The Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (JVTA)

Support for C-CAT’s Efforts

1. Quote Unquote – in Support of C-CAT and Its Campaign

2. Quote Unquote – in Support of Legislation to Sue Terror Sponsors

1. Support for C-CAT and its Campaign

Prime Minister Stephen Harper – April 28, 2009: 

“I commend the C-CAT for encouraging a substantive dialogue on terrorism. You have provided a strong voice to victims of terror and galvanized divergent groups across the country to unite against those that seek to undermine the cohesiveness of Canadian society.” [1]
 Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff – April 28, 2009:

“I salute the strong work that C-CAT has undertaken…. Your idea of allowing sponsors of terror to be sued in civil court would add another piece in the arsenal of combating terrorism everywhere.” [2]

 NDP Leader Jack Layton – April 24, 2009: 

“The importance of your work is unquestioned…. The advice and input of the Canadian Coalition Against Terror on issues of Canadian policy towards terrorism have proven invaluable to the work of New Democrats in Parliament. But your contribution has not been limited to your role in policy. Your support and advocacy for the victims of terrorism and their families continues to be indispensible to those Canadians rebuilding their lives in the wake of terror.” [3]

BQ Leader Gilles Duceppe – April 28, 2009:

“I should like to emphasize the rich contribution made by organizations such as the Canadian Coalition Against Terror (C-CAT)…. The participation of victims in the discussion promotes initiatives to make Quebec and Canada safer places.” [4]

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May – April 28, 2009:

“The Green Party of Canada applauds the efforts of the Canadian Coalition Against Terrorism in their efforts to protect Canadians. We fully support the Coalition’s efforts to create legal avenues for victims to pursue perpetrators of terror via civil lawsuits. This initiative not only enables victims to hold terrorists responsible, but also creates a means to locate and seize terrorist assets, compensate victims, and deter future acts of violence.  The Green Party supports C-CAT’s goal to empower victims with tools to combat the very forces that undermined their agency- turning victims into victors over terror….” [5]

Victor Comras [6], Former UN Diplomat and Terror Financing Expert
April 27, 2008:

“C-CAT stands out as one of the most useful and effective private citizen organizations contributing to the international counter-terrorism effort.  It has built an effective alliance linking families of the victims of terrorism with the legal community and other public and private institutions and sectors interested in having an input on Canada’s counter-terrorism policies. This has included the formulation and promotion of keystone measures to reform Canada’s anti-terrorism program and legislation. C-CAT’s well crafted legislation should serve also as a positive reference and model for other democracies searching for ways to enhance their own counter-terrorism and counter-terrorism financing efforts.” [7] 
Senator David Tkachuk – March 1, 2012 (from the Senate floor):
It has been seven years since the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act was introduced in the Senate. It has not been a lonely journey, though. My travelling companions along the way included many stalwart members of the Canadian Coalition Against Terror. I want to mention some of their names here because they worked so hard in making this bill happen: Sheryl Saperia, Aaron Blumenfeld, Danny Eisen and, of course, Maureen Basnicki. They initiated the whole concept of the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act. They sold it to me and others, and I was proud to carry it forward. Without their persistence over the last seven years, this act would not have seen the light of day.
For Danny and Maureen, both key members of C-CAT, this was not political. Justice for them was not an abstract concept; this was very personal. Danny Eisen lost his cousin and good friend in the attacks. His cousin was a young man only 31 years of age. His name was Danny, too, Danny Lewin, and he was on Flight 11. In our seven years of working on this bill, Danny Eisen never once mentioned this to me. I learned about it on the tenth anniversary of 9/11 in an article he wrote for the newspaper. In that article, he revealed that his cousin, a Special Forces officer, had been killed — stabbed and critically wounded — while fighting the hijackers alone and unarmed. Danny Eisen has been fighting the terrorists on behalf of his slain cousin ever since. He, too, has been fighting weaponless, but after Bill C-10, not anymore.Maureen Basnicki’s story is well known. She also had a family member murdered during 9/11, her husband Ken, a financial marketer for a software company. Ken Basnicki was on the 106th floor of the World Trade Center North Tower when the plane flew into it. As Danny wrote in his article, for Maureen Basnicki, there would be multiple burials as body fragments of her husband, Ken, would arrive in small packages by mail in the years that followed.It is perhaps fitting, then, that this legislation came together in pieces over the years — a clause here, a clause there, an amendment here — until we finally arrived at an act that in its present form provides justice for victims of terrorism.
Senator David Tkachuk – April 28, 2010:

