An Update on Canada's First Convicted Terrorist

McJ's picture

Canada's first convicted terrorist was back in court this week. WP blogged about his trial here. He was convicted in September 2008 of "participating in terrorist activities' but his conviction has not technically been registered, pending the outcome of the defence's abuse-of-process motion to have the charges stayed.

His trial and conviction is just pathetic and shameful. If it wasn't for the "US-compliant Anti-Terrorism Act" the worst thing they could have convicted this underage defendant with is shoplifting that was not even related to the 'plot'. As it is, he could get ten years in prison. His most damning entry on the audio tapes presented at the trial was to ask "if Muslims were allowed to use Nivea cream."

The defendant's lawyer is planning to argue that the police agent who recruited the teen for the 'terrorist training camp' (by telling him it was a religious retreat) had committed more illegal acts than his client.

From the Galloping Beaver:

Toronto18/ Paintball11/ Tim Hortons10 terrorist fatcamp update

G&M : RCMP agent concedes key role in set-up, running of terrorist training camp

Mubin Shaikh on Friday:

"I thought that if the RCMP didn't tell me I couldn't do it, I inferred that I could do it," Mr. Shaikh testified.

Lawyers for Canada's first underage convicted terrorist argued in court Friday that without Mubin Shaikh, assigned by CSIS and paid by the RCMP, there would have been no terrorist conspiracy at all.

In fact, minus Canada's new US-compliant Anti-Terrorism Act, the most he could have been charged with is shoplifting - and shoplifting items that were not even used in the RCMP/CSIS plot to, uh, blow up the Houses of Parliament, along with CBC and CSIS, although they weren't sure where the parliament buildings were, and behead Prime Minister Paul Martin, having failed to note he was no longer the PM.

Let's review, courtesy of Thomas Walkom, our young convicted terrorist's complicity in the plot :

He did not make bombs or buy guns. Nor did he advocate doing so.
He did not threaten to kill anyone, did not call for holy war, did not pledge allegiance to Osama bin Laden.
He did not even badmouth Canada's military efforts in Afghanistan.

His most damning entry on the audio tapes helpfully provided by Mr Mehta, who testified along with the other crown witness at the kid's trial in September that he believed him to be innocent, was to ask "if Muslims can use Nivea cream".

So what was he convicted of ?
Walkom explains Superior Court Justice John Sproat's guilty verdict last September :

"Under the anti-terror legislation, the government doesn't need to prove an accused terrorist took part in or even knew about a specific plot.
All it has to prove is that he knowingly participated in the activities of a terrorist group and contributed either directly or indirectly to anything "enhancing" its abilities."

Oh well, the kid definitely qualifies then.
As RCMP/CSIS fatcamp troop leader and prosecution star witness Mubin Shaikh testified at the kid's trial, he convinced the reluctant teen to attend the training camp by telling him it was a religious retreat:

"I don't believe that (he) is a terrorist," he said outside the courtroom.
"I don't believe he should've been put through what he was put through, but that's our system."
Shaikh said he did not believe that the defendant was aware of the group's violent plans."

And yet under "our system", if the kid's lawyers are not successful in overturning his conviction by a sole judge, the kid could get ten years for, as Hysperia remarked in comments at the time, "something that someone else might have been doing without his knowledge.".



The Hon. Mr. Justice John R. Sproat

The Honourable Mr. Justice John R. Sproat is a Justice of the Ontario Superior Court and a former partner at Miller, Thomson LLP in Toronto. He has also been a frequent lecturer at numerous conferences and continuing education programs presented by such organizations as the Law Society of Upper Canada, the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Institute. While in private practice, he was actively involved, not only in employment related litigation, but also in advising employers on preventative practices, policies and procedures that can be implemented to reduce exposure to wrongful dismissal actions and human rights and employment standards complaints. Mr. Justice Sproat is the author of The Employment Law Manual: Wrongful Dismissal, Human Rights and Employment Standards, also published by Carswell.


In other words, a guy who can help you stomp on squealers or maybe not even squealers. Maybe just someone who's non-future is required to support the values of the company. Maybe as a scapegoat or something.


"Ideally, job requirements should be communicated to the employee at the time of
hiring. In “The Wrongful Dismissal Handbook” John R. Sproat writes that employers
should use employment contracts that limit the period of notice as well as provide an
unconditional termination provision that sets out the level of competence required.15
Sproat argues that such an agreement, if communicated to the employee in its entirety at
the beginning of the relationship (before any oral agreement is entered into) and signed
by the employee, will likely be enforced by the courts and trump common law

Can't say I have read his book, mind you.

But let's just say the incompetent-to-be employee signs the agreement. He might not know what's goin' on, man.

He might also be led astray thinking he was going to a religious camp.

And then you can nail him and he's goin' WTF, but his gig is up. He doesn't get it, and nobody who hasn't taken and MBA or advanced criminology doesn't either because it flies in the face of common decency and common sense but them's the breaks.

McJ's picture

ICGREEN: right guy for the job

He sounds like the right guy for the job. We wouldn't want common decency and common sense getting in the way of Canada notching up it's first 'underage' terrorist conviction.

This is entrapment and you know it must be bad when the crown has to bring in more witnesses to try and rebut their own 'star' witnesses testimony.

"I set it down,
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain..." -- Shakespeare, Hamlet, I, v

Entrapment on a cloudy day.

This issue should ignite rage but by comparison to everything else we see going on I guess we just throw it into the mix.

If they need to entrap, they should give up their own rights by admitting that their own rights are actually privileges and the rights of others are smokescreens.

If they see a need to kill, they should have to sleep with the bodies in their beds just to make sure that's what they really needed to do. They may find themselves reconsidering after a week or two.

If they see a need to starve people, they should go without food too. It would be a good test of necessity. They might suddenly find another way around a problem.

If they're willing to go down to the wire with those they seek to enlighten, it would be an iota of a reason to begin to believe them.

McJ's picture

ICGREEN: Well said!

Well said! It would be a different world if we were all to become accountable for our actions.

OT - but did you catch this in the National Post - it should give you a smile. smiling
"Goodbye 'Rae Days.' Hello 'Harper Holidays' "

Harper Holidays and Flaherty Fridays laughing out loud

"I set it down,
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain..." -- Shakespeare, Hamlet, I, v

Here's Sproat's keen legal

Here's Sproat's keen legal mind in action:

"[It was] submitted that this was not really a terrorist group because Ahmad’s conduct amounted to “musings and fantasies” that had no possibility of implementation. It occurred to me hearing this submission that it might well have been said prior to September 11, 2001 that a plan to kill thousands and destroy landmark buildings in lower Manhattan and Washington had no possibility of implementation."

The 'plot' was comically inept and thoroughly infiltrated - the movie 'Four Lions' sums it up much better than Sproat's gibberings.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.