A Canadian man who traveled to Syria to join ISIS has been sentenced to 16 years in prison for terrorism offenses, in a case that illustrates the ongoing challenge democracies face in prosecuting citizens who participated in the Islamic State's brutal campaign.
Jamal Borhot, 35, of Calgary, was convicted on three terrorism charges after evidence showed he traveled to Syria in 2013 with his cousin to join ISIS, where he remained for nearly a year and actively recruited others to the terrorist organization. Court of King's Bench Justice Corina Dario delivered a pointed ruling, according to CBC, stating that Borhot "was willing to slaughter anyone who wouldn't convert to Islam."
The Case
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police investigation began in 2013 when Borhot departed for Syria, but he was not charged until 2020—a seven-year delay that raised questions about potential Charter rights violations through unreasonable delay. This timeline reflects the complexity of building terrorism cases involving conduct that occurred in active war zones with limited access for investigators.
Evidence presented at trial showed Borhot engaged in ISIS activities during the period when the group controlled significant territory across Syria and Iraq and conducted systematic atrocities against religious minorities, particularly Yazidis and Shia Muslims. The group also claimed responsibility for terrorist attacks worldwide during this period.
The judge's characterization of Borhot as "willing to slaughter" those who refused to convert to Islam reflects evidence of his ideological commitment to ISIS's violent extremism, which justified mass killings in the name of establishing a caliphate.
Broader Implications
To understand today's headlines, we must look at yesterday's decisions. When ISIS established its so-called caliphate in 2014, thousands of foreign fighters traveled to join the group from countries around the world, including hundreds from Western nations. As ISIS lost territory and collapsed militarily, many of these fighters were killed, captured, or attempted to return to their home countries.
Democracies have struggled with how to handle returning fighters. Some were detained by Kurdish forces in Syria and held in camps with uncertain legal status. Others returned home before their activities were fully known. Some countries stripped citizenship from fighters who possessed dual nationality. Others, like Canada, maintained that even citizens who joined terrorist groups retain legal rights and must be prosecuted through the judicial system.
The Borhot case demonstrates Canada's approach: allowing the individual to return, investigating thoroughly, building a criminal case, and securing conviction and substantial sentence through the courts. This process requires extensive intelligence work, witness testimony, digital evidence, and often cooperation with foreign governments.
The Sentence
The 16-year sentence is among the lengthier terrorism sentences issued by Canadian courts, reflecting the seriousness with which Justice Dario viewed the offense. "Terrorism has been described as the most vile form of criminal conduct," the judge stated in her ruling.
The sentence sends a message that participation in terrorist organizations like ISIS will result in significant prison time. However, 16 years is still far less than the potential life imprisonment that the most serious terrorism charges can carry. The sentence likely reflects consideration of factors including Borhot's age at the time of travel, his specific conduct while with ISIS, and Canadian sentencing principles that emphasize rehabilitation alongside punishment.
Ongoing Challenges
The Borhot case is not unique. Multiple countries continue to prosecute individuals who joined ISIS, sometimes years after the conduct occurred. These cases present evidentiary challenges, as much of the relevant evidence is in Syria or Iraq, where conditions make investigation difficult. Witnesses may be dead or unreachable. Digital evidence may be incomplete or difficult to authenticate.
There are also policy debates about whether prosecution is the most effective approach. Some argue for deradicalization programs as an alternative or supplement to imprisonment. Others maintain that serious crimes must be punished through the criminal justice system to vindicate the victims and maintain public confidence.
For Canada, the Borhot conviction and sentence demonstrate commitment to holding ISIS participants accountable through legal process. Whether this approach deters future radicalization or effectively manages the threat posed by extremists remains an open question that extends well beyond any single case.