“[S-7] is a validation of the efforts of the victims of terrorism and their allies, most specifically the Canadian Coalition Against Terror, who…have been pushing for this legislation tirelessly and relentlessly. For them it has been a long journey….  My private member’s bill went through four versions and several sessions of Parliament….  I urge all … senators to give passage to Bill S-7….”  [8] 

Senator David Tkachuk – October 27, 2009: 

“I would like to acknowledge two people who are in the gallery, Maureen Basnicki and Danny Eisen from the Canadian Coalition Against Terror, C-CAT, which has been behind this anti-terrorism bill for the last four years. I would like to acknowledge their hard work and dedication to the cause. Honourable senators, as I indicated, this is the fourth version of this bill.… This is, after all is said and done, a victim’s initiative championed by an organization called the Canadian Coalition Against Terror, CCAT, which represents Canadian terror victims. CCAT has played a critical role in drafting and advocating for this bill….” [9]

Minister of Foreign Affairs (the Americas) Peter Kent – October 30, 2009:

“[The bill]… is a result of victims’ initiatives championed by an organization called the Canadian Coalition Against Terror, known by its acronym C-CAT, which represents Canadian terror victims. C-CAT has played a critical role in driving this bill forward. I would like to personally credit Danny Eisen and Sheryl Saperia…who put heart and soul into C-CAT…. The legislation…would provide the Government of Canada with another important tool to protect Canadians from acts of terrorism.” [10]

NDP MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis – October 30, 2009:

“…I would like to also acknowledge the work of other groups and individuals who have been trying to find ways to stem terrorism in our society today. I would mention the work of the Canadian Coalition Against Terror and the work of Danny Eisen, Sheryl Saperia and Maureen Basnicki who, as all of us know, have been active on this Hill advancing other ideas with respect to terrorism and trying very hard to develop ways to combat terror financing and, by extension, terrorism itself. There is another initiative on that front coming from the Senate that we also should look at very seriously and ensure its hasty progress.”[11]

Minister of Public Safety Peter Van Loan – June 2, 2009:

“I would like to highlight the efforts of the Canadian Coalition Against Terror.  The Coalition has worked tirelessly on behalf of Canadian victims of terror ensuring that their voices are heard in Ottawa and throughout Canada.  This organization has been one of the main driving forces behind this initiative.  The bill tabled here today has benefited immensely from the Coalition’s advocacy.  Thank you all for your hard work.”&nbsp [12]
Conservative MP Rick Dykstra – April 28, 2009:

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the presence of Canadian Victims of Terror that are here today…. I would also like to thank C-CAT for its tireless work representing Canadians who have personally and directly experienced the horrific impact of terrorism. C-CAT is an invaluable organization, ensuring that terror victims are heard and helping our government devise policies to protect Canadians from terror and provide necessary support to all of the victims. Our government looks forward to continuing to work with C-CAT, working towards a future where no Canadian is a victim of terrorism.”  [13]

NDP MP Peter Stoffer – April 28, 2009

“Those who commit or sponsor terrorist acts should be hunted down and brought to justice.  C-CAT’s legislative initiative to bring civil suits in Canadian courts against sponsors of terror will help achieve this objective. C-CAT has not only made an extraordinary contribution to Canada – but to the world. If other countries see that it can be done in Canada – they may well follow suit.”[14]]

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day – March 2008: 

“Eventually it will become more obvious to Canadians…  what a debt of thanks we owe you.”[15] 

University of Toronto Law Professor Ed Morgan– September 9, 2009: 

 “C-CAT has opened up a new chapter in Canadian advocacy that is successfully bridging the public and private sector in the battle against terrorism. Its unique legislative initiative represents the type of legal innovation which is truly needed to address the juridical challenges that terrorism has created for western democracies like Canada.  It is a superb example of a Canadian multicultural success.”[16]

2. In Support of Legislation to Sue Terror Sponsors

Terry Davies: Secretary General of the Council for Europe“Terrorists seldom kill for money but they always need money to kill.”[17]

Boim v. Quranic Literacy Institute, (291 F.d 1000, 1021 (7th circ. 2002))

“The only way to imperil the flow of money and discourage the financing of terrorist attacks is to impose liability on those who knowingly and intentionally supply the funds to the persons that commit the violent acts.”

