Canada a desired location for Guantanamo Bay detainees

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
I was going to link this to the other thread in regards to the US "Not in my Backyard" ~ However the information in this report is different from the other subject, as it focuses on those cleared of any charges, rather then those still pending trials:

Canada a desired location for Guantanamo Bay detainees
Canada a desired location for Guantanamo Bay detainees

Many Guantanamo Bay detainees cleared of terrorist charges and slated for release have expressed a desire to live in Canada, and refugee organizations are calling for sponsors.

The Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR), a non-profit umbrella group representing several non-governmental organizations and churches, is leading the plea, which goes out to groups and private individuals alike. The ability for citizens to sponsor refugees is unique to Canada, according to CCR executive director Janet Dench, noting refugees to every other country must be government-sponsored.

With U.S. President Barack Obama signing an executive order on Jan. 22 to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, within a year, there is a heightened urgency to find homes for the 55-60 international detainees who cannot return to their home countries for fear of persecution, Dench said.

"Many years ago we started raising concern about the need for there to be a solution" for detainees cleared of being a terrorist threat to the U.S., she told CBC News. "We pressed the U.S. government and the United Nations, which has been singularly unhelpful."

"This is a highly political issue and the UN does not like to get involved. The Canadian and U.S. governments have ignored us."

Some media reports have stated there are six detainees, including three Uighurs, who have applied for resettlement in Canada. The Uighurs are a Muslim minority group from northwestern China, many of whom have fought for independence from China.

The reports by various Canadian media outlets state those individuals are seeking to live in Toronto and Montreal, though Dench denies that.

"That's incorrect. I don't know of six of them that have applications," she said. "We are working to find places for as many people as we can. The expectation is not that all 60 would come to Canada because there are also a number of European countries coming forward with sponsorships."

Of the detainees currently inside the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo, 17 are Uighurs who were cleared of all charges against them in 2004. But they haven't been released because few countries have been willing to take them and incur China's wrath.

Canada a destination of choice

Canada is one of the desired destinations for those detainees, according to Washington-based lawyer George Clarke, who represents Anwar Hassan, a Uighur who has a confirmed application for resettlement.

"Canada is a bit of a leader from a human rights perspective," he said, also noting that Canada already "has a good size" Uighur population.

Clarke called his client's application is a "litmus test" for this country.

"Perhaps, this will make it easier for all Uighur detainees to step forward and make applications. Maybe once Mr. Hassan and a few others are in, the government will come forward and simply say, 'We'll take them all.' I don't know; it's so tough to tell what is going to happen."

Despite his client's sponsorship by the Don Valley Refugee Resettlers (DVRR), a group of eight Toronto churches associated with the CCR, Clarke still has no idea when or if Hassan will be approved.

"It's like a magic box. You open it and really have no idea how things happen," he said.

Clarke is aware of two other Uighur men also being sponsored by the DVRR but was also confused about the number of detainees being reported on by some Canadian media.

"I don't know where that six is coming from. There's my client and two others," he said. "Six? I don't know about that."

The Archdiocese of Montreal has been listed in some reports as another sponsor for detainees, but calls to that organization were not immediately returned.

So shall we take the innocent?
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,396
11,449
113
Low Earth Orbit
SO this is saying that because these guys were merely charge but not convicted by US they are no longer allowed back home?
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,396
11,449
113
Low Earth Orbit
Are these the same guys and lawyers who request at minimum animal rights for their clients since their human rights plea was denied?
 

Said1

Hubba Hubba
Apr 18, 2005
5,336
66
48
51
Das Kapital
SO this is saying that because these guys were merely charge but not convicted by US they are no longer allowed back home?
They're probably allowed, it's just that their life expectancy might suddenly become very limited,if they do return.

A refugee is a person who fears persecution if they go back to their country of nationality. Fear of persecution usually means a serious chance of physical harm or detention or some other form of cruel and unusual punishment. In some cases discrimination or harassment could be considered serious enough to amount to persecution.

To be granted asylum in Canada as a refugee, a person must be outside his or her home country and have a well-founded fear of persecution. According to the Geneva Convention, the fear must not only be well-founded, the persecution must also be based on reasons of race, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. However, a less restrictive interpretation of the feared persecution may also lead to refugee status. For example, Canada recognizes that women can be persecuted because of their gender and that the definition of a refugee should be interpreted to also include this form of persecution. A variety of circumstances can make a person a refugee.

Canadian Immigration - Refugee Status in Canada
 

Tyr

Council Member
Nov 27, 2008
2,152
14
38
Sitting at my laptop
SO this is saying that because these guys were merely charge but not convicted by US they are no longer allowed back home?

