third times a charm (2017) exhibited in the Art and Media Lab at the Isabel Bader Centre for the Performing Arts, aims to unpacks the ways that Anti-terror legislation in so called Canada remains purposely vague and unclear to manipulate the definition of terrorism to apply to “unpatriotic acts”. Unpatriotic acts are those that challenge and resist colonial and western ideologies. Acts of Indigenous resistance, dissent, and peaceful protests are too often classified as unpatriotic, and indeed considered acts of domestic terrorism.[1] Scholar Lindsay Balfour writes, “the presumed link between Indigenous resistance and extremism is highly problematic as it assumes a tendency towards terror on the part of Indigenous peoples and firmly locates them within the realm of terrorist rather than the more historically and socially accurate condition of being terrorized”.[2]

third times a charm challenges the ideological dualism that is produced through Anti-terror legislation, in two ways. First, it objectifies the language and physical text of Bill C-51. Secondly, it physically manipulates the text in incomprehensible language to produce an othered version of the act. third times a charm displays two piles of printed paper. On the right, a copy of Canada’s “Anti-terrorism Act, 2015” (Bill C-51) translated and printed in both English and French. On the left, a printed copy of Canada’s “Anti-terrorism Act, 2015” (Bill C-51) translated in binary code. Each of the piles represent a body: Canada’s official languages vs. an undistinguishable language; normal vs. abnormal. In this work, the “Anti-terrorism Act, 2015” literally becomes two bodies. It is left to the viewer to decide which body they better identify with. The function of the codes here are different than normally intended. It is impossible to read the codes unless they are scanned. Thus, their intent, to demonstrate a message, is missing without the proper technology. 

​

It is unclear in Canada’s Anti-terror legislation what constitutes as terrorism. Scholar Kent Roach writes, “Canada took a more restrained approach and did not include all serious property damage but only property damage that endangered life, health and safety. This minimized the chance of protesters being investigated or charged with terrorism”.[3]  Several scholars refute this claim.  Indeed, it is apparent that Indigenous activists and groups such as Idle No More, who protest land claims and environmental projects destructive to land, have been the subject of this form of legislative surveillance.[4] A recent example of this is from July 2017, when several Indigenous protestors and activists were charged with trespassing on Parliament Hill in Ottawa after erecting a teepee.[5]

​