The Shotgun Blog
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Canada Makes the Right Choice
Standard readers will likely disagree, but I think the Supreme Court made the right decision in striking down Canada's indefinite-detention law. I'm all for stronger government powers against Islamists--no softie here. But that's the thing: the imprisoned men haven't been proven to be Islamists. They haven't been proven to be anything. Once they have been shown in a court of law to have consorted with known terrorists, throw them in prison for the rest of their lives. Good by me. But until they've actually been charged with something, I can't support locking individuals up indefinitely. Then there's this:
"'The Supreme Court, by 9 to 0, has said no to Guantánamo North in Canada,' said Mr. Charkaoui, who is under tightly controlled, electronically monitored house arrest" (my italics).
This strikes me as a good compromise. If the man is thought to be associating with terrorists, or thought to be a terrorist himself, keeping him under house arrest and monitoring him, rather than detaining him, is a way to keep him under control.
Look at it this way: conservatives think government screws up everything, right? Government screws up the budget, government screws up taxation, government screws up Alberta's economy. Why won't it screw up the intelligence involved in national security?
Posted by Jordan Michael Smith on February 24, 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Canada Makes the Right Choice:
Very good article Mr. Smith. I think anyone with even the smallest heart, whether on the right or the left, would agree that detaining someone on very little grounds is unfair. Even though I feel sympathy for the Islamic world due to the unfair portrayal they receive in the west, a terrorist in a terrorist and should be treated as such. Unfortunately, in the west, someone who sends a letter with a powder in it is considered a terrorist but someone who illegally invades and ruins an innocent nation is not.
One point I do disagree with you, however, is your little statement about ruining the economy in Alberta. I left Calgary a couple months ago, and unless something radical has changed, their economy is in fine shape. The only government that could be blamed for anything regarding Alberta is Ralph Klein and his con-servatives. When oil goes by the wayside, Albertans will be cursing the Klein years for not investing the oil revenues the correct way. This will not be the case in Norway where 80% of their oil revenue (nationalised oil) is invested outside of the country. In twenty years, the current socialist government will be given legendary status for putting that money where it belongs.
Posted by: Lefty_99 | 2007-02-24 12:01:38 PM
The security certificates apply to foreign nationals who show up in Canada and are believed to be a danger to the security of our country. At any time, those held under this law may voluntarily leave Canada and return to their own country. They are only required to be locked up until there are no concerns about their intent in Canada.
The SCC did not "strike it down" and void the law. They gave the government one year to make it better. The law is still in force. Their suggestion was that frequent, regular reviews of the case would make it better. I have heard suggestions that an advocate, sworn to secrecy, be appointed to view the evidence, which must remain secret to protect sources and methods of intelligence gathering, so that someone outside of the government can also be involved in these reviews.
Canada has the right under international law to determine whether any foreign national enters this country, for any reason or none. The government has the responsibility to maintain the security of the nation by enforcing that right. The security certificate system allows Canada to detain, hold, and deport any foreigner who is acting or has acted in a manner that may be a threat. No non-Canadian citizen has a right to come to Canada. Not one.
As for detaining them, if there are nearly 50000 illegally present foreign nationals under deportation order that cannot be located and forced out, how could anyone find a single such person dedicated to a dire intent. Anyone thought to be a danger must be kept under tight control.
The happy "Mr. Charkaoui", linked with many terrorists and terrorist organizations, is not a Canadian citizen. He can leave the country tomorrow if he so wishes.
I like the idea of a regular review and an advocate. But I do not consider these three to be held in "Guantanamo North"; those in Guantanamo were captured in the act, for the most part, like Baby Khadr. We are trying to prevent such acts, aren't we?
Posted by: foobius | 2007-02-24 1:31:09 PM
The new Government of Canada will revist the "Security Certificate" Site I would think. There is
a unique piece of Federal/Provincial Legislation
in place to deal with those who would cause our Dominion harm, called the Criminal Code of Canada
RSC, Chapter 29 as I remember. I'm sure the Liberal patronage appointed SCC, is aware of the Statute
or maybe not. In certain legal circles in our fair Dominion the SSC is known as the Fat Girl's Club
experts in their insular definition of "human rights" Smug ladies in dead animal fur. MacLeod
Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2007-02-24 1:42:33 PM
I would be all for getting rid of security certificates and deporting whatever persons considered a danger for Canada. A stranger has no right in Canada and the Supreme Court should have nothing to say about a foreigner.