Fairfield University Law Professor Debra M. Strauss [18]:

“… [T]he time has come for private citizens to enter the battle on civil grounds through lawsuits aimed at crippling terrorist organizations at their foundation – their assets, funding, and financial backing. … The national approach that has been used to dismantle the infrastructure of hate groups can be extended to the international realm and used against terrorist groups. The foundation of this approach is a private right to a cause of action rather than, or in addition to, relying upon military or diplomatic efforts by the government. … When other countries then enforce these foreign civil judgments, the problem of terrorism is removed from a political forum to the world of private international law where reciprocity and consistency are in those nations’ best interests.” [19]

Dr. Peter M. Leitner, Counterterrorism Expert

“There is something fundamentally absurd with the current legal arrangement in Canada that allows lawsuits against Iran for selling you rotten pistachios, but bars legal action against them for sponsoring terrorist acts which kill Canadian citizens abroad… The effectiveness of civil suits is unmistakable in the case of Libya and the Lockerbie bombing. The exposure of Libyan complicity in the bombing of the Pan Am passenger airliner, in part, caused Libya to back away from its ‘rogue state’ bravado and publicly renounce the use of terrorism.”[21]Price v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 294 F.3d 82, 96, 99 
(D.C. Cir. 2002):

In support of its judgement against the terrorist state, the court concluded: 

 [A]s the witnesses often recognized, no amount of monetary or other relief can ever bring back those who were killed or restore the past twenty years of the lives of those who have been injured and have suffered. But as those same witnesses frequently observed, perhaps it is only through the financial  impact of damage awards in cases such as this that the governments (and their agents) responsible for terrorist conduct… will be dissuaded from similar conduct in the future.”[22]

Anderson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 90 F. Supp. 2d 107, 114 (D.D.C. 2000):

As asserted by the court in Anderson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, the purpose of punitive damages:

 [i]s to punish wrongful conduct to prevent its repetition by the offender and to deter others who might choose to emulate it…. The victim to whom the award is made thus stands as a surrogate for civilized society in general; the victim is made more than whole in that others may be spared similar injury.”[23]

Francis J. Duggan, President, Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, Inc. 
April 28, 2008: 

I would like to express our support for C-CAT’s efforts in advancing groundbreaking initiatives related to terrorism and public policy. 

… C-CAT should be lauded for galvanizing such a broad coalition of terror victims from so many different backgrounds into a cohesive voice for change. It is a new “made in Canada” model that Canadians should be proud of. As one of the earlier pioneers in organizing a terror victims lobby, the Pan 103 families know how invaluable C-CAT’s broad base of support will be in shaping the future contours of the battle against terrorism. Our organization, Victims of Pan Am Flight 103 Inc., was formed in the aftermath of the 1988 bombing of Pan 103 in which 270 people were murdered including several Canadians. We were essentially alone when we launched a relentless legislative, lobbying and public relations battle that eventuality succeeded for the first time in holding the perpetrators of a major terrorist attack accountable — both in a court of law and in the court of public opinion. In bringing together families and individuals, victimized in so many different terrorist incidents, under a single umbrella, we believe C-CAT will ensure that terror victims will not be left, as we were, to fight these battles alone, and will play a critical role in helping the families of victims reclaim their lives from those who murdered their loved ones. [24]

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews – April 21, 2010

“This government is responding to calls from victims who seek justice, and demonstrating leadership in the global fight against terrorism…. Perpetrators and supporters of terrorism must be held accountable for their actions…. It is a very practical tool people can use.”[25]

 Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff – May 31, 2009:

“We have had extensive discussions about civil remedies for victims of terror and we support the principle of this legislation. Now it’s simply a matter of details…”

Prime Minister Stephen Harper – May 31, 2009:

This week…we will introduce legislation that will give victims of terrorism the power to obtain just compensation from those responsible for their suffering. By amending the State Immunity Act, this bill will allow victims to sue perpetrators and sponsors of terrorist acts, including foreign states in Canadian courts…. [26] 

Prime Minister Stephen Harper – June 21, 2009:

“Today marks a tragic anniversary for our country. On June 23, 1985, it was dramatically demonstrated that Canada is not immune from terrorist acts. A bomb on Air India Flight 182 killed all three hundred and twenty nine people aboard, most of them Canadians…. Our Government has no greater responsibility than protecting the safety and well-being of Canadians. That is why we introduced legislation to modernize Canada’s laws, to give our police and intelligence agencies more tools to keep Canadian families safe…. Even more recently, our Government introduced legislation to allow victims of terrorism to seek redress from the perpetrators, patrons and supporters of terrorism….”[27]

Conservative Party Election Platform, October 2008:

“A re-elected Conservative Government… will introduce legislation to allow Canadians who have been affected by terrorism to sue the sponsors of terrorist organizations, including to recover funds from states that are designated as sponsors of terrorism.”[28] 

Victor Comras, Former UN Diplomat and Terror Financing Expert
June 25, 2008:
“This important legislation … is a major step forward in holding the perpetrators of terrorism…including state actors, accountable in Canada…. The evidence gathered in material support for terrorism cases often does not lend itself to effective courtroom use. … Experience has shown that civil … judgments obtained in such cases can also be so overwhelming as to bankrupt or otherwise put out of business those held accountable….”[29]

Liberal Foreign Affairs Critic and MP Bob Rae – June 25, 2008:

“I support the legislation…. Without citizens doing this … I do think a lot of information and evidence will be swept under the carpet. …We will then not know what happened and … how things were allowed to happen…. If you do not give the citizens some right to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts to trace the financing, I do not think we will get to the bottom of the matter with respect to how certain activities have and are being financed today.”[30]

Liberal MP and Former Justice Minister Irwin Cotler – May 11, 2010

“…When a state engages in the sponsorship of terrorism, it deserves no protection from federal law, such as the State Immunity Act. When a state supports a terrorist group that targets Canadians, our Canadian tax dollars should not be spent on defending that state’s immunity from liability. Ironically, there is an exception in the State Immunity Act for commercial activity, but there is no exception for terrorist activity. We have a situation where, simply put, our State Immunity Act unconscionably favours foreign states that aid and abet terrorists over Canadians who are harmed by that terror. It removes impunity with respect to commercial transactions, but it retains immunity with respect to terrorist actions. It is in this context that I introduced a private member’s bill to rectify this inversion of rights and remedy this inversion of law and morality….”[31]

Liberal MP Joseph Volpe – April 1, 2008

“Mr. Speaker, thanks to … the Canadian Coalition Against Terror, all parties in this House are ready to support legislation to permit attacking the financial resources of terrorist movements. …We can fight the Babbar Khalsa, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas by going after the financial resources of their backers…. Bill S-225 proposes financial remedies for families of victims. What is the Conservative government waiting for? It should bring the bill into this House and let us get it passed.”[32]

Liberal Party Leader, MP Michael Ignatieff – April 13, 2008 

At a public forum sponsored by the Canadian Coalition for Democracies (CCD) at Holy Blossom Temple in Toronto, then Deputy Leader of the Liberal Opposition, MP Michael Ignatieff called for passage of C-CAT’s proposed legislation.  

Canada India Foundation – July 12, 2010

. …[T]his legislation [S-7] … was referred to your committee for review on the day that the Air India report was released. Notably, the same report makes mention of C-CAT’s proposal for allowing civil suits against terror sponsors as representing “a new way to fight terror financing” and that these types of suits “merit watching”. The Indo-Canadian community will certainly be watching with great interest as, not surprisingly, this legislation has particular resonance within the community that has been so directly affected by terrorist atrocities… We fully concur with Mr. Bal Gupta, the chairman of the Air India Victims Families Association (AIVFA) who … correctly stated that this bill “will provide a new and vital avenue for defeating terrorist funding by harnessing the possibility of civil suits that will deprive terror sponsors and perpetrators of their funds and their anonymity”, and that “by choosing 1985 as the starting point, the bill will more readily recognize that the Air India 182 bombing was a Canadian tragedy, the largest and most heinous act of terrorism in Canadian history…. ”

Canada India Foundation fully supports this effort and will continue to work with C-CAT and other community bodies across the country to see this campaign brought to fruition. Honourable Senator, after so many years, it is time for this legislation to be passed through the Senate and we ask that it be done without any further delay.[33] 

Professor Tom Quiggin, Court Approved Expert on Terrorism[34] 
 June 21, 2010:

… Senator Segal mentioned at the start that Bill S‑7 has received second reading and is now at committee stage.  This is the bill that was sponsored by C‑CAT, the Canadian Coalition Against Terror.  It is a brilliant and relentlessly pragmatic idea …

…In my view as an ex‑military person and one who has worked in law enforcement and analysis, I would say that Bill S‑7 would have a very strong deterrent effect on those people who are enabling terrorism.  In other words, cut off the money, cut off the support and it becomes very difficult to be a terrorist.

