Canadian Government Guilty of Violating Khadr's Rights

[bloodyminded]

Notwithstanding the fact that many of you on the Left hate Americans so much Khadr is practically a hero to you.

"The Left! The Left! The Left! The Left!"

Copy and paste this line. It's always your main point, everything else you say merely window dressing for this ongoing Horowitzian obssession. It will save you a lot of time.

If you examine the history of many, if not most child molesters, you find that they were, in fact, abused themselves in childhood.

Actually, this is a myth. So if we are to "examine the history" we will discover there's no evidence for the claim.

Edited January 30, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

I know all about security certificates and highly disagree with their use.

....but you said "we" were suppose to be better? Better than what? Maybe giving them perps free cable TV at Millhaven is better. They can watch HNC.

[Argus]

This entire post is pretty much false.

And you know this because of your extensive experience with Foreign Affairs, huh?

The Canadian government does a LOT but like most diplomacy it's usually done behind closed doors. There have been quite a few people detained and retrieved while imprisoned in Iran, Mexico, Saudi Arabia.

The only time the government does anything on behalf of Canadians abroad - other than furnishing them with a list of attornies they may hire at their own expense - is when the media gets involved. Then the government is basically acting out of self-interest. Canadians rot in prisons for months, even years, without the government doing a thing until the media gets involved. And it's always been that way.

I can remember during the Apartheid era, when the PM was getting together with other anti-apartheid heads of state in one of the so-called "front line states" to promise support against SA a story came out about a Canadian who was right that moment in a filthy, overcowded jail cell below the building just across the street from where he was dining. That Canadian had been there over a year without being charged and Canada had done nothing, made no public protests, nor would they. When asked about it by a journalist who only found out cause he was there covering the anti-apartheid thing the diplomats said they didn't want to do anything which might make that government (a dictatorship of course) suffer bad publicity because of their fight against apartheid - which was idiotic excuse if ever I heard one. They made a series of lame excuses to try and explain away why we weren't doing anything, and eventually everyone forgot about the guy. I don't know that he ever got out.

I've seen numerous cases like that over the years, and many cases which suddenly catch the media spotlight in which the government had done nothing for a long period of time and suddnely, presto, they were jumping in like Captain Canada to protect the rights of Canadians abroad. But that's strictly political. If you can get the media interested, you can get something done. Otherwise, the government could not care less about you.

[Peter F]

If the Charter creators HAD foreseen a 15 year old Canadian fighting on the side of terrorism against Canadian allies, what would they have determined with regards to Khadr's rights back in 1982? Hard to say....

Not hard to say at all. Im positive they would have said the accused still gets charter rights just like every one else in Canada - even if they are vicious bloodthirsty evil-doers - even if treason is involved and even if the treasonous prick killed a Canadian soldier!

To suggest that its even remotely concievable that the charter creaters would say "Oh, well in that case then no, they don't get any rights" .... I guess they simply forgot to put that clause in there...

You see people commit horrid crimes quite often - even murdering police officers in cold blood or even the holy of holy's a Canadian soldier. And they still get arrested, interviewed and tried and often found guilty, all the while enjoying thier undeserved charter rights. At no time are these despicable persons charter rights to be cast aside. If the rights are cast aside then they get to appeal and seek redress. The courts of the land have never said at any time that the nature of the crime may cause the vile criminals charter rights to be tossed.

This is the challenge that the Harper government faces - how far should the Charter go?

If you are correct and that is indeed how the cons see the problem; then we got the wrong crowd running the show.

[msdogfood]

The horse is out of the barn.......but when the Charter was created, it's fair to say they the creators could not foresee every situation that might transpire. It's also fair to say that the Khadr case is one of those situations. If the Charter creators HAD foreseen a 15 year old Canadian fighting on the side of terrorism against Canadian allies, what would they have determined with regards to Khadr's rights back in 1982? Hard to say....but I don't think it's a stretch to think that they might have determined that such actions would diosqualify the perpetrators from Charter protection - if not being tried for outright treason. This is the challenge that the Harper government faces - how far should the Charter go? What if Khadr had killed a Canadian soldier?

yes thay coud remimber thare was terrisim in the 80s too!

[msdogfood]

as is typical for you Simple... you miss the most salient point: the Harper Conservatives will now be forced to publicly state whether they will (finally) recognize... and act... on a declaration from the Supreme Court of Canada - that Khadr's rights as a citizen of Canada were violated - and continue to be violated (during the Harper tenure). Will the Harper Conservatives recognize the declaration and apply remedy in conformity with the Charter. Did you somehow interpret this Supreme Court ruling as a "win" for the Harper Conservatives???

that is a very good way of putting it

Thanks!

