142

Canada’s deportation of Cindor Reeves: the government’s response

All it took was a bit of cutting and pasting from press releases


 

I’ve been trying to get a response from Immigration Minister Jason Kenney on the impending deportation of Cindor Reeves since Monday. Reeves is the former brother-in-law of Charles Taylor, who brutalized Liberia and, through a proxy army, neighbouring Sierra Leone, for more than a decade. Reeves smuggled guns and diamonds for Taylor before secretly turning against him to cooperate with the Special Court for Sierra Leone, which is now trying Taylor for war crimes and crimes against humanity in The Hague. Reeves asked for and received nothing for his work with the Special Court, which was crucial to building a case against Taylor. His life has been threatened multiple times since, and there is good reason to believe he will be murdered by Taylor loyalists if he is returned to Liberia.

Generally, when this government wants to avoid answering difficult questions, their response to media inquiries follows a predictable pattern. You, as a journalist will never actually talk to someone who will answer your questions. You pose your questions to one person; someone else emails you statements that have little relation to the questions you asked.

Given the injustice and hypocrisy this case entails, as well as the fact that a man’s life may soon end because of the Immigration and Refugee Board’s decision, I had expected something more. I shouldn’t have.

Kenney did not return my calls. After two days of runaround, I eventually got the following email from Esme Bailey, “senior media spokesperson” for the Canada Border Services Agency. Apparently the skills necessary to be a senior media spokesperson at CBSA include cutting and pasting text from years-old press releases, which is what she did. Bailey’s complete response is below.

(I should add that when posing my questions to the spokesperson at Citizenship and Immigration Canada, who could not actually answer them, I referred to the “voluminous” evidence of threats to Cindor Reeves’ life, rather than the “luminous” evidence that was recorded. Somehow I doubt Bailey’s response would have been any different had her colleague taken better notes.)

Questions and Answers

Q1. Is the CBSA able to discuss the evidence presented against Cindor Reeves?

A1. Due to privacy, we are unable to discuss the evidence of this specific case.

Q2. Would like Minster Kenney’s reaction to Cindor Reeves case and the IRB decision.

A2. The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) is operationally responsible for enforcing the terms of Canadian law, including the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the CBSA has a statutory obligation to remove any foreign national or permanent resident who is inadmissible to Canada and has been issued a removal order that is in force. In fact, these removal orders must be enforced as soon as possible, and the CBSA is firmly committed to doing this.

Q3. Why Canada is prepared to deport a man who is largely responsible for Charles Taylor being on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Hague through the special court for Sierra Leone, which Canada has funded with millions of dollars.

A3. Everyone ordered removed from Canada is entitled to due process before the law and all removal orders are subject to various levels of appeal.

Canada has an internationally recognized system to prevent people who have been involved in organized crime, terrorist organizations, war crimes or crimes against humanity from having access to our refugee determination program.

Individuals who have committed or who are complicit in the commission of a war crime, a crime against humanity, genocide, or any other reprehensible act, regardless of when or where these crimes occurred, are not welcome in Canada.

Canada will not be a safe haven for individuals who have participated in war crimes or crimes against humanity. Canada has a number of remedies to take action against these individuals, which include denial of visas abroad, exclusion from refugee protection in Canada, criminal prosecution, revocation of citizenship, removal, extradition, and surrender to an international tribunal. CBSA works with its partners in the Coordinated War Crimes Program, which was established in 1998, to determine which remedy is the most appropriate in each case.

When an individual is found to be excluded from refugee protection, they are then subject to a removal order. Prior to removal, individuals may apply for a pre-removal risk assessment to ascertain risk upon return to the country of origin.

Q4. How Canada can expect other potential witnesses to major war crimes cases to cooperate with the international community, given how Canada is treating a prime witness, Cindor Reeves, in the case of Charles Taylor?

A4. Please contact the Department of Justice at 613-957-4207.

Q5. Is Minister Kenney bothered by the luminous evidence of threats to Cindor Reeves life, should he be returned to Liberia? Why are we deporting him?

A5. Canada will not be a safe haven for individuals who have participated in war crimes or crimes against humanity. Everyone ordered removed from Canada is entitled to due process before the law and all removal orders are subject to various levels of appeal. Prior to removal, individuals may apply for a pre-removal risk assessment to ascertain risk upon return to the country of origin.



 

Canada’s deportation of Cindor Reeves: the government’s response

  1. Can you ask a follow up question, regarding why deport him to Liberia when he didn't come to us from there?

    I wrote to Justin Trudeau, but haven't heard from him, either.

  2. Can you ask a follow up question, regarding why deport him to Liberia when he didn't come to us from there?

    I wrote to Justin Trudeau, but haven't heard from him, either.

    • Is he not from Liberia originally?

