to know seemed highest among most Arab/West Asian and other visible minority groups; those most likely to be impacted in terms of sending money back home – except for Montreal.  Montreal Group 1 participants tended to strongly oppose publicizing information about the financing provision because they felt it would hurt what they saw as legitimate innocent people fighting for their rights.

Some participants wanted the information to be available in many different languages.