Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group K/Natural Law

R v Khwaja

1.	Must be directed to the common good -	CC 83.01 Terrorism -	Directed at the common good for the people of the country -	Terrorism kills innocent people, clearly prohibited for the common good of the people -	P 55  the objective of the law -	The parties agree that the objective of the terrorism provisions is to prosecute and prevent terrorism. The need to prosecute acts that support or assist terrorist activity that may never materialize into acts of terrorism flows from the great harm resulting from terrorism offences, the Crown contends. -	S. 1 Oakes would allow infringement of s. 2 freedom of expression because it is for the common -	Para 62  Court’s response to argument that the definitions are broad -	Objective of preventing devastating harm resulting from terrorist activity -	Justified it without using Oakes -

2.	Must follow practical reason (reasonable steps leading to the common good -	CC 83.01 definition; prohibited act -	Para 82  Accused’s argument for s. 2 (freedom of expression) -	Problem with definitions of terrorism and terrorist activity  vague -	Definition in CC 83.01 Para 57 & 58  preliminary to the commission of the inchoate offence

3.	Must be made by valid lawmaker (ruler within community, who holds this position by reason of the natural order) -	In the CC, part of legislation which Aquinas liked -	Judge interpreted it in the way it was intended to be interpreted (in our opinions) -	Appealed all the way up to the SCC

4.	Must be promulgated -	Was promulgated, it’s in the CC -	Well known to the public, 9/11 2001 had just happened

Conclusion -	Aquinas would support this law -	Passes all of the requirements for good law according to Aquinas