    • Hi Jenn,

      Reeves never had permanent legal status in Holland or Germany. He was put up there under the Special Court for Sierra Leone's witness protection program.

      Michael

      • Is it completely impossible for him to re-enter the Special Court's witness protection program? Is there any way that the Special Court could intervene in his deportation, or absolve him of any wrong doing?

        • I believe the Special Court, at the very least, has an obligation to put him under witness protection again. They have not done so. Former members of the court submitted affidavits to the Immigration and Refugee Board indicating what Reeves did for the court and the risks he took. Current members of the court have been less willing to help.

          • Then maybe it is also time to seek commentary from the Special Court?

      • Ah. Thanks.

  3. What happened to the concept of ministers accepting responsibility for their department?

  4. What happened to the concept of ministers accepting responsibility for their department?

    • That only applies when people want to question the staffers.

  5. Mr. Petrou, did you ask the question of what CIndor Reeves may have done BEFORE he began co-operating with the authorities to remove Taylor from power?

    If in the response come to learn that Mr. Reeves was actually involved in some atrocities would that change your mind?

    As for not getting answers to your questions, one should not be surprised if instead of actual information you are getting policy thrown in your face.
    People have a tendency to disregard the queries of those who may be seen as folks simply looking for information in order to slag the information provider. This may not be true in your case, however, given the history of some in the Canadian media, it shouldn't be a surprise.

  6. Mr. Petrou, did you ask the question of what CIndor Reeves may have done BEFORE he began co-operating with the authorities to remove Taylor from power?

    If in the response come to learn that Mr. Reeves was actually involved in some atrocities would that change your mind?

    As for not getting answers to your questions, one should not be surprised if instead of actual information you are getting policy thrown in your face.
    People have a tendency to disregard the queries of those who may be seen as folks simply looking for information in order to slag the information provider. This may not be true in your case, however, given the history of some in the Canadian media, it shouldn't be a surprise.

    • So, James Halifax, in your mind the role of the media in a democracy is to…cheerlead for the government? And if they don't, they should expect access to any information?

      • No, S. Galore,

        In my mind, one who considers himself a journalist should find the facts of a story and report them, leaving it up to readers to determine if there is any true injustice or hypocrisy. Mr. Petrou is not doing that, as evidenced by the questions he posed. You'll note, when he asked about the evidence against Mr. Reeves and was not given a response, he wrote as though there was NO evidence against the man, and apparently concluded there was none. My question was whether any response would have changed his opinion. Instead of asking for specific evidence, why not just ask what Mr. Reeves did that would disqualify him from seeking sanctuary here in Canada. "Specific Evidence" may include security issues that shouldn't be shared. (Informants, security org's, etc.)

        • Actually, he's trying to find the facts, whether he has an agenda in doing so is irrelevant, and what his opinion would be, either before or after, is also irrelevant. The facts are simple. He sought information from our government which our government refuses to provide. Doesn't that concern you?

          • What facts? The list of questions do not ask for dates, times, places etc. They ask a) whether the government can discuss evidence (answer given), b) a reaction, which is not a fact at all c) an explanation on a highly leading and disingenuous question, d) an opinion on a hypothetical question and e) the Minister's personal reaction to the questioner's characterization of evidence in the proceeding.

            I have no problem with asking the government for facts, but the facts are all available in the transcripts and record of the hearing. The rest is simply posturing. Why the writer would expect any different answer than he received is beyond me.

          • You don't think the Minister responsible should explain why it is acceptable to sentence someone to death by deportation?

          • Thwim wrote:
            "Actually, he's trying to find the facts, whether he has an agenda in doing so is irrelevant, and what his opinion would be, either before or after, is also irrelevant"

            I have no problem finding facts, my problem is with a journalist NOT finding facts….and then making up his own.

        • Petrou didn't ask for "specific evidence" he just asked if anyone would discuss the evidence presented against Reeves. It was the staffers who said that specific evidence of this case can't be discussed (which makes me wonder whther or not the evidence presented in other cases can be discussed).

          Is it not at all worrying to you that we're apparently about to deport a man to almost certain death, and the supposed evidence used against him is kept hidden from the public?

          • It is rather darkly humorous to see all these guys who have such problems with "nanny-statism" having no similar qualms about the state sending people off to quite likely die, without ever having to reveal the reasons why.

          • Actually, LdKitchener's Own…

            If Mr. Reeves was involved in the horror of Liberia……I don't care what they do to him.

        • Hi James,

          I have researched Reeves' story for years, and have factually reported everything I found, including his actions before cooperating with the Special Court. These articles are all available on the Maclean's website. Also, regarding evidence that Reeves committed atrocities. It is not the case the the Immigration and Refugee Board claims there is evidence that it can't share. I have seen a written summary of their decision. They offer none, other than what Reeves has always admitted to: running guns and diamonds for his brother-in-law. Secondly, in all my research into Reeves and Liberia I have found no evidence he personally committed atrocities. While I cannot be certain, I strongly suspect if such evidence exists, I would have found it.

