Did attack warrant a terror charge?
Option would complicate prosecution
MONTREAL •It was a carefully planned assault on a Muslim place of worship triggered — the attacker acknowledged to police — by news that Canada was prepared to accept more refugees from Muslim countries.
Evidence drawn from the assailant’s computer revealed his keen interest in right-wing commentators and conspiracy theorists and an apparent obsession with white-supremacist mass murderer Dylann Roof.
As evidence of what motivated Alexandre Bissonnette to open fire inside a Quebec City mosque on Jan. 29, 2017, killing six men, emerges at his sentencing hearing, questions are being raised about why he never faced terrorism charges.
The National Council of Canadian Muslims, though relieved Bissonnette pleaded guilty last month to six counts of first-degree murder and six of attempted murder, worries about a double standard when it comes to terrorism charges.
“The NCCM does have continuing concerns around the way in which that terrorism label is unfortunately often reserved for crimes committed by Muslims or by people of colour and by other visible minorities,” said Leila Nasr, the organization’s communications coordinator.
Michael Nesbitt, assistant professor of law at the University of Calgary, said the evidence heard so far at the sentencing hearing certainly places Bissonnette’s crimes “in the ballpark” of what is considered terrorist activity under the Criminal Code.
Bissonnette’s opposition to Muslim immigration, his view that Muslims represented a threat to his family’s safety and his admission that he had researched the mosque online make clear his target was not random.
He told police he decided to act on Jan. 29 after hearing news that the Canadian government had extended a welcome to asylum seekers barred from entering the United States under President Donald Trump’s proposed travel ban against seven Muslim-majority countries.
Add to that the evidence retrieved from his computer, with recurring themes of firearms, mass shootings and Islam, and the case that Bissonnette was acting with a political or ideological purpose appears strong.
The other aspect required to qualify a killing as terrorist activity is intent to intimidate a segment of the public, and an attack on a mosque would seem by definition an attempt at intimidation.
But even though the law allows for terrorism charges in a case like this, Nesbitt said it is not necessarily the best option.
A standard first-degree murder conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt the murder was planned and deliberate. And it carries a mandatory life sentence with no chance of parole for 25 years; the 2011 introduction of consecutive sentences means Bissonnette faces up to 150 years without parole.
Adding a terrorism charge would complicate the prosecution, requiring proof of another level of motive and intent without adding anything to the potential punishment, Nesbitt said.
Pursuing a standard murder
PURSUING A STANDARD MURDER CONVICTION ‘IS GOING TO BE FASTER WITH A MORE SECURE OUTCOME FOR THE PROSECUTOR.’
conviction “is going to be faster with a more secure outcome for the prosecutor, using fewer resources and the best possible outcome in terms of punishment and time in jail. So you can see why they go this route,” he said. “The only reason to go the other route is to send a political message, but then that’s getting into prosecutors weighing what the political interests are in a certain situation.”
Quebec’s public prosecutions office declined to elaborate on why it chose not to include terrorism in the charges. A spokesman referred to a statement last October by prosecutor Thomas Jacques, who said the indictment reflected the evidence available and “the current state of the law in Canada.”