Canadian Government Guilty of Violating Khadr's Rights

[waldo]

Absurd? Absolutely not. There's nothing absurd about the Charter of Rights no matter the setting.

Except if you happen to be disabled in Canada.

Here ya go...with the usual reference to American policies:

So once again, there are high falutin' Charter rights with no remedy or enforcement. Salute!

the context was/is the CCRF - notwithstanding your detraction to something outside the frame of discussion, as is your way, you felt a desire to exercise your ever present pubescent need to worm the discussion back to, as you highlight, "the usual reference to American policies". In the context of the CCRF you were provided the relevant Charter 15 section that includes provision for persons with disabilities... and you were challenged to speak to the inequality of that Charter 15 section as it relates to disabilities. If you actually intended to highlight (your presumed) inequality within the CCRF in regards persons with disabilities, you would have responded with examples where persons failed to seek remedy through Canadian Courts in relation to said Charter 15 section protections. This..... you did not do.

as an aside, since you highlighted a "reference to American policies", it would seem the, as you say, "remedy or enforcement", of your much vaunted Americans with Disabilities Act, in itself, has it's own challenges. As you say, salute!

[Sir Bandelot]

Of course I don't doubt it, but I also don't think for a minute that we are purposely targeting them or carelessly dropping bombs regardless of whether or not there are civilians in the area. If we were, how do you account for the fact that the Taliban is responsible for so many more civilian deaths than we are?

In the initial airstrikes and invasion, most of the direct civilian deaths were the result of U.S.-led airstrikes and groundfire. In the years since 2005, the mounting insurgency has resulted in more direct civilian deaths being caused each year by insurgent actions than by coalition military action. Overall, however, the number of direct civilian casualties that have been attributed to insurgent forces by the available estimates remains less than the number that have been attributed to U.S.-led airstrikes and groundfire since 2001. (!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

Didn't think that would be so easy to dispute. I would guess in terms of the numbers of civilians killed by either side, its close to 50-50. But who really knows anything about the reality of the situation, with all the disinformation being told.

"if you need to make it personal, for whatever lame reason, please carry on."

It does not matter what we think about the facts of the war. We are bombarded with garbage information from all sides of differeing opinion. With all this crap going on, most of us choose to believe what we want to. The truth is probably somewhere in-between.

[Sir Bandelot]

there is still a difference between not yaking sufficient measures to avoid them and delibarately seeking to kill civilians.

The difference is only slight when we know that collateral deaths will be inevitable. Someone has to measure the value of human life vs. the potential benefit of attacking to protect our "security". And thats easier done when people are statistics, not so easy to take when they are your family and friends.

As to whether they would think that the loss is acceptable, or a fair trade between taliban and coalition killing of civilians, we won't know. Dead men tell no tales.

[Sir Bandelot]

The SCC decision was a mere declaration that the Canadian government (not the American government) infringed Khadrs Charter rights by questioning him in Gitmo in 2003/4.

Its NOT about what the American Government has done ; Its about what Canadian Officials have done.

Yet it does imply that quite clearly, if you extend the meaning of things beyond the immediate declaration.

Meanwhile on CTV news (television), the headline simply reads "Supreme court rules that Canadian government does not have to repatriate Khadr."

Nice diversion from the important facts, Peter Mackay

[eyeball]

Ha! It's ridiculous that eyeball is trying to suggest that somehow any Canadian in any circumstance should now fear being illegally arrested for no reason whatsoever when travelling abroad because the Canadian government will hang them out to try - as if Omar Khadr was a simple traveller on a boyscout convention. Ridiculous.

As one Canadians rights go, so go any.

Khadr was simply a Canadian kid under his parent's twisted care and for some reason their crimes are his fault. That's what's really ridiculous.

[eyeball]

There seems to be enough evidence to hold and question him. Please keep in mind this person knowingly and willingly put themselves into the position they now find themselves. A number of choices were involved and gee wizz guess what? The person made some bad choices. Any reasonable person can conclude from the already available information that the individual in question went thousands of miles out of their way to cause harm to soldiers that were part of an alliance that our own soldiers were a part of.

The available information makes it quite clear Khadr was taken thousands of miles to his fate by his parents. Are you suggesting any 13 - 15 year old Canadian can just decide to leave Canada and fly half way around the world on their own?

Yes I think he deserves to be treated the way he has been.

Get your facts straight, you, like so many others do think he deserves to be punished for the bad choices his parent's made for him.

[eyeball]

And again, if he is a 'child soldier,' why isn't his mother being charged with child abuse?

