Omar Khadr’s lawyers push for repatriation


Omar Khadr’s lawyer are asking a federal court to force the government to decide on bringing him to Canada from Guantanamo Bay, where he has been detained for 10 years, Postmedia reports. Khadr has been eligible for transfer to Canada for the past nine months.

In 2010, Khadr pleaded guilty to killing an American soldier in Afghanistan in 2002 when he was 15 years old. He received an 8 year sentence, and the Canadian government indicated in November 2010 he might be transferred to Canada to serve the sentence.

Khadr’s lawyers believe that Public Safety Minister Vic Toews is dragging his feet. “[T]he Minister’s unreasonable delay . . . is an abuse of process,” they said. They hope the court will require a decision to be made.

The Minister’s spokeswoman said “we do not comment on matters before the court.”

Filed under:

Omar Khadr’s lawyers push for repatriation

  1. It’s time to bring the convicted murderer and terrorist back to Canada… why? Because Pierre Trudeaus imposed Charter says so. Canadians and the elected Parliament have no say in the matter. Trudeau may be dead, but his imposed cult, and ideological straightjacket lives on, no matter how flawed or undemocratic it may be.

    • Actually, it’s time to bring him home because the current government agreed to do so. But it’s cute how you don’t believe in rights. Feel free to move away if it’s as unbearable in Canada as you make it out to be.

      • Actually, it wouldn’t matter what the Government wanted to do with regard to the convicted murderer and terrorist as they are bound by Pierre’s imposed Charter, which will also bring this murdering terrorist a nice fat cheque coerced from the taxpayer because Pierre says so. It’s also super cute that you believe Pierre’s imposed Charter giving “rights” to a convicted murderer and terrorist as something to cheer about… pathologically cute. Thank you for having the inexplicable self imposed superiority to invite me to leave the country I was born and bred in… supremacist much? As far as I know Pierre didn’t take away my right to express my concerns about his seriously flawed imposed ideological lunacy and distortions of governance. Perhaps you feel that anyone expressing concerns about Trudeaus imposed Charter and the “rights” it affords murdering terrorists should be sent to a re-education camp to “learn” the glorious gift that Pierre bestowed upon us.

        • Re-education camp? Oh, I see that you’re crazy. Good day to you, then.

          • Yeah Craig, I don’t believe a convicted murdering terrorist like Khadr should be brought back to Canada, with all the luxuries Trudeaus Charter will afford him… and I’m the crazy one. Good day to you too Craig.

        • The Charter was based on the Bill of Rights introduced by the hero of the Harper Party, John Diefenbaker. Diefenbaker would have gotten it into the Constitution if he could have, but Trudeau finished the job for him.

          The Harper Party likes to hold Diefenbaker up as a great conservative, but he was a very different kind of conservative than they are. They have done things that would disgust him. He was a defense lawyer who believed in the rights of the accused, also minority and individual rights. He’s probably rolling in his grave.

          • Well Diane, there’s a great deal of difference between Diefs “Bill of Rights” and Trudeaus Charter. The Bill of rights would not have over ridden the BNA act as Trudeaus Charter does and the Bill of Rights included individual rights and the right to private property. Trudeaus Charter is all about group rights, individual rights take a back seat, and the “Supreme Court” decides which groups are more important then others. Trudeaus Charter contorts our system of Governance to resemble the American system, literally making unelected judges “supreme” rather then the elected Parliament. Trudeau took the power away from the people and their Parliament and handed to unelected courts. I don’t want to speak for Dief as you do, but it is well known he thought Lester Pearson to be ” the worst PM Canada has ever had”, I seriously doubt he thought a revolutionary vandal like Trudeau was any better. Diefenbaker believed in the supremacy of our Parliamentary system… Trudeau did not.

          • Maybe you could give an example of, say, the Court deciding some groups are more important than others or individuals taking a backseat, etc. Dief and Pearson were definitely famous rivals.

            More to the topic of the article, I think there was bound to be a problem when the Gtmo case got into the Canadian courts, but not because of the Charter or anything peculiar in Canadian law. The Gtmo system was set up, after 9/11, exclusively for foreigners. Americans suspected of terrorist activity were never put into that system because it would have violated their legal rights as citizens of the US. However, if a foreigner is from a democratic country, he has similar basic legal rights in his own country as Americans do in theirs. So, if he can show that officials of his own government contributed to his mistreatment by Americans, he can sue his own government, just as an American could sue the US government if it treated their own citizens the same way. This has not only happened with Canadians like Khadr and Arar. There were cases in Britain and Australia too, if not elsewhere. The Gtmo system has gradually been brought more in line with the regular US civilian and military justice systems, mainly because of court decisions, but Khadr’s case was one of the first to be developed in a system declared illegal by the US Supreme Court, and a process declared illegal by the Canadian Court, twice.