Those persons held should be deported. They know how our system works and try to take advantage of it. Deport them period.
Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-02-24 4:14:26 PM
The top 'Lady' in red and dead animal fur is not too
impressive. A real piece of work. She's showing up at all and sundry events on the social circuit of late.
Have no idea how long their tenure is but hope to hell it's her swan song.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-02-24 4:59:18 PM
Lefty_99 or (Iggy_for_Ambassador_to_UN_When_Hell_Freezes_over_and_Dion_becomes_PM) said
"This will not be the case in Norway where 80% of their oil revenue (nationalised oil) is invested outside of the country. "
Notice that Norwegian gov't doesn't even have faith enough to invest more in itself
"In twenty years, the current socialist government will be given legendary status for putting that money where it belongs. "
Yes, it belongs in North America because the native Scandinavians will have realized that their homeland is no longer safe from the marauding rape gangs wolf packing their blonde beauties.
Courtesy of our dear friends, the ROPers.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-02-24 5:13:37 PM
The main problem is the Supreme Court's 1985 Singh decision which gave foreign nationals present on our soil the same legal protections as citizens. Because of this decision Ottawa can't summarily deport foreigners who make frivolous refugee claims. It's the reason Canada has to entertain asylum claims from the citizens of democratic countries like Portugal and Israel.These claims take years to adjudicate and the legal costs are usually borne by Canadian taxpayers.
The Singh decision created a very profitable refugee industry. In his book about immigration, Daniel Stoffman makes the point that real refugees rarely make it to Canada. The people truly suffering are languishing in refugee camps around the world. Stoffman argues that if Canada really cared about refugees, it would take the money it spends processing dubious claims and use it to improve conditions in the camps. This isn't done because there are vested interests who stand to lose. Immigration lawyers would be deprived of a lucrative source of inceome.
Even if a claim is finally rejected, the person either disappears or gets to stay on so-called compassionate and humanitarian grounds. Ahmed Ressam abandoned his refugee claim, but he wasn't sent home because the government thought it was too dangerous to send people back to Algeria. He was left free to organize a terrorist attack that very fortunately went awry.
All the men who have been held on security certificates should have been deported years ago. It's a scandal that they're still here.
Posted by: Hyphenated_Canadian | 2007-02-24 7:16:32 PM
Foobius and H_C have it right on this one Jordan. Again another failed opportunity to evoke the not withstanding clause due to the court butting in where it has no business - national security. It is insane to claim that anyone arriving here illegally has the same rights as Canadian citizens, but that is exactly what the courts have done.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-02-24 9:02:48 PM
"The main problem is the Supreme Court's 1985 Singh decision which gave foreign nationals present on our soil the same legal protections as citizens."
Not quite Michael. The SCC decision demanded "a full oral hearing in each case." It was subsequent immigration reform legislation, based on a plan constructed by Rabbi Gunther Plaut, of the Holy Blossom Reform Temple in Toronto. The report was solicited by Immigration Minister John Roberts, MP for Toronto St. Paul's, before the fall of the Turner government and implemented by Flora MacDonald under the Mulroney Tories.
James Bissett of the Center for immigration Studies writes;
"The generous system patterned after Rabbi Plaut’s model and unprotected by the safe country provision was an open invitation for abuse. Adding to the problem was the newly established Immigration and Refugee Board consisting of approximately 180 politically appointed members. The great majority of these members were chosen from the ranks of immigration lawyers, advocacy groups, and multicultural organizations. It appeared as though the Government was now determined to reward the very groups that had fought so hard against passage of the refugee bill by placing the “foxes” in charge of the asylum “chicken coop”."
The Canadian Council for Refugees sights ten, well eleven reasons why the "safe third country" proposal is illegimate. The eleventh reason:
"During the Second World War, Canada denied protection to Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution. The slogan from that period was "None is Too Many!" - the answer given by a Canadian official when asked how many Jewish refugees Canada would take. The Canadian Council for Refugees calls the US-Canada agreement a "None is too many" agreement because it is about keeping refugees out, just as we closed the door on Jewish refugees in the 30s and 40s."