[August1991]

I think the Harper government, probably in the form of Rob Nicholson, should say that the government is cognizent of the finding made by the Supreme Court in this matter, and that it would communicate that requirement to all federal agencies which might again be in a position to be seen as involving themselves in a matter of a Canadian held by foreign governments where that prisoner's fundamental Charter rights are involved. Henceforth, there will be no such involvement which might draw a finding of a violation of the prisoner's Charter Rights by representatives of the Canadian government.

...

It has become a routine remedy by the justice system that when a prisoner's rights are violated in some way by a government agency the appropriate remedy is to give the prisoner a "get out ot jail free" card. I have _never_ been comfortable with this remedy. It seems to me that if an agent of the goverment made an honest error he should be forgiven and if he violated the law he should be charged, but that a criminal should in no way benefit from that agent's error or misbehaviour.

Argus, what do you mean?

----

What are you saying? I think the idea that the Supreme Court can review our foreign policy, to me, is proof positive that 100 years of public education have been wasted, and that the Court has a bad case of mission creep. They need to have their ears pinned back. They have a bigger social agenda than some political parties have.

What right has Kadr been deprived of? Does ANYBODY know?

Indeed I thought the Court was very clear that they hesitate to infringe on foreign policy, so they are letting the PM decide the best way to handle it.

IOW, we don't have a Supreme Court, and we don't have a Charter of Rights. Rather, we have a text open to interpretation and a supine group of people (9 judges) willing to say what someone else wants them to say.

In more plain terms: We Canadians have had a civilized society for a century or three but we do not yet have a functioning (federal) democratic State.

Canada's civility is due to individuals, and not the State. Is that what you mean?

Edited January 30, 2010 by August1991

[CANADIEN]

What right has Kadr been deprived of? Does ANYBODY know?

Find the judgement, and you will.

To quote the court,

Canada actively participated in a process contrary to its international human rights obligations and contributed to K's ongoing detention so as to deprive him of his right to liberty and security of the person, guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter, not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Though the process to which K is subject has changed, his claim is based upon

the same underlying series of events considered in Khadr 2008. As held in that case, the Charter applies to the participation of Canadian officials in a regime later found to be in violation of fundamental rights protected by international law. There is a sufficient connection between the government's participation in the illegal process and the deprivation of K’s liberty and security of

the person. While the U.S. is the primary source of the deprivation, it is reasonable to infer from the uncontradicted evidence before the Court that the statements taken by Canadian officials are contributing to K's continued detention. The deprivation of K’s right to liberty and security of the

person is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The interrogation of a youth detained without access to counsel, to elicit statements about serious criminal charges while knowing

that the youth had been subjected to sleep deprivation and while knowing that the fruits of the interrogations would be shared with the prosecutors, offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspect

In other words, our government was a participant in a process that involved torture, denial of access to a lawyer, long detention without trial, and violation of rights.

And BTW, in case you are tempted to go that route, Khadr should have been tried and found guilty years ago according to fundamental rules of justice.

Edited January 30, 2010 by CANADIEN

[bloodyminded]

Find the judgement, and you will.

To quote the court,

In other words, our government was a participant in a process that involved torture, denial of access to a lawyer, long detention without trial, and violation of rights.

And BTW, in case you are tempted to go that route, Khadr should have been tried and found guilty years ago according to fundamental rules of justice.

Thank you, Canadien.

This is perhaps the tenth time here that someone has witheringly asked what rights Khadr has been deprived of. I have found the question to be so wilfully stupid--either sneakily dishonest or jaw-droppingly ignorant--that I have flatly refused to engage in it.

But I was wrong. You were right to educate our ill-informed brothers and sisters.

[CANADIEN]

As if terrorists and their terrorist groups care a shit about constitutions and the rule of law.

The point of the judgement is that OUR GOVERNMENT is bound by our Constitution and the rule of law. A point rightfully bring forth by the Supreme Court... and brought forth by the U.S. Court everything it has come against actions by the U.S. government in Guantanamo Bay, which about each and every time they had to rule on the topic.