            The Court said Canada contributed to a violation of Khadr’s rights under the Charter but they were talking about the basic right not to be locked up without a fair trial or some fair process based on “principles of fundamental justice”, what Americans call “due process”, and these are rights that go far back in British, Canadian and American law. Court decision: http://scc.lexum.org/en/2010/2010scc3/2010scc3.html

          • Take a look at the court decisions in Russel Township and Dieppe, where individual rights supposedly guaranteed in Pierre’s Charter (section 2b) are overridden in favour of forcing the french language on individuals who do not want it. These are but two examples of Judges reading into Pierres Charter to suit their agenda. Section 2b of Pierres Charter “guaranteeing” the rights of the individual can be overridden arbitrarily by a judge in favour of a “group”, in this case a french language group, the most special of all, and the most expensive. I’m glad to see that you agree that Pierres seriously flawed Charter will allow a convicted murderer and terrorist a big fat cheque because a judge said Khadrs, Pierre Charter rights were “violated”. Parliament use to be supreme in the sphere of laws and rights, until Pierres Charter which dictates that the courts and unelected Judges will be the supreme voice of “rights” as dictated within Pierres Charter. Khadr is not a victim by any normal standard, but has been declared so by unelected judges reading into Pierres Charter. Very undemocratic, undermining of the judicial process. Without Pierres Charter, Khadr would be rightfully nothing more then a convicted murderer and terrorist.

          • You don’t think the Supreme Court could have made the same decision that Khadr’s right to a fair trial was violated, with the help of Canadians, if the Charter didn’t exist? I don’t think the right to a fair trial was invented by the Charter. It exists in Britain which doesn’t have a Charter or a Constitution gathered in one document.

            You didn’t provide any link to the court decisions you mentioned. I found some articles about Russel. You seem to be blaming the Charter because a judge decided that bilingual signs don’t violate a person’s right to free speech. What was the Charter supposed to say that would protect people from towns in Ontario passing laws about bilingual signs? The Charter doesn’t require towns to have bilingual signs. You seem to be suggesting it should prevent them from having them.

          • I believe you are being deliberately obtuse Diane. If you are unable to understand that an unelected judge can arbitrarily pick and choose which parts of Pierres Charter will be enforced and which will not then you have a bastardization of our Parliamentary Democracy. Pierres Charter is all about group rights, section 15 (group rights) cannot be over ridden by any other part of Pierres Charter, where as individual rights section 2b can be over ridden, most especially when it comes to forcing french on people who do not want it forced upon them. You asked for an example of individual rights, supposedly guaranteed in Pierres Charter, being over ridden by another section of Pierres Charter and I gave you two. Either individual rights within Pierres Charter exist or they don’t, and in these cases unelected judges have declared that they don’t, it is completely arbitrary, therefore flawed and worthless. Despite your obtuseness and inability to understand, an unelected judge has forced private business’s to erect and pay for french and English signs as required by Pierres Charter, despite the fact that people don’t want them. Further evidence that Pierres Charter does not guarantee the right of the individual to put up a sign in their chosen language. Your inability to understand the clear contradictions and arbitrary nature inherent in Pierres Charter and how it takes away the citizens right as an individual and forces judges to dictate social policy is mystifying… perhaps your obtuseness is a sign that you somehow benefit from the imposition of Pierres Charter and it’s arbitrary, judge dictated “rights”. You probably should be using the avatar that I’m currently using… Trudopian cultist.

          • Going by the articles on the Ontario town, now from memory, that issue has nothing to do with group rights in the Charter, any change to existing free speech rights in the Charter, or unelected judges overriding an elected government. You might want something like the American First Amendment, and the US tradition of applying it, but we didn’t have that before the Charter either.

            The judges did not likely say the elected town government had to require bilingual signs so as not to discriminate against the “group rights” of the French minority. No such “group right” exists in the Charter. The elected town government made a political decision to require bilingual signs likely having to do with wanting to reflect the town’s cultural tradition, respect for the French language and it’s French community. Some people claimed this was against their free speech right to choose the language of the signs they put up themselves. I think the judges probably balanced the right of the elected government to reflect the local culture in that way against the harm being done to the free speech rights of the complainers. Maybe the judges thought the harm to free speech was frivolous and trivial compared to the elected government’s right to make that kind of decision. I do, and you probably don’t, but it still has nothing to do with “group rights” in the Charter or some new repression of free speech because of the Charter.

            Maybe what you’re actually ticked off about is the Constitution guaranteeing certain linguistic rights of the English minority in Quebec and the French minorities outside Quebec. That’s usually what people mean when they talk about French being forced on people or the French having special rights. Those rights are related to federal government services and education, where the minority exists in certain numbers. They don’t have anything to do with bilingual signs in Ontario towns.

          • PS: Trudopian Cultist: You just aren’t specific enough. It would also help if you linked to the actual decision of the judges on the Ontario town issue and pointed to how they use the Charter to arrive at their decision based on some “group right” in the Charter and some weakness in the free speech right. You might even be right for all I know, but you’re not proving it. You’re claiming it based on some political theories you have.

