Ottawa fighting Khadr ruling - Macleans.ca
 

Ottawa fighting Khadr ruling

Government going to the Supreme Court


 

The Canadian government is planning to fight a federal court of appeal decision upholding a lower court ruling that ordered Ottawa to demand the  return of Omar Khadr from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay. Khadr, who is a  Canadian citizen, was arrested in Afghanistan for the murder of a U.S.  soldier. He was 15 at the time, and has been imprisoned since 2002 under  murder, conspiracy and support of terrorism charges. The lower court ruled that his charter rights are being violated and that the government must press for his repatriation. Ottawa is refusing, saying Khadr has been “accused of serious crimes including murder” and that “its position remains unchanged.”

CBC


 
Filed under:

Ottawa fighting Khadr ruling

  1. Sounds kind of personal.
    Don't get on the bad side of the CPC.

  2. Seems like a lot of work to avoid doing work…

  3. I am hoping that the aim of this process is the government being able to determine foreign policy without it being subject to court opinion. Under the liberals, the courts of this nation had become emboldened and dictated foreign as well as domestic policy.
    It would be wise to remember that these court "opinions" are simply that, and no government should be subject to them. A government answers only to the people, and in this case it seems to me that a substantial part of the population does not want Khadr coming back, ever. I do not know if the charter "notwithstanding" clause can apply here or not, but it would seem appropriate if it could.

  4. mccluth
    1) this is a human rights issue and only tangentially 'foreign policy'
    2) the courts provide a well need counter check to the tyranny of the majority (or in our case the tyranny of the minority). Many great social and human rights advances were first won in the courts
    3) the notwithstanding clause could be used – but an attempt to invoke it is unlikely to succeed and rather toxic for the instigators, thank god

  5. mccluth
    1) this is a human rights issue and only tangentially 'foreign policy'
    2) the courts provide a well needed counter check to the tyranny of the majority (or in our case the tyranny of the minority). Many great social and human rights advances were first won in the courts
    3) the notwithstanding clause could be used – but an attempt to invoke it is unlikely to succeed and rather toxic for the instigators, thank god

  6. In reading right wingers comments/blogs it is becoming most apparent that Mcarthyism is alive and well. They seem to think that if you disagree with them, even from a non-political point of view, you are a lefty or a pinko, never mind whether you are a simple Canadian with no political motives or not trying to do or say the right thing.

    Most Canadians are trying to be fair in the Khadr affair about the fact that a Canadian is a Canadian – non-hyhenated, not less or more. Khadr is a Canadian rightly or wrongly, and why he cannot be afforded the same rights or protection as any other is beyond belief. Cherry picking who gets help or who doesn't leaves a bad taste in my mouth on how our government on our behalf is behaving in this matter.

    Canadians don't want anything else for Khadr other than a fair trial. In order to accomplish this he must be re-patriated. What is so distasteful about that? Are we now putting the cart before the horse? Does presumption of guilt override presumption of innocence? What is wrong with us for crying out loud……bring this Canadian home, give him his day in court and let the chips fall where they may.