Again, because if they did it would completely undermine the arguments that Khadr was an adult who was entirely responsible for all his actions.

And again, the reason that fiction is maintained is to avoid having to face the possibility that Khadr was pressed into the service of an organized force that has real grievances. It appears that possibility is raised by the wording of the Geneva Convention. If Khadr really is a child soldier then al Queada really is an army which raises the question why would an army feel compelled to attack the west? What could the west have possibly done to cause them to do so?

Why the the term conflict child simply wasn't inserted into the GC long ago is a real mystery. Doing so would have circumvented so much acrimonious debate and avoided our governments from painting themselves into such a corner.

Edited January 31, 2010 by eyeball

[Born Free]

And again, the reason that fiction is maintained is to avoid having to face the possibility that Khadr was pressed into the service of an organized force that has real grievances. It appears that possibility is raised by the wording of the Geneva Convention. If Khadr really is a child soldier then al Queada really is an army which raises the question why would an army feel compelled to attack the west? What could the west have possibly done to cause them to do so?

Excellent points. Only a trial might bring the answers to light. Perhaps a trial is something that the US authorities have been afraid of.

[eyeball]

deleted (double post)

Edited January 31, 2010 by eyeball

[eyeball]

American Woman, on 31 January 2010 - 06:02 AM, said:

But I don't understand those who passionately believe Omar's rights as a Canadian have been violated as they remain silent regarding the abuse he endured at his parents' hands-- as his mother remains in Canada without charge.

Right or wrong...there is always a basis behind an opinion. I would say that there isn't any prevailing opinion..... differing opinions or varying opinions might be more like it.

Whatever his parents might have or might not have done has absolutely nothing to do with Canada's Supreme Court decision....namely that Khadr's rights were violated by the Canadian officials who visited Khadr in Gitmo. Its that simple.

Lets have a trial and see what it brings...

What silence? Countless supporters of the government's policy on Omar Khadr have also called for the expulsion of Khadr's mother...why the silence from the government?

Yes lets definitely have that trial and see where it leads, I dare you.

[eyeball]

I said I don't understand how those who passionately/vocally object to his treatment/claim that his rights have been violated remain so silent regarding his upbringing -- as his mother lives the good life in Canada, free from any charges.

How come the government hasn't responded to calls that his mother be tossed out of Canada from those who passionately/vocally support the way Khadr is being treated?

According to these people the majority of Canadians support the government's position on Khadr so why don't they pick up even more political points by going after the mother too?

[eyeball]

This is not about sympathy for anyone. This is about the rule of law and due process. And living up to the claim that we are better than the enemy. I believe we are better in part because of the standards we set for ourselves in dealing with murderers. Sadly, some oon of the right think that we can dispense with it.

I have to say I think your apparent middle of the road approach to this is even more pathetic than the right's. It seems that so long as all the dot's and i's were in place, you'd be okay with Khadr being treated any old way.

You're right, this is not about sympathy, its about principles.

If we were truly living up to the claim we were better then the enemy we wouldn't be applying the same principle that our kids are just as dispensable as theirs.

Edited January 31, 2010 by eyeball

[justme]

This is unbelievably silly...how old are you? There are many in this country that are simply of the belief that Khadr should be given a trial and not left to rot in a dungeon without regard to the fundamental human rights we supposedly enjoy in this country. Rights that our forefathers died for.

This has nothing to do with right or left...

There's nothing silly about the difference between Islamic fundamentalism, which the Khadr family is firmly routed in, and western society. An Islamic fundamentalist doesn't give a damn about democracy, individual liberty, and certainly not a man made legal system. To them, the Quran is the word of god, the law, and should govern every aspect of life. What does the Quran say? Here's an example:

Surah 5. Verse 51

O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

Surah 9. Verse 29

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth [islam], (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay the Jizya [a tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/Surai.htm

It doesn't matter if the US pulls out of the Middle East completely, if NATO pulls out of Afghanistan, or if Israelis give up all of their land. There will still be Islamic fundamentalists that hate people that are not Muslims. To put this to the test, all one has to do is look at the example set in the Middle East. How many Jews and Christians do you find in Saudi Arabia? Converting from Islam to another religion can carry a death penalty.

It is a left vs. right issue because it's the left that opened the doors to anyone and everyone, and then created hate speech laws to silence dissent -- ironically the hateful comments coming from Islamic fundamentalists are free from hate speech laws. Be it 9-11, the 7-7 London bombings, Toronto 18, etc, it's quite literally blowing up in your face or coming close to it. The people responsible were middle class and living in the west.

