Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Hot on the Blog
Raffi Cavoukian
Sheryl Saperia

GET UPDATES FROM Sheryl Saperia
 

Hitting Terrorists Where They Live -- as in, Here

Posted: 12/21/11 04:54 PM ET

Over the last five years, I have worked closely with Canadians who have been directly impacted by terrorism. A few have survived attacks themselves. Most have lost family members in terrorist acts like 9/11 and the Air India bombings. For these families, the holiday seasons are an especially difficult time.

While nothing can restore their full health or bring back their loved ones, a legislative initiative expected to pass in early 2012 may bring them some comfort. The Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (JVTA), for which the Canadian Coalition Against Terror and I have advocated, is expected to become law as part of Bill C-10.

The JVTA will allow victims of terrorism and their families to file civil lawsuits against local and state sponsors of the terrorist groups responsible for their losses. This legislation is intended to deter future terrorist sponsorship and activity; compensate victims and publicly prove the liability of the wrongdoers.

Exposing the financiers of terrorism can help prevent future attacks in two ways. First, the sponsors of terror rarely seek the publicity coveted by terrorists. Consequently, the risk of being named in a lawsuit may dissuade them from continued sponsorship. Second, bombs and bullets cost money, as do recruitment and training for terrorists. Successful civil suits will lead to the seizure of assets in Canada -- belonging to individuals, companies and states -- that would otherwise fund terrorist activities.

Not only will the money be confiscated from the defendants as punishment; it will be awarded to victims of terrorist attacks as recompense for their losses and damages. It seems fitting that the wrongdoers themselves provide the money for victims to begin rebuilding their lives.

Civil actions are a useful means of pursuing terrorist sponsors in a court of law. The criminal justice system requires proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, terrorist groups and their sponsors are unlikely to maintain the open books and transparency necessary to meet that burden of proof. Civil cases, in contrast, are decided on a balance of probabilities -- a significantly lower standard. In combating phenomena as complex as terrorism, we must rely not only on the criminal system, but on the civil system as well. The JVTA will offer new powers under the latter to go after those who attack Canadians.

The JVTA focuses particularly on foreign states. No longer will the concept of state immunity serve to protect them from intentionally sponsoring terrorist acts that lead to Canadian casualties. Specifically, the JVTA will permit civil suits against states that appear on a list of terrorist sponsors, which must be established and approved by the Cabinet within six months of the bill's passage.

We do not yet know which states will be designated. But given Iran's unparalleled nine-digit budget line for the sponsorship of terrorist groups, and the tough stance Canada has already taken on the country's nuclear activities, human rights violations and overt terror financing, it seems a safe bet that Iran will be listed. If so, the JVTA will become an important addition to our arsenal in protecting Canada from the Iranian threat.

However, the JVTA as currently drafted will only allow lawsuits to be brought against foreign states for providing support to a terrorist entity that has been officially listed as such under Canada's Criminal Code. As my colleague Mark Dubowitz and I have written previously, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has been directly and indirectly responsible for terrorist activities all over the world. While other Iran-sponsored terror groups like Hezbollah and Hamas are already designated as terrorist organizations in Canada, the IRGC is not. If the Canadian government is truly concerned with Iran's support for terrorism, and with allowing Canadian victims of terrorists attacks sponsored by Iran to seek restitution under the JVTA, it should also designate the IRGC.

Doing so will only enhance the Harper's government clearly demonstrated commitment to terror victims, of which the JVTA will be an exceptionally shining example.

Canadians should also be thankful for the advocacy efforts of Canadian terror victims, who have driven the campaign for passage of the JVTA. I have heard them say repeatedly that their primary objective is to prevent others from sharing their fate. The JVTA has the potential to do just that. And if this bill can do so -- even once -- these victims will have given the ultimate holiday gift by sparing another Canadian family the pain of an irretrievable loss. It is therefore not just victims, but all Canadians, who should welcome this piece of legislation in the new year.

Sheryl Saperia is Director of Policy for Canada at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 15
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Whistlejackett
Hey stop doing that
02:02 PM on 12/24/2011
This solution to terrorism is substantially limited to a one sided blame game. What she hasn't mentioned that is a glaring wound to millions of people, is the West's expansionism and the killing off of populations for the almighty dollar. There is a flip side to this coin that must be viewed with a jewelers eye-piece.

People do not just set off bombs for no reason, even here in Canada and other Western nations, at least not like Western nations do. How is it that we can be so lulled into passivity and suddenly wake up to these so called unprovoked attacks by factions we know little about? That answer is steeped in a history that belongs to all of us including Canadians. Before we begin to extract money to pay for damages rendered, let's take a closer look as to why this damage is occurring in the first place. How arrogant Ms Saperia is to assume we are not liable for our own part in our own self-inflicted demise.

History is your answer no matter what credentials you may have, or whom you work for. Canada is not the USA yet, and as a Canadian, I challenge you to do some research to find a more appropriate response to terrorism, one that will have a lasting effect.
09:55 PM on 02/12/2012
Targeted bombings of civillians going about their daily business is inexcusable whatever your foreign policy is and if you are going to start amending your foreign policy in order that you don't get bombed well then you might as well elect those bombing you to govern(read "dictate) you.

