Canadian Bar Association slams Harper Gov't

[Tonington]

The Canadian Bar Association has released two scathing rebukes of the Harper Government's response to international justice issues. In the first, the CBA President commented on the continued apathy of the Canadian government to the Omar Khadr case:

CBA president and Winnipeg lawyer Guy Joubert said Omar Khadr is the only remaining western citizen being held at Guantanamo Bay after the governments of the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Belgium and Australia all used diplomatic pressure to successfully push for the return of their jailed nationals.

"We're the last one, and I can't help but think that it doesn't help our image as a free and democratic society when we allow something like this to happen," Joubert told Canwest News Service in an interview at the annual meeting of the body that represents Canada's legal community.

Relent on Khadr, Tories urged - Winnipeg Free Press

In the second case, the CBA President made announcements concerning the Government's policy approach made public last month concerning death penalty cases. The short of it is the Government has made an ad hoc justification for when and where it will become involved, based on the nature of the crime the person is accused of, and whether or not the foreign government trying the Canadian is democratic, and respects the rule of law. According to the CBA, this is not likely to be well recieved, and is fundamentally flawed.

"The case-by-case approach invites arbitrary and discriminatory decisions, implying that the death penalty may be appropriate for some Canadians," stated a resolution passed unanimously Sunday at the bar association’s annual meeting, which was held in Dublin.

The association argues that if Canada seeks clemency only when it deems a country’s judicial system to be flawed, that denunciation is “unlikely to be well received.”

That could in turn jeopardize the government’s ability to obtain sympathy and co-operation from the government of the country where the Canadian is facing capital punishment, the association said.

An ad hoc approach will also lead to politicians making clemency decisions based on whether the person on death row is getting public and media attention, which will in turn make Canada’s position appear unprincipled, according to association documents.

Bar association slams Harper over death penalty

 

[strange]

Its about time. THis government is a joke in the international stage.
"can't hold it guys take the picture without me"

 

[CDNBear]

Oh brother Ton, yer on a tear today eh?

The CBA should start taking a close look at their members and the exaggerated cost of legal representation. Before they start barking up other trees.

Not to mention, the Omar case being not so cut and dry. The latter concern and the CBA's accusations against the Gov'ts position is absolutely ridiculous.

The Gov'ts position is wholly reasonable. In fact, I would say they're bang on in both cases.

 

[Cannuck]

Its about time. THis government is a joke in the international stage.

I'll say. Harper flies up north just to watch an ambiguous assault

CTV.ca | Critics say PM should focus on Arctic infrastructure

"Canadian Rangers, a northern reserve force, will also practice an ambiguous assault.
Harper is to observe the exercise from the HMCS Toronto".

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Government’s Failure on Justice

It’s true—the complete disrespect for the fundamental principles of justice by the present Her Majesty’s Government for Canada has been reprehensible. The Government has demonstrated on several occasions (such as those cited above), and has without a moment’s second thought challenged the legitimacy of the Supreme Court of Canada and assaulted the independence of our judicial institutions (such as through the implementation of partisan lynching committees to vet candidates for the bench). How can the Government depend on our judicial institutions to interpret the law and protect the Canadian constitution, but simultaneously dismiss a recent key decision by the Federal Court of Appeal? It’s non-sensical!

I would suggest that The Honourable Rob Nicholson P.C., Q.C., M.P. (Niagara Falls), the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, should resign at once for this outrageous farce. The administration of justice under this minister’s leadership has been questionable at best, but more probably extremely damaging—not that his predecessor, The Honourable Vic Toews P.C., M.P. (Provencher), the President of the Treasury Board, did much better.

 

[Unforgiven]

The presedent set is that enough media coverage will direct the course of government policy on a case by case basis. It's as though these nuts feel they can govern with a total disregard for law and the Charter.

When the West says that Ottawa doesn't like them or ignores them, it's mostly because when some halfwit from the West gets control of the country, he does stupid **** like this. And so it is that Western parties like the "redneck nouveau"
will soon parish and the good old Liberals can roll back over, snout in trough and return to no opposition majorities that fail to keep the government in check.

 

[Colpy]

I am divided on this issue.

I reluctantly agree that the USA has completely screwed up the Khadr thing....(that started when they didn't shoot him on the spot, or turn him over to the tender mercies of Afghan "justice") and I agree (reluctantly) that he should now be brought home. Trying someone for throwing a grenade at you after you drop a 1000kg bomb on him seems a little.....silly.

I do, however, think the courts have greatly overstepped themselves by ordering the government to deal in any way with a foreign nation....that is foreign affairs and, IMHO, not the in the Court's legitimate zone of influence. Therefore their orders need to be appealed, challenged and ignored.....even as or if we bring the man back to Canada.

Likewise, we have no right to interfere with how justice, applied under the English common law, is carried out in another nation........help with legal appeals...yes. Aid in cases where the man may be innocent...or even refuse to extradite in places where there is a lack of evidence? Certainly. But if some guy pops a couple of native boys in the head for the extreme crime of offering him a drive.......don't expect me to go out of my way to prevent his richly deserved demise.

