Full bibliography

This article examines the reasonable suspicion requirement in the entrapment defence as applied in Canadian terrorism prosecutions. Although designed as an objective safeguard against state overreach, reasonable suspicion has proven highly malleable in practice, often shaped less by concrete conduct than by institutional narratives of threat, vulnerability, and deviance. Drawing on all five terrorism-related entrapment cases in Canada to date, the article demonstrates how courts have permitted markers of ideology, religion, and identity to serve as proxies for criminal intent. While Canadian jurisprudence has formally rejected the American subjective predisposition test, the case law reveals a troubling drift toward a distinct form of subjectivity: one grounded in perceived ideology or motive. In this way, suspicion attaches to who a defendant is imagined to be--because of their beliefs--rather than to what they have done.

Num Pages: 26