It appears Anglos are being punished for their complicity in aiding and abetting the Nazis, despite the fact that so many Anglos sacrificed their life to end the menace.
Posted by: DJ | 2007-02-24 9:06:41 PM
Glad to see Alain feels Rabbi Plaut’s model is "insane". ;)
Posted by: DJ | 2007-02-24 9:08:55 PM
DJ of course it is insane. Just because, assuming you are correct, that a rabbi was involved does not mean it becomes acceptable. To compare the arrival of illegal refugee claimants with the Jews (or any one for that matter) trying to escape the Nazi death camps is just silly to say the least.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-02-24 9:32:38 PM
I have to disagree: they may not be outright terrorists, but they are crimnials (some of them entered Canada with false passports, etc.). So for that alone they must be deported immediately.
Living in Canada is a privilege, not a right. You betray the trust Canada gives you, and you're out!!!
Posted by: Werner Patels | 2007-02-24 11:36:42 PM
H2O, they don't invest within their own because it would cause massive inflation. Learn something about economics please. Also, they rest of your comment, as usual, makes no sense.
Posted by: Lefty_99 | 2007-02-25 12:00:53 AM
According to Immigration Watch Canada there's a difference of opinion about the significance of the Singh decision. From a March 23, 2005 press release:
"Experts have viewed the Singh Decision in different ways. John Manion characterized the decision as "a disaster". On the other hand, MP Art Hanger argued in his 1994 research that, "The Singh Decision left "open the possibility of removing, without a hearing, all persons claiming refugee status who arrive from safe third countries."
In Mr. Hanger's opinion, "The right to a full and fair hearing is intended to apply only in the event that the security of the person of the refugee claimants is definitely in danger". This security could be determined by simply looking at the country from which the person arrived. If it was "safe" (that is, if it had a well-established record of respecting human rights), then the person could and should be removed from Canada and returned to the "safe" country."
According to the Mackenzie Institute:
"Worse still, the Supreme Court made one of its worst rulings ever in the 1985 Regina vs Singh decision (a case concerning a Sikh militant who had arrived in Canada and faced deportation); when it determined that anyone who arrived in Canada was entitled to the same full legal rights as any Canadian citizen. First off, this meant that every case —- no matter how flimsy — had to be heard and, since most refugees could claim indigence, they would be able to call on public funding to meet their legal costs. Almost overnight, a new legal industry was born — one that probably costs taxpayers at least $1 billion a year."
Certainly, the government's response made things worse, but I don't know how much flexibility it had. Also, the Singh decision led to other court rulings. It's clear, however, that after the ruling there was an explosion in the number of refugee claims. From Immigration Watch Canada:
"However, Canadians have to be reminded of a major 1985 Supreme Court verdict which has had a massive impact on the country. Known as the Supreme Court's "Singh Decision", it has probably been the major cause of over 500,000 refugee claimants arriving here since it was made, says Immigration Watch Canada. In the words of Former Deputy Minister of Immigration John Manion, the Singh Decision has resulted in Canada losing its ability "to control our borders and is gravely eroding our sovereignty".
In 1981, in the Pre-Singh Decision period, 3450 refugee claims were made in Canada. In 1987, two years after the Singh Decision, over 25,000 refugee claims were made. Also in 1987, a backlog of 85,000 refugee claimants had accumulated and these people were given amnesty. In 2001, about 46,000 refugee claims were made.
It is estimated that, combined with subsequent refugee sponsoring of relatives, Canada's refugee system has allowed between 1 to 2 million people to enter Canada since 1989."
Posted by: Hyphenated_Canadian | 2007-02-25 12:22:28 AM
"Unfortunately, in the west, someone who sends a letter with a powder in it is considered a terrorist but someone who illegally invades and ruins an innocent nation is not."
