Supreme Court says woman and brother should be extradited to India in 'honour killing

Twila

Nanah Potato
Mar 26, 2003
14,698
73
48
finally!


A B.C. woman and her brother, accused of masterminding the murder of her 25-year-old daughter, should be extradited to India to face justice, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled.

India had requested Malkit Sidhu and Surjit Badesha, the mother and uncle, respectively, of Jaswinder (Jassi) Sidhu, be extradited to face trial for a charge of conspiracy to commit murder in the 2000 death.

Jassi Sidhu's body was dumped near a canal after her throat was slashed, allegedly targeted for secretly marrying a man of much lower social status instead of the older man her family had arranged for her to wed in Canada.

Her husband, Sukhwinder (Mithu) Sidhu was badly beaten and left for dead, but he survived.

It is the theory of the Indian government that Jassi was the victim of an "honour killing" arranged by her mother and uncle, the judgment reads.

Honour killings are normally murders committed because of patriarchal concepts of honour and shame. They're considered gender-based crimes, since girls and women are usually the victims.

In a unanimous decision released Friday morning, the high court found that a surrender order by then Justice Minister Peter MacKay was justified.

"In this case, it was reasonable for the minister to conclude that, on the basis of the assurances he received from India, there was no substantial risk of torture or mistreatment of B and S that would offend the principles of fundamental justice protected by s. 7 of the charter, and that their surrenders were not otherwise unjust or oppressive," the judgment reads.

A surrender order signed by MacKay was challenged and ultimately struck down by B.C.'s Court of Appeal last year.

Sidhu and Badesha had argued they could face neglect or mistreatment in India's prison system, and said there was no guarantee India would uphold its assurance it would not administer the death penalty.

India has provided assurances the pair would have access to medical treatment and would not be mistreated.

But lawyers for the accused argued before the Supreme Court in March that those assurances were not enough to protect the pair, and that sending them to India would violate their constitutional rights under Sec. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the right to life, liberty and security of the person.

the rest:

Supreme Court says woman and brother should be extradited to India in 'honour killing' case - Politics - CBC News
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
13,115
858
113
Toronto, ON
I love these a-s-s-wipes that argue about their rights to life, liberty and security of person when they have robbed someone else of those very same rights. I hope India does go back on their word.
 

Twila

Nanah Potato
Mar 26, 2003
14,698
73
48
I love these a-s-s-wipes that argue about their rights to life, liberty and security of person when they have robbed someone else of those very same rights. I hope India does go back on their word.

right?!? Why should anyone care that they fear they'll be beaten / tortured given they killed they're own blood and beat her love?

So glad that to hear they'll have to face the charges even after 17 yrs.
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
1
36
No system is perfect and even in the best system, an innocent might occasionally be wrongfully convicted; but India has a pretty robust justice system compared to many and is even comparable to Canada's, so I have few worries on that front.

right?!? Why should anyone care that they fear they'll be beaten / tortured given they killed they're own blood and beat her love?

So glad that to hear they'll have to face the charges even after 17 yrs.

To be fair, the whole point of the trial is to determine whether they are guilty.
 

brah

Time Out
Sep 8, 2017
44
0
6
No system is perfect and even in the best system, an innocent might occasionally be wrongfully convicted; but India has a pretty robust justice system compared to many and is even comparable to Canada's, so I have few worries on that front.



To be fair, the whole point of the trial is to determine whether they are guilty.

Well golly?

Why do we have courts when we can can decide via text/blog/snapchat/facebook/instagram/etc?
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
Let's hope that this sends a message to those living in Canada that what they arrange in other nations has consequences.
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
1
36
Let's hope that this sends a message to those living in Canada that what they arrange in other nations has consequences.

If India's asking for their extradition, then we can reasonably presume that Indian investigators believe that couple are at least probably guilty and that there is a good chance of a conviction.

But prosecutors are sometimes wrong, and in the hypothetical scenario that an extradited person is found not guilty, we can ask as a matter of basic justice whether the Indian state should then be legally obligated to fly them back to Canada.

The same applies to Canada of course. For example, Australia extradites a Canadian to Canada at Canada's request to stand trial, the Canadian stands trial, and then he's found not guilty. Should Canada then just leave him stranded in Canada when he'd been flown to Canada against his will, or should Canada be required to return him to where he's extradited from?

Maybe there are already laws concerning this, I don't know, but I'm curious.
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
If India's asking for their extradition, then we can reasonably presume that Indian investigators believe that couple are at least probably guilty and that there is a good chance of a conviction.

But prosecutors are sometimes wrong, and in the hypothetical scenario that an extradited person is found not guilty, we can ask as a matter of basic justice whether the Indian state should then be legally obligated to fly them back to Canada.

The same applies to Canada of course. For example, Australia extradites a Canadian to Canada at Canada's request to stand trial, the Canadian stands trial, and then he's found not guilty. Should Canada then just leave him stranded in Canada when he'd been flown to Canada against his will, or should Canada be required to return him to where he's extradited from?

Maybe there are already laws concerning this, I don't know, but I'm curious.

I've got no idea what happens in that case. Generally if there is enough evidence to extradite someone then they are usually guilty.
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
1
36
I've got no idea what happens in that case. Generally if there is enough evidence to extradite someone then they are usually guilty.

Perhaps, but they are still being extradited before the hearing. It could be that the evidence available prior to the hearing makes them look guilty but that new evidence comes up at the hearing to exonerate them. I don't know about this specific case, but at least in theory, this could happen.