RSS FeedWhy You Should Never Talk to the Police
Moin A. Yahya, Associate Professor of Law at U. Alberta has posted a couple of interesting videos on why criminal suspects should never talk to the police.
Most experienced defence lawyers will tell you that the first words out of their mouth when they get the 3AM phone call from the jail are: “don’t say anything!”
But for some reason, criminally accused often don’t seem to get it.
The videos feature a professor of law (formerly a defence lawyer) as well as a police officer explaining why suspects would do well to heed the advice and exercise their right to remain silent.
Though the videos are reflective of American law, the principles are largely applicable here in Canada. Though we do not have a 5th Amendment, Canadians have long had a right to silence which is now constitutionally entrenched in s. 7 of the Charter (see R. v. Singh, 2007 SCC 48 for a discussion).
And now, without further ado, here is why you ought not to speak to the police:
If you have limited time, I’d suggest skipping forward to 8:20, where the professor discusses the “top 10 reasons why you should never speak to the police.”
[YouTube clips reposted from U. Alberta's Law Faculty Blog]
SCC: No Privacy Interest in Things We Throw Out
The Supreme Court of Canada today released its decision in R. v. Patrick, 2009 SCC 17, which concerns privacy interests in garbage and other abandoned items. The Court ruled that a police search of garbage abandoned at the curb does not require a warrant and can be done without violating the Charter.
Calgary police suspected that Mr. Patrick was operating an ecstacy lab in his house. Acting on this suspicion, the police attended at the house on six occaisions to retrieve and search through garbage bags, looking for any evidence of criminal activity.
The garbage bags had been placed inside garbage cans, which in turn had been left outside in a small shed for collection. The shed was on Mr. Patrick’s property, and the police had to reach over the property line to grab the bags.
As a result of these searches, police retrieved numerous incriminating pieces of evidence. The bags contained things like packaging for a digital scale, a receipt for muiatic acid, torn up chemical recipes, etc. Some of the items were contaminated with ecstacy.
Partly on the basis of the evidence collected in this way, the police were able to obtain a warrant to search Mr. Patrick’s home. After forcibly entering his home, they discovered precursor chemicals, scales, a pill press, and 2679 ecstacy pills.
Patrick argued that his section 8 Charter right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure had been violated.
The Court unanimously decided that it had not.
The central issue in the case was whether Patrick, by placing his garbage bags outside to be picked up by municipal garbage collection, had abandoned any interest in those bags.
Thus, the case was was essentially resolved as a property law question.
The majority cited R. v. Dyment, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417 for the proposition that abandonment of an item automatically disposes of one’s privacy interest in that item:
In R. v. Dyment, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417, La Forest J. treated abandonment as fatal to a reasonable expectation of privacy. He held that when an accused abandons something, it is “best to put it in Charter terms by saying that he [has] ceased to have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to it.”
[Patrick, at para. 22.]
Next, they cited R. v. Stillman, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607 as standing for the same proposition:
In R. v. Stillman, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607, McLachlin J., in dissent, but not on this point, stated that “[t]he purpose of s. 8 is to protect the person and property of the individual from unreasonable search and seizure. This purpose is not engaged in the case of property which the accused has discarded.”
[Patrick, at para. 23.]
A finding that an accused person has abandoned an item seems, therefore, to be dispositive of any section 8 claim about that item. That’s a pretty narrow view of privacy.
Ironically, in Stillman, the seizure of a discarded tissue was held to have breached the accused’s section 8 rights. In that case, a young man was in custody at RCMP headquarters for five days. During the course of his detention, Stillman blew his nose into a tissue and tossed it out. The police retrieved the discarded tissue and obtained Stillman’s DNA.