          Michael Petrou

          • Michael Petrou wrote:
            "other than what Reeves has always admitted to: running guns and diamonds for his brother-in-law. "

            I'm thinking that those actions, given what they entailed are probably amongst the reasons this guy is not being allowed to stay in Canada.

            That being said, please disregard my pissy comments with regards to your story. Thank you for offering the clarification.

          • They offer none, other than what Reeves has always admitted to: running guns and diamonds for his brother-in-law. Secondly, in all my research into Reeves and Liberia I have found no evidence he personally committed atrocities.

            I suppose our government has concluded that enough of those guns did.

            But I still don't get why the (at present failed) applicant doesn't max out his appeals, and-or request that he be sent back to the nation from which he came (over in Europe) rather than to the country-of-certain-death. As I believe you have written, he skirted legitimacy when he high-tailed it to Canada in the first place.

    • James: Read Petrou's previous pieces dealing extensively with Reeves before this point.

  7. So the public only has a right to know when the journalist hasn't irritated the bureaucrat or minister in the past?

    Personally, I'd rather have good disclosure and irritated politicians and civil servants. I suspect you'd agree with me if the Liberal party were in power.

  8. That only applies when people want to question the staffers.

  9. Okay, so the Minister is going to hide, now what about the Opposition?

  10. Okay, so the Minister is going to hide, now what about the Opposition?

    • I'm sure Iggy is terrified of being labeled "soft on war criminals".

  11. Is he not from Liberia originally?

  12. So, James Halifax, in your mind the role of the media in a democracy is to…cheerlead for the government? And if they don't, they should expect access to any information?

  13. What the hell, being murdered back in Liberia is probably better than living in the travesty of a country we call Canada. At least this way Reeves won't a) dwell among us as a brave man, embarrassing the rest of us; b) become naturalised; c) spend the rest of his life in the constant humiliation of being Canadian, like we have to (seriously).

  14. What the hell, being murdered back in Liberia is probably better than living in the travesty of a country we call Canada. At least this way Reeves won't a) dwell among us as a brave man, embarrassing the rest of us; b) become naturalised; c) spend the rest of his life in the constant humiliation of being Canadian, like we have to (seriously).

    • Truth Monger…

      Hmm …..have you ever thought of moving to Egypt?

      I hear they're going to be something great one day. You should give it a try.

  15. Petrou wrote:
    "Given the injustice and hypocrisy this case entails, as well as the fact that a man's life may soon end because of the Immigration and Refugee Board's decision, I had expected something more. I shouldn't have."

    It's clear from his comments that Mr. Petrou isn't looking for facts or answers, as he apparently has already made up his mind about the case. This is written by someone who thinks they already have the answers and is looking for justification, when in fact, he should be looking for the facts and THEN determining if the case entails injustice and hypocrisy.
    I'd say his comments are a clearer example of hypocrisy than any respnose he gets from his queries.

  16. Petrou wrote:
    "Given the injustice and hypocrisy this case entails, as well as the fact that a man's life may soon end because of the Immigration and Refugee Board's decision, I had expected something more. I shouldn't have."

    It's clear from his comments that Mr. Petrou isn't looking for facts or answers, as he apparently has already made up his mind about the case. This is written by someone who thinks they already have the answers and is looking for justification, when in fact, he should be looking for the facts and THEN determining if the case entails injustice and hypocrisy.
    I'd say his comments are a clearer example of hypocrisy than any respnose he gets from his queries.

    • So what? Since when does having an agenda mean the government gets to avoid providing answers?

      Or do you agree that the CBC should be allowed to hide their expenditures because the people looking for them have an agenda?

      • Since when does having an agenda mean the government gets to avoid providing answers?

        No excuse is too flimsy for the government to avoid providing answers to the public.

    • When Petrou says he had expecting something more, he's not saying that he didn't like the answers he got, he's saying he doesn't like the fact that he didn't get answers. He IS looking for facts, but no one seems to want to give him the facts he's looking for.

    • "It's clear from his comments that Mr. Petrou isn't looking for facts or answers, as he apparently has already made up his mind about the case"

      James have you actually read anything that MP has previously written on this subject? Somehow i doubt it.

      Just for reference James the sentence you quote owes it's validity to the sentences immediately above and below it – it's called context. Shouldn't you be in school or somewhere you can learn about such basic comprehension?

