The Shotgun Blog
« Weekend Post - The American Moment | Main | Right and Left come together for Taiwan »
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Shameless Self-Promotion: Secret Trials Edition
Cross-posted at Wonkitties.
Posted by wonkitties on June 18, 2006 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834998e7653ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Shameless Self-Promotion: Secret Trials Edition:
Comments
We are in a real bind now.
Apparently the SCC will come to some kind of a decision by "the fall". Until then, the MSN has all of this time to reinforce the Treaudopia philosophy that has generated the conditions for this issue to happen in the first place.
Judging by what we are seeing so far - the MSN is moving full bore into doing just this with their very lopsided presentations of "the injustices of it all".
The SCC decision re Suresh a decade ago pretty much precludes extradition of any of these foreign born nationals now being held on security warrants. Who in this world cannot plead that most all of the possible target countries for extradition simply are not possible because of the precedence set by the Suresh decision. Very little is in place that will likely do anything but reinforce the arguments put forward and accepted in the Suresh decision.
As I watch Jaballah on the screen one has to wonder about the taxpayers providing room, board, and whatever other perks he is managaging while in custody. How reasonable is this as a long term solution? Probably not, nor should it be.
One also has to wonder just how his family has been provided for financially while he has been in custody for four plus years. How reasonable is this to go on forever? Probably not nor should it be a long term solution if there is taxpayer money involved. In the meantime, Jaballah's son is attending university, has the floor on open line talk shows to do his whining about the inequities of it all, and how is all of this being financed?
How reasonalbe is it that the security info generated by the RCMP/CSIS should be divulged in open court or even tampered with as many of those appearing before the SC the past few days are suggesting. Not very reasonable nor should it be seen as such. If everything is opened up then we may as well scrap all manner of security. The bleeding hearts will never be happy until these people are free and doing whatever they choose to do in Canada with no restrictions whatever. This is not a reasonable situation either but it is scary to think about just how close we are to this right now.
Perhaps they should be turned loose but with a GPS/high tech ankle bracelet with all kinds of caveats attached to their freedom. (as is already being done in one case). They and theirs should be taken off the Federal nanny rolls. If they are dumb enough to associate with known terrorists then their record of having done so should never be expunged - watching Harkat on t.v. is pathetic.
Then to see A. Trudeau on T.V., almost in the same breath, is not only pathetic but demonstrates just how close we might be to having all of these undesirables free and able to do whatever within Canada.
Posted by: calgary clipper | 2006-06-18 10:16:11 AM
One would think, from reading this blog, that the greatest problems we face all have to do with Islamic terrorists and Sharia law. But this is not true.
The greatest harm being done to you right now is by people like McGimpy and Charest and Danny Williams, the mayors and councils of the cities you live in, and all of their cronies and bureaucratic minions. The looney and destructive socialist agenda they are pushing has created the economic and moral vacuum which Islamofascists wish to fill.
It is the same everywhere and at all times. It was the economic destruction of socialism which led to the rise of Hitler. It is the destruction of socialism (specifically, the nationalization of oil production and the hijacking of its profits by the royal family) which has created the civil war in Saudi Arabia - which has spilled over into the rest of the world following the lines of supertanker routes and banking transactions. And it is the destructive effects of socialism which will inevitably lead to a civil war between white and Arab fascists in France, and maybe in all of Europe.
You can lock up all the would-be terrorists you want, but as long as you keep pursuing socialist policies (I'm talking to you, Conservative Party politicians and supporters), the vacuum will keep drawing them in.
Posted by: Justzumgai | 2006-06-18 10:56:46 AM
Quite an article. You mannage to completely avoid providing any argument whatsoever for security certificates. You do do these things:
(1) Point out that some people oppose them, then go on to cast doubt on their sincerity or consistency in holding that view.
But even if every public figure who has spoken against security certificates is insincere or a hypocrite, that still does nothing to demonstrate that they are just.
(2) You point out that security certificates are rarely used.
But the issue is not how often they are used, but whether there use is ever just. If they are wrong, then even an infrequent use of them is wrong.
(3) You point out that the Canadian justice system is better than the Egyptian or Syrian justice systems.
But that those systems are worse than ours does not show that ours is just, and more particularly does not show that security certificates are just.
You have done a great job of not addressing the question at all, which makes me wonder if you really do have any reason to think that security certificates are just. No doubt the usual gang of WS sycophants and "kill 'em all" radical bigots will try to offer lots of bad reasons here for you, but none will be based on how security certificates can be a part of a true system of justice. Maybe sometimes the presumption of innocence is too great a risk to allow.
Maybe sometimes we have to concede that the risk of punishing the innocent is outweighed by the protection of the public. Maybe we sometimes need to use security certificates to keep us secure. But I would argue that this is an unfortunate indication that justice and public security can be masters who come into conflict requiring us to choose one or the other. We might not be able to have the luxury of both.
Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-06-18 12:12:13 PM
So if I am living in Saudi Arabia or some such place where their justice system is known for torturing the people they put in prison, and I want to come to Canada -- I should just commit a very bad crime there and jump on a plane to Canada. Bingo - instant acceptance to my new country. I say if there is even a slight possibility that they are a threat-send them home immediately. If they want to see a more just system, rally their own people to change their countries system. Why the people in these countries don't rally up and demand what they want from their own country instead of always running to mine and then complaining about the treatment they get when they arrive, is beyond me. Maybe the human rights activists would just like us to go over to these countries and free everyone in there jails and bring them here. but of course then we would hear that we have no right to interfer in another country. We may not agree with the methods of other countries in dealing with their criminals or even with who they call criminals - but we don't have to offer instant Canadian citizenship and all the rights attached to everyone who gets off a plane in our country. Send them back today. If they need protection when they get there, maybe the Canadian consulat can help. Or maybe their local church or mosque.
Posted by: thots | 2006-06-18 1:08:09 PM
volpe and the other muslim loving leftists like him of the liberal party are enraged they are losing control of the "national socialist liberal peoples party of canada"
---
Print Story
E-mail Story
Next Story
Liberal Leadership Race
Ignatieff's Afghan position (June 11)
Dryden, Kennedy in (April 28)
Bennett joins race (April 24)
Walkom: Rae's where he belongs (April 24)
Kennedy: Charismatic, complicated (April 6)
Hébert: Ignatieff's baggage (March 31)
Travers: Visionless Liberals (March 21)
Hébert: Chrétien's ghost (March 20)
Travers: Long-haul for next leader (March 18)
Tag and Save
Tag and save this article to your Del.icio.us favourites.
What is Del.icio.us?
Volpe attack jolts Liberal race
Leadership rival accuses Ignatieff
of echoing `Harper's narrative'
Jun. 18, 2006. 07:48 AM
SUSAN DELACOURT
OTTAWA BUREAU CHIEF
MONCTON—Joe Volpe is spoiling to be the bad boy of the otherwise polite and low-key Liberal leadership race, now accusing his rival Michael Ignatieff of sharing the same politics as Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
At the second leadership debate, in Moncton yesterday, Volpe pointedly singled out Ignatieff in his opening remarks, waving a newspaper headline about his views on Canada's role in Afghanistan, and arguing that only Harper would agree with the former Harvard law professor.
Volpe did it deliberately and unapologetically, declaring to reporters later about Ignatieff's debate performance: "I only heard Harper's narrative."
Ignatieff refused to take the bait, however, going out of his way during the debate to praise Volpe for his past work in the Liberal government as immigration and human resources minister.
But when asked later by reporters about the Volpe poke, Ignatieff said: "I don't take lessons from anybody in being a good Liberal."
At issue, mainly, is Ignatieff's support of Canada continuing its military role in Afghanistan in a recent Commons vote.
Liberals were split on the issue, but Ignatieff has said the Afghanistan presence adheres to Canada's commitment to the "responsibility to protect" doctrine, as endorsed by the United Nations and which he helped to draft as a policy.
"The idea that I'm making nice with Mr. Harper seems a little peculiar, since I've made it clear in every intervention in the House of Commons that if he changes the mission, I will hold him to account . ..What I support is the Liberal mission that we engaged in 2001."
Other leadership candidates don't seem pleased about Volpe's performance or even his presence in the race.
Former public health minister Carolyn Bennett, also among 11 vying for the leadership title, said her views fall smack in the middle of rival Bob Rae, a former Ontario premier, and Ignatieff on the question of Afghanistan.
But on Volpe's provocation, she is unequivocal, saying he is becoming a problem for the contest and the party's reputation overall.
"I'm concerned that this is not what this (contest) is supposed to be about," she said, arguing Volpe was already tarred enough by the controversy over accepting $5,400 contributions from teenagers.
"The donor problem is not going away. It unfortunately becomes a talisman of the old ways of doing things. He needs to think very seriously about whether he continues."
Rae agrees that Ignatieff's Afghanistan views may be a flashpoint and put him out of step with the Liberal grassroots.
"It's beginning to get a little lively," Rae said, arguing that Ignatieff has other foreign-policy positions from the past that may cast his Afghanistan views in sharper focus.
"You've got to take his positions over time. He supported the war in Iraq. He described the war in Iraq as an extension of the duty to protect and he said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So neither of those, I think, pass muster."
Ignatieff's endorsement of a so-called "carbon tax" — some kind of levy to curb production or consumption of carbon emissions — has also divided the Liberal field. Candidates were asked about it yesterday during the debate. Some, such as Vaughan MP Maurizio Bevilacqua and former public works minister Scott Brison stated they were unequivocally against it. Rae said he didn't like the idea much either.
