Five ParadoxAnd how does the SCOC have the right to interfere in Foreign Affairs - Next will they be abrogating treaties signed by past & present Govt's - Forcing them to sigb treaties that the Govt does not agree with - You strike me as a very learned man - so tell me - just a Joe Numpty average guy where the role of the Courts ends and the Govt's begins in regard to Foreign Affairs. What is your answer -
Conservative Government Attempts To Muzzle The Courts
- Thread starter Liberalman
- Start date
The role of the Supreme Court, in my view, is to respond to questions that are posed to it as to the legality of the Government’s foreign affairs policies and decisions and, where appropriate, to suggest or order remedies to bring them in line with the law where the Government has acted unlawfully.
I didn’t say that they had done anything illegal, the role of the Supreme Court is to make that determination. The question is whether the Government has a legal obligation to request the extradition of a Canadian citizen from the United States due to the several questionable circumstances of the United States’s treatment of its prisoners. The question is on the extent to which the Government should be lawfully expected to act, to ensure that the constitutional rights of its citizens are upheld.
Five ParadoxSo the govt has not acted illegaly - Both Liberals and Conservatives - Where do a Canadians Constituitional protection end - The SCOC deemed that an illegal immigarnts protcetion begin as soon as they are on Canadian soil - Are you of the opinion that Canadian Govts Foreign Policy - I am not just referring to the Khadr case, as once the SCOC dips their toes into the waters of Foreign Affairs they are into a swamp, should all this fall under the purview of the SCOC?
Five Paradox
So that would force the Govt to take every action possible for any and all Canadians incarcerated in other countries?
You’re twisting what I’ve said.
I have said that the role of the Supreme Court is to respond to legal opinions that are requested of it; there are some who have argued here that the Supreme Court does not have the authority to speak to any subject matter that involves anything outside of Canada’s physical boundaries, but this is entirely untrue. It is entirely appropriate for the Supreme Court to offer its legal opinion, when requested, on whether the Government has fulfilled its legal obligations. goober, you seem to be suggesting that Mr. Khadr’s detention in the United States is entirely routine, but it is anything but routine — there are serious constitutional questions in regards to his detention, and the role that the Government should have in protecting the constitutional rights and freedoms of Canadians in the face of a clearly negligent federal administration elsewhere.
Where there are such clear constitutional questions and concerns, then yes, I feel that the Government has a legal obligation to its citizens that transcends even the written statuts on the books — I feel that there is an obligation that has evolved from The Queen’s duty to protect Her Majesty’s subjects with the entire resources and dedication of the country. It is a principle of constitutional monarchy that the federal Government should seek to protect Canadian citizens and subjects when there are such clear questions of whether rights and freedoms have been inappropriately abrogated.
I have said that the role of the Supreme Court is to respond to legal opinions that are requested of it; there are some who have argued here that the Supreme Court does not have the authority to speak to any subject matter that involves anything outside of Canada’s physical boundaries, but this is entirely untrue. It is entirely appropriate for the Supreme Court to offer its legal opinion, when requested, on whether the Government has fulfilled its legal obligations. goober, you seem to be suggesting that Mr. Khadr’s detention in the United States is entirely routine, but it is anything but routine — there are serious constitutional questions in regards to his detention, and the role that the Government should have in protecting the constitutional rights and freedoms of Canadians in the face of a clearly negligent federal administration elsewhere.
Where there are such clear constitutional questions and concerns, then yes, I feel that the Government has a legal obligation to its citizens that transcends even the written statuts on the books — I feel that there is an obligation that has evolved from The Queen’s duty to protect Her Majesty’s subjects with the entire resources and dedication of the country. It is a principle of constitutional monarchy that the federal Government should seek to protect Canadian citizens and subjects when there are such clear questions of whether rights and freedoms have been inappropriately abrogated.