The Supreme Court in Stillman focussed on the fact that the accused was in custody and had no real alternative to giving up his bodily samples:
[W]hen an accused person is in custody, the production of bodily samples is not an unforeseen occurrence. It is simply the inevitable consequence of the normal functioning of the human body. The police are only able to profit from the production of the samples because the accused is continuously under their surveillance. For this reason it is somewhat misleading to speak of “abandonment” in the context of evidence obtained from an accused who is in custody. … In those circumstances, how can the appellant assert his right not to consent to the provision of bodily samples? He would be required to destroy every tissue he used, to hide every spoon he ate from, to keep cigarette butts, chewed gum or any other potentially incriminating evidence on his person at all times in order to prevent the police from “retrieving” this “potentially useful waste”
[Stillman, at paras. 58-59.]
Why is the custody versus out of custody distinction so significant?
The reality of modern urban life is that the only realistic way to dispose of household garbage is through the municipal waste system. The production of household garbage is not an unforseen occurrence. It is simply the “inevitable consequence” of civilization. The garbage has to go somewhere. It is completely impractical (and probably illegal) to have to burn every piece of garbage that you want to keep private. Indeed, in Calgary, where Mr. Patrick lived, by-laws make it illegal to dispose of household garbage in any way other than by placing it in a waste container for collection.
Thus, whether you are in custody or at home, the waste you produce will eventually end up in the hands of the state.
(Incidentally, Calgary also has a by-law making it illegal to scavenge through someone’s garbage. The police violated the by-law, but I doubt whether anybody wrote them a ticket. Isn’t the existence of this by-law indicative of the important privacy concerns that we have in our waste? The majority dismissed the relevance of the by-law [Patrick, at para. 68].)
Despite recognizing the important privacy concerns with respect to the contents of a household garbage bag the Supreme Court simply could not get past the abandoment issue:
Residential waste includes an enormous amount of personal information about what is going on in our homes, including a lot of DNA on household tissues, highly personal records (e.g., love letters, overdue bills and tax returns) and hidden vices (pill bottles, syringes, sexual paraphernalia, etc.). As it was put by counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, a garbage bag may more accurately be described as a bag of “information” whose contents, viewed in their entirety, paint a fairly accurate and complete picture of the householder’s activities and lifestyle. Many of us may not wish to disclose these things to the public generally or to the police in particular.
…
[A]part from the key issue of abandonment, the circumstances in this case favour the appellant. The police were trying to find out what was “happening inside a private dwelling, the most private of places” (Plant, at p. 302). … The gathering up of the contents of the bags by the police provided them with a window into the appellant’s private life.
[Patrick, at paras. 30, 40; emphasis mine.]
So when exactly does household waste become abandoned such that the police can freely look into that window? The defence argued that the privacy interest in garbage should continue until the garbage becomes anonymous. The Court rejected this view outright:
The idea that s. 8 protects an individuals’s privacy in garbage until the last unpaid bill rots into dust, or the incriminating letters turn into muck and are no longer decipherable, is to my mind too extravagant to contemplate. It would require the entire municipal disposal system to be regarded as an extension, in terms of privacy, of the dwelling-house.
[Patrick, at para. 54.]
Is that actually “too extravagant to contemplate?” Is the defence’s proposal such a bad idea? I certainly think that the personal items I throw in the trash ought to remain private until they cease to exist. I bet a lot of Canadians would agree with me. The municipal garbage system, to me, is like an Orwellian memory hole.
The Court concluded that the moment we toss our garbage bags to the curb, our privacy interest in the contents of the bags is at an end. It doesn’t matter if the garbage bags are on your side of the property line. It doesn’t matter if you take pains to drive your garbage bags all the way to the dump site. The majority held that:
Given the “totality of the circumstances” test, little would be gained by an essay on different variations of garbage disposal. To take a few common examples, however, the rural people who take their garbage to a dump and abandon it to the pickers and the seagulls, the apartment dweller who unloads garbage down a chute to the potential scrutiny of a curious building superintendent, and the householder who takes surreptitious advantage of a conveniently located dumpster to rid himself or herself of the “bag of information” are all acting in a manner inconsistent with the reasonable assertion of a continuing privacy interest, in my view.
