Manufacturing Terrorism in Canada
— Walt McGinnis – citizen reporter Jan 19, 2018.
On July 1, 2013 John Nuttall and Amanda Korody were arrested and charged for carrying out a terrorist attack on the BC legislature lawn.
On June 2, 2015 the jury for the BC Supreme Court trial found the pair guilty for plotting the bombing. Their lawyers immediately asked for a stay in proceedings arguing that the couple was the victims of entrapment by the RCMP. In several conversations that were secretly taped by the RCMP listed in the judges, Reasons for Judgment, the couple believed they would be killed if they did not carry out the wishes of their handlers.
Beyond just being the victims of entrapment it appears that Ms.Korody and Mr. Nuttall were used as the fall guys in a fake murder plot manufactured by the highest offices of the RCMP.
On July 29, 2016 the Honorable Madam Justice Bruce agreed saying: “Simply put, the world has enough terrorists. We do not need the police to create more out of marginalized people who have neither the capacity nor sufficient motivation to do it themselves.”
Judge Bruce ordered a stay in proceedings. Mr. Knuttall and Ms. Korody were set free.
In January 2018 Appeal hearings began on behalf of the federal Liberal government, headed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Many Canadians are wondering on what grounds an appeal is warranted.
In her Reasons for Judgment in the original court hearings Judge Bruce explains how the RCMP manufactured the fake terrorist attack by forcing two vulnerable people living on the edge of society to plant bombs, that unbeknownst to them were unarmed, intending to murder people celebrating Canada Day on the British Columbia Legislature lawn.
Astonishingly the RCMP has admitted that they had 243 police officers fabricating and carrying out the plot. Orders came directly from Ottawa. Millions of dollars were spent, leaving everyone asking the question: why? The answer to that could shake to the roots our concepts of who we are as Canadian citizens.
Below are excerpts of what the judge said in her original ruling. Her words leave no doubt the RCMP are the real criminals in this case.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Reasons for Judgment Before: The Honorable Madam Justice Bruce
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/16/14/2016BCSC1404.htm
[671] …… This was not a situation in which the police were attempting to disrupt an ongoing criminal enterprise; rather, the offences committed by the defendants were brought about by the police and would not have occurred without their involvement. By any measure, this was a clear case of police-manufactured crime.
[672] … the actions of the police went far beyond presenting the defendants with an opportunity to commit an act of terrorism. The police engaged in a multi-faceted and systematic manipulation of the defendants to induce them into committing a terrorist offence.
[674] I find that an average person, ————–probably would have come to the same conclusion as the defendants. That is, that the undercover officers were part of a sophisticated terrorist organization and would not hesitate to eliminate them if they failed to meet their expectations.
[677] I am also satisfied that the deceit practiced upon the defendants constituted an implied threat. Any reasonable person would have concluded that the members of such a terrorist organization were ruthless. The defendants were so convinced that Officer A and his associates were part of Al Qaeda that they came to fear the officers would kill them if they did not complete the terrorist plan that was orchestrated by the police.
681] … ( an eavesdropping device) at the Sundance Motel recorded Mr. Nuttall cautioning Ms. Korody that if they failed to complete their part in the mission Officer A would go from being a nice guy to a “fucking monster” and when he articulated Officer A’s four contingency plans for them, which all included their demise..
704] The fact that Officer A chose to give religious advice at all is objectionable; however, preaching ideas that promoted the use of violence and allaying the defendants’ doubts about killing people makes his conduct far more sinister. When Mr. Nuttall said that he and Ms. Korody had serious doubts that killing people would please Allah, Officer A gave him the same spiritual advice about pre-determination that violent extremists use to radicalize people.
[709] What is most concerning about Officer A’s conduct is that he used religious advice as a means of quelling the doubts the defendants had about using violence to achieve spiritual goals at critical times in the operation. As the project progressed, Officer A’s manipulation of Mr. Nuttall’s beliefs about the Islamic faith became more and more intrusive and directive until he became almost dictatorial……
735] It was the RCMP who decided that the pressure cooker devices were a viable, feasible plan for Mr. Nuttall. They set about to convince him and Ms. Korody that this was the only plan that could possibly succeed and to discourage them from considering any other plan.
738] Officer A essentially ridiculed Mr. Nuttall’s rocket plan and said that the only plan he and Officer C would support was the pressure cooker plan.
[741] In Victoria when they were alone together the evening before the final event, the defendants expressed the belief that they had to go through with the plan or be killed.