It's an interesting argument Lefty_99, but no such innocent nation exists, therefore your "someone" is merely a fictional character
Posted by: Feynman and Coulter's Love Child | 2007-02-25 3:19:25 AM
Every single decision regarding Supreme Court of Canada appointments in the Liberal Governments of Canada commencing with King Era was in fact a political decision on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada. For instance who sat on the Supreme Court of Canada in 1985? - how did they arrive there, strictly by old fashioned Liberal political patronage. Many of the Superior Courts of Canada if not all were generated in the same way. In the Liberal scheme of things Judges are chosen on the basis of Political loyality, or their Law Firms' affinity with the Party and their fund raising skills. Think about it for a moment what kind of a
Country can be considered viable if it cannot have total control of access over it's own borders. The Liberal focus on immigration which remains their basic political tenent is designed to ensure large
centres of totally committed Liberal voters, just look at the disgusting, crime ridden filthy City of Toronto and environs, a very dangerous place to be avoided if possible. Chretien and Martin are the responsible politicians for the mostly ineffective Criminal Courts in our Country - both should be phohibited from the practice of law in Canada. MacLeod
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-02-25 5:32:34 AM
It's pretty rich having Liberals scream about partisan appointments when they wrote the book.
The deck is stacked with Liberal operatives and cronies for years to come.
The Supreme Court, the Senate and all bureaucracies of Government. It will take years to clear.
The demographics of Toronto and environs should be a concern for both Federal and Provincial governments. Up to this point it has delivered power to the Liberals, which is their only concern.
It could be a Tinderbox, a Cesspool, no matter, if
Liberal votes get delivered it's A-OK.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-02-25 6:12:04 AM
Well I've read all the comments only to find this old guy has a very different perspective.
First, I believe that citizens of Canada have rights under the criminal code after they become Canadians. We should have never extended the rights of Canadians to everyone on this earth.
If anyone comes here with the intent of harming our society then send them home or somewhere.
Second the criminal code is mostly based on catching and dealing with ciminals after the fact. If a person is trained as a terrorist or appears to be, comes to Canada and is waiting for orders from his masters to kill or harm Canadians, why should any of us take a chance and let him stay here?
Human rights in Canada should also include provisions and thought to protect the public from this new kind of global war and our current
criminal code does not do that at all.
I'm on the downhill run in this old life, but I do think future generations should have the safety of Canadians as a priority over the alleged rights of people who have gone to terrorist training camps or are only coming here to hurt us or take advantage of a more gentle society.
By the way, We have a "not withstanding clause" which should be used to deal with a supreme court that doesnt care about the safety of Canadians.
Posted by: mewilde | 2007-02-25 11:13:32 AM
After reading comments, I would go as far as consider criminal processing of the politicians responsible for the lost of sovereignety in Canada.
Israel is now bringing charges on many politicians for corruption. This looks to me like corruption bringing very serious problems for our country.
Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-02-25 11:14:19 AM
J.M. Smith says that "Canada Made The Right Choice"
in fact Canada did not have the opportunity to make a choice regarding the use of long established Security Certificates, and polls throughout Canada today reflect the fact. Canadians do not agree with the Supreme Court of Canada which is a wholly political Court, insular, arrogant and out of touch
with Canadians. As a Sovereign Nation Canada has earned a significant presence in the international sector, but that Sovereignty comes with certain duties and restraints. Canada has a profound duty
to protect and secure it's Citizens. That is Citizens, not uninvited strangers or visitors.
those who would seek to harm Canada must be recognized, defined and secured from the commission of "overt acts'access to democratic process based on British tradition, and British Common Law is the basis of our society. If those who appear here from abroad, cannot accept our ways, our Canada, then by all means, apprehend
secure them and escort them out - period. MacLeod
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-02-25 12:06:57 PM
Criminal proceedings over our lost sovereignty? Remi, you're always good for a laugh.
The court gave the Parliament a year to revise the impugned Act. They could have struck down the law or read in/out sections to make it workable, but instead they gave the elected body time to revise the provisions while leaving the Act in force. I'd say that's a pretty good outcome.
If we want to be the "good guys" in whatever war we're fighting, we have to act like it. We can't just make people disappear without oversight, citizens or not. There needs to be a public or, at very least, judicial safety net and some form of due process, or else you wind up in the Soviet Union.
