bush_cheney2004 Posted May 14, 2014 Report Posted May 14, 2014 The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld security provisions against an alleged Al-Qaeda supporter who has been fighting deportation on humanitarian grounds for many years. Security certificates and associated detentions are affirmed. The so called "Gitmo North" can continue operations. ...The top court’s unanimous decision means the government’s second attempt to legitimize the security certificate legislation is constitutionally sound, and the court has given the status of the law finality. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mohamed-harkat-security-certificate-upheld-by-supreme-court-1.2642459 How will this impact political perceptions that the SCC is "standing up" to PM Harper ? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
eyeball Posted May 14, 2014 Report Posted May 14, 2014 How will this impact political perceptions that the SCC is "standing up" to PM Harper ? It'll probably reinforce them. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, who wrote the decision, noted Harkat "potentially faces deportation to a country where he may be at risk for torture or death, although the constitutionality of his deportation in such circumstances is not before us in the present appeal." Other court rulings and international conventions hold that a refugee should not be deported if he or she faces a substantial risk of torture, even if national security is at stake, so Harkat may still end up before a court fighting any attempt to deport him. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
cybercoma Posted May 14, 2014 Report Posted May 14, 2014 The idea of the government using secret information that's hidden from the defence to prosecute you is downright Kafkaesque. I understand why they made the decision that they did, but they better be incredibly strict about what information can be hidden. This should happen almost never. Quote
Argus Posted May 14, 2014 Report Posted May 14, 2014 The idea of the government using secret information that's hidden from the defence to prosecute you is downright Kafkaesque. I understand why they made the decision that they did, but they better be incredibly strict about what information can be hidden. This should happen almost never. I think what's Kafkaesque is that someone decides he wants to live in Canada, and we decide he's not the kind of person we want here, yet can't send him home. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 14, 2014 Author Report Posted May 14, 2014 I think what's Kafkaesque is that someone decides he wants to live in Canada, and we decide he's not the kind of person we want here, yet can't send him home. Yes, that is somewhat strange. These suspects are detained and restricted all while "protecting" them from alleged torture and death elsewhere. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
cybercoma Posted May 14, 2014 Report Posted May 14, 2014 I think what's Kafkaesque is that someone decides he wants to live in Canada, and we decide he's not the kind of person we want here, yet can't send him home.that's another issue, yes. Quote
eyeball Posted May 14, 2014 Report Posted May 14, 2014 I think what's Kafkaesque is that someone decides he wants to live in Canada, and we decide he's not the kind of person we want here, yet can't send him home. Who's this 'we' you're talking about, federal officials? You can't trust them to get very much right. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Army Guy Posted May 15, 2014 Report Posted May 15, 2014 Current system sucks, there is enough evidence that he is a terrorist, and was planning to do bad things here, and yet we can't send him home....so why is he not behind bars why has he not been charged ...kind of a free ride, on our dime....his picture in the paper see's him getting into a nice SUV, dressed in a nice suit, where is he getting the cash....Ship his ass home and let justice be served.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Peter F Posted May 15, 2014 Report Posted May 15, 2014 ...there is enough evidence that he is a terrorist, and was planning to do bad things here... If that were true there'd be an arrest and a trial. But there isn't so there's not. Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
Wilber Posted May 15, 2014 Report Posted May 15, 2014 (edited) The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld security provisions against an alleged Al-Qaeda supporter who has been fighting deportation on humanitarian grounds for many years. Security certificates and associated detentions are affirmed. The so called "Gitmo North" can continue operations. ...The top courts unanimous decision means the governments second attempt to legitimize the security certificate legislation is constitutionally sound, and the court has given the status of the law finality. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mohamed-harkat-security-certificate-upheld-by-supreme-court-1.2642459 How will this impact political perceptions that the SCC is "standing up" to PM Harper ? Gitmo North? We're trying to get rid of him, not keep him. Edited May 15, 2014 by Wilber Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Army Guy Posted May 15, 2014 Report Posted May 15, 2014 If that were true there'd be an arrest and a trial. But there isn't so there's not. Well if it was not true, why has the SC kept the security cert. there must be some evidence of something. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
eyeball Posted May 15, 2014 Report Posted May 15, 2014 Why must there be, why not just make it up for the sake of appealing to your political base? I'm quite certain it happens all the time. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Big Guy Posted May 15, 2014 Report Posted May 15, 2014 If that were true there'd be an arrest and a trial. But there isn't so there's not. That is the dilemma that we face. According to our government, an open court trial will endanger existing assets and national security overrides all other considerations. In North America, we have seen a very obvious shift to the security priority of the battle between security and freedom. In a democracy, when one process is allowed to proceed in secret then it is very tempting to apply the same criteria to other processes. It appears that those terrorists who created 9/11 have been successful in at least part of their intended reaction. We have to "trust" the decision of the Supreme Court. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Peter F Posted May 15, 2014 Report Posted May 15, 2014 Well if it was not true, why has the SC kept the security cert. there must be some evidence of something. Must be? Who knows. Its a secret and has been a secret for 10 odd years. All peons like us can do is 'Hope' the powers that be are behaving in a competent manner and not like incompetent boobs (see Arar and CSIS actions in Guatanamo) Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.