In closing, it is unfortunate that we did not have a bill like Bill S‑7 in 1984.  Had we, the whole Air India situation and the fallout of it would look much different than it does today.  In other words, following the Air India bombing, 9/11, and a series of other attacks, this bill would have been an extremely useful civil litigation tool to go after, not the terrorists, but the people who make terrorism possible through funding support….[35] 

NDP MP Ed Broadbent – April 19, 2005: 

“I strongly support the [C-CAT] bill. It will enable victims to take action against states and organizations that perpetrate these vicious cruel and inhumane acts. We need a law like this in Canada…. [I]t’s going to be an important contribution that we can make.”[36]

Conservative MP Stockwell Day – April 19, 2005:

“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today the victims of terror compensation bill. This would amend the State Immunity Act and it would allow claims in Canada against foreign states which sponsor any of the groups that are listed as terrorist entities. By permitting this, it would allow those who have been hurt, injured or damaged in any way by acts of terrorism or suffered damages to actually pursue and take civil action for compensation. The bill has been developed cooperatively with the Canadian Coalition Against Terror, an organization that is made up of Canadian terror victims and also community activists.”[37]

Fraser Institute Senior Fellow and Former Ambassador Martin Collacott[38} 
May 2007:

“I wish to record my support for legislation currently being proposed that will permit Canadians who have been killed or injured in acts of terrorism or members of their families to launch civil suits against foreign governments as well as organizations and individuals in Canada who have provided support to the terrorists involved…. I believe, however, that the passage of such legislation is important not only as a means of making justice available to the victims of terrorism and their families but also to send a clear signal both to potential terrorists and to the international community at large that we are serious about combating terrorism.”[39]

David  Aufhauser  –  former  general  counsel  of  the  U.S.  Department  of  Treasury  and  chair  of  the  National  Security  Council’s  Committee  on  Terrorist  Financing – March 14, 2004 

“If  brought  soberly  and  with  substance,  private  actions  can  be  of  material  assistance  to  the  government,  because  the  bankers  of  terror  are  cowards.  They have too much  to  lose  by  transparency.  Name, reputation, affluence, freedom, status.  They’re the weak link in the chain of violence.  They are not beyond deterrence.”[40]Victor Comras, Former UN Diplomat and Terror Financing Expert [41] 
January 28, 2008:

“…Most major terrorism’s financial abettors…have successfully avoided criminal prosecution… Civil liability cases…associated with terrorism may constitute the best constraints we against their activities and our best chances to hold them accountable.”[42]

Financial Crime Consultant Ken Rijock – December 16, 2006:

“Since the best way to reduce, and eventually even eliminate, terrorism is to take away its operating funds, this legislation could go a long way towards curbing terrorist activity in North America.”[43]

Renowned Economist Dr. Jack Mintz[44] – May 22, 2006

“The increased violence perpetrated against innocents in recent years has made it necessary to develop new rules of the international relations game, in order to forestall terrorist acts here. One is a proposed parliamentary amendment to the State Immunity Act that would allow Canadian citizens who have been injured by state-sponsored terrorism to sue for compensation. That would apply to Canadian lives lost anywhere in the world, not just Canada. It is a bill worth passing.”[45]

Senator David Tkachuk – April 28, 2008

“[The legislation] is the result of a concerted effort of a number of people both in and outside government, including, most importantly, past Canadian victims of terrorist attacks, who have worked hard and with extreme dedication and patience to create a carefully and ingeniously crafted tool to place in the hands of victims to deter and combat terrorist acts.… It is worth remembering that in the Second World War entire societies were mobilized in the fight against the enemy. Citizens were pressed into service in defence of the homeland…. [The legislation] proposes nothing other than to mobilize the civilian victims of terror in a very 21st century war against terrorism.”  [46]

Senator David Tkachuk – June 22, 2006:

