Canadian Supreme Court Reviewing First Ever Terrorism Conviction

Momin Khawaja was the first Canadian charged under Canada’s post-9/11 anti-terrorism act in 2004. He  is currently serving life in prison.

Khawaja was accused and convicted of participating in the 2004 London ‘fertilizer bomb’ plot in which public spaces around London were to be bombed. Five men were found guilty of planning the attacks in Britain and Khawaja was connected to them and accused of developing detonators. Khawaja’s lawyer, Lawrence Greenspon, argued that the man was unaware that he was helping a bomb plot in London, but thought his work was going to the aid of the jihad forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. His lawyer argued motive should matter in the case – that Khawaja had involved himself in a legitimate and lawful war and not attacks in peaceful cities.

Khawaja was charged in 2004 and tried between 2006 and 2008. He was sentenced to 15 years, including his five years of time served, based on this argument, but the Ontario Court of Appeal reviewed the case and made the decision that motive does not matter and extended his sentence to life.

Greenspon points out that the fight against certain aspects of the anti-terrorism act set out by the Canadian government was ongoing during Khawaja’s original trial and it has since been struck down. The act was hastily put together after the 9/11 attacks and received Royal Assent in December 2001.

The motive clause was struck down by the judge in Khawaja’s case as violating his Charter rights, but the appeal court upheld the clause. Greenspon is now arguing to the Supreme Court that if they had known the clause would stay in effect, Khawaja would have taken the stand to defend himself.

Greenspon will argue to the Supreme Court that the motive clause could create major issues for people who “express support for, but who don’t actively or knowingly “facilitate” actual terrorist activity…” The court will also be reviewing two other cases which challenged the government’s definition of terrorist activity and whether that definition is Constitutional.

The review of Khawaja’s case began on June 11

Related Stories:

Military Versus Civilian Trials For Terror Suspects

Economists: War on Terror is Wasting Money

Ten Years of Guantanamo: What Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld Knew

Photo Credit: banspy

14 comments

Annmari Lundin
Annmari Lundin4 years ago

So, his defence is that's it's better to plan to kill innocent people in Afganistan and Iraq than in London? Deport after prison sentence has been served.

bob m.
bob m.4 years ago

deport

Louise Peacock
Louise Peacock4 years ago

My feeling is deport him. Give me a break about how he "didn't know" bombs can go off anywhere and if you want to build bombs to use against idiots in some other country as your target, than get your sorry butt out of my country and go to your target area.

Let's stop feeling sympathy for anyone who builds bombs, deals in firearms or any other violent item - we do not need this type of person in our countries. This is NOT my war, if you have violent feelings against one of these despot regimes, then GO THERE AND CARRY OUT YOUR VIOLENCE THERE.

My message to malcontents is FIFO - Fit In or F$$k off.

Troy G.
Troy Grant4 years ago

Will he be treated like a soldier or a criminal?

Jen Matheson
Past Member 4 years ago

Congradulations to him!

Terry Vanderbush
Terry V.4 years ago

thanks

Aditya Narayan
Aditya n.4 years ago

thanks

Berny P.
Berny p.4 years ago

Khawaja’s lawyer, Lawrence Greenspon, argued that the man was unaware that he was helping a bomb plot in London, but thought his work was going to the aid of the jihad forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.
His lawyer argued motive should matter in the case – that Khawaja had involved himself in a legitimate and lawful war and not attacks in peaceful cities.

i SUGEST THAT HE AND IS LAWYER ARE DEPORTED FOR GOOD IN IN AFGHANISTAN
AND NEVER BE ALLOWED TO COME BACK TO BRITAIN....
SEE HOW THEY LIKE THOSE TERRORIST!

Lynn Squance
Lynn Squance4 years ago

Things of this nature (detonators) might be intended for one location, but used in many and I would think that a reasonable person would understand that. Also, what is the difference between London and Kabul for example other than one is in a war zone and one is not? In either case, a detonator is used to take human life.
It will be interesting to see the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

Danuta Watola
Danuta Watola4 years ago

Thanks for the information.