…
[T]he appellant had abandoned his privacy interest in the contents of the garbage bags gathered up by the police when he placed them in the garbage alcove open to the laneway ready for collection. The taking by the police did not constitute a search and seizure within the scope of s. 8, and the evidence (as well as the fruits of the search warrant obtained in reliance on such evidence) was properly admissible.
[Patrick, at paras. 64, 73.]
There was a brief concurring opinion by Justice Abella. Though she did not believe that a Charter breach had occurred in this case, her focus was not on the abandonment issue.
Abella J. found that abandonment alone should not automatically leave household waste open to police scrutiny. She was concerned that under the majority’s approach, the police would have unrestricted access “to information most people would never expect to be publicly accessible.” In her view, a person has a diminished, but not extinguished, expectation of privacy in respect of garbage which has been abandoned [Patrick, para. 90].
Given that there was some expectation of privacy, this expectation would have to be balanced against the legitimate interests of the state in investigating crime. Abella J. did not believe that prior judicial authorization in the form of a warrant would strike the appropriate balance. Instead, she felt that police must have a reasonable suspicion. “Reasonable suspicion” was not defined in the judgment, but it usually refers to some articulable grounds for believing that a crime has taken place. It is more than a mere hunch, but something less than reasonable and probable grounds; a fairly low threshold.
“[I]n my view, with respect, the privacy of personal information emanating from the home, which has been transformed into household waste and put out for disposal, is entitled to protection from indiscriminate state intrusion. Such information should not be seen to automatically lose its “private” character simply because it is put outside for garbage disposal. Before the state can rummage through the personal information from this ultimate zone of privacy, there should be, at the very least, a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is likely to be committed.”
[Abella J., concurring, in Patrick, at para. 77.]
Certainly when we throw our garbage out we are giving up a proprietary claim to it. But I think that our proprietary claim has to be treated as distinct from our privacy interest. I think it’s an inherent expectation of Canadians that what we throw out will be free from scrutiny by other members of the public, and certainly by the state.
Abella J.’s decision is much more compelling in that it recognizes a legitimate (though diminished) expectation of privacy in things we throw out.
Unfortunately, today’s majority decision significantly abrogates our privacy rights in this country.
Is the AIG Bonus Scandal a Mere Distraction?
For an excellent primer on the financial crisis, watch the video below:
The Obama administration is currently seeking all legal means to prevent AIG from using federal bailout money to pay $165 million in contractual bonuses to its executives.
Today’s opinion column in the Wall Street Journal called the bonuses scandal a distraction:
[Obama] and the rest of the political class thus neatly deflected attention from the larger outrage, which is the five-month Beltway cover-up over who benefited most from the AIG bailout.
I certainly agree that the “larger outrage” is just that.
But the bonus scandal is not just a distraction. It’s not just a politically-motivated attempt to throw some water on the rage that burns inside taxpayers’ hearts.
It has a great deal of value beyond saving the federal coffers $165 million (which, admittedly, is not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things).
The real value in nullifying the bonuses is the message that it sends.
* * *
Alan Greenspan recently admitted that he had made a “mistake” in believing that banks, operating in their own self-interest, would never create such a poisonous economy that they would themselves collapse. Greenspan called the mistake:
“a flaw in [my] model … that defines how the world works.
…
I still do not fully understand why it happened.”
Well I have a pretty simple theory.
Greenspan’s mistake was failing to recognize that there is no such thing as corporate self-interest. It’s an illusory concept.
When it comes down to it, the corporation is run by a board of directors, each of whom acts in their own personal self-interest.
That personal self-interest can generally be summed up as: making as much money as possible as quickly as possible.
When these personal interests overlap with what we perceive as the “interests” of the corporation, we are fine and dandy. The corporation makes money and the shareholders make money. The system flourishes. The economy grows.
The system becomes poisonous when the board of directors is willing to sacrifice the corporation for short-term gain. That’s precisely what happened here.
It’s not that the “banks” would never allow “themselves” to collapse. There is no “themselves.” There are just the individual directors that were perfectly willing to allow the banks and insurance companies to collapse if it meant a quick dollar in their pockets.
