Comments on: Responses to Prime Minister of Canada v. Omar Khadr http://lawiscool.com/2010/01/29/david-asper-centre-responds-to-prime-minister-of-canada-v-omar-khadr/?nucrss=1 The law school blog and podcast from Canada Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:00:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: sharon earle http://lawiscool.com/2010/01/29/david-asper-centre-responds-to-prime-minister-of-canada-v-omar-khadr/comment-page-1/#comment-8199 sharon earle Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:15:09 +0000 http://lawiscool.com/?p=2431#comment-8199 It is to be hoped and prayed that the present government in Ottawa, which has followed and pandered to the American government in all its incarcerating persons for years without charges or a fair trial, that Ottawa, after being seen to be undermining rights for many Canadians, that the Harper government will in the end be embarrassed enough to at least go through the gestures of calling upon the American Government to honour its own American Charter of Rights and recognize that an accused person has the right, by way of being a Human Being, to be charged and without delay and long incarceration, (habeus corpus) be honoured the right to answer the charges in a Court of Law of his own Country. All the other countries of the Detainees were sent home; why does the present Canadian government not recognized that this particular Canadian Citizen, Omar Khadr should be treated with the same Human Rights? The answer is that the Harper Government is a racist government and a government that does not opppose the rule through violence. Mr Harper, if he respects Democracy and rights and freedoms, should do as he has been asked to do..... to do the right thing and to bring Omar Khadr home to his own country to answer the Charges made against him by the American Army. It is to be hoped and prayed that the present government in Ottawa, which has followed and pandered to the American government in all its incarcerating persons for years without charges or a fair trial, that Ottawa, after being seen to be undermining rights for many Canadians, that the Harper government will in the end be embarrassed enough to at least go through the gestures of calling upon the American Government to honour its own American Charter of Rights and recognize that an accused person has the right, by way of being a Human Being, to be charged and without delay and long incarceration, (habeus corpus) be honoured the right to answer the charges in a Court of Law of his own Country. All the other countries of the Detainees were sent home; why does the present Canadian government not recognized that this particular Canadian Citizen, Omar Khadr should be treated with the same Human Rights? The answer is that the Harper Government is a racist government and a government that does not opppose the rule through violence. Mr Harper, if he respects Democracy and rights and freedoms, should do as he has been asked to do….. to do the right thing and to bring Omar Khadr home to his own country to answer the Charges made against him by the American Army.

]]> By: KC http://lawiscool.com/2010/01/29/david-asper-centre-responds-to-prime-minister-of-canada-v-omar-khadr/comment-page-1/#comment-8093 KC Mon, 01 Feb 2010 18:27:12 +0000 http://lawiscool.com/?p=2431#comment-8093 This decision shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. It certainly wasn't to me. The court has traditionally refused to wade too far into actively dictating the conduct of foreign affairs. Heck until 2001 the court wasn't even prepared to stop the government from extraditing people to face the death penalty. Maybe I'm biased because I don't care to venture too far from our borders, but I think that if you want your charter rights guaranteed by our courts you have to stay within the geographical boundaries of this country. I'm not cosmopolitan enough to think otherwise. There is a certain risk in travelling abroad that must be borne by the individual rather than by all Canadians (admittedly Khadr's case is problematic as he was taken outside our borders as a minor by his parents). There will be cases like that of Abousfian Abdelrazik where your s. 5 rights are being blatantly vioalted by the government but in terms of a positive justiciable obligation on Canada to actively assert charter rights in countries where there is no charter is a bit too much. The best case for young Mr. Khadr is moral--that it is the right thing to do to insist that the US at least respect its own constitutional principles with respect to due process (under which there is no way he could continue to be detained) or send him to Canada. I think the court made the right decision here though. The remedy requested was simply inappropriate. As the saying goes, tough cases make bad law. This decision shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. It certainly wasn’t to me. The court has traditionally refused to wade too far into actively dictating the conduct of foreign affairs. Heck until 2001 the court wasn’t even prepared to stop the government from extraditing people to face the death penalty.

Maybe I’m biased because I don’t care to venture too far from our borders, but I think that if you want your charter rights guaranteed by our courts you have to stay within the geographical boundaries of this country. I’m not cosmopolitan enough to think otherwise. There is a certain risk in travelling abroad that must be borne by the individual rather than by all Canadians (admittedly Khadr’s case is problematic as he was taken outside our borders as a minor by his parents).

There will be cases like that of Abousfian Abdelrazik where your s. 5 rights are being blatantly vioalted by the government but in terms of a positive justiciable obligation on Canada to actively assert charter rights in countries where there is no charter is a bit too much.

The best case for young Mr. Khadr is moral–that it is the right thing to do to insist that the US at least respect its own constitutional principles with respect to due process (under which there is no way he could continue to be detained) or send him to Canada. I think the court made the right decision here though. The remedy requested was simply inappropriate. As the saying goes, tough cases make bad law.

]]> By: Travis Fast http://lawiscool.com/2010/01/29/david-asper-centre-responds-to-prime-minister-of-canada-v-omar-khadr/comment-page-1/#comment-8063 Travis Fast Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:22:00 +0000 http://lawiscool.com/?p=2431#comment-8063 The lack of remedy makes this a farcical judgement. The lack of remedy makes this a farcical judgement.

]]>