  17. No, S. Galore,

    In my mind, one who considers himself a journalist should find the facts of a story and report them, leaving it up to readers to determine if there is any true injustice or hypocrisy. Mr. Petrou is not doing that, as evidenced by the questions he posed. You'll note, when he asked about the evidence against Mr. Reeves and was not given a response, he wrote as though there was NO evidence against the man, and apparently concluded there was none. My question was whether any response would have changed his opinion. Instead of asking for specific evidence, why not just ask what Mr. Reeves did that would disqualify him from seeking sanctuary here in Canada. "Specific Evidence" may include security issues that shouldn't be shared. (Informants, security org's, etc.)

  18. So what? Since when does having an agenda mean the government gets to avoid providing answers?

    Or do you agree that the CBC should be allowed to hide their expenditures because the people looking for them have an agenda?

  19. Actually, he's trying to find the facts, whether he has an agenda in doing so is irrelevant, and what his opinion would be, either before or after, is also irrelevant. The facts are simple. He sought information from our government which our government refuses to provide. Doesn't that concern you?

  20. Speaking fo the Opposition…did anyone watch the Emergency debate on Egypt last night?

    Bob Rae got in a viscious dig at his own leader. He stated that he wasn't the kind to warm Mr. Mubarak that "his time was up"…

    Ouch!!!!

    Bet that made for an interesting Liberal caucus meeting today.

  21. Speaking fo the Opposition…did anyone watch the Emergency debate on Egypt last night?

    Bob Rae got in a viscious dig at his own leader. He stated that he wasn't the kind to warm Mr. Mubarak that "his time was up"…

    Ouch!!!!

    Bet that made for an interesting Liberal caucus meeting today.

  22. When Petrou says he had expecting something more, he's not saying that he didn't like the answers he got, he's saying he doesn't like the fact that he didn't get answers. He IS looking for facts, but no one seems to want to give him the facts he's looking for.

  23. Petrou didn't ask for "specific evidence" he just asked if anyone would discuss the evidence presented against Reeves. It was the staffers who said that specific evidence of this case can't be discussed (which makes me wonder whther or not the evidence presented in other cases can be discussed).

    Is it not at all worrying to you that we're apparently about to deport a man to almost certain death, and the supposed evidence used against him is kept hidden from the public?

  24. Since when does having an agenda mean the government gets to avoid providing answers?

    No excuse is too flimsy for the government to avoid providing answers to the public.

  25. What facts? The list of questions do not ask for dates, times, places etc. They ask a) whether the government can discuss evidence (answer given), b) a reaction, which is not a fact at all c) an explanation on a highly leading and disingenuous question, d) an opinion on a hypothetical question and e) the Minister's personal reaction to the questioner's characterization of evidence in the proceeding.

    I have no problem with asking the government for facts, but the facts are all available in the transcripts and record of the hearing. The rest is simply posturing. Why the writer would expect any different answer than he received is beyond me.

  26. It is rather darkly humorous to see all these guys who have such problems with "nanny-statism" having no similar qualms about the state sending people off to quite likely die, without ever having to reveal the reasons why.

  27. Hi Jenn,

    Reeves never had permanent legal status in Holland or Germany. He was put up there under the Special Court for Sierra Leone's witness protection program.

    Michael

  28. Hi James,

    I have researched Reeves' story for years, and have factually reported everything I found, including his actions before cooperating with the Special Court. These articles are all available on the Maclean's website. Also, regarding evidence that Reeves committed atrocities. It is not the case the the Immigration and Refugee Board claims there is evidence that it can't share. I have seen a written summary of their decision. They offer none, other than what Reeves has always admitted to: running guns and diamonds for his brother-in-law. Secondly, in all my research into Reeves and Liberia I have found no evidence he personally committed atrocities. While I cannot be certain, I strongly suspect if such evidence exists, I would have found it.

    Michael Petrou

  29. Is it completely impossible for him to re-enter the Special Court's witness protection program? Is there any way that the Special Court could intervene in his deportation, or absolve him of any wrong doing?

  30. I'm sure Iggy is terrified of being labeled "soft on war criminals".

  31. You don't think the Minister responsible should explain why it is acceptable to sentence someone to death by deportation?

  32. "It's clear from his comments that Mr. Petrou isn't looking for facts or answers, as he apparently has already made up his mind about the case"

    James have you actually read anything that MP has previously written on this subject? Somehow i doubt it.

    Just for reference James the sentence you quote owes it's validity to the sentences immediately above and below it – it's called context. Shouldn't you be in school or somewhere you can learn about such basic comprehension?

  33. Thwim wrote:
    "Actually, he's trying to find the facts, whether he has an agenda in doing so is irrelevant, and what his opinion would be, either before or after, is also irrelevant"

    I have no problem finding facts, my problem is with a journalist NOT finding facts….and then making up his own.

