From hkhenson@cogeco.ca Wed Mar 20 22:07:09 2002 Path: sn-us!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.lightlink.com!news2.lightlink.com From: hkhenson@cogeco.ca (Keith Henson) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: More trees wasted on Henson (Canada this time) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 03:07:09 GMT Organization: Temple of At'L'An Lines: 388 Message-ID: <3c9b4cfa.70916313@news2.lightlink.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.34.12 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.141.40.229 X-Original-Trace: 20 Mar 2002 22:04:19 -0500, 24.141.40.229 Xref: sn-us alt.religion.scientology:1046595 HCO PL 4 Jan 1966, "LRH Relationships to Orgs" "Somebody some day will say 'this is illegal'. By then be sure the orgs say what is legal or not." L. Ron Hubbard ********88******** It seems to have fallen to me to test how far along scientology is to achieving LRH's goal. This came today as the outside attachment of 1 1/2 inch thick stack of legal paper. I will post the first section right after this, and the parts that have not been on the net as soon as I can get them scanned. Given what I know about such things, even given that most of it is recycled postings, we are talking $50-100k the scientologists have induced Canada to spend on a project to get me sent to a scientology controlled jail. I really don't like to reg for support, but donations to help pay the legal cost up here would be highly appreciated. Money goes further here than in the states. Paypal is fastest, my email address or the temple address from freehenson.da.ru both have paypal accounts. Checks to the address there will also work. If you are outraged at these legal papers, let it be known to the media and here in Canada to your elected representatives. Keith Henson PS for some really hard to explain reason, they made a copy of all my credit cards, health insurance card, and even my air miles cards a public document. ********88********* Citizenship and Immigration Canada March 20, 2002 The Registrar IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD Convention Refugee Determination Division 74 Victoria Street, 4th Floor Toronto, Ontario M5C 3C7 RE: Keith Howard Henson IRS File: TAI-09955 Client File: 4460-0022 Country : United States of America Hearing Date: Unknown Please find attached three copies of documentary evidence for use at the hearing of this claim, filed pursuant to subparagraph 69.1(5)(a)(ii) of the Immigration Act, together with a table of contents. Would you kindly ensure that members of the panel and the RCO receive a copy. Thank you very much for your assistance in this matter. A copy of this disclosure is also being provided today to Counsel for the claimant. Yours Sincerely, [signed] Naima Karimullah Counsel for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (416)952-0711 Fax: 973-1537 [page 1] GREATER TORONTO ENFORCEMENT CENTRE Toronto Hearings Office, 74 Victoria St., Suite 301, Toronto, Ontario M5C 3C7 Copied to Counsel for the Claimant, Ron Poulton, Mamann & Assoc., 74 Victoria Ave. Suite 303. VIA INTER-OFFICE MAIL. E-1a Filing of Evidence- with Table of Contents [page break] Citizenship and Immigration Canada Citoyennete et Immigration Canada NOTICE OF INTENT TO PARTICIPATE by filing evidence and participation at hearing IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD Convention Refugee Determination Division 74 Victoria Street, 4th Floor, Toronto, Ontario MSC 3C7 By Inter-office Delivery Attention: REGISTRAR RE: Howard Keith HENSON IRB FILE: TA1-09955 CIC FILE: 4460 0022 TAKE NOTICE that the Minister intends to intervene in the Convention refugee proceedings of the claimant mentioned above. THE MINISTER is participating under 69.1(5)(a)(ii) of the Immigration Act, as matters involving exclusion under Article 1F(b) have been raised. THE MINISTER is also seeking to participate also under 69.1(5)(b) of the Act, as matters involving credibility have also been raised, and requests that the Panel exercise its discretion in authorizing participation on those grounds. REQUEST FOR A CONFERENCE In view of the numerous issues to be addressed, the possible contentiousness of the issues and the possibility of having witnesses, the Minister hereby requests that the Refugee Division direct the parties to attend a pre-hearing conference in accordance with CRDD Rule 20(1). FACTS ON WHICH THE MINISTER RELIES On April 26, 2001 the claimant was found guilty by a California jury of having committed the offence described under 422.6 of the Penal Code: "intimidate, threaten or oppress because of race, religion or colour", an offence which is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of one year and a fine of $5000. The jury failed to come to a consensus on two other charges of terrorist threats of death or bodily harm and attempt terrorists threats of death or bodily harm. Mr. Henson was therefore not found guilty of those charges. [page 2] Prior to his sentencing hearing, Mr. Henson came to Canada as a visitor, failing to advise Immigration