And when someone asks, why do they hate us, it's always our fault. It's never because of their religious views. It has nothing to do with children in muslim countries being taught to hate christians and jews, or Saudi Arabia, a country based on religion, funding mosques in western countries that preach hate.

The Khadr family's involvement with Al Quaeda doesn't matter because they managed to get Canadian citizenship, which should raise questions about the immigration system, but hey, stick your head a little deeper into the sand.

I don't know about you, but I make no appoligies to people that do not like British common law, nor value democracy or individual liberty, and I think there are people out there that are far more deserving of your concern.

[Born Free]

There's nothing silly about the difference between Islamic fundamentalism, which the Khadr family is firmly routed in, and western society. An Islamic fundamentalist doesn't give a damn about democracy, individual liberty, and certainly not a man made legal system. To them, the Quran is the word of god, the law, and should govern every aspect of life. What does the Quran say? Here's an example:

This isnt about Islamic fundamentalism. Its not about left or right. Its about the law under which we reside. It appears that you dont believe that Khadr should get a trial and that he should be locked up forever in a dungeon and be tortured ... so be it. You arent alone in that belief. However, your beliefs are consistent with the views espoused by Christian fundamentalism back in the 1400's.

I don't know about you, but I make no appoligies to people that do not like British common law, nor value democracy or individual liberty, and I think there are people out there that are far more deserving of your concern.

Clearly you dont understand that I am concerned about your lack of concern or perhaps indifference regarding our Charter of Human Rights and the law.

[CANADIEN]

I have to say I think your apparent middle of the road approach to this is even more pathetic than the right's. It seems that so long as all the dot's and i's were in place, you'd be okay with Khadr being treated any old way.

Excuse me for believing in the rule of law when dealing with alleged criminals. The dots and the i's are called due process. And it is not about middle, or left, or right of anything. It's about doing things the way they should be done. If you mistake that for a belief that the U.S. Government can do whatever it want, your reading skills are even worse than my writing skills.

[eyeball]

Surah 5. Verse 51

O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

Surah 9. Verse 29

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth [islam], (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay the Jizya [a tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

http://www.islamicit...osque/Surai.htm

So....let me get this straight, when this sort of shit gets pumped into a young kid's head we should torture the kid for having absorbed it? We might just as well cut off his head don't you think?

[CANADIEN]

I don't know about you, but I make no appoligies to people that do not like British common law, nor value democracy or individual liberty, and I think there are people out there that are far more deserving of your concern.

British common law includes due process and the rule of law. Which some of the right - including you it seems, are always very eager to set aside.

[bush_cheney2004]

So....let me get this straight, when this sort of shit gets pumped into a young kid's head we should torture the kid for having absorbed it? We might just as well cut off his head don't you think?

Daniel Pearl's severed head didn't absorb anything except "torture"...Khadr has faired quite better in comparison.

Edited January 31, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Born Free]

Daniel Pearl's severed head didn't absorb anything accept "torture"...Khadr has faired quite better in comparison.

More silly rhetoric...

[bloodyminded]

Because no one has a lot of sympathies for extremist Islamist ragheads - other than the left.

You are aware this a racist post, yes?

If you don't want people to point out just how naked your sympathies are for the enemy you might pull your skirts down now and then.

Well you might want to perform the heretical feat of explaining how "the left" generally, and me in particular, have "naked sympathies for the enemy." Because just repeating it like a shrieking, pantywaisted reactionary does not constitute strong evidence.

I realize it's a difficult task--explaining things rationally while you're throwing pretty little tantrums about "the left!"--but give it the old college try.

[bush_cheney2004]

British common law includes due process and the rule of law.

This is open to interpretation and wishful thinking, as British common law had no such provisions beyond the "law of the land".

[bush_cheney2004]

More silly rhetoric...

....you deny that Pearl's head was severed? That explains a lot!

[CANADIEN]

Daniel Pearl's severed head didn't absorb anything accept "torture"...Khadr has faired quite better in comparison.

Even you can do better than that. One does not excuse the other, or justify it.

Edited January 31, 2010 by CANADIEN

[bloodyminded]

Even you can do better than that. One does not excuse the other, or justify it.

Don't make the error of thinking he's trying to have a serious discussion with you. He doesn't know how.

Edited January 31, 2010 by bloodyminded

[msdogfood]

You are absolutely dead wrong on that.

OH YES IT CAN SEE JANIVA CONVENON!!!!.