Five ParadoxI am not twisting anything - The question was clear where does the power of the SCOC to force the Govt to take action end. Is it at our land borders - Does it relate to the 12 mile limit - Other treaties sogned by Canada go well past the 200 mile limit at seas - so it is an entirely reasonable question - Just be cause you do not have a clear answer does not equate to me twisting anything. Point - Not according to the US SC - All charges etc and appeals regarding Khadr and others to the US SC have upheld the incarceration - Do you belive that the Canadian SCOC has the right to interfere with a democratic Govt and their laws? I have said that the role of the Supreme Court is to respond to legal opinions that are requested of it; there are some who have argued here that the Supreme Court does not have the authority to speak to any subject matter that involves anything outside of Canada’s physical boundaries, but this is entirely untrue. Point - That is not correct - It is to be decided upon by the SCOC - If that was fact then this case would not be before the SCOC now would it? Point - Khadrs parent and grandparents knowingly sent and supported Khadr and his father in activites that are against Cnadian law - What action should have been taken against the parents - Following Canadian law naturally.
Goober, my response was quite clear.
The Supreme Court of Canada is our highest judicial authority (save for the High Court of the Parliament of Canada*), and it has the authority to respond to whatever legal questions are asked of it. This includes questions of the obligations of Her Majesty’s Government for Canada to its citizens. The Supreme Court certainly does have the authority to order the Government to respect the constitution, as it is a duty of all Canadian governments to uphold Canadian laws, and to respect the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as Canadian supreme law. If anything in the Charter would compel the Government to take a particular action, or to select from a range of possible actions, to safeguard the rights and freedoms of Canadians, then yes, the Supreme Court has that right and that responsibility.
The decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America are of no relevance to the Canadian Supreme Court, as American jurisprudence has no relationship whatsoever to Canada’s expectations of rights and freedoms, and Canadian principles of fundamental justice. It would be irresponsible for the Government of Canada to give more weight to any American legal decision than it would to our own Supreme Court. Of course, such behaviour on the part of the Conservative Party of Canada and any Government in which it plays a hand would not surprise me in the least.
Of course the Supreme Court does not have the authority to overrule a foreign court of law — that question is non-sensical. Once again you’ve endeavoured to twist my arguments to suit your own agenda. While the Supreme Court does not have the authority to overrule a foreign authority, it absolutely has the authority to direct the Government to perform whatever actions are necessary to satisfy the Canadian constitution. What should concern Canadians is that the participation of our judicial branch is needed at all — why can’t Canadians count on the Conservative Party to respect the rights and freedoms of Canadians, and do what needs to be done?
That would be a matter for the judicial system to determine under the Criminal Code. I would imagine that there are a good number of possible charges for Canadian citizens found to have aided any terrorist or otherwise violent cause, but that would be a matter that would have to be prosecuted and fully aired-out before a Canadian court of law.
I agree, so when do you think we'll see justice in adscam?
Now, seeing as the courts ruling is what you wish to see happen, should we invade Gitmo and free him?
Where was this contempt when the Liberals were bending laws all over Quebec? When your hero P.E.T. abolished a whole set of laws and peoples civil liberties were infringed across the country?
;-)
I guess we won't be hearing anything objective from you.
That's apparent.
I'm sure, so long as he agrees with you.Thanks Cliffy, I am sure we'll get along fine!
Ditto...
Agreed.
Funny though, he wants to put the dicission in the hands of the people, not the courts, that's far more democratic.
Of course it's clear but it still doesn't explain why you want dead bodies displayed in the streets of Canada like they do in Islamist states.
Still doesn't explain why you wanted a potentially Innocent boy shot.
Struggle to respond now.
Last edited by a moderator:
Point one: I don't think they display executed bodies in Islamist states...
Point two: I indicated I would be willing to compromise at having them thrown in jail for life....a most liberal and Canadian-style compromise, IMHO.
Point three: Khadr is definitely not innocent.....he may not be guilty of any crime in the USA or Canada, but the word "innocent" has no place in his description.
So your worse than an Islamist in that regard....wow.
Idicated after being called for what you are.
So Khadr is guilty of what then?
Please provide proof....since you were there after all.
I like to think one is innocent until proven guilty.....unlike you.
This bullsh*t with Khadr has already gone on far too long, he should be released forthwith with a healthy stipend. If he was as guilty as they claim why is it taking so long to get the charges together and have a trial? I used to like George Bush , but the guy sure knows how to piss me off by screwing around. Can't for the life of me figure why Obama wouldn't have sprung him by now, actually by last Jan. 21.
I take this time to apologize to Colpy who is a fine citizen of Canada whom I respect and enjoy sharing the same nationalism with.
Again sorry for any disrespect to you or your lifestyle.
Cheers.
Again sorry for any disrespect to you or your lifestyle.
Cheers.