Or if some guy that tortures babies to death in front of their mother (Charlie Ng), don't expect me to let him run free here simply because he made it across the border and they might give him what he so richly deserves if we ship him back........

GET REAL!

 

[CDNBear]

It’s true—the complete disrespect for the fundamental principles of justice by the present Her Majesty’s Government for Canada has been reprehensible.

You mean like the HRC's set up by the Liberals?

The Government has demonstrated on several occasions (such as those cited above), and has without a moment’s second thought challenged the legitimacy of the Supreme Court of Canada and assaulted the independence of our judicial institutions (such as through the implementation of partisan lynching committees to vet candidates for the bench). How can the Government depend on our judicial institutions to interpret the law and protect the Canadian constitution, but simultaneously dismiss a recent key decision by the Federal Court of Appeal? It’s non-sensical!

That's because the SCoC has over stepped it's bounds, made rulings out side the will of the people. No matter what is said in the Charter, the majority should be respected. Not necessarily listened to 100%, but the SCoC has turned its back on the will of the people. The Gov't is righ to dismiss it, ignore and challenge it.

I would suggest that The Honourable Rob Nicholson P.C., Q.C., M.P. (Niagara Falls), the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, should resign at once for this outrageous farce. The administration of justice under this minister’s leadership has been questionable at best, but more probably extremely damaging—not that his predecessor, The Honourable Vic Toews P.C., M.P. (Provencher), the President of the Treasury Board, did much better.

No more questionable then under the last 3 sitting PM's.

I am divided on this issue.

I reluctantly agree that the USA has completely screwed up the Khadr thing....(that started when they didn't shoot him on the spot, or turn him over to the tender mercies of Afghan "justice") and I agree (reluctantly) that he should now be brought home. Trying someone for throwing a grenade at you after you drop a 1000kg bomb on him seems a little.....silly.

I agree, three to the face would have been the best course of action.

I do, however, think the courts have greatly overstepped themselves by ordering the government to deal in any way with a foreign nation....that is foreign affairs and, IMHO, not the in the Court's legitimate zone of influence. Therefore their orders need to be appealed, challenged and ignored.....even as or if we bring the man back to Canada.

Agreed.

Likewise, we have no right to interfere with how justice, applied under the English common law, is carried out in another nation........help with legal appeals...yes. Aid in cases where the man may be innocent...or even refuse to extradite in places where there is a lack of evidence? Certainly. But if some guy pops a couple of native boys in the head for the extreme crime of offering him a drive.......don't expect me to go out of my way to prevent his richly deserved demise.

Agreed.

Or if some guy that tortures babies to death in front of their mother (Charlie Ng), don't expect me to let him run free here simply because he made it across the border and they might give him what he so richly deserves if we ship him back........

Agreed.

GET REAL!

Not likely with all the bleeding hearts in the SCoC and those feeding them...:roll:

 

[FiveParadox]

That's because the SCoC has over stepped it's bounds, made rulings out side the will of the people. No matter what is said in the Charter, the majority should be respected. Not necessarily listened to 100%, but the SCoC has turned its back on the will of the people. The Gov't is righ to dismiss it, ignore and challenge it.

The Supreme Court is not a democratic body, it is the highest court of law for Canada—that means that it is dutybound to make decisions based on what the Charter and the legal framework of Canada demands, and not based on the day-to-day emotions or opinions of the majority of Canadians. By your logic, we may as well let the House of Commons try legal cases instead.

 

[Colpy]

The Supreme Court is not a democratic body, it is the highest court of law for Canada—that means that it is dutybound to make decisions based on what the Charter and the legal framework of Canada demands, and not based on the day-to-day emotions or opinions of the majority of Canadians. By your logic, we may as well let the House of Commons try legal cases instead.

First of all, Five, under the British Parliamentary tradition, Parliament is superior to the Constitutional law........

As it is with us, "notwithstanding" anything else...

Secondly, what do you do with Mr. Ng????? He was a mass murderer that tortured babies to death in front of their mother.....today we could not send him back to California, because their gov't (correctly, IMHO) refused to consider exempting him from the harshest possible penalty under their law.

Even the idiot Alan Rock figured out quite quickly that his only other choice was to let him run free in Canada........and shipped him south.

Now impossible.

As I said, please, get real.

If I were PM, I'd ignore the SC and send the SOB south ASAP.

OiC perhaps? Notwithstanding? I'd worry about the weasel legal wrangling after he was across the border.

Sometimes CS has to prevail over all.

(Common Sense)

 

[TenPenny]

No matter what is said in the Charter, the majority should be respected.

Unclear on the concept of a Charter, or the rule of law, I see.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Young Omar Khadr was captured in 2002? The Canadian Bar
Ass. started complaining in 2006 about Omar Khadr being held
in Gitmo? Was it a non-issue from 2002-2006, or did something
change in 2006 to have the Canadian Bar Association get up onto
the soapbox? 8O

 

[Niflmir]

Raped in Saudi Arabia?

