Bill’s terrorist propaganda provisions overly broad: law professors

OTTAWA (CP) — A federal proposal to scrub terrorist propaganda from the Internet risks sweeping in too much speech that has no ties to violent threats, says a new analysis.

The definition of propaganda in the government anti-terrorism bill is dangerously broad, law professors Craig Forcese and Kent Roach say in their paper.

The bill, introduced late last month, proposes giving the RCMP power to seek a judge’s order to remove terrorist propaganda from websites.

Forcese, of the University of Ottawa, and Roach, who teaches at the University of Toronto, say while they support the idea in principle, it should be rooted in actual or threatened violence.

The Conservatives brought in the bill — which would also significantly expand the powers of Canada’s spy agency _ following the daylight murders of two Canadian soldiers last October.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service would become an agency that actively tries to derail terror plots, not just one that collects and analyzes information.

The bill would also create a new criminal offence of encouraging someone to carry out a terror attack.

The New Democrats oppose the legislation, calling it a serious infringement of civil liberties that will not be effective in reducing terrorism.

The Liberals have agreed to support the bill with the caveat that they will bring in stronger oversight of the intelligence agencies should they form the next government.

In their paper, Forcese and Roach support a provision in the bill for deleting Internet material ``that counsels the commission of a terrorist offence,’’ saying it deals with well-understood legal concepts.

``A video that tried to solicit people to bomb is already criminal,’’ they write. ``So too is a video that seeks to recruit persons to a terrorist activity or group.’’