officials of his conviction in the USA. Mr. Henson failed to appear for his sentencing hearing, scheduled for May 16th, 2001. A bench warrant was subsequently issued for his arrest. He was sentenced in absentia on July 20, 2001 to 365 days' imprisonment, which would be decreased to 180 days if Mr. Henson accepted the conditions of probation, a fine of $2,700, submitting to searches upon request and conforming to the terms of a restraining order. Immigration Canada became aware of the US conviction, reported him under the Act for misrepresentation, inadmissibility for his conviction and the outstanding bench warrant*, and issued a warrant for arrest for inquiry, as he is regarded as a fugitive from justice. Upon his arrest by Immigration Officials in conjunction with Toronto police, Mr. Henson made a Convention refugee claim, but stated that he wanted the US officials to be advised of his detention. Mr. Henson was ordered conditionally deported by an IRB Adjudicator and was thereafter released on a $10,000 Immigration bond with numerous conditions. One of the considerations for release was the UN policy on the detention of refugee claimants. *27(2)(g) and 27(2)(a) for 19(2)(a.1)(1) & 19(2)(a.1)(ii) THE GROUNDS FOR PARTICIPATION LAW & FACTS ON WHICH THE MINISTER RELIES EXCLUSION UNDER ARTICLE 1F(b) Subsection F(b) of Article 1 of the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees reads: The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that: (b) he has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee. "SERIOUS" The nature of the offence for which Mr. Henson was convicted is one of implied violence directed toward a particular group, with the means to carry out the threat. The Canadian equivalent for that offence is likely that of "wilful promotion of hatred" at subparagraph 319(2) of the Criminal Code or that of subparagraph 319(1), "public incitement of hatred". [page 3] Although the present Canadian legislation only provides for a maximum term of imprisonment of two years, the Minister will argue that it constitutes a serious offence, when viewed within the totality of the evidence, and in view of the proposed Anti-terrorism Act. In regard to the proposed Anti-terrorism Act, there were proposed amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada that would: o allow the courts to order the deletion of publicly-available hate propaganda from computer systems such as an Internet site. Individuals who posted the material would be given the opportunity to convince the court that the material is not hate propaganda. The provision would apply to hate propaganda that is located on Canadian computer systems, regardless of where the owner of the material is located or whether he or she can be identified. a create a new offence of mischief motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, religion, colour, or national or ethnic origin, commiteed against a place of religious worship or associated religious property. This offence would be subject to a maximum penalty of 10 years when prosecuted on indictment, or to a maximum penalty of eighteen months on summary conviction. o There are also proposed amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act to clarify that the prohibition against spreading repeated hate messages by telephonic communications includes all telecommunications technologies. [From the Department of Justice Canada Website - Highlights of Anti-terrorism Act.] The Panel is urged to take these proposed amendments into consideration when assessing the nature and quality of the claimants' actions in the USA in determining whether exclusion is warranted. Furthermore, there is extensive information which shows that Mr. Henson had engaged in many activities which would comprise other offences under the Criminal Code of Canada, namely: 81(1) using explosives; 82(1) possession of explosives without lawful excuse 176(1) obstructing or violence to clergyman 176(2) disturbing religious worship or certain meetings 181 spreading false news 264(1) criminal harassment 264.1(1)(a) utter death threats 265(1)(b) attempts/ threatens assault 318(1) advocating genocide 346(1) extortion [page 4] The Minister's position is that the claimant's persistence, his single-mindedness exhibited against a particular group, the failure to cease harmful actions despite legal prohibitions, the impact statements of the members of the group, when viewed together, show that the claimant committed a serious, non-political crime prior to entering Canada. The Minister's position is that, the specific nature of Mr. Henson's actions are such that they could be regarded as offences under Canadian criminal law, and their cumulative effect sufficiently egregious to warrant exclusion under F(b) of Article 1 of the Convention. "NON-POLITICAL" Evidence exists that Mr. Henson had embarked upon a pattern of activity designed to cease the operation of the Church of Scientology in the USA. While he may characterize his actions as being politically-motivated, the Minister's evidence shows that the US criminal