  34. Actually, LdKitchener's Own…

    If Mr. Reeves was involved in the horror of Liberia……I don't care what they do to him.

  35. I believe the Special Court, at the very least, has an obligation to put him under witness protection again. They have not done so. Former members of the court submitted affidavits to the Immigration and Refugee Board indicating what Reeves did for the court and the risks he took. Current members of the court have been less willing to help.

  36. Michael Petrou wrote:
    "other than what Reeves has always admitted to: running guns and diamonds for his brother-in-law. "

    I'm thinking that those actions, given what they entailed are probably amongst the reasons this guy is not being allowed to stay in Canada.

    That being said, please disregard my pissy comments with regards to your story. Thank you for offering the clarification.

  37. Truth Monger…

    Hmm …..have you ever thought of moving to Egypt?

    I hear they're going to be something great one day. You should give it a try.

  38. If he is then he needs to grow a backbone, because stuff like this is where the rubber hits the road [ Mr Ignatieff if you happen to glance this way] and leaves the realms of human rights theory. In any case Ignatieff does have experience in this arena – he should know what is the right thing to do by now.

  39. Ah. Thanks.

  40. Speak to the hand!

    Keep up the struggle MP!

    I'll ask a Q i asked on the other blog: is there any indication of political inference in this case – or is that a really naive Q? Alternately[ and more likely] is this just the kind of stubborn bloody minded stonewalling we've seen from this govt on numerous occasions? I wonderhow much they have invested in this, politically speaking?

  41. Speak to the hand!

    Keep up the struggle MP!

    I'll ask a Q i asked on the other blog: is there any indication of political inference in this case – or is that a really naive Q? Alternately[ and more likely] is this just the kind of stubborn bloody minded stonewalling we've seen from this govt on numerous occasions? I wonderhow much they have invested in this, politically speaking?

  42. Oh, I completely agree! In fact, a situation like this is one where he could make serious inroads with myself and others like me who think he's been nothing more than an empty suit reading off strategists talking points since he returned to Canada. The more I think about it though, it's almost as if he's been trying to get people to forget that he was a human rights professor by avoiding controversial subjects like this one.

  43. Oh, I completely agree! In fact, a situation like this is one where he could make serious inroads with myself and others like me who think he's been nothing more than an empty suit reading off strategists talking points since he returned to Canada. The more I think about it though, it's almost as if he's been trying to get people to forget that he was a human rights professor by avoiding controversial subjects like this one.

    • He certainly hasn't overwhelmed me with his political courage so farthat's for sure.

  44. They offer none, other than what Reeves has always admitted to: running guns and diamonds for his brother-in-law. Secondly, in all my research into Reeves and Liberia I have found no evidence he personally committed atrocities.

    I suppose our government has concluded that enough of those guns did.

    But I still don't get why the (at present failed) applicant doesn't max out his appeals, and-or request that he be sent back to the nation from which he came (over in Europe) rather than to the country-of-certain-death. As I believe you have written, he skirted legitimacy when he high-tailed it to Canada in the first place.

  45. Then maybe it is also time to seek commentary from the Special Court?

  46. He's gone- thats all I care about.

  47. He's gone- thats all I care about.

  48. James: Read Petrou's previous pieces dealing extensively with Reeves before this point.

  49. So which nationality did you wish you truly were? Which people are bravest and truest and, in your opinion, always vanquish the guy in the black hat and get the girl?

  50. M Petrou, just out of curiosity, have you attempted to contact Kenney through his constituency office about this? Would that make any difference? Ok, naive of me I know but…

  51. M Petrou, just out of curiosity, have you attempted to contact Kenney through his constituency office about this? Would that make any difference? Ok, naive of me I know but…

    • I contacted Jason Kenney's Ottawa office three times and left messages for press secretary. The minister has had ample opportunity to respond.

      • Oh fair enough I totally agree. I wonder if any of his own actual constituents have contacted his office about this, or if they did, what his (or his Riding staff's) response would be.

      • Michael – refer readers to your excellent piece done last year about Mr. Reeves and his plight.

        • It's next linked next door.

  52. I've seen no evidence of political interference (or interest) in this case.

  53. I contacted Jason Kenney's Ottawa office three times and left messages for press secretary. The minister has had ample opportunity to respond.

  54. Thanks. I guess some interest might be nice in that case then

  55. Thanks. I guess some interest might be nice in that case then

  56. Oh fair enough I totally agree. I wonder if any of his own actual constituents have contacted his office about this, or if they did, what his (or his Riding staff's) response would be.

  57. DerekPeace noted:

    "?"

    I'll take that as a no, derek.

    Basically, Bob Rae was talking about how Canada's Foreign affairs folks can let Mubarak know he should step aside, without being obvious about it. He used Iggy's famous line, Mr. Harper, "you're time is up" to indicate he himself wouldn't be that in your face about it.

