The latest rebuke

The federal court orders Abousfian Abdelrazik back to Canada.

“Mr. Abdelrazik’s Charter right to enter Canada has been breached by the respondents,” Federal Court Judge Russel Zinn said in a judgment released today. “ Mr. Abdelrazik is entitled to an appropriate remedy which, in the unique circumstances of his situation, requires that the Canadian government take immediate action so that Mr. Abdelrazik is returned to Canada.”




Browse

The latest rebuke

  1. 'Bout time.

  2. Finally this tragic farce can come to an end. Knowing these Tories, I very much suspect they'll appeal this, though one can't but hope they just comply with the order and be done with this. If they do appeal, I hope the Supreme Court throws it out so Mr. Abdelrazik can finally come home.

  3. It rather amazes me that the Tories can simultaneously send out Sir Jason to perform Ye Deedes of Valeure in immigrant communities and stomp this guy for the sake of the red meat base. Doesn't the latter cancel the former?

    • I believe – to steal the phrase used to describe Paul Martin's tenure as PM, the Conservatives are trying to be all things to all people.. placate the red meat fire-breathing "law and order" base (an oxymoronic description if there ever was one), AND try to convince the immigrant communities and 'new" Canadians they love them too.

    • I believe – to steal the phrase used to describe Paul Martin's tenure as PM – the Conservatives are trying to be all things to all people.. placate the red meat fire-breathing "law and order" base (an oxymoronic description if there ever was one), AND try to convince the immigrant communities and 'new" Canadians they love them too.

    • I believe – to steal the phrase used to describe Paul Martin's tenure as PM – the Conservatives are trying to be all things to all people; placate the red meat fire-breathing "law and order" base (an oxymoronic description if there ever was one), AND try to convince the immigrant communities and 'new" Canadians they love them too.

    • No, those two things are not comparable.

  4. I'm actually curious as to what would happen if the government of the day disobeyed a Supreme Court decision. The optics would be pretty bad though, particularly for a party that brands its self as the party of law and order.

    The government COULD invoke the Notwithstanding clause I suppose…

        • Thanks, Scott M.! You are absolutely right,

          But what happens if the government sits on its hands? Could the Supreme Court hear the case within 30 days even if the government wanted to appeal it?

          • I was thinking about that too. I suspect if it's not complied with in 30 days the complainant would have to go back to court to get an enforcement order. I suspect at that time if lawyers indicate they are seeking further appellate review, the court would probably issue the enforcement order and suspend it pending the results of the appeal.

            What I'm wondering is… what can an enforcement order do? I guess it could command the RCMP to have their local presence in Sudan execute the order…

        • They could use Section 1 perhaps and demostrate that it is a reasonable limitation?

          Doubt it would fly, but I think that is the only way the government could use the Charter to battle the Charter…

          • After finding that the government breached his rights, the court would have already gone through the s. 1 analysis. So unless the government can prove an error, they are screwed.

  5. At long last. Let's hope they follow through on it.

    • Sounds like you're a friend of Abousfian. You gonna meet him at the airport?

      • Would there be any reason not to, scf? The guy is cleared by the RCMP and CSIS.. and he's living at the Canadian Embassy – a rather strange place for someone to be if the Conservative government truly thinks he's a terrorist.

      • Would there be any reason not to, scf? The guy is cleared by the RCMP and CSIS.. and he's been living at the Canadian Embassy for a year – a rather strange place for someone to be if the Conservative government truly thinks he's a terrorist.

      • Would there be any reason not to, scf? The guy is cleared by the RCMP and CSIS.. and he's been living at the Canadian Embassy for a year – a rather strange place for someone to be permitted to stay if the Conservative government truly thinks he's a terrorist.

        • I don't think he's a terrorist either. He's just an unlucky fellow who may have associated with the wrong people. We should return him to Canada, pronto. If CSIS still thinks he belonged to a terrorist cell, they can monitor him while he's living here.

        • Considering the fact that the UN put him on a suspected terrorist list, I'd rather not meet him at the airport. It was the "at long last" comment I found puzzling. The man is a dual citizen in one of his countries of citizenship and he is living in our embassy. He deserves to return to Canada it the government cannot produce evidence of terrorism, but one thing is for sure, the company that this man keeps makes me leery, and I am not pleased to know that we are bringing in new dual citizens who are considered terrorist threats by the UN.

