I'm thinking not of the very obvious sorts of cases, but of cases in which there might be a grey area—writing Nazi slogans on the side of a synagogue and that sort of thing. The reason I ask this question is that what this recognizance clause allows a peace officer or peace agent to do is arrest someone without a warrant, if the agent believes that a terrorist act is going to be committed.
The first question is, how do these people know or how do they qualify an act as “terrorist” before they arrest someone without a warrant?
Second, does it make you at all uneasy that this clause could be used not in the proper way; in other words, as a denial of justice for someone, or in a situation of ruining someone's reputation when they're absolutely innocent of something?
I think there is a grey area here. Who makes this determination?