    I guess you had to see it. It was pretty good, though not a good idea if you want to be Liberal Leader one day.

  58. DerekPeace noted:

    "?"

    I'll take that as a no, derek.

    Basically, Bob Rae was talking about how Canada's Foreign affairs folks can let Mubarak know he should step aside, without being obvious about it. He used Iggy's famous line, Mr. Harper, "you're time is up" to indicate he himself wouldn't be that in your face about it.

    I guess you had to see it. It was pretty good, though not a good idea if you want to be Liberal Leader one day.

  59. It sounds like one of those, "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of issues.

    Kenney's situation: Deport a dude who WAS involved in nefarious behaviour (some of which only the minister may be privvy too) and be accused of sending a man to his death,

    OR.

    Let him stay, only to have it leak out in several months that Mr. Reeves was actually involved in some sort of atrocity.

    Either way, how do you think the Opposition would play it up?

  60. It sounds like one of those, "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of issues.

    Kenney's situation: Deport a dude who WAS involved in nefarious behaviour (some of which only the minister may be privvy too) and be accused of sending a man to his death,

    OR.

    Let him stay, only to have it leak out in several months that Mr. Reeves was actually involved in some sort of atrocity.

    Either way, how do you think the Opposition would play it up?

    • Right – let's not lose sight of what's at stake here: potential embarrassment of a cabinet minister, or how the opposition will "play it up".

      No worries about the life at stake.

      • Tj…..

        As mentioned before, if Mr. Reeves was involved in the horror in Liberia, I don't care about his life. I'm sure a great many other Canadians don't really care either. The same way I don't care about Clifford Olson or Paul Bernardo. Some people would do the world a favour, simply by not being in it.
        If the guy is innocent, send him somewhere else…if they'll have him.

        • You have a funny idea of justice, I think.

    • Wasn't that MP's point: the tribunal did not prevent any evidence ergo, it is reasonable to assume neither does the minister.

  61. Right – let's not lose sight of what's at stake here: potential embarrassment of a cabinet minister, or how the opposition will "play it up".

    No worries about the life at stake.

  62. M Petrou wrote a lengthy, thorough and compelling piece last year of Mr. Reeves and his plight. His ordeal has been beyond our comprehension. Try and locate it and then pass judgement – this government has absolutely no heart and ice water running through its veins.

  63. M Petrou wrote a lengthy, thorough and compelling piece last year of Mr. Reeves and his plight. His ordeal has been beyond our comprehension. Try and locate it and then pass judgement – this government has absolutely no heart and ice water running through its veins.

  64. Michael – refer readers to your excellent piece done last year about Mr. Reeves and his plight.

  65. He certainly hasn't overwhelmed me with his political courage so farthat's for sure.

  66. Findland…ok i just took a flyer on that one.

  67. Findland…ok i just took a flyer on that one.

  68. It's next linked next door.

  69. Wasn't that MP's point: the tribunal did not prevent any evidence ergo, it is reasonable to assume neither does the minister.

  70. People are expected to remember this lesson — be a whistleblower against us and expect swift justice; whistleblow FOR US and we'll forget all past indiscretions…

  71. People are expected to remember this lesson — be a whistleblower against us and expect swift justice; whistleblow FOR US and we'll forget all past indiscretions…

  72. Tj…..

    As mentioned before, if Mr. Reeves was involved in the horror in Liberia, I don't care about his life. I'm sure a great many other Canadians don't really care either. The same way I don't care about Clifford Olson or Paul Bernardo. Some people would do the world a favour, simply by not being in it.
    If the guy is innocent, send him somewhere else…if they'll have him.

  73. Bit of a stretch here:

    Assume for a moment Osama Bin Laden suddenly arrived on our doorstep at Pearson Airport. (disregard Emily holding the "Welcome to Canada O-sam-a" sign……and consider.

    By law, we would not be able to send him to the USA because he would no doubt be executed…..but do you think that would matter to Canadians?

    Who here (besides EMily and Holly) would want him to stay in Canada and NOT be executed?

    Oh sure, the students at some university's would hold fundraisers for his defence, and the NDP would be calling press conferences to decry his transfer to the USA…..but what about Canadians with a brain in the head?

    The point being….why SHOULD we try to protect the life of someone who is a known murderer or despot?

  74. Bit of a stretch here:

    Assume for a moment Osama Bin Laden suddenly arrived on our doorstep at Pearson Airport. (disregard Emily holding the "Welcome to Canada O-sam-a" sign……and consider.

    By law, we would not be able to send him to the USA because he would no doubt be executed…..but do you think that would matter to Canadians?

    Who here (besides EMily and Holly) would want him to stay in Canada and NOT be executed?

