Calgarian Sentenced to 16 Years for Terrorist Activities in Syria
Earlier this month, Calgarian Jamal Borhot was sentenced to 16 years in prison for traveling to Syria more than a decade ago and participating in the activities of terrorist organizations. The sentencing by Calgary Court of King's Bench Justice Corinna Dario has raised profound questions about radicalization and lack of remorse in such cases.
A Troubling Lack of Remorse
More concerning than the sentence itself is the complete absence of evidence suggesting Borhot has changed his extremist beliefs. Justice Dario noted in her sentencing decision that there is no way to know if the 35-year-old has abandoned the radical ideology that initially drew him to terrorist groups in Syria.
"There is no evidence the offender's views have changed," Dario stated in her written decision. "None of the letters of support speak to his current beliefs or repudiation of his extremist beliefs."
The judge further explained that wiretapped conversations suggested Borhot continued to support the installation of a fundamentalist Sunni government in Syria even after returning to Calgary in April 2014. Borhot has lived peacefully in Calgary for more than a decade since his return, yet the court found no indication he has renounced his previous extremist activities.
Radicalization in a Free Society
For many observers, Borhot's conduct remains incomprehensible. Why would a young man enjoying the creature comforts of living in a free society like Canada not only want to join individuals committing heinous acts but also risk his own life to do so?
While such cases are relatively rare, Borhot's situation is not isolated. The reality exists that numerous individuals have been radicalized by online content to believe such conduct serves a greater good. This case highlights the ongoing challenge of understanding and preventing radicalization within democratic societies.
Legal Proceedings and Sentencing Considerations
During sentencing proceedings, Justice Dario received multiple letters of support for Borhot. However, none provided the court with assurance that the ideology he adhered to while fighting Syrian troops in an attempt to establish an ISIS Caliphate in the Middle East is no longer one he subscribes to.
"There is no evidence the offender's reasons for leaving Syria involved abandonment of his beliefs," Dario wrote. "Further, the offender has not expressed remorse or taken responsibility for these offences, including after his conviction."
Legal experts note that Borhot is not the first offender to refrain from expressing extreme regret post-conviction. Often, defendants avoid showing contrition for crimes while potential appeals of judicial findings remain pending, as apologies could be interpreted as admissions of guilt.
Broader Implications for Counterterrorism Efforts
The Borhot case raises significant questions about:
- The effectiveness of deradicalization programs
- The challenge of monitoring individuals who have participated in terrorist activities abroad
- The psychological factors driving radicalization among those living in free societies
- The legal system's approach to sentencing in terrorism cases where remorse is absent
As Canada continues to grapple with the complex issue of homegrown radicalization, cases like Borhot's serve as sobering reminders of the persistent threat posed by extremist ideologies and the difficulty of ensuring genuine rehabilitation for those who have embraced violent extremism.
