WEINGARTEN.CA
"Toronto 11" Guilty Verdict Fuels Government Gravy-Train
October 15 2008
Now that the commotion and commentary have subsided, Canadians are again left with the taste of fear in their mouths after a guilty verdict in the trial of the “Toronto 11”.
An unnamed youth (we’ll call him N.Y.) has been convicted of “terrorism” as defined by Canadian Anti-terror legislation. Though all the facts have yet to be made public, Conservative pundits are now pointing to the verdict, falsely claiming that “not only did he genuinely want to kill Canadians, but he felt it was a religious obligation to do so”, and that he “wanted to be a terrorist.”
The fact is that the youth was unaware of any “terrorist” plot, and never stated a desire to commit murder. Although the Crown witness Mubin Shaikh can attest to this, it doesn’t matter. One no longer needs the “mens rea”, or guilty mind, to be convicted of such a horrible crime in Canada. This country’s far-reaching anti-terror legislation states simply that a terrorist act has been committed "whether or not the facilitator knows that a particular terrorist activity is facilitated."
(*The actual legislation in question is extremely broad in its reach. Reading the document will give you an idea of how easily one can be found guilty of terrorism with little more than a government-levelled accusation.)
“Terrorists” need only be fooled into attending a religious retreat, or stealing walkie-talkies from a retail outlet as this youth was. In the case of the “Toronto 11”, however, it seems these typically harmless activities were carried out with the knowledge and participation of RCMP informant Shaikh. It also just happens that these activities have given Canada its first terror conviction, and with it plenty of ammunition for pundits and opportunistic politicians.
One can easily point to the decision of a fallible man who was obviously influenced by his fear of 9/11, but it may be more difficult to give a logical justification of the decision handed down by Judge Sproat. Essentially, N.Y. was found guilty because he associated with people whom he should have known were terrorists, according to the judge. This is in spite of meticulous efforts by the informant to hide any sinister purpose behind the camping trip. For example, after a handgun was used for target practice, the campers were told to clean up the spent bullet-casings “in order to protect wild animals from ingesting” them. There were written instructions to purposefully keep attendees of the camping trip, quote, on the “down low”. It must also still be proven whether a terrorist group did, in fact, exist. A speech given on camera by one camp attendee, so popularly quoted in the media, sounds more like an unpatriotic religious sermon than a scheme to attack anybody.
What’s more, Judge Sproat’s ruling reveals on page 16, section [48], that “there was no combat theme during the marches that Shaikh led at the camp. Shaikh explained that paintball was a popular recreational game and wearing camouflage clothing protected your regular clothes from paint splatters. During the paintball games, (name withheld) talked about pretending to be resistance fighters in Chechnya, but there was no talk of attacking Canadian targets.”
Once given the opportunity to absorb the information given about the camping trip, the “plan” to “attack” Canada seems less and less likely when not presented alongside the fear-mongering of pundits and government agents. Mubin Shaikh seems to be of this opinion as well. I spoke with him shortly after N.Y.’s guilty verdict.
“Who in their right mind - with any kind of security training - thinks that… they could actually pull off any of the things that they said they would?” Shaikh asks. “I don’t know who would put that argument forward.” Although a handgun was present for at least one of the camping trips, Shaikh has admitted that there was no bomb-making material (fertilizer) while he was working on the case.
So the question remains, “what would have happened”?
What would the “terrorists” present at this camping trip – the 4 or 5 who allegedly “knew” it was a training camp – have accomplished without government intervention? Would they have stormed Parliament with a single handgun? Would they have taken hostages? Would security forces have killed them in a hail of bullets? Shaikh doesn’t think so. “I don’t think they even would have made a move on Parliament” Shaikh admits. “It probably would have been something on a smaller scale” he says without elaborating.
On a smaller scale, but in what form? Possession of an illegal handgun in Canada carries a typical sentence of less than five years in Canada. Within the boundaries of Anti-terror legislation, however, that same offence may land people in a federal penitentiary for up to 14 years. I ask Shaikh if pre-determined intent and pre-emptive arrests are the territory of “thought-police”. After a pause, he carefully answers “Yeah, see that’s tricky.”
It’s yet to be seen how many more suspects will be released, and how many more will be convicted. But if this case boils down to the “Toronto 5”, will it have the same impact as the original moniker of the “Toronto 18”? Will the government have as much justification for taking away our rights, implementing harsh new legislation, and beefing up security budgets with our tax money?
“There’s so many levels on which the government gained from this” Shaikh says. “For example, CSIS is losing their money, they have to justify a budget. Everybody else in the world is on this ‘we gotta fight terrorism’ thing – a gravy train shall I call it. That equals big budgets, promotions, and the ability for political leaders to cite events like this.”
Either consciously or unwittingly, Shaikh helped give those politicians something to talk about by keeping a group of campers on the “down low”, thus inflating the original number of arrests and fostering the bonds that would later result in a young man facing years in jail. With the conviction of N.Y., the fear is back in place and the gravy train is back on the rails.