[masaredera]

Ahh, you are much too smart for me to bait you. But I'm still curious as to why you think this particular right is worth granting? What basis did you use to form that opinion?

In addition, which state would grant those rights? For example:

1) A citizen comes from a country which does not recognize the right to a trial. Ergo, he does not have that right. The country he enters may confer the right to trial upon its citizens, but until our happy immigrant becomes a citizen he does not have that right. Correct?

"Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free..."


2) A citizen comes from a country which has conferred upon its citizens the right to a trial. Ergo, he has that right. He emigrates to a country which does not grant its citizens the right to a trial. Should our happy immigrant be worried? After all, his government has given him the right to a trial. Shouldn't he just be able to flash that and force his new country to recognize his right? Whether he can or not, he should fight to the death for that right, if he is worth anything more than slavery or chattel.


Of course, the escape clause to the first is rights conferred upon the citizens of one nation are universal rights - rights that apply to every person regardless of nationality. If that is the case, then shouldn't every person on the planet enjoy all the rights you enjoy? For example: they should be allowed to vote in your elections, utilize your health care system, go to your public schools, use your court system for their trials, demand protection from your military, etc. Sure. If they are able merge into this society succesfully, using whatever benefit this society offers, who am i to deny them. Run for the border, so to speak.


And the escape clause for the latter would be to argue rights are not a function of who or what you are, but rather a function of where you are. If that is the case, then it begs the question why you feel Canada is a geographic place worthy of granting the right to a trial? Otherwise, you would have to make the argument there is something about humans which entitles them to a right to a trial. Of course, that would negate your argument for hypothetical number one and that states confer rights, because states are obviously different and capable of conferring different rights. Absolutely. Its just a matter of thinking there is benefit to such a transparent system, both for the accused and for the society at large. Many americans forget that when they argue that the suspension of habeus corpus for non-citizens is ok, they are turning over absolute power to those who would likely abuse it. I think the right to know the evidence for your charges is as much a benefit to the individual being charged as it is to the general public tasked with the responsibility of making sure the government is not 'cheating'.

In other words, it is important for a society that enjoys freedom to constantly be a check on the institutions that can grant those freedoms. They will abuse it if you are not looking. I did not and do not trust the Canadian government enough to preserve their right to secret evidence and indefinite detention without an 'airing' of those charges to the public scrutiny, for better or worse.

So regardless of whether my state can grant or take away the rights it chooses, a just society grants everybody the right to a free and open trial, regardless of their citizenship. Its just a matter of whether we think there is value for society in granting that right, i think it is worth it.

Andrew