It's the Americanazi rule of justice. If they want to come to Canada to get a a minimum a fair and impartial trial, so be it. Canada was naive enough to get sucked into Afghanistan, we should be part of the solution.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
I fail to see why they can't go to the USA again? The US is the one that really broke the spirit if not the letter of its own laws to cause this mess, why isn't the USA taking them?

Has anyone ever actually explained that one?
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
I fail to see why they can't go to the USA again? The US is the one that really broke the spirit if not the letter of its own laws to cause this mess, why isn't the USA taking them?

Has anyone ever actually explained that one?

I think they will end up in the USA. It is a neat story and fun to ponder but I doubt Canada would want to handle this hot potato.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
I was going to link this to the other thread in regards to the US "Not in my Backyard" ~ However the information in this report is different from the other subject, as it focuses on those cleared of any charges, rather then those still pending trials:

Canada a desired location for Guantanamo Bay detainees
Canada a desired location for Guantanamo Bay detainees



So shall we take the innocent?

Not all....because being "not guilty" is NOT the same as being innocent.

The (unspellable :)) from the Muslim minority in China? If cleared of suspicion of collusion with terrorists.......most definitely we should take them.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
I fail to see why they can't go to the USA again? The US is the one that really broke the spirit if not the letter of its own laws to cause this mess, why isn't the USA taking them?

Has anyone ever actually explained that one?

Well for one, no offense Eagle, most Americans have a problem accepting their own mistakes..... and two.... anybody who had the term "Terrorist" tossed their way, whether it was justified or not, wouldn't have much of a life in the US and probably wouldn't be a long one.

Kinda like being called a witch.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Well for one, no offense Eagle, most Americans have a problem accepting their own mistakes..... and two.... anybody who had the term "Terrorist" tossed their way, whether it was justified or not, wouldn't have much of a life in the US and probably wouldn't be a long one.

Kinda like being called a witch.

Prax... there are SO MANY here in the US that are US citizen and LOATHE the country. I, as you know, am not one of them. Sure we make mistakes but not everything is our fault and nor was everything Bush's fault.

The most Americans you talk about at times feel like no matter what we do we are going to take heat for it. Take the Sunami a few years back. Aid was given immediately but it just was not enough. Folks here were comparing our GDP to what we gave and we didn't give enough. They didn't include the Navy ships desalinating sea water and bringing a lot of other countries aid to the affected countries because the UN doesn't count transportation and those types of services as aid. So we just throw up our hands a lot and say...

"Go <bleep> yourselves then!"

THAT makes us ugly Americans.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Prax... there are SO MANY here in the US that are US citizen and LOATHE the country. I, as you know, am not one of them. Sure we make mistakes but not everything is our fault and nor was everything Bush's fault.

I know, that's why I said no offense, followed by "Most"

I didn't say all. :lol:

The most Americans you talk about at times feel like no matter what we do we are going to take heat for it. Take the Sunami a few years back. Aid was given immediately but it just was not enough. Folks here were comparing our GDP to what we gave and we didn't give enough.

I never said you guys didn't give enough (I think that happened before I joined here) and besides, you guys are at war, it's expected that the money would be a little tight.

They didn't include the Navy ships desalinating sea water and bringing a lot of other countries aid to the affected countries because the UN doesn't count transportation and those types of services as aid. So we just throw up our hands a lot and say...

"Go <bleep> yourselves then!"

THAT makes us ugly Americans.

Well I was merely referencing, as I did in the first post above, those Americans in the other thread who were passing the buck to one another about those still waiting for trial..... for those people, they should suck it up and take whatever is given to them. You can't support a war on terrorism and not be willing to contribute to the cause, such as housing those they want to punish.

Once again, I wasn't tossing you into that..... which is why I said no offense.... it wasn't meant to be sarcastic. :p

But Generally you have to admit, these guys wouldn't stand much of a chance inside the US.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Meh, apparently the War resisters actually commited a crime, while these guys have been cleared..... a bit of a difference..... then maybe they can help me design my sock-puppet bomb and make it work right. :p

You could have learned that from watching "Saving Private Ryan"
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Once again, I wasn't tossing you into that..... which is why I said no offense.... it wasn't meant to be sarcastic. :p

Yeah I getcha.

But Generally you have to admit, these guys wouldn't stand much of a chance inside the US.

If they were ever put in General Population I would agree. I think these guys will be scattered over the US and put in extreme isolation. I also think Obama will want a finalization to this before his first term is up. Either convict them or set them free.