The Khadr Thread
- Thread starter The_Falcon
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
jmt18325 said:
Quite right! Now, if George Wallace had added one word and said "... that convicted criminals have more ..." he might have been less wrong. In my opinion, and it's not an opinion shared by some jurists I really respect, convicted criminals should, temporarily, lose the right to vote, for example, as well has have some restrictions placed on other rights, like liberty.
I do not think that criminals, convicted or not, have more rights than others ~ not unless George Wallace wants to get into the business of saying that "free" room and board is some sort of "right." That was the trap into which the dimwits who drafted all the rubbish rights (everything after about Article 15) in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) fell.
Keep up the good, contrarian work, jmt18325.
- Reaction score
- 1,674
- Points
- 1,060
E.R. Campbell said:
i'm not sure about the loss of voting privileges for one I doubt many would miss something they don't use.
I find the whole Khadr episode disturbing on many levels though I wonder how it would play out if he had been fighting on a side we were sympathetic too instead of directly opposed to
E.R. Campbell said:
I would bet a lot of money that if a few people could go back in time, they would have added a few more caveats to the Charter. I agree with you that convicted criminals should lose more of their constitutionally guaranteed rights, and they violated their contract with society, IMO. Still, I like the general idea of guaranteed rights that politicians can't touch. It's the one place where I think Parliamentary supremacy needed to be curbed, and I'm glad it was (there are other places that I'm less happy about - such as making changes to Parliament in terms of the makeup of the Senate). I would never agree, on the other hand, that accused criminals should lose any rights beyond what is absolutely necessary for justice to be carried out.
jmt18325 said:
To bring this back on topic, IMHO criminals who confess to crimes should lose the rights on a sliding scale with the severity of their crimes. I am one who believes in the death penalty for those who are murderers. In my world someone like Khadr does not get a cheque for $10M, nor does he need a trial, he gets a firing squad. The reason he was medevaced was not because he was a dying young man, but that he was perceived a high-value informant due to his role in the house of Al-Qaeda. If his time in Guantánamo included torture (which is in dispute) then it was for the same reason to obtain mission-related information. Canada's current challenges with solitary confinement concerns me as well. Humane treatment is a two-way street - act like a human be treated like one. Protecting a person, deterrence and punishment are on a sliding scale in my books.
When politicians take justice into their own hands against the better judgement of the general population, I think we lose important elements of democracy...consultation and representation.
Sprinting Thistle
Member
- Reaction score
- 18
- Points
- 180
Next up on "the Price is Right" will be Aaron Yoon.....
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/07/31/aaron_yoons_return_to_canada_a_government_secret.html
And of course the associated accusations that the government did nothing for him.....
http://www.lfpress.com/2013/04/06/canadian-officials-deny-aaron-yoon-getting-no-help-in-overseas-jail
After all he was just there to study Islam, because, you know, Mauritania is known as a great place to study Islam. Of course, this situation was a few years ago, but with the Khadr payout, and an enterprising lawyer, who knows.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/07/31/aaron_yoons_return_to_canada_a_government_secret.html
And of course the associated accusations that the government did nothing for him.....
http://www.lfpress.com/2013/04/06/canadian-officials-deny-aaron-yoon-getting-no-help-in-overseas-jail
After all he was just there to study Islam, because, you know, Mauritania is known as a great place to study Islam. Of course, this situation was a few years ago, but with the Khadr payout, and an enterprising lawyer, who knows.
Simian Turner said:
That would hardly be fair, seeing that the laws of neither Canada (according to the Supreme Court of Canada) nor the US (according to the Supreme Court of the United States) were followed in obtaining that confession. In my view, the confession is next to useless.
Let me just say that I am glad your view is not the law of the land. Rights are not a two way street, nor do they have a sliding scale - nor should they.
When the people take justice out of the hands of people who have a more learned and impartial interest, it is their own undoing. Democracy was never meant to be absolute - at least not in our context.
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
jmt18325 said:
That's where we'll have to agree to disagree ...
I think that the supremacy of parliament needs to be absolute and, therefore, parliament and the (absolutely independent) courts need to be locked into a continuous constitutional struggle.
I think I have mentioned before that I dislike ALL written constitutions. They range, in my opinion, from being useless (the common law (backed up by a few acts of parliament) can and usually does do everything a written constitutions does with less fuss and bother) to downright bothersome because, of necessity, they reflect the pressing concerns of the people who drafted them 240, 70 or just 35 years ago and those concerns might not even be relevant today ~ who, in the USA, cares all that much about "a well regulated militia?"
- Reaction score
- 17,068
- Points
- 1,010
jmt18325 said:
Define human rights. Which era? Roman? Middle Ages? 18th Century? 21st Century?
Which culture? Pashtun? Cree? Scottish?
- Reaction score
- 6,080
- Points
- 1,160
I believe, SK is simply offering up the question of exactly who gets to determine what a human right is. Those alleged rights were as varied back then as they are today. So are peoples' opinions of them.
- Reaction score
- 17,068
- Points
- 1,010
cld617 said:
Recce guy nailed it. In the 23rd century, our view of human rights ( assuming you can get any two people to agree upon what exactly are fundamental human rights) may appear quaint. or Primative. Or cruel.
My point is: how do you codify human rights? Are they not culturally and temporally dependent? How do you make something like that a) timeless b) universal?
I am not trolling. I am genuinely curious.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
Seems that the Perverts are in power. Removal of the wording "Barbaric practices of Female Genital Mutilation and Honour Killings not acceptable in Canadian society" from prerequisites of becoming a Canadian. Dumbing down the Law against Bestiality. "A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian" now entrenched with this Liberal undoing of an Act to strip dual citizens of their Canadian Citizenship if they are convicted of Terrorism. This Government is getting more and more OBSCENE every day.
medicineman
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 5,802
- Points
- 1,110
I notice how they slipped that one in under the radar...
MM
MM
- Reaction score
- 6,080
- Points
- 1,160
George Wallace said:
The SCC said it's ok. They are all powerful and knowing far beyond the realm of normal Canadians. At least that's what I was reading in this thread. If the SCC rules sexually abusing animals is OK, it's a good thing the same people think it's proper to pay a terrorist while their soldier protectors rot for their patriotism.
It's ok to jerk off a dog, fight against your own country and not lose your passport as a citizen. Yup, the ones making those decisions are the ones I'll follow to hell in the sake of righteousness, fair play and the education of the human race. :
One can only assume that if someone thinks we wronged a confirmed treasonous terrorist because they think that all laws ruled on, by the SCC, are righteous, honest and fair, it must be assumed that they also agree with having sex with animals. Keep it to masturbation though, our learned colleagues have determined if you fuck a goat, sheep, camel or any other animal, THEN you're a pervert breaking the law. Otherwise, you're good to go.
PETA just took on a whole new meaning, thanks to our lawmakers and justice system.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 11,390
- Points
- 1,260
George Wallace said:
I cannot believe the SCC upheld that bestiality acquittal. If I read that article right the accused used an animal to sexually abuse his daughter and the SCC said because penetration didn't happen its fair play ?
They upheld that acquittal 6-1.
Sorry for the derail... I just couldn't believe what I just read.
gryphonv
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 338
- Points
- 780
Halifax Tar said:
Unfortunately Morality and Legality don't necessarily coincide. This is why laws need to be worded very specifically, any ambiguous language can be open to interpretation. Any obvious language can open big loop holes. These are the areas that criminal defense make their bread and butter off of technicalities.
Not guilty in the legal system, doesn't always mean a the person never committed a crime. Same thing with guilty verdicts, they don't always mean the person committed a crime.
Similar threads
