Jason Kenny has it out with Amnesty International

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Slava

I just assumed people would catch on there and I didn't need to spell out the correlation...its the first thing I thought of when I read "AI".

Mine was Artificial Intelligence.

[4X4]

I thought it was artificial insemination.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by VO #23

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.

Is your issue with this particular case and the controversial tag of war criminal or just generally do you believe that no one should be deported. How about people who commit crimes when they come to Canada?

[something]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

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.

That is a fantastic question.

The short answer is within the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, ratified in corroboration to the Rome Statute of the UN. Still, there are jurisdictional issues. Nonetheless:

http://www.international.gc.ca/court...g&view=d#juris

You can take a look through these cases... for starters.

http://www.worldlii.org/cgi-bin/sino...=on&results=50

Many of these lead to extradition, for example.

Many of them are domestic cases.

Many are yet international.

Also, just be careful with the use of the word "precedent". I much prefere the term stare decisis that confers judicial obligation to heed past decisions, whereas people confound precedent with some obscure yet valid and unalterable origin. For example, we have no legal obligation because there is no precedent on the matter. That is an incomplete statement, since a precedent must at some point be formed and does not confer absolute authority in either a positive (i.e. it exists, therefore we must adhere to it) or negative (i.e. it does not exist, therefore no such mandate/obligation exists) sense.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by VO #23

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.

It always struck me (when I was an aspiring law student, and actually read SCC decisions with some interest) that our highest court's decisions were somewhat bizarre, in that they strongly conveyed the impression that random refugees, stowaways, etc where more entitled to the protection of the Charter than actual residents of Canada. If you read the decisions dealing with police search and entry, and then read the immigration decisions, it does not seem like it's the same Court... At least that was the impression when I and my friends were in law school or early in our careers, and debated "law issues" (now, we are cynical and don't care). We reached the conclusion that Justice Mdme. L'Heroux-Dube was incompetent (and some other less than polite terms)...

[something]

Originally Posted by calculoso

"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."

Obscurantism doesn't justify idiocy, nor does copying and pasting mask it.

Kenney is beating around the bush, avoiding the point made by AI. AI suggests that information be made public and hearings/tribunals transparent unless it compromises the legitimacy of legal proceedings or the safety of the accused. They are not asking for two things at once - they are asking a basic legal principle be observed more stringently in Immigrations' proceedings.

[VO #23]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

Is your issue with this particular case and the controversial tag of war criminal or just generally do you believe that no one should be deported. How about people who commit crimes when they come to Canada?

My issue is with justice being done. I am a law student who has worked for the past two years on a really interesting international criminal law project focusing on issues related to prosecuting war criminals, among other things. I think these guys should face trial and that our government is effectively help let them off the hook.

[VO #23]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

It always struck me (when I was an aspiring law student, and actually read SCC decisions with some interest) that our highest court's decisions were somewhat bizarre, in that they strongly conveyed the impression that random refugees, stowaways, etc where more entitled to the protection of the Charter than actual residents of Canada. If you read the decisions dealing with police search and entry, and then read the immigration decisions, it does not seem like it's the same Court... At least that was the impression when I and my friends were in law school or early in our careers, and debated "law issues" (now, we are cynical and don't care). We reached the conclusion that Justice Mdme. L'Heroux-Dube was incompetent (and some other less than polite terms)...

Haha, I actually like L'Heureux-Dube's dissents quite a bit. She at least puts important things out there on the public record, which is more than what a lot of others can say. Her taking Justice McClung of the AB CA to task over Ewanchuk was nothing short of pure pwn4g3, as the kids say these days.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by VO #23

Haha, I actually like L'Heureux-Dube's dissents quite a bit. She at least puts important things out there on the public record, which is more than what a lot of others can say. Her taking Justice McClung of the AB CA to task over Ewanchuk was nothing short of pure pwn4g3, as the kids say these days.

It's not her dissents that were the problem. It's where she wrote the majority decisions - her reasoning was basically "well, law abiding citizens have nothing to fear from the police, so it's ok for the cops to bust down your door and look around to see if there is something criminal going on". Obviously, that's very simplified, but her l found her infuriating. I think it's because she was a product of the inquisitorial French system with much more deference to the State...

[troutman]

Originally Posted by VO #23

My issue is with justice being done. I am a law student who has worked for the past two years on a really interesting international criminal law project focusing on issues related to prosecuting war criminals, among other things. I think these guys should face trial and that our government is effectively help let them off the hook.

Professor Terguson: Good answer. Good answer. I like the way you think. I'm gonna be watching you.

[VO #23]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

It's not her dissents that were the problem. It's where she wrote the majority decisions - her reasoning was basically "well, law abiding citizens have nothing to fear from the police, so it's ok for the cops to bust down your door and look around to see if there is something criminal going on". Obviously, that's very simplified, but her l found her infuriating. I think it's because she was a product of the inquisitorial French system with much more deference to the State...

Now that I think of it, I can't off the top of my head actually think of any majority decisions L'H-D wrote. It seems like it's usually Cranky Pants McLachlan or In-Love-With-Shakespeare-And-In-Love-With-Myself Binnie writing those...

