Omar F*****G Khadr is getting $10.5 milion

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Illuminaughty

How do you know that with any degree of certainty? 10.5 million is a large sum of money.

And litigation is expensive. None of us can know with certainty how much it would have cost in the end, but I'm sure Khadr's lawyers who asked for $20M and the government lawyers who negotiated $10.5M had some idea what the case was worth.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I was under the impression that there was a cap on personal injury award payouts in Canada, and that it was a fairly modest number. I recall it being cited as one of the big differences between the legal tradition in Canada and the U.S. Am I misremembering?

you'd have to check with one of the lawyers on board for confirmation...

i would think these are two separate incidents however: personal injury versus civil rights violations... as such there may well be no cap... undoubtedly the lawyers involved would have looked at that possibilty

[OMG!WTF!]

Yeah he was suing for the breach of rights..life, liberty and personal security.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, you're choosing to ignore any logical and reasonable explanation as to why your complaints about the government's handling of this case may not be rational? If you would like for me to just agree with everything you're saying because don't wish to discuss it or you don't want to keep an open mind when reading my responses to the questions you've asked, well then I'm not sure why you would even bother to ask the questions in the first place or post your opinion at all.

You're always so focused on being politicaly correct that you can't see how bad the optics are on the payment and apology. Canadians were forced to rely on on assumptions, unnamed sources and conjecture drawing from all the usual reservoirs of prejudice and partisan bias in speculation about the political considerations that went into the deal and the political embarrassments it was intended to avoid. Trudeau and his govt created a media firestorm that isn't going to go away anytime soon.

[Snuffleupagus]

Don't bother Dion, polls show 71% of Canadians think this deal stinks but much like Trump supporters down south the minority can be loud,ignorant and wrong.

A couple of these posters actually argued that Sharia Law was a peaceful part of Islam
After that I can't be bothered as you may as well have a debate with a tree.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Dion

You're always so focused on being politicaly correct that you can't see how bad the optics are on the payment and apology.

What is your best case scenario for not paying or apologizing and fighting Khadr in court?

-The government loses and then has to pay $20M to Khadr (and presumably doesn't apologize for violating the Charter rights of a citizen).

-The government wins meaning there is no penalty for the Government of Canada violating the Charter rights of a citizen.


You're so blinded by hate that you think these provide good optics.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Dion

You're always so focused on being politicaly correct that you can't see how bad the optics are on the payment and apology. Canadians were forced to rely on on assumptions, unnamed sources and conjecture drawing from all the usual reservoirs of prejudice and partisan bias in speculation about the political considerations that went into the deal and the political embarrassments it was intended to avoid. Trudeau and his govt created a media firestorm that isn't going to go away anytime soon.

I'm having a little trouble following your post, but I think you've answered your own question in a sense. Apart from assumptions, conjecture, partisan bias, and speculation, I don not think that there is any basis for anyone to conclude that this settlement was based mostly or entirely on political considerations or political embarrassments rather than legal advice. In fact, as both the government and the public have the (unusual) benefit of a SCC decision finding that Khadr's Charter rights had been breached for an extended period of time, there is far less room for conjecture and speculation than would ordinarily be the case.

Personally, I think the reasons that so many Canadians are upset about the settlement are (a) partisan bias (some Canadians just hate Trudeau and the Liberals); (b) bad reporting by journalists who simply don't have much knowledge of the law; and (c) perfectly justified anger that the successive governments bungled the Khadr file to such an extent that this settlement became necessary (on top of all of the other time and money that has already been spent on Khadr's numerous legal battles.)

[GaiJin]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

all the legal opinions that were interviewed as a result of the controversy of the decision basically said that fighting this was a lost cause...
be. .

That's not even close to being true.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GaiJin

That's not even close to being true.

Provide some that say why it was feasible then, because as someone whose job it is to provide legal opinions (granted not on this subject specifically) I don't see how they stood a particularly strong chance of winning. I mean, they'd have done a risk analysis, seen how much they stood to lose and how much to spend and adjusted that for the chances of success... you end up with a number beyond which litigating just isn't worth it. This was, apparently, less than or equal to that number.

As for opinion polls, in an area where the vast majority of the population have no understanding of how things work, it's hard to put much stock in them.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by GaiJin

That's not even close to being true.

Actually, it is. There is no chance on earth any judge in this country could have found for the government in trial and have it survive an appeal when the Supreme Court has already stated Khadr's Charter rights were violated. Literally the only thing the government could have hoped to achieve was to litigate down to a lesser sum than his $20 million ask.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

What is your best case scenario for not paying or apologizing and fighting Khadr in court?

-The government loses and then has to pay $20M to Khadr (and presumably doesn't apologize for violating the Charter rights of a citizen).

-The government wins meaning there is no penalty for the Government of Canada violating the Charter rights of a citizen.

You're so blinded by hate that you think these provide good optics.

Blinded by hate is a huge reach and assumption on your part, and we all know what they say about assumptions.

