After reading more about it, I agree with many of Kenney's points, but I feel his letter would be stronger if he had adopted a more professional tone throughout it instead of starting off with a juvenile, fallacious argument.
"However, as a former AI member, may I suggest that ostentatious hand-wringing over the good name of war criminals and human rights violators may sit uneasily with those AI members who, perhaps naively, believe your compassion should be reserved for their victims."
Mr. Kenney, your arrogance is astounding. Perhaps you should remind yourself of your own gaffes prior to implying criteria for victimhood? Since, you know, even "accused" terrorists or war criminals, whether innocent or not, may still be victimized by a process that does not properly observe due process. Compounding such pompousness is that though you may be right in some instances, you have certainly been wrong:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toronto Coalition to Stop the War v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2010 FC 957
Taken into consideration with the haste with which officials reached the conclusion that Mr. Galloway was inadmissible and took steps to have him barred before the assessment of his admissibility was completed, these statements could have supported findings of bias and bad faith against the respondents. It is clear that the efforts to keep Mr. Galloway out of the country had more to do with antipathy to his political views than with any real concern that he had engaged in terrorism or was a member of a terrorist organization. No consideration appears to have been given to the interests of those Canadians who wished to hear Mr. Galloway speak or the values of freedom of expression and association enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
This thread is per se misinformed; although it is easy to jump on ship when patriotic fervour and nationalistic sentiment condone it. Kenney's response is patently unsubstantiated and embarrassingly inappropriate in its response to the AI letter.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to something For This Useful Post:
Kenney's response was exactly what it needed to be. I enjoyed it and applaud him.
I'll be honest, I have such a low tolerance for this sort of bullshít that the first, last and only sentence in my reply to Amnesty International would have been "Hi, who are you, and why should I care about your ill-informed opinions and concerns?"
This is why I do not publicly represent entities that may be bombarded by letters from idiots. I couldn't be arsed to respond to them in a way that even remotely dignifies the original letter.
I'm lost. How is AI siding with the thugs? Amensty wants these war criminals in jail. The Canadian government is sending them back to the country they came from where they will be free to go back to committing the attrocities they were before.
I'm lost. How is AI siding with the thugs? Amensty wants these war criminals in jail. The Canadian government is sending them back to the country they came from where they will be free to go back to committing the attrocities they were before.
I thought that the reason that AI was up in arms was because they would be headed home and potentially be jailed and tortured?
I'd be more than happy to pile on Jason Kenney as I don't care for the guy, but quite frankly I agree with him here. AI might have a point if they say "send them to the Hague instead of home for torture and jail" but otherwise they should have better things to do.
I thought that the reason that AI was up in arms was because they would be headed home and potentially be jailed and tortured?
I'd be more than happy to pile on Jason Kenney as I don't care for the guy, but quite frankly I agree with him here. AI might have a point if they say "send them to the Hague instead of home for torture and jail" but otherwise they should have better things to do.
Except that refoulement is illegal under numerous international treaties, including the Convention Against Torture and the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. And unless these alleged war criminals are perpetrators of "the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole", the ICC won't have jurisdiction to prosecute them under Article 5 of the Rome Statute.
The best place to prosecute them is in domestic courts. And it's a fact that many of these alleged war criminals come from countries without the means to prosecute effectively. Which is where Canada (and other industrialized countries) need to pick up the slack, lest these guys never face trial.
I thought that the reason that AI was up in arms was because they would be headed home and potentially be jailed and tortured?
I'd be more than happy to pile on Jason Kenney as I don't care for the guy, but quite frankly I agree with him here. AI might have a point if they say "send them to the Hague instead of home for torture and jail" but otherwise they should have better things to do.
Both points are in the letter:
Quote:
* It fails to ensure that such individuals will in fact face justice. An official process of extradition or surrender would ensure that individuals are going to be dealt with under criminal proceedings in another jurisdiction. Deportation does not. All the deportation guarantees is that the person concerned will be removed from Canada. It is entirely possible that the individual, once deported, will not face any further investigation or criminal charges.
* It also fails to adequately safeguard against the possibility that in some cases, the individual concerned might be at risk of serious human rights violations. Canada’s international human rights obligations are clear – no person should be deported if he or she faces a serious risk of such grave human rights violations as torture, extrajudicial execution or enforced disappearance. This extends to individuals who may themselves have been responsible for grave human rights violations. There are no exceptions.
If these people are being deported because they are war criminals, we should see that they are brought up on charges. Not released back into a country where they may or may not get the punishment they deserve. Washing our hands of these cases by simply kicking them out of the country isn't the right thing to do IMO. We should ENSURE that these people are brought to justice.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Devils'Advocate For This Useful Post:
Except that refoulement is illegal under numerous international treaties, including the Convention Against Torture and the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. And unless these alleged war criminals are perpetrators of "the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole", the ICC won't have jurisdiction to prosecute them under Article 5 of the Rome Statute.
The best place to prosecute them is in domestic courts. And it's a fact that many of these alleged war criminals come from countries without the means to prosecute effectively. Which is where Canada (and other industrialized countries) need to pick up the slack, lest these guys never face trial.
I'm not going to lie to you: I had to google "refoulement". It looks like that applies to a refugee? If people are circumventing immigration laws and the like are the in the same class and deserve the same treatment?
Isn't the best place to prosecute a war criminal the Hague?
Clearly you know more about this then I do, but it just seems like that is where all the war criminals end up, so it should follow that these guys would suffer the same fate. Access to a fair trial, no torture on the way to that fair trial and thats that?
I'm not going to lie to you: I had to google "refoulement". It looks like that applies to a refugee? If people are circumventing immigration laws and the like are the in the same class and deserve the same treatment?
