Peter F
-
Posts
2,732 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Peter F
-
-
1 hour ago, Rue said:
Finish the sentence AS A RESULT OF HIS ENGAGING IN TERRORISM.
What you think by deleting the end of the sentence you don't have to deal with the implications of his dirty hands?
No, his rights were violated not because, or as a result, of his engagement in terrorism, but because CSIS - of which he had absolutely no control over - interviewed him and passed the results of that interview on to the Americans to use in a criminal case against him. It wasn't khadr's actions that compelled CSIS to ignore his god-given charter rights. Thats all and completely on CSIS.
-
1 hour ago, Hydraboss said:
As far as I know, there are no internationally recognized treaties that address "child terrorists". As this guy was not a national (he was a Canadian), the only way he could legally be recognized as a "child soldier" would be if he was officially fighting for one of the "recognized" sides. He wasn't - he was engaged in terrorist activities, which as far as I am aware, carries no protections whatsoever. Canada should have had absolutely no responsibility to him as he had abdicated his citizenship for all intents and purposes.
That doesn't make any sense. He was fighting for one of the 'recognized' sides: Al-queda or associated forces thereto, including the Taliban. He was therefore subject to the Combat Status Review Tribunal held at Guatanamo which determined him to be a combatant and therefore subject to military detention. Then the Military Commissions trial determined him to be an alien illegal enemy combatant and therefore subject to the Military Commissions trial. You don't get to be an enemy to the Armed Forces of the USofA by merely killing somebody. Khadr was a recognized enemy due to the US declaration of War on Al-Queda and associated forces.
Otherwise, if you were correct, Khadr would have been put on trial for his terrorist activities in a regularly consituted civl court just like many, many others accused and tried for terrorism.
-
1 hour ago, taxme said:
. One can only hope that your azz hole gets hauled up in one of their monkey kangaroo courts and you get sued for something as trivial as looking at some muslim the wrong way. And you must know by now that the HRC will take on that case where they just be able to nail your azz for fines like $12,000 dollars. Get real.
Also, should I ever behave as the asshole in this case, then the victims of my oppression have every damn right to haul me up before the tribunal.
-
See? Everybody is happy.
-
1 hour ago, Rue said:
Here's a hint. The person you deny was a medic was most certainly a medic on the day he was fatally injured.
What makes you think Sgt. Speer was acting as the medic that day? Was it the distinctive markings he was wearing? Y'know Red crosses on white background? Was he acting as a medic by laying down covering fire for his compatriots? What makes you think he was most certainly a medic that day.
-
44 minutes ago, taxme said:
Spoken like a true communist. One can only hope that your azz hole gets hauled up in one of their monkey kangaroo courts and you get sued for something as trivial as looking at some muslim the wrong way. And you must know by now that the HRC will take on that case where they just be able to nail your azz for fines like $12,000 dollars. Get real.
Thanks! I appreciate it.
-
3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:
No, it's still the government fining someone for being a jerk. And $12000!!
There are an awful lot of laws you can break and get a lesser fine than that. Just because you like it personally doesn't make it right.
If I like it personally, then Yes; Right it is.
-
There are assholes and then there are assholes. This particular asshole refused to remove his boots and refused to give the tenants reasonable notice. All entirely reasonable requests and he refused to do so because he couldn't' handle Muslims making reasonable requests. Now, normally, assholes can be ignored because you will soon be out of their presence and their assholedom is limited to verbal assholerly. But in this case, the assholery was within the tenants own home and persistent.
Good on them and good on the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal.
-
The decision:
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2017/2017hrto436/2017hrto436.html
Read and weep for Freedom! The landlord behaved like an asshole and so he pays.
-
41 minutes ago, GostHacked said:
If he was dead, no need to pay out 10 mill .. it should not have been that hard to come to that conclusion.
No, He's getting $$$ because the Canadian flunkies traipsed down to Gitmo to interrogate the kid knowing full well he was on the receiving end of abusive treatment. That's why Khadr is getting a payout.
-
In reply to DoP above:
and, of course, you are free to see others remain oppressed in order to save yourself.
-
The rules won't change Dog, You think those women over there who come here will want to revert back to that once they see that it is not necessary? Unlike you, I am not living in fear of muslims because I know very well that our culture is far more powerful than even you give it credit for. That power is influence. We don't need no caneings to make folks stop wearing those things
As dialamah correctly says: "If our culture isn't strong enough to offer opportunity for freedom from oppression to these women without losing our way, that's pretty pathetic"
-
1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:
Men call the shots under Islam. Not women.
Which does nothing to explain why so many muslim women in this country don't dress like that.
-
1 hour ago, Goddess said:
Don't ever tell me this is normal and acceptable.
