By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A Calgary man, Jamal Borhot, has been sentenced to 16 years in prison for joining the Islamic State group in the Middle East. Justice Corina Dario emphasized that the sentence sends a message that terrorism is reprehensible and carries a substantial price. Borhot was convicted of participating in a terrorist group after travelling to Syria in 2013, where evidence showed he engaged in violent acts, recruited others, and was willing to kill those who did not convert to Islam. The judge noted the absence of remorse or expressed change in his views.
Read the original article here
It’s quite the story, isn’t it? A Canadian man, now facing a 16-year sentence for terrorism offenses after joining ISIS. The weight of that sentence, the sheer magnitude of it, really hits home when you consider the context. He was, quite literally, “willing to slaughter,” and the courts have spoken, imposing a significant period behind bars.
The purpose of such a sentence, as articulated in this case, is to send a clear and undeniable message. It’s meant to convey that terrorism is utterly reprehensible, and that those who choose to engage in it will face substantial consequences. Sixteen years for volunteering to join an organization dedicated to violence and mayhem, for being ready and willing to kill, certainly seems like it aims to communicate that this behavior won’t be tolerated.
However, the effectiveness of this message is a subject of much discussion and, frankly, a bit of concern for some. The question lingers: does a 16-year sentence truly achieve the intended deterrent, or does it inadvertently create new problems? For instance, the concern is raised that 16 years is a considerable amount of time, potentially offering a period for further radicalization, planning, or preparation, even within the confines of prison.
There’s also the stark comparison to sentences handed down in other countries, like the United States, for similar offenses. In some cases, individuals who trained and fought for ISIS have received sentences that appear less severe, leading to a sense of disparity and questioning of the Canadian justice system’s approach. It raises eyebrows when a 16-year sentence for joining a terrorist group, with the expressed willingness to commit violence, feels surprisingly long when juxtaposed with other international examples.
Furthermore, the fundamental question of rehabilitation and future risk is paramount. If someone joins a group like ISIS with the explicit intent to kill, how can society be assured that they are no longer a threat after serving their time? The fear is that even after 16 years, the underlying ideology might remain, making them a continued risk upon release back into the community.
The very notion of reintegrating someone who was “willing to slaughter” back into society is unsettling for many. The idea of them walking freely on Canadian streets again, even after a lengthy sentence, triggers a visceral reaction of “you definitely want this guy walking around your streets 16 years from now…” The thought is that this period might be better spent elsewhere, perhaps with less welcoming environments for such individuals.
Adding another layer to the conversation is the broader societal context. The increase in individuals from Western countries joining terrorist organizations raises questions about the underlying factors contributing to radicalization. It touches upon the complexities of identity, belonging, and the influence of extremist ideologies in a globalized world.
The individual’s upbringing in Canada, born and raised within the country, complicates the idea of his belonging. When someone has been part of Canadian society but chooses to align with a group that actively threatens the safety and values of that society, it creates a difficult dilemma. The question of whether such actions forfeit one’s claim to national identity and the rights that come with it is a deeply debated one.
The legal framework surrounding citizenship and rights is also a crucial aspect of this discussion. While the anger and desire to permanently ostracize are understandable, the principles of justice and the potential for abuse of power are also important considerations. The idea that governments could easily strip away rights based on a label like “terrorist” is a slippery slope that could be used against political opponents.
Ultimately, this case, and the lengthy sentence imposed, highlights the immense challenges faced by legal systems in dealing with individuals who have joined and supported terrorist organizations. It forces a confrontation with difficult questions about justice, punishment, rehabilitation, and the very definition of national identity when confronted with ideologies that seek to destroy it. The 16-year sentence for a Canadian man willing to slaughter is a stark reminder of the serious threats posed by terrorism and the complex societal responses required to address them.