Wanted but not wanted
Complicated story here about Canadians captured in the Middle East, and a Montrealer called Wassim Boughadou who’s willing to come home even though he’s wanted by the RCMP – but Global Affairs won’t let him.
It seems like this story is mostly about a conflict between federal government departments. But I’m not impressed by how Boughadou says he wasn’t part of Islamic State but his wife was.
Update: See comment by H. John below.
Chris 16:40 on 2026-05-22 Permalink
Yeah if she’s ISIS, she presumably interprets Islam strictly, so she should believe in being subservient to her husband. So I really doubt there was much daylight between them in ideology.
Telling that he’d rather be in Canadian jail than Turkish jail.
R T 17:56 on 2026-05-22 Permalink
Canadians have a Charter right to enter Canada (Section 6). The Government could try to argue that the limits are reasonable (Section 1), but it seems hard to do when they’re only blocking men and not women from entering—which makes the Charter violation even more remarkable, as Charter rights apply equally to men and women (Section 28).
Kate 12:36 on 2026-05-23 Permalink
It’s a fundamental principle of human rights that a person cannot be made stateless. We no longer send people into exile. Canadian authorities may know that Boughadou has dual citizenship, but that hasn’t been reported.
Chris, you have a seriously reductive view of Islam. Don’t tell me that it’s because ISIS also does. It’s more complicated than that.
John 13:13 on 2026-05-23 Permalink
If there was sufficient evidence he was an ISIS member then Canada should prosecute him. Not use other countries for human rights abuse to their own citizens. He was declared not affiliated to terrorism by a Turkish court and was to be deported but the Canadian government refused to issue documents because they have no evidence against him. His wife being ISIS doesn’t make him ISIS he divorced from her for that and him not being in Syria and being In turkey is a proof he wasn’t a member of ISIS because if he was he would have tried to go there. Guilty by association isn’t a thing acceptable. A Canadian citizen is a Canadian citizen . There is something called presumption of innocence. Stop saying nonsense please.
Kate 13:39 on 2026-05-23 Permalink
Are you addressing me, John, or someone else in the thread? Or implied people in the government?
H. John 16:28 on 2026-05-23 Permalink
The linked article desperately needed an editor. It’s rambling and disjointed burying what we do know along with lots of conjecture.
@Kate You started this story about a convicted terrorist wanting to return with “but Global Affairs won’t let him.”
We don’t know that. There are no quotes from either of the parties (Boughadou or Global Affairs) about what exactly has been requested and what might have been declined.
I called him a convicted terrorist because he was convicted, and sentenced, by a Turkish court. It says he was ordered deported after he served his sentence.
The article refers to documents in a federal court case, but no decision has been published yet.
Caselaw establishes, fairly clearly, that section 6 of the Charter (mobility rights) guarantees a right to enter Canada; but, it does not impose a duty on Canada to facilitate that return.
Courts draw a distinction between: 1) preventing entry (generally unconstitutional); and, 2) failing to assist entry (generally permissible).
What we do know about Boughadou from previous newspaper reports in 2017:
While in Montreal he had a gun permit (he gave one of those guns to his younger 17 year-old brother), and he thinks of himself as being violent.
La Presse reported after listening to a police recording:
« Je ne suis pas 100 % violent, mais je suis violent. C’est vrai, je suis quelqu’un de violent. »
“Le document audio révèle aussi qu’il avait un comportement dangereux avec ses armes à feu et qu’il menaçait de tuer des policiers. Boughadou détenait un permis et possédait légalement trois armes à feu longues et des pistolets à air comprimé. Le 7 août 2012, les policiers l’ont intercepté à sa sortie d’une mosquée pour saisir ses armes à feu. Six mois plus tard, la Couronne demandait et obtenait la destruction des fusils et carabine.”
Most of his grievances were against francophones. He actually called La Presse from Turkey to correct what they wrote in their first article about him in 2017:
« Je le dis sans vouloir insulter, mais les anglophones sont plus gentils avec nous. »
In the linked article, Boughadou claims he’s autistic and suffers from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
I think I’m rather comfortable with Global Affairs taking its time to sort out the issues in this case.
John 19:56 on 2026-05-23 Permalink
Last comment by H.John thankfully your opinion has no value in front of the opinion of a judge. He will comme back may you like it or not. That is the law.
John 19:56 on 2026-05-23 Permalink
No Kate I didn’t address you I mean the government.
John 20:00 on 2026-05-23 Permalink
Also H John. Issuing a travel document isn’t facilitating, you cannot enter Canada without a passport therefore issuing a passport is the bare minimum, you may need to read abusofian Abdulrazik case where the government was condemned and forced to repatriate in a similar case. This Boughadou was sentenced in a trial with no lawyer and no translator and with confessions under torture . If that’s what you wish upon people then I hope you get deported sadistic bigot
Kate 20:06 on 2026-05-23 Permalink
John, whoever you are, you are now banned. H. John is a friend of this blog and you cannot call him names.
H. John 22:44 on 2026-05-23 Permalink
Abousfian Abdelrazik is an interesting comparison. But I’d have to point out that I wrote “Courts draw a distinction between: 1) preventing entry (generally unconstitutional); and, 2) failing to assist entry (generally permissible).”
In Abdelrazik, the government’s actions were not merely passive, they effectively prevented his return. After offering, at least twice, to provide him with a temporary passport if he could book a flight, they failed to do so. Also Canada was found to be deeply entangled in his detention in Sudan.
No one has provided evidence in Boughadou’s case, that I know of, that Canada caused or controls his detention or status in Turkey. This matters because Charter obligations abroad expand when Canada is causally implicated.
Abdelrazik, although listed under UN sanctions, was never charged in Canada. Boughadou has a foreign terrorism conviction, and an active RCMP warrant.
The major distinction: in Abdelrazik, Canada prevented his return; in Boughadou, Canada is (arguably) not assisting his return.
Again, my major complaint was with the original newspaper article provided no facts to argue over.
In Boughadou’s case, I think we’re going to have to wait for comments from his Canadian lawyer, Yavar Hameed (who also represented Abdelrazik), to know what arguments he’s making.
Robert 00:07 on 2026-05-24 Permalink
H John. A foreign terrorism conviction in turkey has no value in Canada as it has been taken by torture . Please remind me how statements under torture are valid in Canada and yeah his lawyer is saying it’s the exact same thing. Canada even cooperated in his torture and he has court documents proving it. Conviction in third world countries are as valid as Nazi tribunals in ww2
Robert 00:09 on 2026-05-24 Permalink
Court documents in the hand of Boughadou shows the RCMP asked the Turkish government to torture a Canadian citizen now let me know if a Canadian judge will accept this ” terrorism conviction”
Robert 00:12 on 2026-05-24 Permalink
As last comment H John. The Canadian government approved an emergency travel document to be given to Boughadou but failed to print it the last day after the ticket was paid and everything booked which is why the RCMP asked for a peace bond warrant. They have no evidence to charge him of anything. If that’s not obstruction and a violation of charter 6 then nothing is
Robert 19:47 on 2026-05-24 Permalink
Also please read and get educated about what a peace bond warrant that was taken by the RCMP for Boughadou, means In Canadian law.
The federal government explains that a peace bond is used:
“where an individual appears likely to commit a criminal offence, **but there are no reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has actually been committed
Kate 21:54 on 2026-05-24 Permalink
“Robert” you are also “John” from the other day, and you are still being rude to H. John, who is a friend of this blog.
You are still banned.
Lovebanned 22:23 on 2026-05-24 Permalink
Keep banning me please
Anonymous 19:41 on 2026-05-26 Permalink
Still waiting for the ban