TORONTO - A landmark finding of guilt against a terror suspect that flew in the face of evidence from the prosecution's key witness raises questions about Canada's fledgling anti-terrorism law and its implications for civil liberties, several observers said Friday.
Legal experts and civil-rights advocates warned that innocent people might get swept up by the law, which casts a wide net and has an unusually low threshold for conviction.
The definition of "terrorist group" or "participation" in such a group is overly broad, B.C. lawyer Robert Diab said from North Vancouver.
"You could have somebody tarred with the brush of being a terrorist when their involvement was really quite marginal in activities that could result in something very serious," said Diab, who has just published "Guantanamo North: Terrorism and the Administration of Justice in Canada."
"The intention (of the law) is good but the question is whether we've got it right. I don't think we do."
The legislation, enacted in a crisis atmosphere in the immediate aftermath of the horrific attacks on the U.S. in September 2001, criminalizes involvement in what is clearly a terrorist conspiracy.
On Thursday, Ontario Superior Court Justice John Sproat delivered the country's first guilty finding under the legislation, concluding the young accused had actively participated in a group bent on wanton bloodshed in Canada.
The ruling came despite sworn testimony from the star prosecution witness the judge found credible and reliable, paid RCMP informant Mubin Shaikh.
During the trial and afterward, Shaikh was adamant the plot leaders deliberately kept the accused in the dark about their murderous intentions, and the youth -- a bit player at best -- had no idea he was involved in a terrorist conspiracy.
"How is it possible to get a guilty verdict when, throughout the trial, the (Crown's) star witness made very public and contradictory statements that undermined the prosecution's case," said James Clark of the Presumption of Innocence Project.
"That's a worrying question that people have."
Clark, who speaks for the grassroots civil-liberties coalition that sprang up after the headline grabbing bust of the so-called Toronto 18 in 2006, said the legislation needs to be closely examined for the "risk it might pose to people who may be caught up" in it.
Section 83.19(2) of the legislation -- which carries punishment of up to 14 years -- defines a terrorist activity as facilitated "whether or not the facilitator knows that a particular terrorist activity is facilitated."
That, said Toronto human-rights lawyer Faisal Kutty, is too broad.
"The threshold is way too low. It allows for people who may not even know that they're contributing to a terrorist activity to be nailed essentially by guilt by association," Kutty said.
"That's the threat and that's the worry."
The concern is particularly acute because judges, operating in a climate of terrorism fears or what some might say is anti-Muslim or other racist sentiment, will want to err on the side of caution and hence convict, Kutty said.
Bill Trudell, chair of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, said Thursday's verdict should be both a "wake-up call" to Canadians that the country is not immune to terrorists, but also to the justice system.
"The police should not feel now that they've got a conviction that it's open season on everybody that looks like they're involved in this stuff," Trudell said.
"You don't take the lower (legal) threshold then go out and abuse it. Everybody has to be disciplined in how they apply it."
