The Khadr Thread

[gryphonv]

And when this lot shows up with their pitchforks and torches to contest the Constitution and the Charter, I'll be there in my uniform with my Canadian Flag on my shoulder telling them to back the f*** up. 

Imagine if the 5 from Halifax had their uniforms on?

 

[Jarnhamar]

There is if we decide there is and defend said rights - we did that.  Canada's Charter applies to all of us, and we're very lucky to have such a document.

Human rights are UN suggestions and not legally binding.

 

[jmt18325]

Human rights are UN suggestions and not legally binding.

I'll go back, again, to Canada (Justice) v Khadr:

The principles of international law and comity of nations, which normally require that Canadian officials operating abroad comply with local law and which might otherwise preclude application of the Charter  to Canadian officials acting abroad, do not extend to participation in processes that violate Canada’s binding international human rights obligations. 

----

They don't sound like a suggestion to me - at least not as far as Canada is concerned.

 

[Loachman]

One wonders what the Sun King's response will be to Andrew Scheer's "You had an option, sir" in the next round of election debates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_had_an_option,_sir

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Human rights are UN suggestions and not legally binding.

jmt used the wrong word, what he really means is political, legal and civic rights, which is what the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is all about.

For those who need a refresh, here is a link to the document:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html#h-39

I'll go back, again, to Canada (Justice) v Khadr:

The principles of international law and comity of nations, which normally require that Canadian officials operating abroad comply with local law and which might otherwise preclude application of the Charter  to Canadian officials acting abroad, do not extend to participation in processes that violate Canada’s binding international human rights obligations.  \

----

They don't sound like a suggestion to me - at least not as far as Canada is concerned.

You're correct, we've signed the document so the expectation is we uphold it, of course we don't have to; however, that would bring great discredit to us internationally.

One of the reasons Russia was so heavily sanctioned following Crimea is because they violated international law, laws they were signatories to.  Are people suggesting we do what the Russians do and go against the international system?

 

[Mick]

Perhaps Recceguy can explain his incredulity at JMT's assertion that the Supreme Court of the United States is not an elected elected body (unlike other levels of the US court system).  Please explain how a presidential nomination requiring senate confirmation is "elected"? 

If you find the Supreme Court of Canada too politically intrusive / active now (with appointed justices), do you really believe having judges running for re-election will be less politicized?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Perhaps Recceguy can explain his incredulity at JMT's assertion that the Supreme Court of the United States is not an elected elected body (unlike other levels of the US court system).  Please explain how a presidential nomination requiring senate confirmation is "elected"? 

If you find the Supreme Court of Canada too politically intrusive / active now (with appointed justices), do you really believe having judges running for re-election will be less politicized?

:rofl: Seriously? Go back and read. Try read it with cynicism and sarcasm.

 

[PuckChaser]

We have a specific topic on the Supreme Court of Canada here: http://army.ca/forums/threads/120832/post-1396690.html#msg1396690

Any discussion on changing the court makeup should be over there, it doesn't have a bearing on this topic at all.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You're right, you're not required to do anything.  If you expect your assertion to be taken seriously, it would probably be a good idea to back it up.

No problem. If I recall something and decide to post from memory, so be it. I'm not required to sit here for an afternoon researching things to satisfy YOUR curiosity. I can say what I want and really don't care if you agree or engage or anything else. Matter of fact, as I seldom agree one way or another with you, I'll likely stop engaging with you anyway. I have a solution.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

 

[Lumber]

Imagine if the 5 from Halifax had their uniforms on?

If you're trying to compare what those 5 did to what recceguy is suggesting, you're missing the mark. He's insinuating that the decisions (Khadr) being made by our present democratically elected government are so "wrong", and reasons why we got their in the first place (Charter and the Supreme Court) that it might be time for the people to rise up with pitch-forks and torches and ignite a revolution and tear down not only the current government, but apparently the court system as well (which in effect means ripping apart the constitution).