    Oh sure, the students at some university's would hold fundraisers for his defence, and the NDP would be calling press conferences to decry his transfer to the USA…..but what about Canadians with a brain in the head?

    The point being….why SHOULD we try to protect the life of someone who is a known murderer or despot?

  75. The biggest problem is the CBSA has no one to answer to. Even the minister who is supposed to be washes his/her hands of the particular problem person.

  76. The biggest problem is the CBSA has no one to answer to. Even the minister who is supposed to be washes his/her hands of the particular problem person.

  77. You have a funny idea of justice, I think.

  78. Deport this dubious person forthwith

  79. Deport this dubious person forthwith

  80. If Cindor Reeves was so instrumental in building a case against Charles Taylor. Then how come he was never called as a prosecution witness during the two and a half year trial ? The reason is that he was found out to be a liar and his testimony would not stand up to scrutiny.

  81. If Cindor Reeves was so instrumental in building a case against Charles Taylor. Then how come he was never called as a prosecution witness during the two and a half year trial ? The reason is that he was found out to be a liar and his testimony would not stand up to scrutiny.

    • Good Question…..is he a fraud using our system to remain…aren't there levels of appeals and doesn't he get a removal risk assessment or something.

  82. I have to agree with Aki why didn't he appear if he was so instrumental in bringing down Taylor.

  83. I have to agree with Aki why didn't he appear if he was so instrumental in bringing down Taylor.

  84. Good Question…..is he a fraud using our system to remain…aren't there levels of appeals and doesn't he get a removal risk assessment or something.

  85. I could not disagree with Mr Petrou more!
    Mr.Reeves run the guns and diamonds for Mr Taylor, the murderer. He contributed to Mr. Taylor's "war crimes and crimes against humanity". He clearly should be prosecuted for that since one who helps the murderer to commit the crime is guilty of said crime.
    Mr. Petrou writes "Reevs …received nothing for his work with the Special Court".
    Oh yes, he did. Like any guilty individual partaking in the murder and then collaborating with the authorities, he hopes to avoid the consequences of his abominable action.
    People who run guns and diamonds know the risk attributed to their activities. They know they can be caught, put to jail, even shot. Mr Reevs made a choice to help his brother in law. Morally and legally, his guild is not any less only because he agreed to cooperate with the Special Court in Hague. There is blood on his hands, no doubt.

  86. I could not disagree with Mr Petrou more!
    Mr.Reeves run the guns and diamonds for Mr Taylor, the murderer. He contributed to Mr. Taylor's "war crimes and crimes against humanity". He clearly should be prosecuted for that since one who helps the murderer to commit the crime is guilty of said crime.
    Mr. Petrou writes "Reevs …received nothing for his work with the Special Court".
    Oh yes, he did. Like any guilty individual partaking in the murder and then collaborating with the authorities, he hopes to avoid the consequences of his abominable action.
    People who run guns and diamonds know the risk attributed to their activities. They know they can be caught, put to jail, even shot. Mr Reevs made a choice to help his brother in law. Morally and legally, his guild is not any less only because he agreed to cooperate with the Special Court in Hague. There is blood on his hands, no doubt.

  87. let's not forget whom Mr. Reeves delivered the arms to… the RUF who committed atrocities against the civilians in Sierra Leone, for which Taylor is on trial. After reading the transcripts from various trials, his delivery of the weapons allowed the for mass torture and killings of the people. Innocence cannot be claimed for someone who ran weapons to an organization that kills.

  88. let's not forget whom Mr. Reeves delivered the arms to… the RUF who committed atrocities against the civilians in Sierra Leone, for which Taylor is on trial. After reading the transcripts from various trials, his delivery of the weapons allowed the for mass torture and killings of the people. Innocence cannot be claimed for someone who ran weapons to an organization that kills.

  89. if you run Reeves name you get hits from authors, nbc news, other sources who identify him as a key player…not just a man trying to assist the courts. What is frustrating is he comes to Canada, gets the ear of sympathetic journalist and plays on our sympathies. My sympathies clearly rest with the population that was tortured. Yes he gave information but when did he do this….after it was obvious that Taylor's government was going to fail….he received what he wanted an escape. Also, complaining about living in Germany cause he couldn't work….other than Reeves who said he couldn't work. What is Germany's immigration laws like…my understanding is that if he could find an employer he could get the necessary paperwork.

  90. if you run Reeves name you get hits from authors, nbc news, other sources who identify him as a key player…not just a man trying to assist the courts. What is frustrating is he comes to Canada, gets the ear of sympathetic journalist and plays on our sympathies. My sympathies clearly rest with the population that was tortured. Yes he gave information but when did he do this….after it was obvious that Taylor's government was going to fail….he received what he wanted an escape. Also, complaining about living in Germany cause he couldn't work….other than Reeves who said he couldn't work. What is Germany's immigration laws like…my understanding is that if he could find an employer he could get the necessary paperwork.