and judiciary systems found no basis for his allegations against the Scientology foundation. Indeed, the California court effectively found that Mr. Henson's actions constituted a dangerous form of harassment rather than the exercise of free speech. His actions against the organization were legally characterised as a common criminal offence, rather than political ones. Other than exercising free speech, there is no compelling evidence that Mr. Henson attempted to use the democratic systems in order to effect change. There is information to indicate that his activities were a hobby, a means of self-expression, motivated by a need for publicity and for personal gain rather than a genuine, political aim. CREDIBILITY Mr. Henson's Convention refugee claim is based upon alleged harassment by the Scientology foundation in the USA. However, the converse was found in a court of law in the USA: that Scientology members were criminally harassed by Mr. Henson. The USA is a democratic nation, which generally respects human rights. It is therefore reasonable for the claimant to have sought redress through the court and police systems in regard to his purported harassment. In regard to his criminal conviction in the USA, the claimant did not avail himself of the avenues of legal redress prior to seeking international protection. He did not appeal the conviction nor did he choose to be represented by civil-rights experts, according to information to be disclosed by the Minister. [page 5] CREDIBILITY Moreover, information in the Minister's possession indicates that the claimant did not enter Canada with the intention of making Convention refugee claim, but only did so upon the advice of his friends. Mr. Henson is attributed as saying, "I actually came up here for a different reason. I came up here to picket for another cause. And there was so much trolling and so much interest that we said, 'why not"' [May 23, 2001, Internet article by Damien Cave]. Other information indicates that the claimant may have come to Canada and embarked upon a Convention refugee claim in order to generate publicity about his case. In the microcosm of the Internet user group with which Mr. Henson associates, his actions render him a celebrity, as is evidenced in the various E-mails found in the attached disclosure. There is also an issue about whether the claimants' statements and activities in relation to his stance on Scientology is actually leverage to compel funds from that organization. The Minister's position is that the present claim is an effort to elude the administration of justice in the USA and as such may be viewed as a claim of convenience. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION It is requested that all documents and material to be disclosed at the hearing be copied to the Minister's Counsel, at Suite 301, 74 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario M5C 3C7, at least twenty days in advance of the hearing, in accordance with the Practice Notice of the Refugee Division. It is also requested that the Board schedule a date on which the undersigned Minister's Counsel is available, in consultation with Mrs. Essie Parke, at (416) 952-0705. MINISTER'S DISCLOSURE The following documents are being prepared for the purposes of the hearing. The Minister intends to disclose them as soon as they are available, in accordance with the IRB's Practice Notice: 1. Legal opinion from Martin Anderson, Department of justice. 2. Print-outs of various screens of claimant's immigration history from CIC database. 3. Documents from Superior Court of California criminal proceedings. 4. Documents of complainants in Caifornia criminal proceedings. 5. Communications from Church of Scientology Members in Canada. 6. E-mail communications. 7. Internet articles on Keith Henson. 8. Detention Review Hearing Transcript, June 6, 2001 & release documents. 9. Canadian Police & Immigration arrest documents. 10. USA Passport & credit card copies. STATEMENT OF SERVICE I have provided this notice to the: CLAIMANT: Keith Howard Henson Street: 2237 Munns Avenue City: Oakville, Ontario Postal Code: L6H 3M9 Being the current address in FOSS, effective Effective Date of Address: 08 June 2001 Method of Service: By Regular Prepaid Mail Date of Service: 19 March 2002 AND TO COUNSEL: Ronald Poulton Street: c/o Mamann & Associates City: Suite 303, 74 Victoria Avenue, Toronto, Ontario Postal Code: M5C 1E8 Method of Service: Via Inter-Office Delivery Date of Service: 19 March 2002 DATED AT TORONTO this March 19, 2002. Naima Karimullah Counsel to the Minister of Citizenship & Immigration Canada Greater Toronto Enforcement Center Hearings & Appeals CIC 74 Victoria Street, Suite 301, Toronto, Ontario M5C 3C7 Telephone: (416) 952-0711 Facsimile: (416) 973-1537 From hkhenson@cogeco.ca Wed Mar 20 23:31:25 2002 Path: sn-us!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!207.217.77.43.MISMATCH!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news!newsfeed.cwix.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.lightlink.com!news2.lightlink.com From: hkhenson@cogeco.ca (Keith Henson) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: More trees wasted on Henson (Canada this time) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 04:31:25 GMT Organization: Temple of At'L'An Lines: 420 Message-ID: <3c9f619a.76196916@news2.lightlink.com> References: <3c9b4cfa.70916313@news2.lightlink.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.34.12 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.141.40.229 X-Original-Trace: 20 Mar 2002 23:28:35 -0500, 24.141.40.229 Xref: sn-us alt.religion.scientology:1046638 On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 03:07:09 GMT, hkhenson@cogeco.ca (Keith Henson) wrote: > >HCO PL 4 Jan 1966, "LRH Relationships to Orgs" > >"Somebody some day will say 'this is illegal'. By then be sure the >orgs say what is legal or not." > >L. Ron Hubbard > >********88******** > >It seems to have fallen to me to test how far along scientology is to >achieving LRH's goal. snip INTERVENTION OF THE MINISTER IN THE CONVENTION REFUGEE CLAIM OF KEITH HENSON TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Legal opinion from Martin Anderson, Department of Justice. 2. Print-outs of various screens of claimant's immigration history from CIC database. 3. Documents from Superior Court of California criminal proceedings. 4. Documents of complainants in California criminal proceedings. 5. Communications from Church of Scientology Members in Canada. 6. E-mail communications. [There is not one email, all are Usenet postings-hkh] 7. Internet articles on Keith Henson. 8. Detention Review Hearing Transcript, June 6, 2001 & release documents. 9. Canadian Police & Immigration arrest documents. 10. USA Passport & credit card copies. Department of Justice Ministere de la Justice Canada Canada 'Ontario Regional Office Bureau r6gional de I'Ontario Telephone: (416) 952-2856 The Exchange Tower la tour Exchange Facsimile: (416) 954-8982 130 King St. West 130 rue King ouest Suite 3400, Box 36 Piece 3400, CP 36 Internet: Toronto, Ontario Toronto (Ontario) M5X 1 K6 M5X 1 K6 Our File: 14_486858 Notre dossier Your File: Votre dossier. January 23, 2002 Naima Karimullah Toronto Hearings and Appeals 74 Victoria Street Suite 301 RECIEVED JAN 23 2002 Toronto, Ontario M5C 3C7 Dear Madam: Re: Legal Opinion - Article 1 F(b) Court File No.: ORO-486858 Please find attached the legal opinion that I prepared regarding Keith Henson. I am returning your file to you. Kindly advise me if I can offer any other assistance in this matter. Yours truly, [signed D (Dorothy?) Philips per Martin Anderson Counsel Immigration Law Section Department of Justice Ministere de la Justice Security classification - We de s6curit6 Canada Canada Solicitor-Client Privileged File number - Num6ro de dossier 14-486858 MEMORANDUM / NOTE DE SERVICE Date January 24 2002 Telephone/FAX -- T6lephone/T616copieur (416) 962-2856/ (416) 954-8982 TO / DEST: Naima Karimullah, Hearings Officer Toronto Hearings and Appeals FROM / ORIG: Martin Anderson, Counsel Department of Justice SUBJECT / OBJET: Keith Henson (FOSS: 4460-0022) Comments/Remarques FACTS Keith Henson has had a long running dispute with the Church of Scientology in the U.S.A. On April 26 2001, he was convicted of an offence under s. 422.6 of the California Penal code - intimidate, threaten or oppress because of race, religion or colour. The offence carries 'a maximum term of one year in prison and a fine of up to $5,000 (U.S.). Before sentencing, Henson fled California and made a Convention Refugee claim in Canada. The California Court sentenced Henson in absentia and imposed a term of 365 days incarceration. I You asked me to provide an analysis of whether the offence for which Henson was convicted could lead to his exclusion from Convention Refugee status pursuant to Article 1(F)(b) of the Geneva Convention. You have also asked me for a legal definition of terrorism. ARTICLE 1(F)(B) EXCLUSION The law When Article 1(F)(b) applies Article 1(F)(b) of the Geneva Convention excludes those individuals who have committed serious nonpolitical crimes outside the country of refuge: ------ footnote 1 Henson was eligible to have his term of incarceration reduced to 180 days if he agrees to a probation order on certain terms. -2- (b) he has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee. There is obiter from the Supreme Court of Canada in Ward' and Pushpanathan2 that the Article 1(F)(b) exclusion clause only applies to those who evade prosecution or the service of a sentence. In Chan3, the Court of Appeal held that Article 1(F)(b) does not apply to those who have already served their sentence for the crime giving rise to the Article 1(F)(b) allegation: Article 1F(b) cannot be invoked in cases where a refugee claimant has been convicted of a crime and served his or her sentence outside Canada prior to his or her arrival in this country. The weight of the authorities indicates that Article 1(F)(b) only applies to fugitives from justice and should not prohibit those who have served their sentence from making a Convention Refugee claim. The test for exclusion under Article 1(F)(b) To be excluded from claiming Convention Refugee status pursuant to Article 1(F)(b), a person must commit a crime that is (i) non-political and (ii) serious (i) "non-political " crime In Gil4, the Court of Appeal adopted a formulation of the incidence test to determine if a crime is political. The formulation adopted by the Court was as follows: Also, while the Board does not mention it, I think it is clear enough from the evidence that the appellant meets the first branch of the incidence test as enunciated in the authorities. The materials in the record show that, in the years in question, Iran was a turbulent society in which a number of armed groups were in conflict with the Khomeini regime. [See Note 28 below] The Board found the appellant to be generally credible and his assertion that he was a member of such a group appears consistent with this material. [para40] Where the appellant's claim fails the incidence test, however, is in the second branch thereof. There is, in my view, simply no objective rational connection between injuring the commercial ------------- footnotes 1 Ward v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1993), 103 D.L.R. (4th) 1 (S.C.C.) 2 Pushpanathan v. Canada (M.C.I.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982 3 Chan v. Canada (M.C.I.) [2000] 4 F.C. 390 (F.C.A.) 4 Gil v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1994), 25 Irnm.L.R. (2d) 209 (F.C.A.) -3- interests of certain wealthy supporters of the regime and any realistic goal of forcing the regime itself to fall or to change its ways or its policies. This, I think, is what the Board was attempting to convey when it talked of the appellant's crimes failing "to go beyond personal vindictiveness towards something which would alter the political organisations that existed at the time." Even if we accept (which the Board appears not to have done) that some of the businesses targeted were owned by highly placed members of local revolutionary committees, the nexus between such businesses and the general structure of the Government of Iran at the time appears far too tenuous to support or justify the kind of indiscriminate violence which the appellant admitted to. It is generally accepted that, under the incidence test, that for a crime to be considered political, it must be aimed to achieve a political objective - i.e. changing a government or influencing government policy. There must also be some rational connection between the crime committed and the political goal to be achieved by committing the crime. (ii) "serious" crime The jurisprudence outlines when a crime will be considered serious for Article 1(F)(b) purposes. In Talebl, the Court considered the penalty imposed for the crime under the Criminal Code to determine if it is "'serious". In Chant, the Court of Appeal found that the seriousness of the crime could be determined by whether it would be punishable by ten years or more had it been committed in Canada. In Shamlou3, the Court determined that the seriousness can be determined from the quality of the offence itself. In Brezinski4, Lutfy J. traced the history of the wording of Article 1(F)(b) in the Traveaux Preparatoires to emphasize that Article 1(F)(b) was only designed to cover crimes of a higher gravity. Lutfy J. explained that how the crime is prosecuted in the jurisdiction where it was committed is also an indicia of its seriousness. Lutfy J. explained that is the gravity of the crime, and not its repetition, which determines if the crime is serious. Is Henson excludable under Article 1(f(b)? Henson is a fugitive from justice. Upon conviction in the U.S.A., Henson fled the jurisdiction. Henson faces a term of imprisonment in the U.S.A. As per Chan, Henson is prima facie eligible for the application of Article 1(F)(b). --------- footnotes 1 Taleb v. Canada (M.C.I.) (M.C.I.), [1999] F.C.J. No. 743 (F.C.T.D.) 2 Chan v. Canada (M.C.I.) [2000] 4 F.C. 390 (F.C.A.) 3 Shamlou v. Canada (M.C.I.) (1995), 32 Inlln.L.R. (2d) 135 (F.C.T.D.) 4 Brzezinski v. Canada (M.C.I.) (1998), 148 F.T.R. 296 (F.C.T.D.) -4- Henson's offence can be considered non-political. Henson's actions against the Church of Scientology are not connected to any efforts to change the government or government policy. Furthermore, there is no way that Henson's actions can be seen as having the required nexus to such actions. Finally, as explained in Gill, even if Henson's actions should be considered as having a political motivation, they could not be considered political as they were directed towards a non-governmental population. The activities giving rise to Henson's conviction in California, had they been committed in Canada, could have constituted offences under s. 264 (criminal harassment), s. 264.1 (uttering threats), and s. 318 (advocating genocide) of the Criminal Code. As explained in the Probation Officer's Report, Henson made statements on an Internet site as to how a missile could be used to hit the Church of Scientology site. This can be seen as the uttering a threat and advocating genocide. Henson also stated that "killing off the organization entirely is the best way to change the future of Scientology". This could also be seen as advocating genocide. Henson also undertook the surveillance of the employees of the Church-of- -Scientology. He took pictures of Church employees and picketed their offices. He engaged in this conduct for 43 days. He followed Church buses on their outings and followed Church employees home. Henson's conduct could be seen as constituting criminal harassment. An argument can be made that Henson's conviction can be considered a serious crime under Article 1(F)(b). Although Henson was prosecuted for a misdemeanor, the California Court found his offence serious enough to sentence him to 365 days in jail, and not just a fine. The California Court's decision to impose the maximum sentence indicates that it considered the crime serious. Furthermore, the Canadian offences that may arise from Henson's actions leading to the California conviction carry a heavy sentence. S, 264 (criminal harassment), s. 264.1 (uttering death threats) and s. 318 of the Criminal Code (promoting genocide) are all punishable by five years incarceration. The fact that lengthy periods of incarceration can be imposed for the Canadian offences suggests that Henson's crime could be considered a serious crime. Finally, the nature of the offence that Henson was convicted of intimidate, threaten or oppress because of race, religion or colour - by its nature, suggests that the offence is serious. Intimidating, threatening or oppressing someone because of a personal characteristic such as their race, religion or colour can be characterized as a hate crime. A hate crime could arguably, by its nature, be considered a serious crime. A case could be made on the above basis that Henson should he excluded from the Convention Refugee definition for having committed a serious non-political crime. LEGAL DEFINITION OF TERRORISM In the recent judgment of Suresh3, the Supreme Court of Canada adopted, for the purposes of s. 19(1)(f) of the Immigration Act, the definition of terrorism expounded in the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism: 1 Gil v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1994), 25 Imm.L.R. (2d) 209 (F.C.A.) 2 Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 (as am.) 3 Suresh v. Canada (M.C.I.) [2002] S.C.J. No. 3 (S.C.C.) -5- In our view, it may safely be concluded, following the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, that "terrorism" in s. 19 of the Act includes any "act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act". Henson's activities may not fall under the Suresh definition of terrorism. Henson, from the evidence before me, did not commit any act intended to cause injury or serious bodily harm. His threats to commit acts that would produce death of serious bodily harm may not be seen as sufficient to satisfy the definition. However, should the jurisprudence recognize a threat to commit serious injury or bodily harm as terrorism, Henson's actions could be considered terrorist under the Suresh definition. In C-36, the Anti-terrorism ActI, terrorist activity is defined, in part as: (b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada (i) that is committed (A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose objective or cause, and (B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada and (ii) that intentionally (A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence, (B) endangers a persons life (C) causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public (D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), or ------- footnote 1. S.C. 2001 c. 41 -6- (E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), and includes a conspiracy, attempt or threat to commit any such act or omission, or being an accessory after the fact or counseling in relation to any such act or omission, but, for greater certainty, does not include an act or omission that is committed during an armed conflict and that, at the time and in the place of its commission, is in accordance with customary international law or conventional international law applicable to the conflict, or the activities undertaken by military forces of a state in the exercise of their official duties, to the extent that those activities are governed by other rules of international law.' Under this definition, Henson's actions can be seen to be for a religious or ideological purpose. The actions could also be seen to be intentionally committed for the purpose of intimidating a segment of the public - the Church of Scientology. The threat to blow up the Church of Scientology and to kill the organization may be seen as a serious threat to cause death, bodily harm, and a risk to health or safety, property damage and/or a serious interference with an essential service so as to constitute terrorist activity. ----- footnote 1 S. 83.2001(1) of the Anti-terrorism Act, which defines "terrorist activity" came into force on December 18 2001.