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Personally, I have no beef with how the Supremes are appointed.

But i would like it to be prerequisite that, before they get appointed, they get to be imbedded in an infantry unit deployed on ops outside of Canada for 3 months... to learn about the real world. If they are still fit to serve on the court after their two to three years of therapy following the embed, then they can take their place on the bench.

[

 

[gryphonv]

If you're trying to compare what those 5 did to what recceguy is suggesting, you're missing the mark. He's insinuating that the decisions (Khadr) being made by our present democratically elected government are so "wrong", and reasons why we got their in the first place (Charter and the Supreme Court) that it might be time for the people to rise up with pitch-forks and torches and ignite a revolution and tear down not only the current government, but apparently the court system as well (which in effect means ripping apart the constitution).

[quote author=Lumber ]
And when this lot shows up with their pitchforks and torches to contest the Constitution and the Charter, I'll be there in my uniform with my Canadian Flag on my shoulder telling them to back the f*** up. 
[/quote]

No my comment was in reference to your comment, hence why I quoted it. You said when people contest the Constitution or the Charter. You'll be there. The 5 in Halifax did the same with the Native Protesters, they went there to question a group who was challenging Canadian Values, who then told them they are not welcome there, nor able to fly their flag, Both of which are their Constitutional Rights. 

The only difference between what you said and what they did is the fact they were not wearing a uniform. And look at how well that worked out for them.

 

[Lumber]

The only difference between what you said and what they did is the fact they were not wearing a uniform. And look at how well that worked out for them.

The difference is they were just protesting and raising awareness in a perfectly democratic and peaceful way.

What I was referring to was an insinuation of open and violent insurrection.

 

[gryphonv]

The difference is they were just protesting and raising awareness in a perfectly democratic and peaceful way.

What I was referring to was an insinuation of open and violent insurrection.

This is getting off this thread and into the territory of another, so this is the last I'll say regarding your comment, but I would say pushing for acknowledgement that this land is unceded is pretty much the same as a violent insurrection, as the implications of that, if ever acknowledged will go all the way to the UN. Anyways, if you decide on your own to stand up to a popular or unpopular uprising in Canada while still serving, don't expect the brass to be so open minded.

 

[PuckChaser]

The only difference between what you said and what they did is the fact they were not wearing a uniform. And look at how well that worked out for them.

If they're smart, they'll each be $10.5M richer. fftopic:

 

[jmt18325]

The documents outlining aboriginal rights in Canada are actually constitutional documents.  I know that because it says so in the Constitution.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The government is paying Khadr out because we violated our own laws by allowing the United States to detain him, torture him and not give him a fair trial.  Not only that, we were complicit in the entire thing.

The part in yellow is where my question goes to;  the US captured him and detained him, outside of Canada.  Canadian citizen or not, what would have happened if then-PM Chretien said "hey, he's a Canadian citizen - hand him over"?  Back in those times, I think the answer would have been a politely worded "go f&&k yourself".

Which is interesting...I've seen numerous comments on the subject where posters are out waving the "this is all Harpers fault, he let this happen!!" and have to  :facepalm:.  It was the Liberals in government when all this happened (capture, imprisonment in 2 places prior to Gitmo). 

I guess, at least if the GoC would have issued a formal statement requesting he be turned over to Canada, if/when the US said GFY, well...*we tried* might apply.

 

[gryphonv]

One thing I'm curious about, if he Khadr was from Quebec, would he still of got the award.

I ask, not because of some slight to Quebec, but because they still haven't signed the Constitution.

 

[jmt18325]

One thing I'm curious about, if he Khadr was from Quebec, would he still of got the award.

I ask, not because of some slight to Quebec, but because they still haven't signed the Constitution.

Quebec signed the constitution in 1867.  Their 'signature' in 1982 would only have been ceremonial, and isn't necessary for legal reasons.