Bibliographic record
Abstract
The decision by justice Rutherford of the Ontario Superior Court in R. v. Khawaja is examined with respect to its ruling that the new terrorism offences first enacted in 2001 are not vague and overbroad and are consistent with Charter standards of fault, but that the requirement for proof of religious or political motive constitutes an unjustified violation of section 2 of the Charter and should be severed from the remaining definition of terrorist activities. The author suggests that the decision should be read as affirming constitutional standards of a knowledge fault requirement for terrorism offences because of their special stigma and punishment and that the qualification of the fault requirement with respect to the facilitation of terrorism offences remains problematic. Striking down of the political and religious motive requirement may be justified both because of its potentially harmful effects on those who may share political and religious beliefs with terrorists and on its harmful effects on the accused by requiring admission of political and religious motive evidence regardless of the balance between its probative value and prejudice. The severance of the political and religious motive requirement is, however, problematic because it opens the possibility that all serious violence designed to compel persons to act could be included in the judicially revised definition of terrorist activities. A more appropriate remedy would be strike down the reference to the compulsion of persons and define terrorism as intentional violence designed to compel governments to act or to intimidate populations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.078 | 0.050 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".