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by VO #23

Now that I think of it, I can't off the top of my head actually think of any majority decisions L'H-D wrote. It seems like it's usually Cranky Pants McLachlan or In-Love-With-Shakespeare-And-In-Love-With-Myself Binnie writing those...

It's been 10 years since I've cared, so I clearly can't remember... I just remember that we had the very strong impression that M.J. L'H-D wasn't very bright...

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by something

That is a fantastic question.

The short answer is within the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, ratified in corroboration to the Rome Statute of the UN. Still, there are jurisdictional issues. Nonetheless:

http://www.international.gc.ca/court...g&view=d#juris

You can take a look through these cases... for starters.

http://www.worldlii.org/cgi-bin/sino...=on&results=50

Many of these lead to extradition, for example.

Many of them are domestic cases.

Many are yet international.

Also, just be careful with the use of the word "precedent". I much prefere the term stare decisis that confers judicial obligation to heed past decisions, whereas people confound precedent with some obscure yet valid and unalterable origin. For example, we have no legal obligation because there is no precedent on the matter. That is an incomplete statement, since a precedent must at some point be formed and does not confer absolute authority in either a positive (i.e. it exists, therefore we must adhere to it) or negative (i.e. it does not exist, therefore no such mandate/obligation exists) sense.

I am not confused by the term precedent, and in a legal sense it does carry significant weight, so to discard it as a factor is also incorrect.

I looked through the cases you linked, besides the Pinochet case none have led into anything more than extradition, how is that very different than the deportation of these Canadian cases?

[VO #23]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

I looked through the cases you linked, besides the Pinochet case none have led into anything more than extradition, how is that very different than the deportation of these Canadian cases?

Extradition requires Country B to formally request the person(s) be transferred from Country A to Country B for the reason of charging and trying them in a court of law. In this instance, Canada is sending them out into the great blue yonder entirely under their own volition, to a country that may or may not torture them and may or may not try them in a court of law. Aside from the plane ride, they aren't similar at all.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by VO #23

Extradition requires Country B to formally request the person(s) be transferred from Country A to Country B for the reason of charging and trying them in a court of law. In this instance, Canada is sending them out into the great blue yonder entirely under their own volition, to a country that may or may not torture them and may or may not try them in a court of law. Aside from the plane ride, they aren't similar at all.

The end result is still the same, they have been removed from the country. Shouldn't Amnesty not have a bigger problem with the countries where these individuals came from, and ended back in?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by VO #23

Extradition requires Country B to formally request the person(s) be transferred from Country A to Country B for the reason of charging and trying them in a court of law.

And if Country B doesn't request them? Is then Country A is stuck with them?

[SeoulFire]

At the risk of over-simplifying the process, I see it as follows:

1. Does the government/legal system/whatever have any legal courses of action to pursue that may result in them being put on trial?

If yes then they should probably rethink what they are doing. On the other hand, if we (Canadian taxpayers) are forced to foot the bill for the trial and incarceration of a foreign national for a crime committed outside of Canada then I really don't want any part of it and nor should the government.

If no:

Should we allow them to stay in Canada or should we ship them out?

Sorry but I don't want Canada to be a dumping ground for these type of people whose home country lacks the fortitude to bring them to justice.

[something]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

The end result is still the same, they have been removed from the country. Shouldn't Amnesty not have a bigger problem with the countries where these individuals came from, and ended back in?

The end result is not the same. Extradition i) clearly engenders an obligation to pursue legal action on part of the national's country and ii) bequeaths jurisdiction to the foreign country to oversee that the home country follows through on this obligation. Deportation does none of this. Although I find analogies to be less than astute, imagine an officer dropping a kid off at a random home after he was caught doing something illegal and then walks away without saying anything versus that same officer taking the child to the parents homes, declaring the purpose of having brought the child back home, and overseeing the retribution/restitution/punishment process. If need be, that officer may be able to provide expertise and resources to help persuade and guide the parents through the aforementioned process.

To Calculoso:

Generally, all countries want justice done to war criminals that perpetrated crimes in their country with few exceptions. If, in the rare case they do not want to pursue justice, their will often be a follow up of intense international pressure, especially from the country holding the accused. This type of scenario will generally be resolved quite easily...

[CaptainCrunch]

Personally to me it would be a joke if we didn't send these people home, Canada shouldn't be known as an easy mark for criminals and illegal immigration.

In a lot of cases that I've read in terms of war criminals in Canada, these people were either in the country illegally, or had defied previous extradition certificates, I firmly believe in that case that there should be no protection under the charter.

Personally it should be irrelevant if their country of origin wants them back or not, they simply don't belong here.

[oilyfan]

The analogy doesn't work, and not because it is not astute. The policeman has jurisdiction over the area that the crime happened. If we started to prosecute everyone accused of a crime in their home country I can see the chaos already. How do you collect evidence, what about witnesses, who provides legal representation to the accused, how do you determine punishment? This in my opinion is not a legal question, it has more to do with politics.