What's new

Alexandre Bissonnette sentenced to life in prison for killing 6 in Quebec mosque [Update#86]

It is too hard to prove ?

Don’t think that is the case when it is the other way around ?

You seem to be confused with your own argument, the sentence he might receive is just not relevant .

Here's a good excerpt on what I'm stating.

In order to lay terrorism-related charges against Bissonnette, prosecutors would have to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that was the motivation behind the attack which killed six worshippers and wounded 19 others at the Quebec Islamic cultural centre.

It's a decision, however, that legal professionals say will ultimately have no noticeable impact if Bissonnette is found guilty on the six counts of first-degree murder and five counts of attempted murder with which he's now charged.

Criminal defence lawyer Eric Sutton said even if the shootings fit the definition of a terrorist act, prosecutors would have little to gain from pursuing terror charges against Bissonnette.

"He's facing multiple charges of murder, and the potential sentence goes beyond whatever could be imposed on him even if he was charged with terrorist activities," Sutton said. "There's no real purpose."

A) The sentence he gets will remain the same (150+ years in prison with no parole)
B) Action (murder) is easier to prove than intention (terrorism)

Now, I completely agree this was a terrorist act but that's not how the legal system works.

The closest Canadian example is Michael Zehaf-Bibeau (2014 parliament attacks) and the only reason he was charged with terrorism had to do with the video he created explaining his motives.
 
Here's a good excerpt on what I'm stating.



A) The sentence he gets will remain the same (150+ years in prison with no parole)
B) Action (murder) is easier to prove than intention (terrorism)

Now, I completely agree this was a terrorist act but that's not how the legal system works.

The closest Canadian example is Michael Zehaf-Bibeau (2014 parliament attacks) and the only reason he was charged with terrorism had to do with the video he created explaining his motives.

you should be a lawyer
 
Here's a good excerpt on what I'm stating.

In order to lay terrorism-related charges against Bissonnette, prosecutors would have to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that was the motivation behind the attack which killed six worshippers and wounded 19 others at the Quebec Islamic cultural centre.

It's a decision, however, that legal professionals say will ultimately have no noticeable impact if Bissonnette is found guilty on the six counts of first-degree murder and five counts of attempted murder with which he's now charged.

Criminal defence lawyer Eric Sutton said even if the shootings fit the definition of a terrorist act, prosecutors would have little to gain from pursuing terror charges against Bissonnette.

"He's facing multiple charges of murder, and the potential sentence goes beyond whatever could be imposed on him even if he was charged with terrorist activities," Sutton said. "There's no real purpose."
A) The sentence he gets will remain the same (150+ years in prison with no parole)
B) Action (murder) is easier to prove than intention (terrorism)

Now, I completely agree this was a terrorist act but that's not how the legal system works.

The closest Canadian example is Michael Zehaf-Bibeau (2014 parliament attacks) and the only reason he was charged with terrorism had to do with the video he created explaining his motives.
So what is the purpose of having a separate category of terrorism?

If Bissonnette only gets charged with murder, then the authorities may have little desire to open a wider investigation as to what motivated him to go and carry out his killings and whether or not he was influenced by others.

Whereas, presumably, were Bissonnette to be charged with terrorism offences, it would mean the investigation being opened up much wider, to see what/who influenced him in terms of people, organisations, media outlets, websites, atmosphere created by politicians, as well looking into the backgrounds of people he knew, those he was in close contact with, groups he was a member of etc.

So it does make a difference as to whether he's simply charged with murder or whether he's also charged with terrorism offences.
 
So what is the purpose of having a separate category of terrorism?

If Bissonnette only gets charged with murder, then the authorities may have little desire to open a wider investigation as to what motivated him to go and carry out his killings and whether or not he was influenced by others.

Whereas, presumably, were Bissonnette to be charged with terrorism offences, it would mean the investigation being opened up much wider, to see what/who influenced him in terms of people, organisations, media outlets, websites, atmosphere created by politicians, as well looking into the backgrounds of people he knew, those he was in close contact with, groups he was a member of etc.

So it does make a difference as to whether he's simply charged with murder or whether he's also charged with terrorism offences.

