A verdict in the Brampton trial could come as early as next month. The Khawaja case, which has already absorbed four years of court time in pre-trial motions and which began in earnest yesterday, is not expected to end quite so soon.
But for a government desperate to show that Canada's post-9/11 laws work, Khawaja may well be more important.
There are key similarities between the Khawaja case and that of the Toronto 18. Both involve alleged attempts to blow up buildings and create mayhem in support of Islamist causes. Both involve otherwise unremarkable young Canadians.
Khawaja, 29, is accused of creating a remote-control detonator that could have allowed his alleged accomplices to blow up a British nightclub or shopping centre.
Some of those still facing charges in the Toronto 18 case (seven have had their charges dropped) are accused of trying to blow up buildings in Toronto. One was allegedly trying to build a remote-control detonator.
The British plotters planned to use fertilizer to make their bomb. Some charged in the Toronto 18 case were allegedly planning to do the same.
Both cases also depend on the testimony of informers – a convicted terrorist turned Crown witness in the Khawaja trial, two well-paid RCMP moles in the Toronto 18 affair.
Yet there are crucial differences.
Key among these is that in the Khawaja case, a reputable court has ruled that there was a real plot. Last year, a London jury found five young British Muslims – the men Khawaja is alleged to have helped – guilty of terrorism.
In the Toronto 18 case, however, the existence of a serious plot has still to be established. Some defence lawyers have argued that their clients were, at most, mouthing off and that, until RCMP moles became involved, the accused lacked the means, money and brains to plan anything.
The British terrorists were part of an international ring linked directly to Al Qaeda. The alleged Toronto gang had no such ties.
The London bombers had already purchased fertilizer by the time they came to police attention (the authorities later surreptitiously switched it for kitty litter). The alleged Toronto plotters were trying to purchase fertilizer when they were arrested, an attempt that, according to press reports, was facilitated by one of the RCMP moles.
None of this means that Khawaja will be convicted. But it does seem that here at least, the Crown has a good chance of chalking up a win.
For one thing, it is helped by the very anti-terror laws it is trying to vindicate. Khawaja lawyer Brian Greenspon has tried for two years to see hundreds of intelligence documents that he says might help his client. But the government, citing national security, has refused.
In this, the government has been upheld, in the main, by the courts. That's because the anti-terror laws allow Ottawa to keep secret any information – even information material to a terrorism trial – that it says is vital to national security.
It's a Catch-22 rule that at its most basic level is absurdly circular. ("You can't see our secret information about you because it is secret.") But for a government seeking convictions, it is effective.
No comments:
Post a Comment