Jason Kenney and the lawyers


Three months ago, when Conrad Black received a visa to return to Canada, Toronto immigration lawyer Guidy Mamann told the Globe that “the idea that the minister didn’t wink or nod in favour of this thing is impossible to imagine.” In response to that comment, Jason Kenney filed a grievance with the Law Society of Upper Canada. In response to that grievance, 80 lawyers signed an open letter stating their agreement with Mr. Mamann and declaring that they would not “succumb” to attempts by Mr. Kenney and his officials to “muzzle freedom of expression.” And in response to that letter, Mr. Kenney’s office accused the lawyers of debasing their profession.

“Baseless accusations of misconduct and reckless character smears, by someone holding himself out to be an expert, poison the public discourse and debase the legal profession,” Ms. Curic said. “Instead of engaging in kneejerk outbursts of blind solidarity, these lawyers might consider the long-term damage to their profession of elevating activism above professionalism.”

Of Mr. Black’s application, the Prime Minister assures “it is not in the government’s interest to intervene in this matter in any way, shape or form.”

Back in May, when the NDP was making accusations of special treatment, the Prime Minister made an interesting claim of innocence (emphasis mine).

Mr. Speaker, once again aspersions are being cast on public servants without any evidence. The leader of the NDP owes them an apology. There has been no involvement of anyone on the political side of government in this. It would be just as easy for us if Mr. Black were not allowed to come to Canada, but that is not the judgment of those who administer the law.


Jason Kenney and the lawyers

  1. He is powerless to keep Black out, but omnipotent when it comes keeping Khadr out.

    • Black is not a confessed killer of an American medic.
      Black may not have always been complimentary of Canadian Prime Ministers, but I don`t think he joined his terrorist family in Afghanistan in the hopes of killing Canadian soldiers.

      • Well, as long as you distort and grossly oversimplify the Khadr file that way, who could disagree?

        • That’s why we have the rule of law and courts: to prevent hot-headed ignoramuses from executing summary justice. Neo-cons like Harper and Bush believe they are above the law like tin-pot dictators.

        • How did I distort the Khadr file?
          Was Khadr not responsible for the death of the American?
          Would he not have killed his Canadian soldiers, his fellow citizens, if given the chance?
          Were his family not friendly with Bin Laden and fundraising for the terrorists here in Canada?
          Did Khadr not willingly join his family in battle against Americans and his fellow Canadians?

          • a) no

            b) no

            c) no

            d) no

            Now stop it.

          • Hey Troll—not talking to you.
            Get away form me.
            Go fix up that room in your basement for Khadr when he returns.

          • Hey Andrew….stop being an ass and grow up.

            Why is it all rightwingers argue like 14 year old boys….?

          • Was Khadr not responsible for the death of the American?

            Never established beyond reasonable doubt under generally accepted rules of evidence. In a real court of law he would probably have been acquitted. An American died but it was never conclusively established that he did so because of the actions of a badly-wounded boy captured at the scene.

            Would he not have killed his Canadian soldiers, his fellow citizens, if given the chance?

            Conjectural, speculative, and irrelevant.

            Did Khadr not willingly join his family in battle against Americans and his fellow Canadians?

            Under Canadian rule of law, he was a minor at the time, so he can’t be held responsible for the decisions, motives, and behaviour of his parents and their friends. Did you have such discretion over your parents’ life choices when you were that age?

            As I said, as long as you distort and grossly oversimplify the Khadr file the way you do, who could disagree?

          • The fact that you think that it is irrelevant that Khadr would kill Canadian soldiers tells us everything that we need to know about the Liberal way of viewing Canadians. When most Canadians believe that the treason of the Khadr family is enough to kick them out of the country, Liberals campaign for Khadr.
            It is little wonder Liberals are becoming irrelevant.

          • See, again you distort and oversimplify. What is irrelevant is your unfounded assumption that Khadr “would kill Canadian soldiers”. He didn’t (nor, to my knowledge, did he ever say he would) and, therefore, your statement is purely conjectural. Only in a neo-con fantasy world are people convicted for unfounded allegations.

            Do you know anything at all about the rules of evidence?

            And I’m not a Liberal. Or a Dipper. Or a Communist.