It's normal where they are. In fact the state where they are punishes them for not conforming. It is oppression and Facistic where they are.. But it isn't here. Because they are not caned here for dressing differently.
Argus and Rue argue that what this photo shows is women who actually want to dress like that. Most of them don't and wouldn't if it wasn't for the damn caning they'd face. 'Don't let those barbarians come here and do that' Argus argues. I am saying by all means come here; See that there is no punishment for not dressing like that. Over time, most will end such silliness. They will see thier religion doe's not demand them to. Not here. There yes but not here. I say, Canadian Values require us to tell all those women there that they can come here and be free. That freedom to choose also means that if any wish to wear such things, well , they get to do so.
-
4 hours ago, Rue said:
That's very liberal of you to tolerate sexual fascist practices by arguing its the same as a woman being topless, What crap. When was the last time a topless woman took the oath of citizenship? Man this liberal tolerance shtick just does not end trying to repackage sexual fascism.
Sexual facism my ass. If folks want to dress modestly they can - or not - as they please.
-
2 minutes ago, hot enough said:
There you are, religious texts. Religion taught kids from very young ages to believe these things.
...along with many non-religous folks, lets not forget them.
-
13 minutes ago, Argus said:
And yet the percentage of Muslim Canadian women who wear the hijab - again, so as to not arouse men, is now over 53% - up from 42% ten years earlier. The number who wear the niquab rose from 2% to 3% - a 50% rise.
So? If a woman wants to cover herself up then whose business is that but hers? Or go topless for that matter. Is this some Canadian Values thing going on? A demand that women expose a certain amount of themselves at all times?
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, hot enough said:
Its roots are found in religion.
I don't think so. It's roots are found in guys being grossed out at the thought of having sex with guys - then rooting through religious texts to justify thier discomfort. Folks writing religious texts were not immune to this discomfort.
-
On 6/12/2017 at 1:54 PM, AngusThermopyle said:
Or maybe, just maybe, he was just a kid in a car doing stupid stuff. There's no need to overthink every thing that happens. Kids do stupid stuff all the time. Put them behind the wheel of a car and the stupid concentration rises dramatically in many of them.
yup. Lots of rubber laid on non-rainbow painted pavement too.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, hot enough said:
That has always been the purview of "christians".
It seems to me that the real gay- hating and bashing kind of zealotry is not bound by religion.
-
Just now, Argus said:
And apparently you want to encourage more of it. Because, I guess, like Hot enough, you hate this country.
Guess away.
-
(in reply to Argus above)
I get that. You've said it a hundred times. And, for the hundredth time, I think its perfectly fine in freedom loving Canada to be stupid and always has been
-
Just now, Argus said:
I'm simply pointing it out because your sense of being the noble defender of the underclass seems to rest upon the assumption that the rest of us are some kind of extremists, in point of fact, you're the extremist on this issue.
Hey, if extremist soothes your doubts then call me an extremist.
-
2 hours ago, Argus said:
Why would you support importing stupid people when we already have an oversupply? In fact, I'd be pleased to include an IQ test as part of the requirements to immigrate here. No stupid people allowed! Just like no religious fanatics allowed!
Carefull, Argus, you may end up legislating both of us right out of this country.
Compensating Khadr
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
Unfortunatley, it was the Military Commissions judge that ruled Khadr was an illegal combatant. Judge Brownback dismissed the charges during the first edition of Khadrs trial, the US prosecuting authority appealed that ruling (that being that the MC required an illegal combatant in order to try Khadr and all Judge Brownback had before him was a combatant) to the Court of Military Commission Review.
That particular court of review had to be rushed together because there wasn't one yet but certainly a lot of government memo's circulating that perhaps it would be a good idea to set one up. The MC dismissed the charge (without prejudice) and certain minds then got focused and the Court of MC Review was created.
That Court heard the government appeal agreed that the judge was correct in that he did indeed require an illegal combatant and not any ol combatant but then also determined that the MC was quite capable of determining the legality or illegality of Khadr's combattantship prior to actually trying Khadr on the charges levelled. Judge Brownback subsequently did so and concluded khadr was an illegal combatant.
Shortly after that Judge Brownback was removed from his position and Judge Parrish assigned to replace him. Then the USSC ruled that the MC's as constituted were contrary to the requirements of the Geneva Conventions and Khadrs trial stopped until the next edition of the MC's were cooked up. the next edition of the MC's were passed in Congress and the Senate and the MC's kicked off again.
There was/is only one administrative hearing outside of the MC and that was the Combat Status Review Panel held at Guantanamo with only determines (Then and now) wether the person held is a combatant or not - it does not and cannot determine legality of supposed combatantship.
see http://www.mc.mil/Portals/0/pdfs/Omar07-001/T Military Judge Authority and Remanding Case to MJ to decide MC jurisdiction over Khadr case, 24 September 2007.pdf