The author has suggest that monetary loss will prevent people from funding terrorism, she has not suggested it as a complete solution as you insinuate in your response. Am I to take it that you aren't in favour of reducing terrorism and that you think that civil lawsuits against those who fund it is a bad idea?

Lastly, excuse my ignorance here as a non-Canadian citizen, what on earth has Canada done that it deserves to be bombed by terrorists?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Whistlejackett
Hey stop doing that
02:46 AM on 02/13/2012
Canada was involved in the Iraq war, and Afghanistan, and threatened by the Mujahedin. We are not blameless.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
YankeeCanuck
dog
01:13 PM on 12/24/2011
The rightward swerve needs a frightened populace to keep returning it to power. It creates the myth of terrorists around every corner, maybe even right in YOUR neighbourhood.
"Vote for us--we will keep you safe. All the other guys will let in more terrorists..er immigrants...er TERRORISTS. The country is already full of them. We know-- you're scared. We will take care of you."

What a neoconjob!!!!
georgee2
My Canada Includes Everyone
12:41 PM on 12/23/2011
I feel sorry for these folks who live their lives scared that there is a terrorist behind every door. Sad
07:58 AM on 12/23/2011
Um, so, that also leaves the Canadian government open for being sued, I suppose, by, say, Afghan families in Canada who have lost loved ones in Afghanistan? I'm sure Palestinians will be chomping at the bit to take groups that help fund Israel to court, and often rightly so. This would be a good time to start going after Catholic Churches, seeing as sexual abuse is pretty much an act of terrorism as far as I am concerned. Terrorism is a pretty loosely used term these days anyway. Who determines what constitutes as an act of terrorism or who is a terrorist? And, how exactly does one even go about finding out who is funding what? This whole thing sounds so vague and ill defined and open to interpretation. Does it apply to biker gangs? Does it apply to the Mafia? Does it apply to street gangs? To me, these are terrorist groups.
08:15 PM on 12/22/2011
I plead guilty to ignorance, but I had never heard of this group before, but the very title "Foundation for the Defense of Democracies" has a very typical and familiar 'neo-con' ring to it. So to remedy my ignorance I looked them up. Wow! Look at the Leadership Council and especially the Board of Advisors. The preponderance of famous 'neoconservatives' is astonishing! The list includes Richard Perle, Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol. Make of that what you will.
photo
SiameseTrainer
...we are Sia..mese if you don't please..
01:47 AM on 12/23/2011
Fanned by the SiameseTrainer for saving me time on the research. My first reply got the hook, apparently we are not allowed to speculate about whether this would be tantamount to enshrining the JDL into Canadian Law.
06:42 PM on 12/22/2011
So say someone wrecks a police car in a protest.

So does some lawyer, or a Haperite, or YOU, decide they are a terrorist and YOUR GROUP now can sue not only the individuals that wrecked the car, but any organization they are affiliated with, or their relatives?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FearlessFreep
A radical leftist with a JS Woodsworth avatar.
05:44 PM on 12/22/2011
Shall we destroy our freedoms in order to save them?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
peter sfikas
Yia sou
04:54 PM on 12/22/2011
And what do YOU think the Iraqis call those responsible for the deaths of over 100.000 innocent Iraqi civilians? Good friends? nice people? democracy distributors? liberators? terrorists?
photo
Jay from Ottawa
sovereignty sale, 1.3T OBO
04:38 PM on 12/22/2011
This is absolutely nothing more than a pitiful attempt at making people feel like "we're fighting back against terrorism". Fact is this new set of laws will achieve ... wait for it ... nothing.

So who do we sue for the 9/11 attacks ? Have we been able to pin their funding to any one state ? We have not. We're all pretty sure they were funded by Saudis, but guess who hasn't gotten an ounce of pressure, and continues to be the biggest purchaser of American military hardware, Saudi Arabia. And what about Pakistan ? Americans found Osama camping in their backyard, yet the USA still hands Pakistan money hand over first. Did we manage to prove that Pakistan was funding Osama ? No. Were they ? Likely, but not through public hands, protecting Pakistan from this pointless piece of legislation.

You think our bureaucrats are great at getting away with murder (not literally of course) ? What do you think will happen if we try to bring a state to court ? If the 'act of terrorism' happened in their country, good luck getting ANYTHING to help substantiate the case. If it happened here ? Well, while I doubt a Hamas supporter would come to Canada and commit a act of terrorism, but if he did, do you really think he'll have gotten money directly from Iran or a state institution ? How stupid do you think these guys are ? No, he'll have gotten his funding though
01:20 PM on 12/22/2011
What provisions exist in the bill to prevent legitimate charity to the innocent people of a particular region being hijacked under the guise of thwarting terrorism (e.g Palestinian aid). Also, if only states on the approved list can be sued we are setting up a two tiered system where actions committed by one states are subject to this bill while the same actions committed by another state would not.
This is a very dangerous, albeit well-meaning, proposal.
03:30 PM on 12/22/2011
No, it's not....

If you want to stop terrorism, then stop terrorizing innocent civilians throughout the world...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/22/fallujah-us-marine-iraq?fb=optOut

Be the change that you want others to be.....
photo
SiameseTrainer
...we are Sia..mese if you don't please..
12:18 AM on 12/23/2011
A fine and appropriate handle.