I said it before, and I will make myself even clear in case you are ynable to get it. Omar Khadr should have been tried and found guilty of the crimes he committed years ago, ACCORDING TO THE RULE OF LAW AND FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE. He should have been given access to a lawyer of his choosing, be given access to the evidence against him, and most importantly he should not have been tortured. Not because he is a swell guy and a hero or a poor misguided kid - he is clearly neither of them. But because WE are better than the terrorists and WE take the rule of law. His rights should have been protected up to and including the time when he was sentenced for his crimes and the sentence was carried out.

The U.S. Government chose do ignore it. It's problem. Our Government (again, I point out, liberal and conservative) joined in, and in doing so made it our problem as well as a country.

[CANADIEN]

Did the Supreme Court ruling not also say it's up to the current government to decide whether to try and bring Khadr back or not?

If there were a case where a Canadian neo-nazi had committed a serious crime like murder in a foreign country,would you be fighting to have someone like him brought back to Canada and escape the consequences of his actions?

While we're on this subject,what's the latest update on that other Canadian that had his rights violated?Ronald Smith?Stuck a shotgun in the back of Harvey Mad Man and Thomas Running Rabbit.....just to see what it felt like to kill someone.How goes the fight to bring him back to Canada so he can eventually gain his freedom?

Wrong comparision. Ronald Smith was treated according to the rule of law, had access to a lawyer, was given a fair trial, and he was not tortured. And our Government was not a participant in an illegal process.

[CANADIEN]

I think the Harper government, probably in the form of Rob Nicholson, should say that the government is cognizent of the finding made by the Supreme Court in this matter, and that it would communicate that requirement to all federal agencies which might again be in a position to be seen as involving themselves in a matter of a Canadian held by foreign governments where that prisoner's fundamental Charter rights are involved. Henceforth, there will be no such involvement which might draw a finding of a violation of the prisoner's Charter Rights by representatives of the Canadian government.

It has become a routine remedy by the justice system that when a prisoner's rights are violated in some way by a government agency the appropriate remedy is to give the prisoner a "get out ot jail free" card. I have _never_ been comfortable with this remedy. It seems to me that if an agent of the goverment made an honest error he should be forgiven and if he violated the law he should be charged, but that a criminal should in no way benefit from that agent's error or misbehaviour. Khadr should not be let out of jail simply because federal agents interviewed him when they oughtn't to. He should face trial on the charges and be punished accordingly.

Mark the day. We agree on something.

[CANADIEN]

Even if one allows your argument, that Khadr became what he became due to "abusive parents", where does that place us? If you examine the history of many, if not most child molesters, you find that they were, in fact, abused themselves in childhood. We cut them no slack because of that. Khadr, however he became that way, is a violent islamist NOW. Most of us are cognizant of that fact and reluctant to put him on the streets of Toronto - just as we would be reluctant to put an unrepentant, unreformed child molester out on the streets.

Unlike what some may mistakenly assume, Khadr was not a child soldier. He was not abducted and tortured to make him into a mindless killing machine. He should have stand trial for his actions.

[Wild Bill]

Wait a minute Shady.So you are saying that if a Canadian, like yourself, goes back to their original homeland to help protect it from invasion and you killed the enemy or is thought to kill the enemy, then you should go to jail by THAT country that is your enemy????

Topaz, you're either a Canadian or you're not. If you feel stronger ties to your original homeland, then you're not a Canadian!

If your original homeland is at war with Canada, then if you go back to fight against Canada then you are a traitor! Period and end of story!

Khadr was old enough that if he didn't want to fight he could have deserted. I seriously doubt if his father was there all the time to continually "exert duress"! He chose to fight against Canada and its allies. Now he wants the protection of being Canadian again to help mitigate his punishment.

It's like the boy who kills his parents and then asks the judge for sympathy because he's an orphan!

If Harper backs Khadr then he cheapens the very meaning of Canadian citizenship! It would be saying that loyalty to a terrorist country or cause trumps loyalty to Canadian values. It would be saying that in cases of dual citizenship tie goes to the OTHER country!

Screw them and the horses they rode in on!

[Born Free]

No.....I just wonder why you are only concerned about Khadr's precious rights since Harper became PM. Either way, political games in Canada mean nothing until America is good and ready to be done with that terrorist bastard!

At least yer consistent.... ie. you and your namesakes dont believe in Constitutional rights.

[noahbody]

Khadr was old enough that if he didn't want to fight he could have deserted.

From what I've read, I believe it was from an interview with his mother, Omar was initially staying with her out of harm's way. It was said that Omar missed his father and brothers and requested that he join them.