…This proposed legislation is driven by the fact that Article 5 of the UN convention [that] states that each state party shall ensure that legal entities liable in accordance with provisions of the convention are subject to effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal, civil or administrative sanctions that may include monetary sanctions.… Canada’s State Immunity Act allows civil suits in respect of commercial activities of foreign states…. The same must be done to combat the state-sponsored terrorism…to prevent foreign states that engage in terrorist activity from claiming immunity… [in] Canadian courts….  The proposed legislation enables a leveling of the asymmetric playing field between terrorists and civilians. … On behalf of civilians worldwide who are the focus and preferred target of terrorists, and the civil society we hold so dearly, we must respond and fulfill our commitments to the United Nations and to our citizens. Terrorism threatens our democracy and way of life, but we can fight back by attacking the means of support and the financing of terror.… In the name of our families and future generations, in the name of those who are fighting on behalf of Canada today and those who have already fought and lost so much to this global threat, and finally in the name of our own beliefs, I ask honourable senators to… come to the same conclusion that I have reached, that Bill S-218 should become law… [47] 

Senator Meighen – July 18, 2005

… The State Immunity Act has evolved in the past to keep up with the times and provide Canadians with the tools that they require to defend themselves…. Honourable senators, it is time for the State Immunity Act to evolve yet again. We have entered an era of global terrorism, and Canadians should have the right to hold accountable foreign states that sponsor terrorist activity. …[S]uch a country should no longer have a “get-out-of-jail-free” card…. Honourable senators…. It is the government’s primary role to protect the well-being of Canadians and to ensure their safety. Unfortunately, the current laws in our country are obstructing justice…. [48]

Mr. Aufhauser, former general counsel of the U.S. Department of Treasury and Chair of the National Security Council’s committee on terrorist financing – December 11, 2003

 “… If executed well, the campaign against terrorist financing will bring more peace than any army of soldiers… If brought soberly and with substance, private actions can be of material assistance to the government, because I can tell you: The bankers of terror are cowards. They have too much to lose by transparency. Name, reputation, affluence, freedom, status. They’re the weak link in the chain of violence. They are not beyond deterrence.”[49]   

Contributor to the Toronto Star, Rhona Bennett – March 21, 2008 

“Amazingly, this legislation that promises to put bite in Canada’s anti-terrorism policy, unites parties. It does not involve detaining people. It does not involve the army or money. It does not affect anyone’s civil rights…. New strategies are necessary for Canada, indeed for all democracies, to survive. This small piece of legislation is one very doable example. Lots more creative action is needed, but let’s start here…. “ [50]

Talk Show Host and Writer Christine Williams[51]– May 2010:

“Canada is adopting a new bill (Bill S-7) that will allow victims of terrorism to sue for terrorist acts in Canadian court, putting an onus of responsibility and accountability on terrorist states and/or organizations. Albeit a complicated task, it is a step in the right direction…. [S]uch legal suits are still promising beyond the compensatory factor. They serve as one critical part of a multifaceted strategy in the War on Terror: to isolate, marginalize, embarrass and hopefully shed light on the heinous crimes of terrorists and their impact on innocent victims. Forcing terrorist organizations and States into a position of public accountability before the international community is a welcome strategy that Canada has wisely endorsed through Bill S-7. Hopefully we will see more of this in the West.”[52]Dave Hayer – B.C. MLA for Surrey–Tynehead and the son of assassinated Indo-Canadian Times publisher Tara Singh Hayer[53] – April 18, 2005:

 “I have always said that I will support any bill or legislation that will allow victims to seek compensation and redress from terrorist and other criminal organizations, whether they be in Canada, Third World countries, or anywhere else for that matter…. The only way we can diminish the power of these groups is to attack and cut off their money supply, and to do that we need legislation not only in this country, but everywhere else in the world, allowing victims to sue the organizations and their sponsors. If victims can cripple their financial resources, we will eventually see terrorism disappear.” [54]University of Virginia Law Professor and Director of the Center for 
National Security Law, John Norton Moore[55

…[O]n June 2, 2009, the Canadian Minister of Public Safety, the Honorable Peter Van Loan announced tabling of the legislation “to allow victims of terrorism to sue perpetrators of terrorism and their supporters.” …Orchids to you Canada![56]

PREVIOUS Op-Eds NEXT Case Studies