Friday, February 23, 2007

Canadians are less safe today thanks to the fiberals and the fiberal supreme court

Well dion and his leftist allies have made Canadians more vulnerable today. The supreme justices with their god like interpretations, have found a charter right to be a terrorist. These justices are completely out of touch with reality. These provision have already been upheld numerous times by courts including the supreme court.
This is a bad day for Canada.


Anonymous said...

Is this why we had the media earlier in the week pumping us about Conservatives loading the courts and that it was unfair? so that liberals were planning a hopelessly biased decision by THEIR PEOPLE and they didn't want to have to defend the injustice of it? Nice tactic: memo to self, jump on this next time and counter attack.
(real conservative)

Lord Kitchener's Own said...

I'm pretty sure the Court didn't find a constitutional right to be a terrorist.

They didn't even find that one isn't a terrorist simply because the government SAYS they're a terrorist.

They simply said that the government can't indefinitely incarcerate a suspect without anyone who speaks for the suspect's interests ever being told what the suspect is suspected of. They didn't say the suspect has to know the charge, or see the evidence. They didn't even say the suspect's lawyer has to know the charge, or see the evidence. They simply suggested that SOMEBODY should be appointed who speaks for the suspect and gets to know what the charge is, and what the evidence is.

If Tories really believe that it's OK to indefinitely jail someone with no charges, without anyone representing the interests of the suspect ever getting to know the reason they've been jailed, or see any of the evidence in support of that detainment, then they're crazier than I thought.

The Court clearly indicated the legislation could be re-worked (perhaps by having an independent, security-cleared advocate appointed to represent the interests of the incarcerated suspect) and gave the government a full year to re-work (not ELIMINATE) the certificate laws to make them constitutional.

If this seems radical to you, well, what can I say? I didn't think there were people in Canada who were that right-wing.

You learn something every day.

Lord Kitchener's Own said...

BTW, did you actually READ the Supreme Court decision you linked to?

Here's the relevant section as it pertains to this particular suspect being held under a security certificate:

"The appellant was fully informed of the Minister’s case against him and given a full opportunity to respond. Insofar as the procedures followed may not have precisely complied with those suggested in Suresh, this did not prejudice him. The process accorded to the appellant was consistent with the principles of fundamental justice."

The very reason the judges said that case was kosher, is the exact same reason they said the current use of security certificates is not. In one case the suspect is informed of the case against him, and given the opportunity to respond, in the other, not. Just because suspect A and Suspect B are both held under security certificates doesn't mean suspect A's case is the same as Suspect B's. If Suspect A was "fully informed of the Minister’s case against him and given a full opportunity to respond" the Court will throw out Suspect A's appeal. If Suspect B was not, they'll do what they did here.

Lord Kitchener's Own said...

Sorry to keep posting.

I just wanted to also point out that in the case you link to, the SCC found that the Iranian man was NOT in danger of being tortured if he was returned to Iran.

Roy Eappen said...

There are many who find this decision wrong headed. The Supreme court has essentially upheld this law in the past. That was the pointof the case i posted. The appeal was dismissed. The law has been upheld by many federal appeal court judges. if you read the reaction to this decision, you will seemany who feel as I do. Thanks for your comments though.

Lord Kitchener's Own said...

The Court has essentially upheld this law in this latest case as well. May I recommend reading this editorial.

Roy Eappen said...

Thank you for the link. I have changed my opinion .

I Support Lord Black