Until Proven Guilty

"It's not every day you have a conversation with an admitted al-Qaeda member."
"He was deeply engaged in political issues. Everyone knew that the relationship between the two was going to be a crucial issue in this case and so Sher [Khurram Sher] portrayed that relationship in a manner that was clearly misleading."
"Dr. Sher refused to admit obvious facts."
"How could you not call the police?"
"Conspirators need not know every detail of a conspiracy so long as they know [the] overarching objective, and by the end of this meeting he [Sher] knew what the overarching objective was and had agreed to help achieve it."
"Except for Dr. Sher's discredited testimony, there is no indication that this money came from anyone who was duped."
"He joined the conspiracy by making a donation to the brothers, and his role [in the conspiracy] became more significant in July."
Jason Wakely, federal Crown prosecutor

Khurram Syed Sher, a 31-year-old pathologist, is pleading not guilty to conspiring with the two others to facilitate a terrorist activity.   Photograph by: Mike Carroccetto , Ottawa Citizen

 

Arguing before Ontario Superior Court Justice Charles Hackland, in an Ottawa courtroom, the Crown prosecutor has laid out his case that Montreal-born Khurram Syed Sher, who pleaded not guilty to conspiracy to facilitate a terrorist activity, knew with whom he was dealing, was aware what they were planning, and became a co-conspirator by that very fact.

Whether or not he knew before that July 2010 meeting when he explained he knew only one of his alleged co-conspirators, not the second man, and that he had been innocent of their preoccupation with planning terror attacks, by the time that evening had ended, he was in possession of such knowledge.

And he did nothing whatever to alert authorities that a terrorist attack was being planned that would target innocent Canadians. Mr. Sher is himself a Canadian, although not a very innocent one. He enjoyed all the privileges of citizenship, of an academic education leading to a medical profession that would remunerate him handsomely, and confer upon him great respect and trust. Yet it hadn't occurred to him, as someone who unaware, walked into a terrorist conspiracy to thwart it? Evidently not.

People are found guilty of crimes when they are deemed to be accessories to that crime. A crime is enabled if someone is in possession of information that describes the crime, its intent and its logical outcome, and they do nothing to prevent it. That Mr. Sher also provided funding for the activities, if not of that group, then money to be sent on to purchase weapons for mujahideen as he was later informed (if what he claims is true), and he had understood the money was meant to facilitate the welfare of Muslim orphans, this makes him doubly guilty.

Mr. Sher claims that he had no idea when he arrived at an Ottawa apartment for an invitation to dinner that he would become involved through his presence, not through any motivation exerted by himself, in a conversation relating to terrorism. The Crown contends that the secret taping of the conversation that evening of the three men by the RCMP makes clear that the two men whom Mr. Sher claims to have been the conspirators, not himself, were relaxed in his company, enough to speak in his presence as though he was part of the conspiracy.

Making his insistence of complete innocence in the planning of an attack on Canadian soil by Canadian Muslims who had radicalized as jihadists rather unbelievable. His own activities prior to this event in 2010, appears to indicate that his religious-political-ideological interests and commitments appeared to line up well enough with the actions he now claims he had nothing whatever to do with.

But did nothing whatever to attempt to prevent.