LOGO
Reply to Thread New Thread
Old 02-23-2007, 05:15 PM   #1
masaredera

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
505
Senior Member
Default Canada strikes down anti-terror law!
Court strikes*indefinite holding of terror suspects - CNN.com

OTTAWA, Canada (Reuters) -- Canada's Supreme Court struck down Friday a controversial anti-terror law that allows foreign suspects to be detained indefinitely on the basis of secret evidence.

The court ruled unanimously that the government had broken Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms by issuing so-called security certificates to imprison people, pending deportation, without giving them a chance to see the government's case.

"Before the state can detain people for significant periods of time, it must accord them a fair judicial process," Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote on behalf of all nine judges.


Looks like we have decided to honor the right of people to defend themselves in a court of law. What a novel idea?

Andrew
masaredera is offline


Old 02-23-2007, 05:17 PM   #2
Nurse_sero

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
562
Senior Member
Default
Did Harper's head blow up yet?

I bet he wishes he could nobble the Supreme Court
Nurse_sero is offline


Old 02-23-2007, 05:19 PM   #3
cialesxtr

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
465
Senior Member
Default
Wow, maybe the ICC can learn from Canada's lesson, too.

Matt
cialesxtr is offline


Old 02-23-2007, 05:20 PM   #4
masaredera

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
505
Senior Member
Default
Did Harper's head blow up yet?

I bet he wishes he could nobble the Supreme Court
Im sure conservatives will claim that its a liberal conspiracy on the supreme court.

Either way, the liberals would have fought to keep this law alive as well. All governments, once they get absolute power, fight to keep it.

Andrew
masaredera is offline


Old 02-23-2007, 05:21 PM   #5
masaredera

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
505
Senior Member
Default
Wow, maybe the ICC can learn from Canada's lesson, too.

Matt
Care to expand on that?

Andrew
masaredera is offline


Old 02-23-2007, 05:22 PM   #6
corolaelwis

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
470
Senior Member
Default
International courts Andrew.
corolaelwis is offline


Old 02-23-2007, 05:24 PM   #7
masaredera

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
505
Senior Member
Default
International courts Andrew.
lol... i know what the ICC is, im just not sure how Matt related it to this story is all.

Andrew
masaredera is offline


Old 02-23-2007, 05:26 PM   #8
cialesxtr

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
465
Senior Member
Default
Care to expand on that?

Andrew
Sure. The ICC permits secret evidence, and has no right of Habeas Corpus.

In other words, the ICC permits the exact conduct the Canadian courts (rightly, IMHO) struck down.

Matt
cialesxtr is offline


Old 02-23-2007, 05:28 PM   #9
masaredera

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
505
Senior Member
Default
Sure. The ICC permits secret evidence, and has no right of Habeas Corpus.

In other words, the ICC permits the exact conduct the Canadian courts (rightly, IMHO) struck down.

Matt
I agree with you. The ICC should honor the rights of people to know what evidence is being used against them so they can challenge it.

Andrew
masaredera is offline


Old 02-23-2007, 05:31 PM   #10
Nurse_sero

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
562
Senior Member
Default
Now I'm wondering what the Tories were trying to achieve with this legislation. It flies in the face of natural justice for a start. I'm quite sure if they work a bit harder and with a bit less presumptuousness they can craft legislation that's valid but still achieves it objective without denying anyone natural justice.
Nurse_sero is offline


Old 02-23-2007, 05:34 PM   #11
corolaelwis

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
470
Senior Member
Default
lol... i know what the ICC is, im just not sure how Matt related it to this story is all.
Oh right, i knew what he meant in the sense they alow the same procedures but i actually thought Canada's law that was struck down was actually based on the ICC's laws.
corolaelwis is offline


Old 02-23-2007, 05:35 PM   #12
masaredera

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
505
Senior Member
Default
Now I'm wondering what the Tories were trying to achieve with this legislation. It flies in the face of natural justice for a start. I'm quite sure if they work a bit harder and with a bit less presumptuousness they can craft legislation that's valid but still achieves it objective without denying anyone natural justice.
To be fair i dont think this can be pinned on Harper:

I just grabbed this off Wiki:

According to the Ministry of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the overarching agency dealing with the law, the security certificate provision has existed in "one form or another for over 20 years."[1] Its use has been documented at least as far back as 1979 however[2], and it has been reported that its first use was in the 1960s deporting an alleged Italian mob boss. [3] It is housed within the parameters of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (formerly the Immigration and Refugee Act, which replaced the Immigration Act in 1976).


And i cant find it right now but i think it was the liberal government after 9/11 that tied this law to anti-terror measures.

Andrew
masaredera is offline


Old 02-23-2007, 05:38 PM   #13
sanddrareyk

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
464
Senior Member
Default
Good point. Okay Harper remarks withdrawn Mr Speaker
sanddrareyk is offline


Old 02-23-2007, 05:40 PM   #14
Nurse_sero

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
562
Senior Member
Default
That is indeed good news, Andrew.

Now if we could only get Dubya to learn from this ... In the US, as you may know, non-citizens may be detained indefinitely WITHOUT right to a trail, simply because they are "suspected" of being terrorists or the such.
Yes, shown up once more.
Nurse_sero is offline


Old 02-23-2007, 05:49 PM   #15
corolaelwis

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
470
Senior Member
Default
And i cant find it right now but i think it was the liberal government after 9/11 that tied this law to anti-terror measures.
Yeah its pretty much a case that we implemnted such laws after the attacks and you guys had to do the same. Its a bit like if someone gets a re-entry bar into the U.S. then tht person will find it difficult to get into Canada or Mexico. Real shame this law was struck down.
corolaelwis is offline


Old 02-23-2007, 06:09 PM   #16
Shipsyspeepay

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
492
Senior Member
Default
When Al Queda Attacks Canada 9-11 Style i hope Bush looks the other way.And Tell canada if you want our help youre gonna get rid of the liberal supreme court then you get our help.
Shipsyspeepay is offline


Old 02-23-2007, 06:11 PM   #17
Turbo-ip

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
441
Senior Member
Default
No we should strengthen our protection such as the patriot act and give our law enforcement and intelligece operatives furter, greater and broader powers.
Turbo-ip is offline


Old 02-23-2007, 06:17 PM   #18
botagozzz

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
544
Senior Member
Default
When Al Queda Attacks Canada 9-11 Style i hope Bush looks the other way.And Tell canada if you want our help youre gonna get rid of the liberal supreme court then you get our help.
Even if they do, i don't agree that reducing our commitment to human rights is the way to fight terrorism. in fact it would just be a victory for AQ if we were willing to make our nation less free.

Andrew
botagozzz is offline


Old 02-23-2007, 07:01 PM   #19
Serttyfd

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
422
Senior Member
Default
No we should strengthen our protection such as the patriot act and give our law enforcement and intelligece operatives furter, greater and broader powers.
Uhh... no.

Congrats Canada!
Serttyfd is offline


Old 02-23-2007, 08:47 PM   #20
casinobonusa

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
596
Senior Member
Default
Court strikes*indefinite holding of terror suspects - CNN.com

OTTAWA, Canada (Reuters) -- Canada's Supreme Court struck down Friday a controversial anti-terror law that allows foreign suspects to be detained indefinitely on the basis of secret evidence.

The court ruled unanimously that the government had broken Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms by issuing so-called security certificates to imprison people, pending deportation, without giving them a chance to see the government's case.

"Before the state can detain people for significant periods of time, it must accord them a fair judicial process," Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote on behalf of all nine judges.


Looks like we have decided to honor the right of people to defend themselves in a court of law. What a novel idea?

Andrew
Sounds like they are on the right track... the US seems to be de-railed
casinobonusa is offline



Reply to Thread New Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests)
 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:53 PM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity