Supreme Court upholds Anti-Terrorism law

The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously rejected an appeal from Momin Khawaja, the first to be convicted under the anti-terrorism act in Canada. This rejection rules that violent acts are not protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It also does not infringe on the freedom of expression. Khajawa has been convicted of creating remote based bombs. He has been sentenced to 10.5 years in prison, but later, was increased to life imprisonment with no chance of parole until 10 years later. 

In my opinion, the anti-terrorism law protects the general public from terrorist attacks. By having this law in effect, those that plot bombs will be in prison, while the general public is safe. 

This rejection of appeal is related to Law 12 in that it shows the power the Supreme Court holds. Deeming that this anti-terrorism law does not infringe on the freedom of expression, this is an example of how much power the Court has. Also, it refers to criminal law, a topic that we will later study in the course.

Source: CBC

New Brunswick Man takes VIA Rail to Court

VIA Rail in New Brunswick. Trains have been cut 50% due to low ridership

Widler Jules, a New Brunswick man, is attempting to take VIA Rail to court for the failure to provide adequate service on its' main Maritime route. The route, stretching from the Ocean line to Halifax, has been terminated by half due to the low ridership in areas. This service that has been cut down has affected communities of Southwestern Ontario, a service termination effective in the Fall. This reduction in service prompts Jules to file an injunction in the Quebec Superior Court in an attempt to restore the service that he has enjoyed previously.

In relation to Law 12, this current event demonstrates the action of taking one to court. As Jules files an injunction, this is seen as a warning to VIA to restore the 6-day-a-week service. Also, VIA, a crown corporation is not a public service, and therefore, is not in relation to the government. As it is not in relation, this case is public.

In my opinion, if the ridership is at a low and causing VIA to lose money, they should not be required to restore their 6-day-a-week service. VIA, a privately own company, has the right to stop service anywhere, at anytime. Although it may not be at the convenience of passengers, VIA's attempt to lower their costs is shown with the reduction of less popular lines.

Source: The Vancouver Sun