They milked and milked their golden calf for all the money it could give. When finally the milk ran out, they dispatched it to the slaughterhouse. This despite the fact that shareholders were relying on that cow. So were insurance policyholders. But these people never factored into the executives’ self-interest equations.
* * *
Some argue that to deny contractually-obligated bonuses would be a mistake. They say that doing so would cause these executives to leave their posts for greener pastures. In short, it would mean that talented individuals would find other jobs at precisely the time when we need the best people at the helm.
And it’s true. These people do have remarkable talent.
But they also have few – if any – scruples when it comes to using that talent.
They have demonstrated their astonishing ability – and willingness – to take legally dubious and ethically debaucherous steps to enrich themselves, personally, at the expense of the companies they work for and the economy as a whole.
At best, these men and women have shown reckless disregard for their shareholders. They have failed in their fiduciary duty of loyalty to millions of hardworking Americans (and Canadians) who hold stock in their company.
They have shown a duty of loyalty to one thing only: their own wallets.
Are these the people we want to keep at their posts?
* * *
This brings me full circle to my original point. There’s more to the denial of these bonuses than just distraction. It’s a warning message.
Under our old system, these directors had nothing to lose. They knew that they would earn huge bonuses while the bubble was expanding. They made millions. And they knew that in the near future, when the bubble was set to burst, they would STILL get their contractually obligated bonuses.
And now AIG wants to fulfill that depraved fantasy.
Retroactively canceling the bonuses (e.g. through legislation) would send the message that acting in personal self-interest without regard for the corporation’s interests – let alone the wider economy’s interests – will get you nothing in the end.
That’s probably precisely the message we want to send to the next generation of corporate executives.
Chuck Norris’ Tears Don’t Cure Cancer
So he claims, in a lawsuit against book publisher Penguin.
Chuck Norris is suing the publisher for releasing a book called The Truth About Chuck Norris: 400 facts about the World’s Greatest Human.
The book contains numerous allegedly “mythical” facts about Chuck Norris which were collected from the internet. The facts include:
- “Chuck Norris’s tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried.”
- “When Chuck Norris does a push up, he isn’t lifting himself up, he’s pushing the Earth down.”
- “There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.”
- “Chuck Norris is not afraid of the dark. The dark is afraid of Chuck Norris.”
The lawsuit alleges that the book resulted in trademark infringement, unjust enrichment and misappropriation of personality.
You will note that Chuck Norris is not suing for defamation. I suspect that’s because truth is a defence.
What I can’t understand is why Chuck Norris is bothering to sue. We all know that Chuck Norris doesn’t step on toes. Chuck Norris steps on necks.
40% of Ontario Prosecutions Fail Before Trial
According to the National Post, the criminal justice system in Ontario is an absolute mess.
Ontario has the highest rate of failed prosecutions in Canada.
In this province, approximately 40% of criminal cases are withdrawn, stayed, or dismissed, often before the trial even begins.
To say nothing of the impact on the improperly accused person, the cost to the taxpayer – for wasteful police investigations, fruitless prosecutions, and court costs – is in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Why?
There are a few reasons which the National Post and others have identified:
- Lack of collaboration between Crown Attorneys and the police. For the vast majority of crimes in Ontario, the police make the decision on whether to lay a charge. The police are not in the best position to decide whether the charge will stick in court; Crowns are. In other provinces, the Crown acts in a screening capacity to decide whether a charge should be laid in the first place.
- Lack of discretion on the part of Crown Attorneys. The Crown policy manual requires Crowns to drop charges where there is no reasonable prospect of conviction or where pursuing the matter would not be in the public interest. Thus, Crowns are required to act in a quasi-judicial role in deciding whether to press the prosecution. Unfortunately, junior Crowns are often unwilling to take initiative and withdraw a charge for fear of making a mistake and drawing the ire of their superiors.
