Wife of Accused: “My husband is not a terrorist!”

An Edmonton man’s wife is begging the public to consider his innocence and to be objective in assessing the man himself, 38 year old Sayfildin Tahir Sharif, who is accused of taking part in a suicide bombing which killed five soldiers in Iraq. Mr. Sharif is currently facing extradition to the U.S, where he is charged with being an associate to a multinational terrorist network.

The Globe and Mail reports that the U.S. Department of Justice claims that Mr. Sharif’s charges can be evidenced by information gathered in Canadian court, authorized wiretaps, and search warrants. Mr. Sharif’s common-law wife, Cara Rain, is accusing the Justice Department of being too subjective in their assessment of her husband, as they seem to be focusing on his Islamic religion rather than his actual actions.

Ms. Rain states: “I would not have shared my home, and shared my life, and shared my children’s life with a terrorist. And to my knowledge, the evidence that the U.S. has against Sayfildin is not enough to prove he is a terrorist or has terrorist tendencies.” Ms. Rain further rejected what investigators argue was Mr. Sharif’s personal view of his faith: invoking it for suicide bombers, with promises of 70 virgins and honour in the afterlife.

Mr. Sharif faces a life sentence if convicted. Ms. Rain, meanwhile, awaits his release.

Category: Discrimination, Freedom of religion / Liberté de religion, Privacy / La vie privée

Tagged:

6 Responses

  1. avatar Laura says:

    There is not a lot of evidence explained in this article for me to form an opinion. I am currently studying law in school so if I was his lawyer some of the things I would argue for him are that his right to be “innocent until proven guilty” is being infringed and also that maybe he is being discriminated against because of his religion.

  2. avatar Katherine says:

    There is no evidence to support his conviction, and it is evident that the government is focusing on his religion rather than his “actions” or lack thereof. This raises the issue of islamophobia, and how he is automatically being associated with a terrorist attack, despite lack of appropriate evidence. As well, wouldn’t a suicide bomber imply that he should be dead? Although…the article does not provide sufficient evidence, nor does the government, according to his wife. I feel as if the words of the wife should be taken into consideration in this case, and that the appellant should be required to provide more evidence. He is being denied his fundamental rights because he is not being treated as innocent until proven guilty.

  3. avatar Anna says:

    I believe that there is not a lot of evidence to state whether he is guilty or not, but I do not think that they would be holding him if they didn’t believe he had some connect to the terrorist attack.

  4. avatar Law Class 1 says:

    We believe this is not a case of discrimination against a particular religion, but that this is a legitimate case where evidence has been taken into account, and where the accused has been proven to have done something wrong. This is however a rather vague article, and we do not know how incriminating the evidence is. In any case, being charged with association with a terrorist organization is something almost as serious as being involved physically. He’s not the only Islamic man in Canada; if it was a matter of religion alone, there would be a whole lot more of Islamic men with wire-tapped phone lines. The government obviously had reason to be doing what they were doing, so the fact that they believe that the evidence they’ve found is incriminating is simply a testament to the fact that they were there to intentionally find it.

  5. avatar Cathie says:

    It is not acceptable for the court to judge this man due to his cultural and ethnical similarities as the ones who create an uproar in society.It is not proven properly that he was guilty. There are situations where people may be accused of something and have evidence against them yet they are not the culprit. It just shows that people have to be very careful of what the say and how they say it. Sure, there is no proof that he is innocent either, nevertheless, this man was sentenced life in prison without a trial or a deeper investigation into the matter.Is the U.S psychotic behaviour of the eastern side world coming for revenge affecting their judgements in their law and the court?

  6. avatar Deena says:

    Unfortunately, when it comes to matters of national security, which terrorism seems to fall under, many of the basic fundamental rights of people sit on the back burner. Citizens and much of the voting population seem passive in allowing governments to treat people, and construct laws differently as a matter of state protection.

Archives

Recent Comments

  • avatar Jul 17, 12:08 AM
    Tormented
    France: Face-Veil Ruling Undermines Rights
  • avatar Jul 08, 11:25 PM
    Erika
    On Substantive Liberty: Challenging Prolonged Administrative Segregation
  • avatar May 21, 1:03 PM
    Craig Burley
    Nova Scotia Union Files Court Challenge Over New Home-care Labour Law
  • avatar May 03, 10:56 PM
    Johnb611
    Edward Snowden: "technology represents the most significant new threat to civil liberties in modern times."
  • avatar May 03, 10:55 PM
    Johna707
    Edward Snowden: "technology represents the most significant new threat to civil liberties in modern times."

Twitter