The lack of information and transperancy from the Liberal govt has created a lot of the negitivity in the media and the polls. Canadians are looking for answers and not getting them.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Dion

Blinded by hate is a huge reach and assumption on your part, and we all know what they say about assumptions.

The lack of information and transperancy from the Liberal govt has created a lot of the negitivity in the media and the polls. Canadians are looking for answers and not getting them.

What answers? Are there any questions being asked that aren't obvious? Are people just needing their hand held through? If so, why?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I'm having a little trouble following your post, but I think you've answered your own question in a sense. Apart from assumptions, conjecture, partisan bias, and speculation, I don not think that there is any basis for anyone to conclude that this settlement was based mostly or entirely on political considerations or political embarrassments rather than legal advice. In fact, as both the government and the public have the (unusual) benefit of a SCC decision finding that Khadr's Charter rights had been breached for an extended period of time, there is far less room for conjecture and speculation than would ordinarily be the case.

Personally, I think the reasons that so many Canadians are upset about the settlement are (a) partisan bias (some Canadians just hate Trudeau and the Liberals); (b) bad reporting by journalists who simply don't have much knowledge of the law; and (c) perfectly justified anger that the successive governments bungled the Khadr file to such an extent that this settlement became necessary (on top of all of the other time and money that has already been spent on Khadr's numerous legal battles.)

Having to rely on the media, their biases and misinformation has resulted in Canadians getting the facts mostly wrong on the Khadr case. At the same time the Liberal govt is remaining mostly quiet while the media and public firestorm continues to grow.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Dion

Having to rely on the media, their biases and misinformation has resulted in Canadians getting the facts mostly wrong on the Khadr case. At the same time the Liberal govt is remaining mostly quiet while the media and public firestorm continues to grow.

Irony alert.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

That's a legitimate point, though. The media is routinely terrible at reporting these stories. Some of the public perception has to be laid at the feet of the people whose job it is to educate them about what's going on.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That's a legitimate point, though. The media is routinely terrible at reporting these stories. Some of the public perception has to be laid at the feet of the people whose job it is to educate them about what's going on.

Some, but the rate at which Dion and a few others are laying that blame is disproportionate to the appropriate amount of responsibility.

Rarely, if ever, is "It's their fault I'm angry, they didn't walk me through the information so I had no choice but to read and trust the Toronto Sun" a good excuse.

While I agree we can't expect a large amount of people to do any actual legwork to ensure they understand an issue from a non-biased perspective (as evidenced by the amount of hate, anger, and general ignorance here), it still doesn't excuse their laziness.

[Makarov]

^ somewhat on that point, I've answered one of the questions I raised in my earlier criticisms of a certain Toronto Sun article: apparently Khadr's original Statement of Claim was filed many years ago and did initially claim damages of $100,000. Over the years, it has been amended a number of times and, through those amendments, the claim for damages has steadily increased. This was obviously in response to changes in the law (in the novel and fast-changing area of Charter torts.)

[Makarov]

Also worth noting that the legal advice received by the federal government is privileged. Personally, I don't think that the government ought to waive that privilege in order to respond to Toronto Sun articles.

[OMG!WTF!]

I posted this before but I'm sure no one read it....

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017...dr-isnt-guilty

There's about a 0% chance Khadr even threw the grenade in the first place.

So far, this is all the prosecution's own evidence, and it's a mess before the defence calls a single witness. Without Khadr's confession, obtained essentially by force, there is no compelling evidence that he threw any grenade at all. No one saw him do it, and from all appearances he'd been under that rubble the entire time. From what’s publicly available at this point, the evidence pointing to guilt is weak and speculative. Taken as a whole, it doesn't really make sense. Multiple statements contradict each other and run all over the map.

The best eye witness accounts have the other guy throwing the grenade. You'd have to be pretty dense to imagine Khadr bounced up from getting blown to smithereens, launched a grenade and then covered himself up with rubble, the whole while maintaining a clear enough memory of the event to create a believable confession.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Rarely, if ever, is "It's their fault I'm angry, they didn't walk me through the information so I had no choice but to read and trust the Toronto Sun" a good excuse.

Well, I'm including the Sun in the term "media", and as one of the worst offenders, so I would certainly agree with this. My point is that there isn't really anywhere for people to look to get good information - or if there is, it isn't exactly easy to find. Calling them lazy just seems unreasonable to me; most people don't spend a ton of time researching the political story du jour because they have lives to live, and it's just not a priority for them. We shouldn't begrudge people prioritizing their own daily concerns.

So it's hard to blame Joe Public for being unable to adjust their intuitive reaction to so as to take into account the nuances of the situation. And I can certainly understand how, to someone who doesn't deal with this stuff ever, paying out ten million dollars to someone like Khadr seems pretty terrible at first blush. As much as it would be nice if people didn't form such strong opinions on things they don't know much about, but that's a general problem with, yknow, humanity.