Tracking 'Terrorists' or Solidifying Tereotypes? Canada's Anti--Terrorism Act in Light of the Charter's Equality Guarantee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper will advance the view that the Anti--Terrorism Act, though arguably neutral on its face, will undoubtedly be implemented in a way which discriminates on the basis of race, religion, colour and ethnic or national origin. More precisely, it will target Muslims, a community which suffers from historical disadvantage and ongoing stereotyping. The definition of terrorist activity and the designation of terrorist groups, as outlined in the Act, will adversely impact on Muslims by subjecting them to differential treatment in the enforcement of criminal law provisions and administrative processes. An additional feature to consider will be the fact of intersecting inequalities, particularly those of a systemic nature, such as the case of non-citizen Muslims, who will be at an even greater risk of discrimination and for whom the adverse effects will be exceptionally grave. Part II begins with an exploration of the background of terrorism in international law and in Canadian jurisprudence for the purpose of elucidating the broader historical and legal context into which the Anti--Terrorism Act emerges. This will lead into an examination of the Act itself in Part III, with a focus on the provisions which define terrorist activity and provide for the listing of terrorist groups. Part IV will undertake a section 15(1) analysis of the legislation in light of relevant judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada and will consider specific concerns affecting the equality rights of Muslims in Canada. Part V will consolidate the argument of the unconstitutionality of the Act in view of section 1 of the Charter, which involves balancing the relevant state/society interests and the right at stake. Finally, Part VI will briefly examine the issue of laws which are applied in a discriminatory manner, and the implications in prescribing a remedy. The paper [*99] concludes with a recommendation for the striking down of the Anti-Terrorism Act on the basis that it unjustifiably breaches the section 15(1) equality guarantee.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".