Posted by: Voice of Reason | 2007-02-25 1:01:13 PM
The present Supreme Court is loaded with Judges appointed by Liberals because they were/are Liberals.
They interpret the Law in each case given them.
The government of the day can choose how to deal with the interpretations.
Let's see how this latest Lefty decision is dealt with by the Conservative Government.
I'm sure the majority of the Canadian people are for the Terrorism Bill as it was drafted.
There are far too many people here from Hotbeds of
Terrorism, some not even legals and some not yet citizens. There are some who simply got lost, we have no idea where they are.
It is objectionable in the extreme to have people come here from countries with whom we have no history and fight against our Laws in our Highest
Court. Thanks to our Charter they will win in most challenges.
They have all the comforts and safety of our Country but are we safe from them?
Taking any teeth out of the Law could put us at risk. It's a bit late to act after a catastrophic
event but it appears some boneheads of Socialist
bent have to be hit on the head to see sense.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-02-25 1:25:20 PM
In actual fact the Supreme Court of Canada is not in a position to "give" the Parliament of Canada who
are in fact the Law Makers, anything. Their function is clearly defined in Legislation and Common Law
-this Red Robed Court is the most blatant political Court ever in the brief history of Canada. PM Harper is focused on changing the system and process of judicial appointments. A very complex and demanding activity, for which ultimately his government must have a Majority Mandate. And, please do not confuse
the activities of the present SSC with "reasonable oversight" every decision they arrive at is totally politically driven. I think many, many citizens of this country are contemptuous of the SSC as constituted and appointed, and hopefully reflect that when they have a chance to provide the new Conservative Government with it's rightful mandate. MacLeod
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-02-25 1:48:45 PM
With a group of terrorists already in prison, and how many more at work to bring disaster in our society (economic disaster and possibly many thousands casualties) there is no reason to laugh.
In Israel, what damage was caused by corrupted politicians? Compare that with the potential damage and cost caused here by Canadian politicians. How much of our money is taken from us by those would be terrorists and strangers coming here by fraudulent means and having us pay for their frauds?
The first ones to be processed by an inquiry commission should be the members of the supreme court who changed the law in the singh case back in the 1980s.
Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-02-25 2:06:08 PM
"The present Supreme Court is loaded with Judges appointed by Liberals because they were/are Liberals."
The point is it does not matter Liz.
"The relative continuity in the Supreme Court’s Charter statistics is interesting to observe in light of the fact that it has changed from being a Court largely made up of Trudeau Government appointees to one composed almost entirely of Mulroney Government appointees. Indeed, since Justice Wilson’s retirement in 1991, right up to Justice La Forest’s retirement and Justice Sopinka’s death in 1997, all of the Court’s ordinary members have been Mulroney appointees. Only Chief Justice Lamer, whom Mulroney elevated to that position in 1990, was originally a Trudeau appointment. At least quantitatively, in terms of overall bottom-line results, the shift from a Mulroney Court to a Trudeau Court does not indicate that the Supreme Court has become significantly more conservative or less activist. The overall success rate of Charter claimants in Chief Justice Lamer’s court has been just 1 percent, lower than in the pre-1990 Dickson Court."
Posted by: DJ | 2007-02-25 2:15:38 PM
PM Chretien appointed six to the Supreme Court of Canada and Martin two - all were well known Human Rights Activists and much to the left in the political spectrum. Trudeau appointments were not known as political activists nor were Mulroney's
appointments. But under Chretien and the vetting of
Lawyers in the Federal Justice System, and later the
compliance of Justice Ministers MacAuley and Colter
both Chretien and Martin ensured a political active
Supreme Court. And it does in fact "make a difference" Harper has appointed one to the SCC,
but will be seeking a major change in the structure of the Court prior to appointment process, which will be subject to debate in the House and Senate. But a Conservative Majority will prevail in my opinion. MacLeod
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-02-25 2:34:52 PM
All good stuff Macleod, however, show us an example or statistical evidence that the Chretien court is more progressive than the Mulroney court.