Others offered qualified agreement to the idea of using taxes to help the environment but said they were more interested in tax incentives.
By and large, however, yesterday's second leadership debate was a tame affair, with candidates preferring to steer away from provocative questions on Canada-U.S. relations or Ottawa's power relative to the provinces.
During the head-to-head debate session among small groups of candidates, there was only one real slap delivered — by former environment minister Stéphane Dion, who accused former Ontario education minister Gerard Kennedy of saying nothing original about community development
Posted by: woodbridge | 2006-06-18 3:51:17 PM
rae the pretend ndp - the other branch of the liberal party of canada former premier of ontario - soundly defeated and thrown on the trash heap
the man whose feminist sow marion boyd set homolka free and though NOT a judge NOR a liberal was CHOSEN by the ontario LIBERAL government whether islamic law(THE LAW OF THE MUSLIM MORON MURDERER) should become the law in ontario
and this PIECE OF FECES MARION BOYD said YES
HITLER SHOULD HAVE BEEN WIPED OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH BEFORE HE GOT INTO POWER
Posted by: woodbridge | 2006-06-18 3:59:10 PM
I am listening CPAC (Goldenhawk) discussion on security certificates and I thinbk everyone is approaching this from the wrong angle. Joe whoever arrives and we have information that they may be a risk to our country so we say "I am sorry you can't come in". They say "but I can't go back i will be hurt". So we say - "well we have some nice secure living quarters you are welcome to live in until you feel safe to go home. It isn't a five star hotel, but it is safe and we provide a warm bed and good food and access to doctors and some educational and entertainment options for you. would you like to go there?" Please enjoy your stay in Canada and let us know when you feel safe to go home"
Posted by: thots | 2006-06-18 6:48:50 PM
I could hardly stand to watch the same program. More of the MSM's attempt to allow Canada to become a haven for terrorists of all kinds.
Goldhawk himself - hmmmmm - if you don't agree with me then most Canadians would not agree either, along with the bodylanguage/tone that is totally dismissive of the caller.
Another caller wanted to talk about one person being held. Goldhawk says no, we can't do this. In the next breath, there is Dyer (guest) talking about Harkat - and on the conversation went.
I guess the news people truly believe they are entitled to see all of the evidence against these security warrant people. Wouldn't that be just great. We may as well have no security in place; the government could spend money on Welcome Mats as the liberals did on flags and we could forget about security.
If the RCMP/CSIS demonstrate that these people are a danger to Canada and the "reviewing body" agrees with their case - then this is good enough for me. Off they go to their country of origin within a few days of landing. When this is done a few times - the international community will get the picture and the malcontents will be less inclined to try to gain entry illegally. Either we believe in the security system we have in place or we believe the statements of those being held. The general public will never be privy to the evidence used, nor should they be. I don't see the dilemma but there are far to many bleeding hearts who would choose the word of malcontents/terrorists over the betterment of our society.
Posted by: calgary clipper | 2006-06-18 7:52:59 PM
Goldhawk is a dismal failure as host. It's supposed to be a phone-in show to get public opinion but it's nothing more than Goldhawk and his chosen guests having a gab fest. It's a waste of air time, he seems at times to forget he's even on the air let alone supposed to take calls. He fits in with the majority of TV hosts with the mainstream networks, spouting neutrality while being patently biased.
Posted by: Liz Jackson | 2006-06-19 6:53:51 AM
Thots, you are now opening the immigration can of worms. Does a judge have to be involved to deport people? How much proof is needed to be able to deport? To offer them that choice is to still take away their freedom. Is the problem that they do not qualify to be tried in domestic courts?
Justzumgai, while your post is off topic, I did enjoy reading it. Too bad not enough people are talking about those big issues.
John M Reynolds
Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2006-06-19 7:32:38 AM
Agreed - security is one issue -and a critical one. If we can't solve this, then what is left?
The Immigration/Refugee/IRB/Heritage (read continued funding of failed multiculturalism)is huge.
Examining the fallout of outsourcing education to charter/private schools/home schooling is also huge.
Hopefully we will see some serious threads that deal with each of these topics as well.
Posted by: calgary clipper | 2006-06-19 8:09:32 AM
John M Reynolds,
Good points
Immigration should contain a proper, quick and to the point, quasi-judicial system, that contains a rapid exit strategy, where matters of Canadian Security are of essence.
No one should be even given the pretext of a right to come here and stay here and plug up our system, or disapear to live here as illegal immigrants, when their aim is to live off of our hard earned tax-payers dollars, while working or to work to undermine the safety and security of the western world, while raising money for terrorist organizations, who are engaged in killing innocent people.
We have been playing the soft game for too long, and it almost cost the lives of thousands of people as discovered through the arrest of cell terrorists 17.
Posted by: Lady | 2006-06-20 4:05:14 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.