Don't expect the Canadian government to extradite you. Death penalty is your just reward for being alone and female in a foreign country.

 

[Ron in Regina]

The presedent set is that enough media coverage will direct the course of government policy on a case by case basis. It's as though these nuts feel they can govern with a total disregard for law and the Charter.

When the West says that Ottawa doesn't like them or ignores them, it's mostly because when some halfwit from the West gets control of the country, he does stupid **** like this. And so it is that Western parties like the "redneck nouveau"
will soon parish and the good old Liberals can roll back over, snout in trough and return to no opposition majorities that fail to keep the government in check.

Yep....born in Toronto. Raised in Toronto. A member of the "Young
Liberals Club" in High School....in Toronto, which is west of Ottawa.
Moved further West of Ottawa when he was old enough to drink and
vote and smoke....for a job. That would make this guy a Redneck....:-?

Stephen Harper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As good and valid a reason as I've ever seen to slam "the West"
and everyone in the West. Where does "the West" start anyway? :-|

 

[Cliffy]

Yep....born in Toronto. Raised in Toronto. A member of the "Young
Liberals Club" in High School....in Toronto, which is west of Ottawa.
Moved further West of Ottawa when he was old enough to drink and
vote and smoke....for a job. That would make this guy a Redneck....:-?

Stephen Harper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As good and valid a reason as I've ever seen to slam "the West"
and everyone in the West. Where does "the West" start anyway? :-|

According to East coasters, anything west of New Brunswick, Quebecers, west of Ottawa, Ontarioians, anything west of Ontario. According to BCers, anything west of the Rockies.:lol:

 

[CDNBear]

The Supreme Court is not a democratic body, it is the highest court of law for Canada—that means that it is dutybound to make decisions based on what the Charter and the legal framework of Canada demands, and not based on the day-to-day emotions or opinions of the majority of Canadians.

It is also not a legislative body, yet it has over stepped its bounds and formed or manipulated legislation, against the will of the people.

As I have proved to you in the past, it has over stepped its bounds, made ridiculous rulings and been out of step with the values of Canadians for decades, and getting worse.

By your logic, we may as well let the House of Commons try legal cases instead.

Why not, the SCoC is doing the House's job.

 

[gerryh]

It is also not a legislative body, yet it has over stepped its bounds and formed or manipulated legislation, against the will of the people.

As I have proved to you in the past, it has over stepped its bounds, made ridiculous rulings and been out of step with the values of Canadians for decades, and getting worse.

Why not, the SCoC is doing the House's job.

BS.... the SCoC does not do the houses job and it doesn't "manipulate" lagislation. If the House is so incompetant that it can't drafe legislation that DOESN'T contravene the Charter or is blatantly ambiguos, that is NOT the Courts fault, it is the the Lagislators fault.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Role of the Supreme Court of Canada

What a load of nonsense. The Supreme Court’s role does not overlap that of the House of Commons. The Supreme Court only has the power to strike down legislation that is inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or other elements of our constitution. This has always been the case. Our judicial institutions are an instrument of the Parliament of Canada—there is no decision that the Supreme Court can make that cannot be corrected by legislation consistent with the fundamental principles of justice and with due regard to the rights and freedoms of Canadians. Once again, CDNBear, cite just one example of a decision made by the bench of The Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin P.C., the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada that is inconsistent with the Canadian constitution.

Canadian opinions, the requests of the majority, the party make-up of the Government of the day—these are not things that the Supreme Court needs to be concerned with. The Supreme Court only needs to interpret the law (as it has done admirably in each and every case brought before the wise bench of the present Chief Justice) and make determinations as to when laws breach the provisions of our constitution, and to tender constitutional advice (via references) to the Government when so requested (such as with advice tendered to the Government through Re: Same-sex Marriage—and even then, the Supreme Court refused to answer some of the questions posed to it so as to avoid playing a hand in the development of legislation). When the Supreme Court strikes down an Act, or a portion thereof, that isn’t the Supreme Court ‘acting up’ or making changes to Canadian law—it is the correction of a law that was not constitutional to start with.

 

[CDNBear]

BS.... the SCoC does not do the houses job and it doesn't "manipulate" lagislation.

Ummm, same sex marriage? 8O

Supreme Court Watch

If the House is so incompetant that it can't drafe legislation that DOESN'T contravene the Charter or is blatantly ambiguos, that is NOT the Courts fault, it is the the Lagislators fault.

Not when the legislation predates the courts ruling.

 

[gerryh]

Ummm, same sex marriage? 8O

Supreme Court Watch

Not when the legislation predates the courts ruling.

The Courts rulling on SSM was well within the constructs of our Charter. A Charter, I might add, that was put together and passed by the House.

The House of Commons tried to curcumvent Charter rights with laws banning marriage by SS partners.