          • Well, I do know that it was you in your previous comment, when you were showing off your grasp of legalese, that stated that it was irrelevant that Khadr would kill Canadian soldiers. I was simply reminding you of your statement—don`t shoot the messenger.
            You may also choose to believe that Khadr was only looking to toss grenades at American medics. Those with a better grasp of reality know full well Khadr and his family had little care about who would be killed.

          • Let me try this one more time, using small words and short sentences: I didn’t say it’s “irrelevant that Khadr would kill Canadian soldiers”. I said your unfounded and unproven allegation that he would is irrelevant. Are you incapable of understanding the difference or or are you just obtuse (oh, sorry, too big of word)?

          • Andrew is one of those ‘high-school intellectuals’ that won’t be able to comprehend even WITH small words and short sentences. Better to just ignore him.

          • Good advice. Perhaps I’m the slow learner for even trying to employ logic 101 with him.

          • There are a few regulars on here that start every post off with belligerent BS, and nothing derails them…..they just ‘keep on a typin’, no matter what.

            Probably comes from their daily HQ ‘talking points memo’…..I doubt they understand the topic to begin with, and aren’t able to actually discuss anything….they just pound it out….’catapulting the propaganda’ as much as possible.

            I gave up on em long time ago….after having wasted hours of my life trying to employ logic with them….and finally realizing they’re impervious to it.

          • It is good to drop by here occasionally and put some of the irregulars in their place.

          • Ahhh it’s the impotent intellectual again.

          • You take advice from the Troll and you think I`ve got problems!

          • Look up what troll means…..like all Cons you need a dictionary.

          • Yup…on all the evidence available here, she’s clearly more competent. Run along now.

          • Surely Harper, and the crack legal team he surrounds himself with, can think up a way to strip him of his citizenship and deport him, when he is due to be released from a Canadian prison.

          • Maybe he could get some advice from Chretien.

          • Meaningless slur, try again.

          • a) Yes.
            b) Given the evidence, it seems likely, but that’s speculative.
            c) Yes.
            d) Yes.

          • Pull yourselves together please

      • So, just to be clear on this. The ONLY convicted felons that Canada won’t give a visa to are the ones who confessed to killing an American medic, uh, but were never tried. Is that it? No wonder income inequality is rising.

        • Liberals are willing to take a chance on the safety of fellow citizens by releasing an unrepentant terrorist amongst us.
          Yet they campaign against the return of a man whose citizenship was stolen by Chretien, and who only would harm those sensitive souls insulted by his writings.

          • He voluntarily gave up his citizenship. It was his choice.

      • He is not a Canadian citizen.

      • “Black is not a confessed killer of an American medic.”

        Black was convicted by a jury of his peers. Kahdr was a child soldier facing a kangaroo court that circumvented the Geneva Convention. No nation has tried to charge prisoners of war with murder before. Not even the Nazis. Neo-con fanatics like Bush and Harper are a greater threat to our democracy than terrorists.

  2. 80 immigration lawyers – really? That is a revolt? These are just individuals who have their knickers in a knot since the government is dismantling their main source of income!!

    • No doubt conservatives tend to have base motives for political positions they take. So I guess they assume the same is true of others. Of course, anyone with a brain can see Kenney is trying to bully a lawyer for claiming it was impossible for Black to receive a visa without government interference and the 80 lawyers are coming to his defense based on the facts. The response from Kenney’s office is just about as ridiculous as anything else we’ve seen from Harper’s cabinet ministers over the past few months. Incompetence doesn’t even begin to describe it.

  3. Geez….doctors AND lawyers openly revolting against a minister!

    I can’t recall a similar event in all of our history.

    Buy a clue Jason

  4. It’s interesting that no-one even pretends to believe Kenney. Even CPC supporters will not rely on – or argue for – the personal integrity of Mr. Kenney or for that of the Party as a whole. The CPC have reaped what they have sown through a long series of dishonesties, smears, duplicity, cheating and dishonourable behaviour.

    No-one can prove that Kenney is lying, but no informed person doubts it either. What’s more remarkable is that people are confronting this government without apology. Only one year into a majority government, the CPC has zero credibility.