Posted by: DJ | 2007-02-25 2:54:34 PM
If you think the present Supreme Court of Canada is "progressive" you have been misinformed - it depends of how one defines the word "progressive" the present Court is unquestionably driven by Liberal Politics, whatever they happen to be at any given time. At the moment the Party is in a period of transition waiting for an unsuspecting public to give them another mandate - but the Canadian public now aware of the much higher quality of government available to them by the Conservative Party led by Rt.Hon. Stephen Harper PC, MP. I do not consider the effect of connubial sodomy particularly progressive, and millions of Canadians agree. Once that fool Dion goes to the people of Canada for a mandate he will learn the real meaning of "progesssive". He will progress right back to his unilingual French classroom.
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-02-25 3:11:55 PM
Mr. MacLeod, there's a reason you write for a third-rate publication like the Western Standard, and that reason is that you are an idiot. It's unfortunate because your writing is of a reasonable quality, its just your racist views and your illusions interfere with your scribe. There is nothing more tragic than a mind wasted, and I'm afraid Mr. MacLeod, yours is beyond tragedy.
Posted by: Lefty_99 | 2007-02-25 3:25:11 PM
"...its just your racist views "
"You know badgering and taking people's words out of context only shows that you are losing an arguement. "
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-02-25 3:30:04 PM
The present court fostered the above decision and Marshall Rothstein, Stephen Harper's appointment, fully concurred. What's changed?
Posted by: DJ | 2007-02-25 3:37:36 PM
Do you agree it has been the Liberal modus
operandi to hand the tough, contentious issues over to the SC to make a decision, knowing it will be made by their own people and they can run with it?
It absolves them of any blame, they merely say it was a SC decision, case closed.
Any criticism then is passed off as a "Court decision", no blame, no criticism taken by the
all-things-to-all-people Party called Liberal Party of Canada.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-02-25 3:38:12 PM
Lol, seriously, are you denying that he's a racist?
Posted by: Lefty_99 | 2007-02-25 3:42:13 PM
"Lol, seriously, are you denying that he's a racist?"
I don't wish to take his words out of context so how can you tell?
Perhaps you can enlighten me.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-02-25 3:45:54 PM
You really are over the top.
Posted by: Lefty_99 | 2007-02-25 3:50:48 PM
Why? I am here to learn from you.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-02-25 3:52:32 PM
Jeez I was unaware that the "Standard" was a third rate-publication - compared to what first rate Canadian publication? Barrister Marshall Rothstein is and was a well known political activist, and in fact I will wager had already been vetted by Martin,
with input from super flunkies Herle and Goldenberg
plus senior lawyers in the Federal Justice System
many of whom are lesbians. Harper and friends played an interesting game in the House while "considering"
the Rothstein appointment. but it looked to me like a segment from "What's My Line" down here on the old east coast we call that "bullshit" Harper had to proceed to give a semblence of "change"
but the entire process was unfortunately laughable
-Chretien as I said at the time would simply have called Barrister Rothstein ad said" "guess what?
you're getting a new Red Robe for the office.
Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2007-02-25 3:56:10 PM
Fast Forward is a first rate publication compared to the West Standard. Actually, so is that magazine that the homeless people give out on the streets of Calgary; what's its name? Well whatever its called, its first rate too. I'd even prefer to read Watchtower.
Posted by: Lefty_99 | 2007-02-25 4:05:31 PM
WatchTower has a very big ciculation, and very popular in certain sectors. Current Issue is forecasting Liberal Leader Dion will become a Trappist Monk, being disillusioned with Politics
-he is reported to have learned that the first rule
in Liberal politics is that all Members of Parliament and Party flunkies are expendable. Article is entitled "We'll never forget whathisname"
-English only.'thus far. But Quebec Liberals used to lock up the publishers and distributors of the old
"WatchTower" see, they are getting more progressive all the time, more or less. MacLeod
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-02-25 4:20:00 PM
"Fast Forward is a first rate publication compared to the West Standard. "
I checked out their latest issue and found this
"The bloody chamber
The violent history of gun culture in hip hop"
My first thought was: If the Western Standard were to report this, would they be called racists?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-02-25 4:31:40 PM
Would you be referring to the Padlock Law enacted by the conservative (not liberal) Union Nationale Party, which was meant to suppress Jehovah's Witnesses and other communist threats?