Edited January 30, 2010 by noahbody

[bush_cheney2004]

At least yer consistent.... ie. you and your namesakes dont believe in Constitutional rights.

Correct....unlawful combatants from Afghanistan (or Canada for that matter) do not enjoy US constitutional rights. Further, the Obama administration continues to maintain detention until war's conclusion as lawful...it's not just a Bush joint.

Canada is free to adjudicate the "fundamental rules of justice" and how many Khadrs can dance on the head of a pin.

[Argus]

Not hard to say at all. Im positive they would have said the accused still gets charter rights just like every one else in Canada -

He's not IN Canada.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

No...Khadr's (terrorist perp) rights were found to be violated by the Supreme Court of Canada, yet it still defers to foreign policy. The Americans tromped all over his "rights" regardless of domestic Canadian politics or court rulings, and shopped him around without any subordination at all.

I am having some difficulty believing this entire issue. A Canadian citizen willingly chooses to enter into a war zone and is caught. He was not killed, but he was apprehended. He was not a member of a military unit, he had no uniform and he was picked up in a combat zone. Just how do you folks think he should be treated? At best he is guilty of being a spy, at worst a terrorist. There does not seem to be any question about his non-military status. There does not seem to be any question about his intentions. The man is guilty of something, period.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... At best he is guilty of being a spy, at worst a terrorist. There does not seem to be any question about his non-military status. There does not seem to be any question about his intentions. The man is guilty of something, period.

Indeed....were it not for his immediate value as an English speaking interrogation subject, I don't think he lives to enjoy Kellogg's Froot Loops at 'Gitmo for even a single day.

[Shakeyhands]

The only time the government does anything on behalf of Canadians abroad - other than furnishing them with a list of attornies they may hire at their own expense - is when the media gets involved. Then the government is basically acting out of self-interest. Canadians rot in prisons for months, even years, without the government doing a thing until the media gets involved. And it's always been that way.

I can remember during the Apartheid era, when the PM was getting together with other anti-apartheid heads of state in one of the so-called "front line states" to promise support against SA a story came out about a Canadian who was right that moment in a filthy, overcowded jail cell below the building just across the street from where he was dining. That Canadian had been there over a year without being charged and Canada had done nothing, made no public protests, nor would they. When asked about it by a journalist who only found out cause he was there covering the anti-apartheid thing the diplomats said they didn't want to do anything which might make that government (a dictatorship of course) suffer bad publicity because of their fight against apartheid - which was idiotic excuse if ever I heard one. They made a series of lame excuses to try and explain away why we weren't doing anything, and eventually everyone forgot about the guy. I don't know that he ever got out.

I've seen numerous cases like that over the years, and many cases which suddenly catch the media spotlight in which the government had done nothing for a long period of time and suddnely, presto, they were jumping in like Captain Canada to protect the rights of Canadians abroad. But that's strictly political. If you can get the media interested, you can get something done. Otherwise, the government could not care less about you.

What a curious statement. If the media gets involved, and the Government is shamed in to acting, does that not say that the media is correct, and therefore acting on the best interest of the person?

[Born Free]

I am having some difficulty believing this entire issue. A Canadian citizen willingly chooses to enter into a war zone and is caught. He was not killed, but he was apprehended. He was not a member of a military unit, he had no uniform and he was picked up in a combat zone. Just how do you folks think he should be treated? At best he is guilty of being a spy, at worst a terrorist. There does not seem to be any question about his non-military status. There does not seem to be any question about his intentions. The man is guilty of something, period.

If the man is guilty of something.....lets have a trial and cut the bullshit.

[bush_cheney2004]

If the man is guilty of something.....lets have a trial and cut the bullshit.

What's the hurry? Domestic security certificate detainess were held for years in Canada, and still face rectrictions even after 2007 court rulings. And this is a process that pre-dates 'Gitmo by many years!

[Born Free]

What's the hurry?

Why the delay? I suspect that they dont have a case.

Domestic security certificate detainess were held for years in Canada, and still face rectrictions even after 2007 court rulings. And this is a process that pre-dates 'Gitmo by many years!

The changes made as a result of the 2007 ruling are still likely to be challenged.

The changes made included access to security-cleared lawyers, permitting the accused to attend the hearings, challenge government evidence and generally protect the rights of the accused. You know, the kind of stuff that you disagree with.

[Wilber]

If the man is guilty of something.....lets have a trial and cut the bullshit.

I tend to agree, seven years is a long time to bring someone to trial even in Canada, let alone the US.