          • More than all of this is the fact that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, created by Pierre Trudeau, took away our unalienable rights and freedoms that were guaranteed to us through our British heritage and ONLY our British heritage. France had no such freedoms, no MAGNA CARTA that protected their citizens from tyranny.
            Not only does the charter put in the word “reasonable”, but by inserting clause 33, the NOTWITHSTANDING clause that politicians in Quebec used to implement the horrid Bill 101 that resulted in the ethnic cleansing of the English from that province, and now Section 1, an attack by politicians on our unalienable right to Freedom of Speech and Private Property has become obvious.
            With the Russell Township bilingual sign bylaw ruling we now discover that unelected unaccountable, party appointed judges have their own notwithstanding clause buried in Section 1k, allowing them to rule in favour of a group over our unalienable, individual rights and freedoms.
            A totally biased, prejudicial decision where they not only acknowledged, including township lawyer, Ronald Caza, that they KNEW they were infringing on Jean-Serge’s rights and freedoms, but they denied Howard standing, although it was dealing with a ruling based on the CANADIAN Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that would affect EVERY municipality across Ontario, including Howard’s, and possibly across Canada.
            All in the name of social engineering.

          • You’ve made your political theories and opinions clear.

          • … and so have you.

          • I would talk about the legal case, if you wanted to.

          • Canadians consider Trudeau’s greatest achievements for the nation to be the repatriation of the constitution and the addition to it of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. By Trudeau’s own admission to a meeting of Liberal Party members in 1980, he was not interested in a Charter as such, but had to create it in order to protect the French Language rights legislation. Mind you, by creating the Charter he was also accomplishing another desired result – the subordination of Parliament to a Supreme Court. Kenneth McDonald describes how that came about in His Pride, Our Fall, Key Porter Books, Toronto, 1995. McDonald writes,
            “It was not so much Pierre Trudeau’s aversion to nationalism as his obsession with language, and his passion to put his Official Languages Act beyond the power of a future parliament to change or repeal it, that drove him to change the parliamentary system. He could not stomach the English tradition of parliamentary supremacy, and he contrived to do away with it by two tricks.
            The first he described in an address to Liberal party members in Quebec City, October 22, 1980, when he said: “I’ll tell you something else: we also wanted to entrench language rights; unfortunately, I think it’s true that, if we had done so, we would have seen certain people in the country fighting the project saying, ‘there goes that French power government again, which only wants to help and protect francophones.’ It was to broaden the debate that we wanted to entrench fundamental rights.” (p. 37)
            “His two obsessions were bilingualism and the Constitution. He thought that by spreading the use of French across the country Quebec’s nationalism would die on the vine. But he couldn’t protect his language policy against amendment or repeal by a later parliament because it was only statute law, and in the British parliamentary tradition, parliament was supreme. So he had to change the Constitution, and it was done by a trick.
            He did it by claiming to “patriate” the Constitution from Westminister, which had proclaimed Canada’s sovereignty in 1931, and inveigling the British parliament into passing a Canada Bill with a built-in Charter of Rights and Freedoms that incorporated his language legislation and an amending formula that made the Constitution almost unamendable.
            The deception, imposed upon a nominally free people, changed Canada’s system of government from its foundation in the evolutionary common law, in which individuals exercised their inherent freedom to abstain from doing what the law prohibited, to a system where their “Rights” and “Freedoms” were no longer inherent; they were written down and “Guaranteed” by the state, that is, they were vulnerable to whatever meaning the state or its courts decided to give them.” (p. 49)
            The Canadian people were stripped of the one and only absolutely benign and dependable system for the protection of individual freedom in the world – the British common law. In its place Trudeau gave to the people the French kind of constitution, which submits the interpretation of a set of enumerated individual rights to the pleasure of a group of judges who are unelected and who are accountable to no one. Furthermore, this colossal constitutional change was implemented without consulting the citizens by referendum, as they rightly should have been consulted. It was a robbery of precious rights, and the people cherish Pierre Elliott Trudeau for being the robber. Some things truly are beyond human understanding

  2. Nobody who writes about this case offers any opinion of what the government is thinking. Why did they sign the agreement to “favourably consider” a transfer in the first place, after they spent years fighting in the courts to keep Khadr out of the country? I thought they did it because the Supreme Court told them Khadr’s rights were being violated, Canada was a party to it, and the government had to legalize its policy and find a remedy to the situation. Some say they did it to do the US a favour. But that can’t be if they had no intention of living up to the agreement. It’s as if all they wanted to do was hoodwink the US government, and Khadr into pleading guilty. Did the US government promise them something it hasn’t delivered?

    And now they’re going to fight Khadr’s lawyers because they don’t want to keep the agreement?


  3. I would hate to be living in the vicinity of the Khadr group when Omar gets back. Once his lawyers see even more gravy from their lawsuits this country may actually begin physically standing up to the Khadrs. I suggest protests on their block, I doubt if they would look for a job, so no reason for a boycott. All these people who believe Khadr is an innocent need to stand on their hind legs and fight for logic. The Khadrs hate your way of life, putting your tongue in their anus is not going to save you .people like you disgust them .

Sign in to comment.