The RCMP will continue to investigate. I wouldn't mix the two together.

The crown prosecutor's sole purpose is to prove beyond reasonable doubt the charges being laid against Bissonette. It's easier to prove action vs. intent.

For them, the "150 years + No Parole" result is critical.

Here is a little tidbit on how Canadian law works on terrorism charges.

The law is written in such a way that a person acting entirely alone is unlikely to face terror charges "unless they were giving money to or leaving to participate in a terrorist group,'' Kent Roach, a law professor at the University of Toronto, told The Canadian Press.
 
Barely a peep from Trump after this attack that's killed 6 people but he immediately jumps to Twitter to condemn some machete wielded maniac that got shot before he could injure anyone outside the Louvre in France.

The white nationalist President.
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BREAKING: Alexandre Bissonnette sentenced to life in prison for killing 6 worshippers in the Quebec mosque shooting <a href="https://t.co/wPtq7txTAz">https://t.co/wPtq7txTAz</a> <a href="https://t.co/kdZ50sAE8G">pic.twitter.com/kdZ50sAE8G</a></p>— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) <a href="https://twitter.com/AJEnglish/status/1093952736394207233?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 8, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Court reduces sentence for Quebec City mosque attacker

The man convicted of fatally shooting six Muslim men at a mosque in the Canadian province of Quebec in 2017 will be able to apply for parole in 25 years, an appeals court has ruled, saying Alexandre Bissonette’s previous sentence was unconstitutional.

In a decision on Thursday, the Quebec Court of Appeal said consecutive sentences such as Bissonnette’s – who was sentenced last year to life imprisonment without the chance of parole for 40 years – violate protections against “cruel and unusual” punishment in Canada.

The court reduced his sentence to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for 25 years.

“It is worth remembering that this is not a 25-year sentence, but rather life in prison without the possibility of applying for parole before 25 years. In other words, nothing guarantees that parole will be granted … in 25 years,” it said in its ruling.

Six men – Aboubaker Thabti, Abdelkrim Hassane, Khaled Belkacemi, Mamadou Tanou Barry, Ibrahima Barry and Azzedine Soufiane – were killed when Bissonnette opened fire inside the Quebec Islamic Cultural Centre in January 2017.

The attack, which took place shortly after evening prayers and left many worshippers injured, sent shockwaves across Quebec and Canada.

“Disappointment, that’s the word that comes to our lips,” Boufeldja Benabdallah, a spokesman for the Quebec City mosque, told local media on Thursday after the appeals court’s decision.

“We are not convinced that (the decision) has done justice to … the heinous crime,” said Benabdallah, adding that the families of the victims will now be forced to relive their pain.

‘Our hearts are breaking’
Bissonnette pleaded guilty to six counts of murder and six counts of attempted murder in relation to the attack and a judge sentenced him last year to life in prison without the possibility of parole for 40 years.

At the time, the judge said Bissonnette was motivated by a “visceral hatred” for Muslim immigrants

His lawyers, as well as prosecutors, had challenged the sentence, however, because the judge had invoked a section of the Canadian Criminal Code that allows periods without eligibility for parole to be served consecutively.

The appeals court said its decision did not reflect “the horror of Alexandre Bissonette’s actions on January 29, 2017, or the effect of his crimes on an entire community and society in general”, but rather on the constitutionality of the Criminal Code provision.

However, Yusuf Faqiri, a representative of the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), a national Muslim advocacy group, said the court’s decision reflects a “fundamental double-standard”.

“Our hearts are breaking,” Faqiri told Al Jazeera in a phone interview, adding that the families of the victims and those who were injured are still struggling to cope in the attack’s aftermath.

“It’s as if their lives had less value than the rest of the population,” he said. “The question that many Quebec Muslims – [that] all Quebec Muslims – are asking today is whether the blood of Quebec Muslims [means] less.”

Faqiri added that NCCM would review the court’s decision and then make a decision on what next legal steps are available.

Asked about the court’s decision during a news conference on Thursday afternoon, Quebec Premier Francois Legault said the province’s justice minister would read the ruling and then comment.

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/...ity-mosque-attacker?__twitter_impression=true
 
Back
Top