News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 842     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Six Points Plaza Redevelopment Advances With 36-Storey First Phase
 753     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Trading Spaces: Can Real Estate Conversion Help Boost Housing Supply?
 321     0 

PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

BurlOak said:
The national interest is very subjective.
I think the civil servants job is to implement the mandate of the government.
If the government requests an opinion, the civil servant can tell truth to power - or at least their interpretation of what the truth is. But once the Minister makes a decision based on that input as well as input from others (both other civil servants and political goals), the civil servant must implement the final political decision.
Click to expand...

It is not at all subjective when it is pretty clear that the government will lose the case, will have to pay a similar level of compensation and have to cover the additional legal cost throughout the process. Unless you want to say paying extra and dragging legal matters for as long as possible to make a losing point is in the national interest, I am not sure where this is going.

Totally agree with @kEiThZ that some punitive measure should be applied to the mother in particular.

AoD
 
These stories are circulating.
The narative was supposed to be the Harper violated Khadr Charter rights, and Khadr and hisi family are innocent, and it was only his father who was bad.
It seems that narative didn't stick and people are realizing that Khadr was found guilty (may yet be overturned, but for the time being he is guilty). He is not innocent - even if you believe he, the only living person in the building, did not throw the grenade, the evidence of him making IED's has also surface - along with the reminder that IED's killed 97 Canadian soldiers. Then it has also been report that all the Charter violations occured in 2003/04, and the Supreme court ruled Harper did not have to repatriate Khadr. Essentially, the reason Trudeau settled was so this evidence would not surface - but yet it still did in the court of public opinion and not a real court. Somehow, on this issue, the public was not gullible enough to believe the Liberal spin.
 
BurlOak said:
These stories are circulating.
The narative was supposed to be the Harper violated Khadr Charter rights, and Khadr and hisi family are innocent, and it was only his father who was bad.
It seems that narative didn't stick and people are realizing that Khadr was found guilty (may yet be overturned, but for the time being he is guilty). He is not innocent - even if you believe he, the only living person in the building, did not throw the grenade, the evidence of him making IED's has also surface - along with the reminder that IED's killed 97 Canadian soldiers. Then it has also been report that all the Charter violations occured in 2003/04, and the Supreme court ruled Harper did not have to repatriate Khadr. Essentially, the reason Trudeau settled was so this evidence would not surface - but yet it still did in the court of public opinion and not a real court. Somehow, on this issue, the public was not gullible enough to believe the Liberal spin.
Click to expand...

It has been circulated in 2016 - dumping stuff on and pretend it happened right now is off key.

It's not a "narrative", it's a unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada (with Harper appointees on the bench) that Omar Khadr's rights were violated. It is not a ruling on his family. Since when do we start allow our underaged citizens to be tortured and tried? That's on top of the fact that the US Supreme Court certainly ruled on the legality of the court at Guantanamo. As to our court ruling - it declared the Charter violations and left redressing the issue to the government - which at the end, resulted in repatriation. Just because the abuse happened in 2003/04 doesn't wash any government of responsibilities - the government of Canada doesn't cease to exist just because there is a change in ruling party.

Insulating individuals from negative public opinion is precisely one of the functions of the Charter - it is not something to be violated on the whim - and especially not for the sake of public opinion.

AoD
 
Last edited:
I think anecdotal evidence is rather nonsense..

Poll shows 71% of Canadians dont support the payment.

I dont think it means 71% think Kadar should be sentenced to death, but anyone who really think Trudeau scored any points or even handled this well from a political point is a tad tone deaf to what has happened over the past 2 weeks.

The government imo knows if they have an open debate on this issue they will lose because in the end Canadians dont like Kadar, he is not a very likeable person in comparison to a dead American soldier.

That is the crux of this issue and why Trudeau wanted this done and gone.

I think this issue will die down though
 
Videodrome said:
In a poll of Supreme Court justices, 100% of them sided with Khadr.
Click to expand...
70% of Canadians may believe the Khadr payment is an affront to decency, but the way this country is organized the only votes that count belong to the nine Supreme Court judges.
 
pman said:
70% of Canadians may believe the Khadr payment is an affront to decency, but the way this country is organized the only votes that count belong to the nine Supreme Court judges.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the supreme court should been asked to determine the settlement amount?

I don't think they do that for civil cases.

Truth is that supreme court did not in any way require the payment of this sum.
 
Last edited:
Polls, public opinions, political points etc...

None of that matters when it comes to the adjudication of law. The lawful judgement might not always be the outcome we desire, but that is the basis of our system.
 
Videodrome said:
Please correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Supreme Courts with Harper appointees side with Khadr three times?

https://www.campaignresearch.ca/sin...sh-seen-as-Trudeau-Scheer-approvals-unchanged

Campaign Research, owned by two CPC members, found no change in polling despite the Khadr situation
Click to expand...
One case supreme court found his rights were violated in 2003-2004 under Chretien & Martin.
Another they ruled Harper did not have to repatriate him as it was a political foreign affairs issue.
What was the third about?
 
WislaHD said:
Polls, public opinions, political points etc...

None of that matters when it comes to the adjudication of law. The lawful judgement might not always be the outcome we desire, but that is the basis of our system.
Click to expand...


However it shatter this logic that Kadar fans had that he will become this victim and hero to Canadians and people who were against him were a small hateful minority.

Most Canadians will never respect Kadar and never will and frankly Canadians have every right to say whatever they want about him.

Just because the Supreme Court says Kadar right were violated does not mean he is vindicated for his behaviour or the behaviour he is associated with in Afghanistan.
 
Jasmine18 said:
However it shatter this logic that Kadar fans had that he will become this victim and hero to Canadians and people who were against him were a small hateful minority.

Most Canadians will never respect Kadar and never will and frankly Canadians have every right to say whatever they want about him.

Just because the Supreme Court says Kadar right were violated does not mean he is vindicated for his behaviour or the behaviour he is associated with in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

No, what vindicates him is the fact that he was a child soldier. The responsible parties are those that brought him over there and made him fight in a war.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top