          • Actually, while it's a U.N. list, I'm pretty sure it's been well established that the United States had him added to the list, not the "U.N." per se. Also, it's worth noting (again) that the current Tory government tried to have Mr. Abdelrazik removed from the list, but were unsuccessful (due, most likely, to the intervention of a certain veto-wielding member of the Security Council). As far as I can tell, the only requirement to get on that list is that someone from the White House calls up and says "put this guy on the list".

            Also, I don't know how you define "new" but Mr. Abdelrazik's been a Canadian citizen for 14 years, so I think we can take "new" off his title of "citizen". Also, it's not that we're "bringing him in" it's that we should "allow him to return home". There's a reason the UN list explicitly makes a travel exception for citizens returning to their country of citizenship, and it's because no one outside of the Harper cabinet would ever consider denying a citizen the fundamental right of return to their nation of citizenship.

            Finally, if your fears are stoked merely by the fact that his name appears on a list, may I suggest you speak with the hundreds of people who have trouble getting on to planes every day because their name's on a watch list. You could start with Senator Ted Kennedy, who was stopped a half dozen times before the list that his name was on was sorted out.

  6. Question: why doesn't the linked-to article make any mention of Mr. Abdelrazik's citizenship? (He's a Sudanese-Canadian dual citizen, for the record.)

    Further, unrelated, question: am I the only one who, since the Tories formed the government, has been reminded much too frequently of the following quote from Futurama: "We've petitioned the governor but he doesn't want to appear soft on people who've been falsely imprisoned."

  7. R. Smith…O. Khadr…A. Abdelrazik….it's a good thing we have courts in this country that are willing to let our "tough on crime" government know that they are habitually breaking the law.

    • Hear, Hear. They actually believe they are above the law and act as though they have a majority. Imagine what would happen if they did.

  8. Just finished reading the ruling. Zinn seems seriously pissed about the UN 1267 Travel ban. See paragraphs 53-54 – "One cannot prove that fairies and goblins do not exist any more than Mr. Abdelrazik or any other person can prove that they are
    not an Al-Qaida associate… I pause to comment that it is frightening to learn that a citizen of this or any other country might find himself on the 1267 Committee list, based only on suspicion."

  9. Let's get a many terrorists back to Canada as we can! Yippee.

    • MJH, are you suggesting Mr. Abdelrazik is a terrorist? Even though the RCMP and CSIS already cleared him? Do you know something our security services don't? Because if not, you're just slandering an innocent person.

    • Point to ONE piece of evidence that Mr. Abdelrazik is, or ever was, a terrorist.

      If you can do so, please also forward said evidence to the RCMP and CSIS, 'cause they couldn't find it.

      I'm not even 100% opposed to the idea of a government saying "This person is a threat, and we can't tell you why". If the government's going to sing that tune though, they'd better get the country's police force and spies singing from the same page. (Even then, I'm not sure it's ever appropriate to violate a citizen's fundamental rights without charge or evidence, but at LEAST you've got to engineer a situation in which the RCMP and CSIS don't publicly clear the guy of any connections to terrorism or criminal activity, while you're out there trying to convince people he's some sort of unspecifiable threat. Otherwise you just look idiotic.).

    • "Let's get a many terrorists back to Canada as we can! Yippee. "

      I'd rather have you deported.

  10. I'll bet they simply ignore the ruling and do nothing.

    Better yet: they can argue that our Sudanese embassy is Canadian territory and that Abdelrazik's right of return has therefore already been respected.

    • Hell, we can't even convince Critical Reasoning of that little fact, it would be interesting for his Conservatives to use the very same argument I've worn my fingers out with to no effect.

  11. MJH, seriously, are you just a partisan hack or do you truly not understand what is happening here?

    "Hey, Aaron," says I, "I hear that MJH has some shady–dare I say dangerous–intentions."

    "Oh, my, that won't do," says Aaron. "I'll institute a ban on the Macleans blogs right away."

    And with that, you are out of here. No chance to question me–or even find out who I am, no chance to tell your side of the story or lack of one, no opportunity to appeal the decision. And let us remember this guy isn't allowed HOME, not just banned from some comment board. Quite a bit more serious, same lack of common sense.

Sign in to comment.