Responses to Prime Minister of Canada v. Omar Khadr

By: Law is Cool · January 29, 2010 · Filed Under Constitutional Law, International Law · 3 Comments 

The anticipated ruling by the SCC in Prime Minister of Canada v. Omar Khadr was released today, and already there is criticism of the decision that ruled that although Khadr’s s. 7 rights were violated, the court could not order the Prime Minister to seek his return.

One of Khadr’s lawyers, Nathan Whitling, said,

He has never had a whole lot of hope in terms of the Canadian government, in any event.

One of Khadr’s other counsel, Dennis Edney, stated,

I will say that the court has the belief that … the Canadian government has a moral conscience and will do the right thing.  I will tell him, ‘And that’s what we have to pray and hope.’

Alex Neve of Amnesty International, an intervenor in the case, stated,

It is not open to the Canadian government to just yawn and not take that seriously now. There has to be an effective response that demonstrates that this government is prepared to stand up for rights of Canadians and is prepared to take seriously judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada, even if the court did not feel inclined to say specifically what the Canadian government has to do here.

In a decision with so much responsibility shifted to the political arena, it’s no surprise that politicians are weighing in as well.  Michael Ignatieff, leader of the opposition, said of the government,

The only thing it can’t do is to do nothing because the court clearly said that the rights of a Canadian citizen have been violated.

But some of the strongest critiques have come from academia, specifically the The David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights at the University of Toronto.

In a press release sent to this site Diana Juricevic, Director of the International Human Rights Program at UofT Faculty of Law, stated,

We are very disappointed with the decision.  Remedies have to be meaningful in order for Charter rights to be taken seriously. The Supreme Court of Canada has failed Khadr. They have left the decision on what the appropriate remedy is to the Canadian government, which breached Khadr’s fundamental human rights in the first place.

Cheryl Milne, Executive Director of the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights, said,

One hopes that the strong pronouncement by the unanimous Court that Canada has violated Omar Khadr’s rights and that the impact of that violation continues unless the government acts, will carry sufficient weight with the Prime Minister to persuade him to do the morally and legally right thing– seek Omar’s repatriation.

And finally, Professor Audrey Macklin, who acted as co-counsel in the case, expressed her frustrations,

The Supreme Court of Canada has spoken clearly, definitively and unanimously on the past and ongoing present violation of Omar Khadr’s rights by the Canadian government.  It has pointed to a request for repatriation as an appropriate remedy for the violation of those rights.  It now falls to the Prime Minister to do what the Supreme Court of Canada encourages but does not force him to do.  If the word of the Supreme Court of Canada that the government has violated Khadr’s Charter rights and should seek repatriation is not enough to motivate this government to act, then I am not sure what is enough to motivate this government to do the right thing.

Post tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Unique photos of Omar Khadr may be evidence of his innocence

By: Law is Cool · October 29, 2009 · Filed Under Civil Rights · Add Comment 

Omar Khadr Omar Khadr ‘innocent’ in death of U.S. soldier

Michelle Shephard writes for the Toronto Star:

Guantanamo detainee Omar Khadr was buried face down under rubble, blinded by shrapnel and crippled, at the time the Pentagon alleges he threw a grenade that fatally wounded a U.S. soldier, according to classified photographs and defence documents obtained by the Star.

AdviceScene

Post tags: , , , , , , , ,