Rabbi Elior Chen fled Israel to hide in Canada.

Not because he was being persecuted in his country of origin, as so many others do, nor was he claiming to flee a war-torn area.

Chen came to Canada to avoid criminal prosecution.

Israel issued an arrest warrant for him in connection to charges of beating children as young as three with hammers and knives to discipline them.

Yes, hammers and knives. As expected, at least one of the children has suffered permanent brain damage and is in a coma.

Yediot Aharonot newspaper also detailed how children were tied up and force fed a concoction of alcohol, salt, pepper and turpentine until they vomited.

Chen explained to one mother,

You see, they vomit the Satan inside them.

Chen is the spiritual mentor of a group called Pitzuei HaNachal, or wounded of the river, alleged to systematically beat children. They refer to him as “His Honour the King of the Messiah.”

Members of the group were arrested in 2005 in connection with a plot to fire a missile at the Temple Mount, in opposition to the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Gaza Strip.  Chen was involved in advising the group on how to obtain funds to purchase the armaments, and said he would put them in touch with Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) that would train them.

He’s not getting any support from the Jewish community in Canada, who have publicly called for him to turn himself in. Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi Yona Metzger in Israel has made similar statements.

But what’s most interesting is the reason why authorities think he is here. Chen apparently believed that Canada had tight extradition laws that would protect him, despite his alleged infliction of cruel and unusual punishment on others.

Sarah Boyd of Osgoode Hall corrects this erroneous impression,

Um, no. That’d be a big no. We only deport to death penalty in exceptional cases, since Burns & Raffay.

The court stated in United States v. Burns (2001),

Factors for and against extradition without assurances must be balanced under s. 7. The objectives sought to be advanced by extradition without assurances would be as well served by extradition with assurances. There is no convincing argument that exposure of the respondents to death in prison by execution advances Canada’s public interest in a way that the alternative, eventual death in prison by natural causes, would not. Other abolitionist countries do not, in general, extradite without assurances.

The factors they cited include:

1. the death penalty has been rejected in Canada, as capital punishment is considered cruel and usual punishment and is irreversible
2. advocating for the abolition of the death penalty internationally is a major Canadian initiative
3. the Extradition Act (1999) allows refusal of surrender of certain individuals, which include the death penalty,
   When Minister may refuse to make order
   44. (2) The Minister may refuse to make a surrender order if the Minister is satisfied that the conduct in respect of which the request for extradition is made is punishable by death under the laws that apply to the extradition partner.
4. A concern over wrongful convictions since Kindler and Ng demonstrate that despite safeguards for the protection of the innocent, mistakes can be made, even by legal systems similar to our own
5. death row produces lengthy delays, which cause psychological trauma, even to the innocent waiting to be vindicated

Apparently nobody told Chen about Maher Arar.

Despite all of the above, we do sometimes extradite our own citizens (or assist in doing so) to jurisdictions where the death penalty is used, even when they are innocent. We’re even the only Western nation failing to intervene on behalf of our citizens in places like Gitmo.

Canada is probably the worst place to come to.

Sorry, no refuge here.