    • Jake Adams very good analysis and if Mr. Petrou cares to go to the website http://www.sc-sl.org and look at the the transcripts of the Charles Taylor trial he will realize that Cindor Reeves was never called as a witness.

      • Jake,

        Your understanding about Reeves' ability to work in Germany is incorrect and is confirmed as such in an affidavit submitted by Alan White, previously of the Special Court, who was largely responsible for arranging his stay in Germany under a witness protection program. In White's words, Reeves was "abandoned" by the Court there.

        Aki,

        I have never claimed Reeves appeared as a witness at the Charles Taylor trail. Building a case against an alleged war criminal involves more than testifying. That Reeves was instrumental in building this case has been explicitly confirmed by both Alan White and David Michael Crane, both of whom were intimately involved in the prosecution's case against Taylor. I have detailed all of this in previous articles, which I invite you to consult.

        Michael

  91. Jake Adams very good analysis and if Mr. Petrou cares to go to the website <a href="http://www.sc-sl.org” target=”_blank”>www.sc-sl.org and look at the the transcripts of the Charles Taylor trial he will realize that Cindor Reeves was never called as a witness.

  92. Jake,

    Your understanding about Reeves' ability to work in Germany is incorrect and is confirmed as such in an affidavit submitted by Alan White, previously of the Special Court, who was largely responsible for arranging his stay in Germany under a witness protection program. In White's words, Reeves was "abandoned" by the Court there.

    Aki,

    I have never claimed Reeves appeared as a witness at the Charles Taylor trail. Building a case against an alleged war criminal involves more than testifying. That Reeves was instrumental in building this case has been explicitly confirmed by both Alan White and David Michael Crane, both of whom were intimately involved in the prosecution's case against Taylor. I have detailed all of this in previous articles, which I invite you to consult.

    Michael

  93. I'm a Liberian living here in Canada and most times we attend Liberian parties we see a lot of Charles Taylor's ex – REBELS living here in Toronto under false names i think they are smarter then Cindor Reeves because i still don't know why he came to Canada with his real name when he could've gotten a Liberian or Burkina Faso passports with false names and just enter Canada after all he's not a wanted man,we the Liberian living in Canada feel so sorry for Cindor Reeves because he helped a lot of we the Liberian Civilians during the WAR. No one can point and say that C.R. fought in any of the wars because not a day he held a gun.

  94. I'm a Liberian living here in Canada and most times we attend Liberian parties we see a lot of Charles Taylor's ex – REBELS living here in Toronto under false names i think they are smarter then Cindor Reeves because i still don't know why he came to Canada with his real name when he could've gotten a Liberian or Burkina Faso passports with false names and just enter Canada after all he's not a wanted man,we the Liberian living in Canada feel so sorry for Cindor Reeves because he helped a lot of we the Liberian Civilians during the WAR. No one can point and say that C.R. fought in any of the wars because not a day he held a gun.

  95. I just can't believe what i just read about Cindor Reeves but i think the late Bob Marley said it all that your worst enemy could be your best friend. Cindor Reeves you will rot in Hell ,you will pay for wheat you did to Charles Taylor. Hurray CANADIAN REFUGEE BOARD HURRAY ,hurray Jason Kenney i'm moving in your constituency you can count my vote for you and thanks Steven Harper. C.R. all along you was the enemy?

  96. I just can't believe what i just read about Cindor Reeves but i think the late Bob Marley said it all that your worst enemy could be your best friend. Cindor Reeves you will rot in Hell ,you will pay for wheat you did to Charles Taylor. Hurray CANADIAN REFUGEE BOARD HURRAY ,hurray Jason Kenney i'm moving in your constituency you can count my vote for you and thanks Steven Harper. C.R. all along you was the enemy?

  97. Cindor Reeves is a criminal…He claimed to have had an export business and he ripped alot of Liberians off thier hard earn money. Let him go back to Liberia. If the International Court in Den Haag believed a word coming out of the mouth of this pathological liar, Taylor will be a free man .

  98. Cindor Reeves is a criminal…He claimed to have had an export business and he ripped alot of Liberians off thier hard earn money. Let him go back to Liberia. If the International Court in Den Haag believed a word coming out of the mouth of this pathological liar, Taylor will be a free man .

  99. FINALLY, our government grows a spine. As long as he's out of the country, I'm happy. I got your back, Kenney. I'm so sick of being the laughing stock of the entire world.

  100. FINALLY, our government grows a spine. As long as he's out of the country, I'm happy. I got your back, Kenney. I'm so sick of being the laughing stock of the entire world.

Sign in to comment.