[743] … Having finally, and with great effort, refocused Mr. Nuttall on a terrorist plot that the police believed Mr. Nuttall might be able to accomplish, Officer A and the other undercover officers, as directed by the investigative team, began to eliminate every obstacle raised by the defendants to the completion of a pressure cooker mission…… Nuttall remained concerned about his lack of knowledge so Officer A instructed Mr. Nuttall about C4 and its properties. Mr. Nuttall did not know how to make a detonator so Officer C offered to supply remote detonators and Officer A assured Mr. Nuttall that detonators would not present a problem. Later, while shopping for the bomb parts, Officer A had to give Mr. Nuttall detailed instructions on how to make a timer from an alarm clock. The defendants did not have a place to construct the devices and so Officer A promised to find them a remote and quiet location. The defendants had no ability to transport themselves and the pressure cooker devices to their targets. Officer A promised that he would provide any necessary transportation, as well as a safe house for their stay on the Island and after the mission.
744] …Mr. Nuttall’s behavior did not demonstrate any hurry to carry out a jihadist mission. Both privately and in conversations with Officer A, the defendants expressed concern that they were being rushed into the pressure cooker plan.
[755] … the RCMP’s role in the terrorist plot was far more extensive in comparison to the roles played by the defendants. The defendants were the foot soldiers but Officer A was the leader of the group; he made all of the arrangements and gave the defendants instructions and directions at every stage of the operation. Without the police, it would have been impossible for the defendants to carry out the pressure cooker bombing.
[763] When Mr. Nuttall said it would be good to target an office building, it was Officer A who had to remind him that on Canada Day there would be no one in the office building. When Mr. Nuttall complained that they were being rushed, and required two days for a recce, Officer A redirected him and asked him to think about where all the people would be on Canada Day. In response, Mr. Nuttall said downtown. Without asking him to be more specific, Officer A drove directly to the Parliament buildings and pointed out two bushes that he told the defendants would make good hiding places for the devices.
764] …..the defendants ultimately chose bushes closer to the Parliament buildings despite their knowledge that no one would be killed. They believed their message would get more sympathy if the building was damaged but no one was killed.
[765] ….it was clear that Mr. Nuttall did not believe that this was his plan or his operation. He wanted to blow up a truck not plant pressure cooker devices. Officer A lost his temper with Mr. Nuttall and, quite honestly in my view, exclaimed with a tone of frustration that he had planned everything and all Mr. Nuttall had to do was plant the devices.
[768 ., the role the police played in the mission is even more offensive because they violated the Criminal Code in order to accomplish their objectives and almost all of their actions were unsanctioned and beyond the scope of the s. 25.1 authorization secured by the RCMP.
[775] … This is truly a case where the RCMP manufactured the crime; this is not a situation where the police simply “instigated, originated or brought about” the offence. The police took two people who held terrorist beliefs but no apparent capacity or means to plan, act on or carry through with their religiously motivated objectives and they counselled, directed, urged, instructed and molded them into people who could, with significant and continuous supervision and direction by the police, play a small role in a terrorist offence.
[777] This bare summary does not capture the true nature of the police conduct because it was the day-to-day dealings with the defendants, which were recorded and videotaped, that demonstrate the absurd character of the undercover investigation. When Mr. Nuttall broke down after the failed train plan and confessed that he was not a general and could not be expected to create a workable plan, Officer A assured him that he would be taken through to the end, “one baby step at a time”. And this is what the police had to do, not for public safety, but to bring the undercover operation to a conclusion with an arrest for terrorism offences. Manipulating, cajoling, instructing, instilling fear, offering friendship, offering reward, offering religious guidance, throughout the operation, the police led the defendants to this endgame.
[836] – — There are no remedies less drastic than a stay of proceedings that will address the abuse of process. The spectre of the defendants serving a life sentence for a crime that the police manufactured by exploiting their vulnerabilities, by instilling fear that they would be killed if they backed out, and by quashing all doubts they had in the religious justifications for the crime, is offensive to our concept of fundamental justice. Simply put, the world has enough terrorists. We do not need the police to create more out of marginalized people who have neither the capacity nor sufficient motivation to do it themselves.
[837] Accordingly, I find this is one of the rare cases where a stay of proceedings is warranted due to an abuse of process. I thus enter a stay of proceedings with regard to Counts 1 and 4 of the Indictment and I enter an unconditional stay in regard to Count 2.
“Bruce J.”
These court documents listing the actions of CSIS and the RCMP belie an ideology that allows for almost any tactic that will lead to a conviction of their victim regardless of their guilt or innocence. This is a trend lived out in several alleged terrorist plots in Canada and is also shown in Canada’s extradition laws that have led to the torture of Maher Arar, Omar Khadr and several other Canadian citizens.
The results of the Trudeau governments appeal will show what kind of society Canadians live in. Is this a free and open society or some kind of police state that condones using coercive tactics that steal fundamental freedoms from us all?