About two years ago, Canadian Mohammed Momin Khawaja was convicted of multiple charges of terrorism in connection with a failed plot to cause death and destruction in Great Britain. He was not just a hapless ally in a misguided cause, but an active participant who raised funds and helped build bomb parts.
Normally, a case of conspiracy to commit murder would result in an automatic life sentence, but Khawaja was handed just 10.5 years in prison in addition to the five years he had spent awaiting trial. There was something terribly wrong with that picture. In a series of decisions last week, however, the Ontario Court of Appeal has helped to redraw the map on how convicted terrorists should be treated in Canada.
In Khawaja’s case, the court increased his sentence to life in prison. In three other terrorism-related cases under appeal, the Ontario court either boosted the prison time or, in one case, upheld the life sentence handed down at trial.
“When terrorists acting on Canadian soil are apprehended and brought to justice, the responsibility lies with the courts to send a clear and unmistakable message that terrorism is reprehensible and those who choose to engage in it here will pay a very heavy price,” the court said.
Sentences of 20 years to life should be the norm, not the exception, the court said, noting that the courts have not taken a tough approach in the past. “Terrorism is a crime like no other. Once detected, it must be dealt with in the severest of terms.”
It has taken some time for Canadians to accept that despite our good intentions as a country and our commitment to human rights, there are people within and outside our borders who are plotting harm to us and our friends.
The violence directed at Canadians and our allies, moreover, is not related to profit, revenge or drunkenness, but to an irrational desire to inflict maximum pain on innocent people to advance a vague and muddled political or religious agenda.
The ongoing risk today is that some young Canadians have been drawn to the idea of jihad against the West. The concept of struggle against an evil oppressor has drawn young men to the sword from time immemorial. But they must know that acts of terrorism on Canadian soil will not be treated gently or with the tolerance that is normally reserved for first-time offenders. As the court said, there is a risk that soft sentencing will make Canada seem like an attractive place to conduct business.
“And it is up to the courts to shut the door on that way of thinking, swiftly and surely,” the judges ruled.
When Canada’s anti-terrorism legislation was introduced in the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks, some critics worried civil liberties would be trampled, and peaceful people who hold radical views might accidentally end up in jail, victims of a government that can’t distinguish between legitimate disagreement and authentic threats.
Well, the innocent should never be punished, of course, but when it comes to convicted terrorists, judicial sentences must reflect the great danger they represent to Canadians and the world. Sentencing must also serve notice on others that their crimes, even if no one is killed, will be dealt with harshly and that Canada is not an easy place to conduct operations designed to threaten our way of life.
An editorial from the Winnipeg Free Press.