Isn't the best place to prosecute a war criminal the Hague?
Clearly you know more about this then I do, but it just seems like that is where all the war criminals end up, so it should follow that these guys would suffer the same fate. Access to a fair trial, no torture on the way to that fair trial and thats that?
Yeah, the laws apply to a refugee. Part of the problem is that the immigration laws in Canada allow for the government to turf immigrants (of which refugees are a sub-section) on a threshold of reasonable grounds to believe dishonesty in an application. So these guys, who were legitimate refugees, will be kicked out of the country and could face torture at home, or could face nothing at all at home - including not being charged with the crimes that the Canadian government seems to have reasonable belief that they were involved in. Amnesty International argued that, hey, we shouldn't just be sending them on the first flight out with no idea what will happen to them, and that Canada should either step up and put a case together and prosecute or, at the minimum, ensure that they will be dealt with appropriately upon arrival in whatever country they are being sent to. That's basically it.
As for the Hague, like I said, really the only institution of international criminal justice with a broad enough mandate to deal with war criminals not associated with conflicts in Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and Cambodia is at the International Criminal Court in the Hague. However, the ICC's jurisdiction is limited to only the most serious crimes of international concern under Article 5 of the Rome Statute of the ICC; it is mostly concerned with going after "the big fish". Low-level offenders won't be dealt with at the Hague, which is why domestic courts are the best place to prosecute the people in question.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to VO #23 For This Useful Post:
I thought that the reason that AI was up in arms was because they would be headed home and potentially be jailed and tortured?
I'd be more than happy to pile on Jason Kenney as I don't care for the guy, but quite frankly I agree with him here. AI might have a point if they say "send them to the Hague instead of home for torture and jail" but otherwise they should have better things to do.
AI is up in arms because they do not want Canada omitting or neglecting a responsibility to expend legal resources when they exist, under reasonable circumstances, for the purpose of observing justice - it has nothing to do with them "protecting war criminals" as many in this thread purport.
So now AI is talking about what Canada does in practice? We're talking about practice? C'mon man we're not talkin about a game here we're talking about practice. I know were supposed to lead by example....I know that and I'm not....I'm not shoving it aside, you know, like it don't mean anything. I know its important, I do. I honestly do...but we're talking about practice.
"The Canadian government has not released any information on the exact nature of the crimes the alleged war criminals have been accused of." from CTV. Nuff' said. And no new information was revealed in the letter. So basically were all left in the dark.
"The Canadian government has not released any information on the exact nature of the crimes the alleged war criminals have been accused of." from CTV. Nuff' said. And no new information was revealed in the letter. So basically were all left in the dark.
Exactly. And as I wrote earlier in this thread, one of the big problems here is that there is a duty of procedural fairness that the Minister must provide responsive reasons when deporting someone under the possibility of Charter violations (in this case, s. 7). There has been nothing mentioned of the evidence against these people, or responsive reasons given to deport them, or anything. There could be some very interesting litigation come out of this case.
AI is up in arms because they do not want Canada omitting or neglecting a responsibility to expend legal resources when they exist, under reasonable circumstances, for the purpose of observing justice - it has nothing to do with them "protecting war criminals" as many in this thread purport.
Can AI, maybe even you, provide examples of which countries currently practice the prosecution and incarceration of war criminals strictly on the basis of them entering the country?
Since this is international law we are talking about this should be practised internationally, I am trying to rack my brain and recall which other countries have already set the precedent.
Exactly. And as I wrote earlier in this thread, one of the big problems here is that there is a duty of procedural fairness that the Minister must provide responsive reasons when deporting someone under the possibility of Charter violations (in this case, s. 7). There has been nothing mentioned of the evidence against these people, or responsive reasons given to deport them, or anything. There could be some very interesting litigation come out of this case.
Are you suggesting that the government release information regarding private court proceedings that I presume happened during the deportation hearings?
Or are you implying that the deportation orders were put in place without these court proceedings?
"The Canadian government has not released any information on the exact nature of the crimes the alleged war criminals have been accused of." from CTV. Nuff' said. And no new information was revealed in the letter. So basically were all left in the dark.
"Where the individuals have made their records public, either voluntarily or in federal court, the details of their cases are well known. For example, we know that one of the 30 men still at large, Jose Domingo Malaga Arica, admitted to participating in helicopter raids on villages in which women and children were machine-gunned indiscriminately and to transporting accused criminals to be tortured. We know this because his federal court record is public. However, in cases where no exception to the Privacy Act applies, the government has not revealed such detailed information. What would AI’s reaction be if we did? I think I can guess from your demand at the end of your letter that we do more to “safeguard” the “privacy” of these scofflaws. You can’t have it both ways: you can’t protest that we have not revealed enough information about these men at the same time you oppose our identifying them at all. Is it your position that the Canadian public does not deserve to know that these men are hiding among us unless or until each of them has signed a privacy waiver allowing details of their complicity in crimes against humanity to be made public? If so, I respectfully disagree. I believe the Canadian public deserves better."
Are you suggesting that the government release information regarding private court proceedings that I presume happened during the deportation hearings?
Or are you implying that the deportation orders were put in place without these court proceedings?
From what we know, I believe the second to be true. I think these people were probably ordered to be deported under the "reasonable belief" threshold in the Immigration Act, and weren't given a full hearing.
And if they were in fact given a full hearing (which is totally possible), there are principles of fundamental justice that have to be observed within that hearing. And as per the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Charkaoui, issues related to principles of fundamental justice cannot be torpedoed by reasons of national security concerns.
Honestly, whichever way you cut it, it seems like the government screwed this one up.