Posted by: Nothing New Under the Sun | 2007-02-25 10:23:31 PM
Note that while these articles talk about the three Arab men who brought the case to the Canadian Supreme Court, no mention is made of the one man actually deported under this law, Ernst Zundel.
Posted by: Brandon | 2007-02-25 11:22:28 PM
Actually the Union Nationale Party in Quebec originated when members of the Quebec Liberal Party
joined with Quebec Conservatives led by Hon Maurice
Duplessie created a "nationalistic" Quebec based Party - they enacted the notorious "Padlock Law"
upon pressure from the Roman Catholic Church in Quebec. Born and raised in an Irish RC Home and
veteran of Parochial Schools and College in Nova Scotia, I know that the Government of Nova Scotia
led my Premier Angus L. MacDonald a Catholic seriously considered a similar Padlock Law for Nova Scotia. The NS Liberal Party was in fact founded by Scots-Irish Catholics in 1841 and always had very close ties to the RC Church. Those ties vanished during Martin's Tenure as PM. One of the reasons I think Conservatives can win seats in Nova Scotia during the next decade. MacLeod
Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2007-02-26 5:44:59 AM
Never ceases to amaze when Liberals join Conservatives in a movement, the Liberals will blame
the Conservatives for all the perceived baddies that
come out of it. Team players and sharing the blame is sure as hell not the Liberal way.
If it's bad, it's Conservative is their motto.
It's like folklore, handed down through the generations.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-02-26 6:23:44 AM
Of course, we should never permit terrorists to be separated from the general population.
That would be against their human rights.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-02-26 9:40:43 AM
Instead of arguing over whether it was the Liberals or the previous Red Tories who appointed the worst judicial activists, I think the point that this court has and continues to exceed its mandate by legislating instead of interpreting the laws passed by Parliament is the issue of most vital importance. This is the tail wagging the dog and something the lefties love. They do not want it to change since it has allowed them through judicial activism to advance their agenda knowing that otherwise the people would never approve it. Of course the Americans face the same problem, thus the never ending obstruction put up by the Dems to Bush's nominations.
Yes, I know we are burdened by Trudeau's gift of the Charter, but we have always had the not withstanding clause to use. I can find not excuse, other than the lack of guts, for our governments, federal and provincial, not using it.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-02-26 10:42:09 PM
Today's news shows the insanity of the way we conduct opurselves, in realtion to what is going on "out there".
For example, the Hawach abduction case.
Joseph abducts the children from Canada, and takes them to Lebanon, where Lebanon automatically grants the children citizenship. Then he also applies and gets custody, which under Lebanese Law, grants that to the father. They ignore the fact that in Canada, the mother already has sole custody. So, she goes to Lebanon, and in a dramatic turn of events, manages to take her children back. according to us, she is taking back her children, with legal right to do so.
The father, -- though shamed on the International scene, -- now claims he will have her charged for taking the children out of Lebanon, where he has custody. According to lebanon, the mother, and our Canadian jurisdiction, mean nothing. And yet we do to them what they would never do for us. We give them all their rights, and yet they do not recognize us for giving them theirs. This lack of reciprocity is an offence!
The same of Saudi Arabia, where there are places where non-Muslims are permitted to go, with restrictions.
So, a Canadian who is a Muslim can go anywhere but a Canadian who is not a Muslim is restricted.
Of course, they can and do use the arguement that it is not a racist thing, as it is a matter of religion, and yet that is not what the folks here say, when Muslims behave badly. And I am not talking about the peaceful ones, but those who back terrorism, or send monies to fund terrorists. They know who they are.
And if you don't believe me in relation to Saudi Arabia, well, you can read it on the leftist site yourself.
So, if there are issues with multi-culturalism, it really does not exist within the concept under which it was conceived, but rather in relation to the reality under which we find ourselves.
I wonder what would happen if the laws were re-written to reflect the need for reciprocity? So, if the rights of Canadians are not respected in reciprocity, then something would not be recognized on the ground here? How can we protect our people if they continue to get involved with those who would do harm to us? We do, after all, have the duty to protect our own?
Posted by: Lady | 2007-02-27 7:55:03 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.