- Lack of ownership of files. Most criminal files are shuffled around from one Crown attorney to the next until the time of trial. This creates a great deal of administrative waste, because all of the Crowns that will come into contact with the file will have to take time to fully familiarize themselves with it. Worse yet, when Crowns feel that they don’t have ownership of a file, they are unwilling to make tough decisions to withdraw a charge. Lacking a comprehensive knowledge of the case and the accused, it’s easier to just do nothing and allow the file to pass to someone else.
Having identified some of the causes, it’s clear that relatively simple changes could be made to the criminal justice system to significantly cut down on the number of failed prosecutions.
Court: No Expectation of Privacy in our Online Identity
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ruled that Canadians have no expectation of privacy in their online identity.
In a St. Thomas-area child porn case, the police asked Bell Canada for a customer’s name and home address based on that customer’s IP address. Bell Canada complied and handed over the information.
The customer’s husband was allegedly using the family computer to search for child porn. He was arrested.
The accused argued that the police search of Bell’s records should have required a warrant. Obtaining his details without a warrant, he claimed, was a violation of his s. 8 Charter right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
Justice Lynne Leitch disagreed, writing that:
“One’s name and address or the name and address of your spouse are not biographical information one expects would be kept private from the state.”
Her decision, though it represents an erosion of internet privacy, appears to be well founded. In a moot competition concerning s.8 of the Charter, Omar Ha-Redeye and I argued the exact same point on behalf of the Crown. (Ironically, Justice Leitch was one of the judges of our competition.)
In the appropriately named R. v. Plant, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281, a marijuana grower sought s. 8 protection for his electricity consumption records. Justice Sopinka held:
… in order for constitutional protection to be extended, the information seized must be of a “personal and confidential” nature. In fostering the underlying values of dignity, integrity and autonomy, it is fitting that s. 8 of the Charter should seek to protect a biographical core of personal information which individuals in a free and democratic society would wish to maintain and control from dissemination to the state. This would include information which tends to reveal intimate details of the lifestyle and personal choices of the individual. The computer records investigated in the case at bar while revealing the pattern of electricity consumption in the residence cannot reasonably be said to reveal intimate details of the appellant’s life since electricity consumption reveals very little about the personal lifestyle or private decisions of the occupant of the residence. [emphasis added]
If you’re interested, see also R. v. Tessling, 2004 SCC 67 at paras. 59-62.
In R. v. A.M., 2008 SCC 19 however, the Supreme Court tempered the “biographical core of personal information” requirement. Binnie J. explained that even where the information sought by police is not aimed at revealing intimate details of the lifestyle of the accused, the analysis does not end there. Simply, the privacy of the contents of a communication is protected if it was reasonably intended by its maker to be private [para 68].
In the present child porn case, Justice Leitch held that the information sought by the police was nothing more than a name and an address. She likened it to information in a telephone book. There were no contents of communications which were worthy of protection.
Ultimately, she found that a customer could not have expected such information to be kept private from the state.
Tech blog Ars Technica criticized the decision:
“Though it’s clear that the ruling in the case (which is still ongoing) was made with good intentions, privacy advocates know what the road to hell is paved with. Critics fear that such a precedent could open the doors to police asking for information on all manner of Internet activities, ranging from the embarrassing to the questionable-but-legal, without judicial oversight.”
Prof. James Stribopoulos, who teaches criminal law and evidence courses at Osgoode, joined the chorus of criticism:
“There is no confidentiality left on the Internet if this ruling stands…”
The reasoning of the judge misses the context of what police are seeking, suggested Mr. Stribopoulos.
“It is not just your name. It is your whole Internet surfing history. Up until now, there was privacy. An IP address is not your name; it is a 10-digit number. A lot more people would be apprehensive if they knew their name was being left everywhere they went.”
This information should require a search warrant by police if there is suspected criminal activity, said Mr. Stribopoulos. Judges are accepting the argument that this is “just your name” because “everyone wants to get at the child abusers,” he said.
The case itself is still ongoing after this Charter ruling.
Omar Khadr’s Guanatanamo Trial Suspended!
It’s over!
For now, anyway.
Staying true to his promise, Barack Obama has made it one of his first official acts as President to request a suspension of the military tribunal process in Guantanamo.
Omar Khadr is the first beneficiary of the directive. His “trial” was suspended this morning.
The suspension will last for 120 days so that the government can explore alternatives.
The legal maneuver appears designed to provide the Obama administration time to refashion the prosecution system and potentially treat detainees as criminal defendants in federal court or have them face war-crimes charges in military courts-martial. It is also possible that the administration could re-form and relocate the military commissions before resuming trials.
…
President Obama has acknowledged in recent interviews that shutting the facility is likely to be prolonged and complex. And the administration now faces a number of potentially daunting challenges to following through on the president’s campaign promise. Obama is expected to sign an executive order soon that will lay out in detail his plan to empty the facility.
(source: Washington Post)
The military tribunal process has been roundly criticized by human rights groups, lawyers and lay people alike as a violation of the rule of law.
In his inaugural address, Obama spoke these inspiring words, which I leave you with:
Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with the sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.
We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort – even greater cooperation and understanding between nations.
Law Students Demand Repatriation of Omar Khadr
Hundreds of law students from across the country have added their names to the growing list of people calling for the repatriation and fair trial of Omar Khadr, as well as the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility where he is currently held.
Canadian law students created the Omar Khadr Project last fall, pursuing the goal of repatriation and fair treatment for Omar Khadr. The organization is composed of law students and young lawyers from across the country who believe that respect for human rights is a fundamental Canadian value.
In May 2008, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously found that the conditions under which Omar Khadr was being detained “constituted a clear violation of fundamental human rights protected by international law” (Canada (Justice) v. Khadr, 2008 SCC 28, at para 24.)
The Court found that Canada’s participation in Khadr’s case breached our own obligations under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Geneva Conventions.
Below is a press release (abridged) sent to us by the Omar Khadr Project discussing the strategies that the group has been pursuing.
Canadian Law Students Take Actions Calling on Harper, Obama to Ensure Repatriation of Omar Khadr, Closure of Guantanamo Bay
This week, the Omar Khadr Project launches a series of actions calling on Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President-elect Barack Obama to ensure Khadr’s repatriation as a key step in the closure of the illegal Guantanamo Bay detention centre.
It is expected that one of President-elect Obama’s first executive actions will be to begin shutting down Guantanamo Bay. But, “the looming questions for Omar Khadr,” explains Project member Kate Oja, “are whether the new President will act in time to stop Omar’s deeply flawed ‘trial’, and whether Prime Minister Harper will agree to bring Omar back to Canada.”
This week, the Omar Khadr Project joins with groups across Canada, the U.S. and beyond to put pressure on both Canadian and American governments to act quickly in the spirit of justice. We are launching 4 actions:
- Hundreds of law and articling students signed a petition calling on the Canadian government to repatriate Omar Khadr and protect his human rights. The petition will be officially presented to Parliament once it resumes.
- A letter was written to President-elect Obama to draw his attention to the urgency and injustice of Khadr’s case.
- As a Christmas present, and in honour of the 60th anniversary of the UN Declaration on Human Rights, the Omar Khadr Project sent Prime Minister Harper, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Justice copies of a children’s picture book on basic human rights, emphasizing sections on fair trial rights and the rights of the child.
- On Saturday 17 January 2009, a rally is being held outside the U.S. Consulate in Toronto, along with Amnesty International, the Coalition to Repatriate Omar Khadr, and other
supporters.
Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen detained at age 15, remains the only national of a Western country to be held at Guantanamo. His trial before the internationally-condemned military commission system is scheduled to begin on January 26th, just 6 days after Obama’s inauguration.
Note: Law students interested in assisting Khadr’s legal defence team can contact us for more information.
Interview with the Author of “Life Without Lawyers”
Law schools on both sides of the border are graduating more lawyers than ever before. What effect will the influx of lawyers have on the profession and on the litigation culture in the United States and Canada? Has litigation become America’s national sport? Has frivolous litigation reached crisis levels?
