Jason Kenny has it out with Amnesty International

[something]

Originally Posted by 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.

All good points. And you can see why I don't like analogies.

Although, according to the link I sent you, Canada does in fact have jurisdiction over crimes that extend into the sphere of international law.

AI mentioned in their letter that it rests within Canada's obligations to take action where feasible (yes, I am paraphrasing). What feasible is, isn't exactly clear. Evidently, since attention was brought to this, what AI thinks is feasible is more than what Canada currently commits to. It is this implication that provokes Jason Kenney's vitriol. Kenney's response, in contrast, is no less obscure and no more productive. There are salient facts being neglected.

Your question about how to collect evidence, witnesses, etc... is unanswerable therefore. What we can presume is what I have already stated. There is not enough evidence to posit any additional conclusions as it relates to your questions.

And yeah, it is political. Still, the legal facets are inextricable.

I will leave it at this. The general endorsement of this thread of Kenney's response is poorly founded. It is not without rationale, nevertheless, the AI letter was submitted with honourable intentions and its demands are probably satiable. The vitriol spurred by it seems to be nothing more than AI's effort to ask for solutions on matters that are largely unclear to the public, and whether Kenney is taking advantage of this opacity in the public's understanding of international law, or not, is not entirely clear. Though, as I suspect and earlier posted, Kenny's office is not without it's blunders and attention being called to it`s efficacy and aptness are not unwarranted.

[something]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well, a major purpose of extradition or prosecution is deterrence. Frankly, I think if Canada demonstrated a more rigorous application of international law it would be less likely to incur such a reputation as an easy mark than if it were to simply deport suspected foreign criminals.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by something

Well, a major purpose of extradition or prosecution is deterrence. Frankly, I think if Canada demonstrated a more rigorous application of international law it would be less likely to incur such a reputation as an easy mark than if it were to simply deport suspected foreign criminals.

I agree with a lot of what your saying, but a lot of these war criminals and other illegal immigrants aren't participating in the system at all. Then when they get caught they cry about the injustice of their situation, and the bleeding hearts cry that we've treated them unfairly.

To me the system should legitimately concentrate on the people that follow the rules in getting to this country, and we should stop wasting money on the people that don't follow the rules. In other words, if they're caught, the police simply drive them to the airport and toss them on the first flight home. It should be the same for people that don't show up for their hearings. There should be no more trials or appearances in front of the immigration board just a trip to the airport, and if you show up again, we drop you in the middle of the ocean with a rubber dingy and 10 days worth of food and water and an oar.

[oilyfan]

The reason I said it was a political problem is that if Canada takes this moral high ground, and it is the moral high ground it, also then exposes itself to politically motivated action in other countries. So a country that has a problem with us arrests and puts on trial a Canadian diplomat based on some violation of International law. Has happened before and will again.

[VO #23]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

The reason I said it was a political problem is that if Canada takes this moral high ground, and it is the moral high ground it, also then exposes itself to politically motivated action in other countries. So a country that has a problem with us arrests and puts on trial a Canadian diplomat based on some violation of International law. Has happened before and will again.

Where has it been used before? The concept of universal jurisdiction is fairly recent in public international law and is largely untested, especially in the Canadian context (I can't think of any Canadian, or any other diplomats, off the top of my head who have been prosecuted for political purposes). Moreover, diplomats and heads of state are entitled to some forms of immunity - who you should be worried about are low-level soldiers. But again, there has been a lot of hand-wringing here over nothing.

[zuluking]

All the legal mumbo jumbo aside, the letters are this: the first full of beautiful prose at which the heart are accusations of government action and inaction based on conjecture; and a response in a highly sarcastic tone addressing the fact that the accusations are based on little to no actual facts.

Perhaps a better approach would have been for AI to put together a real case of concerns based on facts that they may have had to work to obtain. Anyone can read the newspaper and get this info. Shouldn't they be doing a little more legwork before firing off their open letters?

Oh, and for those that think that Kenney calling AI out in the first paragraph of his response was uncalled for, AI spends three paragraphs high-fiving itself for all their pure awesomeness in the human right arena. Reality check, maybe?