I spoke with Philip K. Howard, best-selling author of the new book, Life Without Lawyers: Liberating America from Too Much Law, to find answers to these questions, and to find out what can be done to bring common sense back into the courtroom.
Howard is himself a lawyer and legal reform activist; he is the founder and chair of Common Good, a “nonprofit, nonpartisan legal reform coalition dedicated to restoring common sense to America.” He also contributes to the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.
Obama: End of Guantanamo and Good News for Omar Khadr
I have previously expressed my shame at the Canadian Government’s failure to follow the example of every other Western nation in demanding the repatriation of our citizen at Guantanamo Bay.
The advocacy in favour of Omar Khadr’s return to Canada has come from many circles. The calls have come from Sen. Romeo Dallaire, UNICEF, Amnesty International, and the Canadian Bar Association, among many others. Most consider Khadr to be a child soldier, and consider his detention and the military tribunal process to be a violation of the rule of law.
This choir of voices has finally reached a crescendo. I have good news to report.
President-elect Barack Obama has signalled his intention to close Guantanamo Bay forever – and he intends to do it soon.
In an interview with ABC’s “This Week,” Obama said:
I don’t want to be ambiguous about this. We are going to close Guantanamo and we are going to make sure that the procedures we set up are ones that abide by our Constitution.”
Reuters is reporting that Obama intends to close the prison perhaps within his first week after taking office:
“There is going to be an executive order on closing down Guantanamo,” the adviser told Reuters, adding the move would probably be made during Obama’s first several days in office.
What this means for Omar Khadr remains unclear. It will no doubt take time before the prison can be closed and its inmates transferred to face trial elsewhere. Most likely, this will mean an end to the military tribunals, which were denounced by the U.S. Supreme Court, in favour of domestic trials in U.S. Federal Court.
Stephen Harper, meanwhile, remains staunchly committed to leaving Khadr to be dealt with by the Americans, whether or not their process violates the rule of law. This is in spite of serious concerns raised by his own government lawyers. Harper is unsure of whether Obama’s announcement will substantively affect Khadr, but he remains defferential:
“The promise that president-elect Obama made was that he would close down the facilities at Guantanamo. That’s primarily, as I understand it, because of the objection to the fact that many of the people at that facility aren’t charged with anything,” he told reporters in Vancouver.
“I don’t think you can necessarily leap to the conclusion that it will affect people who have in fact been charged, and who are facing a legal process.”
One thing is clear: Omar Khadr’s languishing in that deplorable offshore prison will soon be at an end.
The Power of a Guilty Plea
“You mean,” he said, this look of absolute unbelief working across his face, “you mean, if I’m guilty I get out today?”
“Right.”
“And if I’m innocent I stay locked up?”
“You got it, man. So what are you gonna be, guilty or innocent?”
James Mills, One Just Man, Simon and Schuster
UWO Strike Averted
A strike at the University of Western Ontario has been averted after the school reached an agreement with the union.
The bizarre union – International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 772 – is comprised of only 10 members. These 10 employees run the obsolete steam plant which heats both Western and University Hospital. They also keep the tunnels beneath the school nice and toasty warm.
An email was sent to Western students earlier this week to warn of a possible strike and to set out steps to help students avoid disruption of classes and transportation networks. Local 772 would have been in a legal position to strike as of midnight tonight.
Fortunately, Western News reports that a tentative collective bargaining agreement has now been reached, subject to ratification by the Board of Governors.
No word yet on York’s ongoing battle with its TA/Grad Student/Contract Faculty union. It’s an issue we’ve been following for some time now.
See e.g.:
- “We Object!” – The Impossibility of Satisfying Everybody – Dec. 1, 2008
- Classes Resume at Osgoode Hall – Nov. 26, 2008
- CUPE 3903 Strike Update from Osgoode – Nov. 20, 2008
- The Privileged and the Impoverished: Now One and the Same? – Nov. 10, 2008
- Strike Confirmed at York – Nov. 6, 2008
- Yet Another Strike at York University (and Osgoode Hall)? – Nov. 2, 2008
