Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Omar's lawyer is now a federal judge?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

https://www.spencerfernando.com/2018/02/26/report-justin-trudeau-appoints-former-omar-khadr-lawyer-canadas-federal-court/ What is wrong with our leader, he just loves anyone or anything that deal

The noise you hear is Trudeau's head being sucked up his buttox. Its so firmly wedged up there at this point that he is unable to see anything but his own legacy of crap.

I get that.  I really do.  It just bothers me that these Khadrs have done nothing but piss on our charter and our country until it benefitted them.  And that we paid them to the tune of 10.5 million d

It's a bit of a perplexing move given the rather lamentable regret Trudeau appeared to have over Khadr's settlement - which should have been much higher and as much a fine against Canadians for letting their government behave the way it did as compensation for Khadr.

I would probably have been no less perplexed but I'd rather have seen Dennis Edney being appointed.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Perhaps Trudeau is expecting more cases involving our own terrorist citizens.  He's prolly stacking the judge circuits with terrorist sympathizers in anticipation.

Perhaps summer is coming and weather will get warmer.

 

I think my perhaps is a much more likely perhaps.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Perhaps summer is coming and weather will get warmer.

 

I think my perhaps is a much more likely perhaps.

That could be.  I'm not sure what that has to do with the fact that our government is extremely sympathetic towards terrorists - we pay them millions of dollars, we guarantee their rights no matter how much they piss on them, we invite them to foreign countries in spite of the fact that they assassinate that counrty's leaders and we let them live free in Canada as long as they attend poetry readings and we support their ideologies by "looking the other way" and not saying anything about them.

Edited by Goddess
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I'm not sure what that has to do with the fact that our government is extremely sympathetic towards terrorists

Opinion, not fact

Quote

we pay them millions of dollars, we guarantee their rights

So you are saying there should be exceptions in Charter? If accused (note not convicted but accused in the case you are referencing) of terrorism then your rights are subject to violation?

Quote

we invite them to foreign countries in spite of the fact that they assassinate that counrty's leaders

Again you have your facts wrong. Nobody was assassinated in the case you are alluding to. Yes, a backbencher in the government did invite him to attend an event, although they never had anything to do with inviting him to the country.

Edited by ?Impact
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Who is Jaspal Atwal?

Atwal is a convicted Khalistani terrorist who was associated with the banned Sikh militant outfit - the International Sikh Youth Federation (ISYF). He was involved in the assassination attempt of late Shiromani Akali Dal leader and then Punjab Cabinet Minister Malkiat Singh Sidhu in 1986.

Atwal, along with three other ISYF members, fired shots at Sidhu in Vancouver, where he had went to attend his nephew's wedding. Although Sidhu survived the assassination attempt, he was killed five years later in Moga, Punjab by Khalistani militants.

A trial court had convicted Atwal, along with  Jasbir Singh Atwal, Armajit Singh Dhindsa and Sukhdial Singh Gill for the murder attempt of Sidhu. They were sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment.

The ISYF, whose member was Atwal, is also responsible for carrying out the mid-air blast on the Air India flight in 1985, which killed 329 people.

The outfit was banned by India in 2001, enlisting it under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Subsequently, the UK, the USA and Canada had also extended the ban.

 

 

Are you really arguing that ^^^THIS^^^ guy should have been welcomed and invited to India?  And that the world hasn't noticed that Canada coddles terrorists?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

So you are saying there should be exceptions in Charter? If accused (note not convicted but accused in the case you are referencing) of terrorism then your rights are subject to violation?

That's one of the things that seems to always surface whenever someone starts hand wringing over Khadr. It was a kangaroo court in Gitmo who accused him, a loy of those accusations were undermined by soldiers who were actually on the ground there, and we did violate his rights by leaving him there as long as we did even after he was visited by Canadian officials. Thankfully people who are involved in the legal process attempt to uphold and respect our charter. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Omni said:

Thankfully people who are involved in the legal process attempt to uphold and respect our charter. 

I get that.  I really do.  It just bothers me that these Khadrs have done nothing but piss on our charter and our country until it benefitted them.  And that we paid them to the tune of 10.5 million dollars for pissing on our country.  And that they continue to piss on our country.  I'd love to see them GTFO and I'd love to see us slam the door behind them.

Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's right or just.  Legality is a matter of power.

Apartheid was legal.

The Holocaust was legal.

Slavery was legal.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Are you really arguing that ^^^THIS^^^ guy should have been welcomed and invited to India?  And that the world hasn't noticed that Canada coddles terrorists?

No, and pretending I am making that argument is silly. I am pointing out where you made errors in facts and claimed your opinion to be fact.

He should not have been invited to the event, everyone has stated that very clearly. The backbencher MP that invited him should take responsibility, and it is up to Trudeau to decide if he will remove him from caucus (I think that would be a good idea). There should be checks and balances put in place to ensure this kind of slip up doesn't happen in the future (e.g. a process for the high commissioner to vet guest lists)

No terrorist has been coddled, are you suggesting that Canada should change its Charter for all citizens accused of crime?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Goddess said:

I get that.  I really do.  It just bothers me that these Khadrs have done nothing but piss on our charter and our country until it benefitted them.  And that we paid them to the tune of 10.5 million dollars for pissing on our country.  And that they continue to piss on our country.  I'd love to see them GTFO and I'd love to see us slam the door behind them.

Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's right or just.  Legality is a matter of power.

Apartheid was legal.

The Holocaust was legal.

Slavery was legal.

Khadr got paid compensation because we "pissed" on his charter rights. If you don't like his family that's fine but they weren't the ones illegally held in an illegal prison. Luckily ourf charter makes the items you listed as illegal, so we are better off with it than without.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

No terrorist has been coddled

Wrong.  The rest of the world sees us coddling them.  Why do you think the majority of Canadians feel we are coddling terrorists - because of our tough stance on it?  Pfffft.

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

are you suggesting that Canada should change its Charter for all citizens accused of crime?

Get real.  I'm suggesting we change it to deal with terrorists who clearly use its flaws against us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Omni said:

Khadr got paid compensation because we "pissed" on his charter rights.

And the root cause of his rights getting pissed on?  That would be because the entire Khadr family pisses on Canada.  Unfortunately, they are legally allowed to piss on Canada.  Which is what needs to change.  The entire family is warped.  They need to GTFO.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Goddess said:

 I'm suggesting we change it to deal with terrorists who clearly use its flaws against us.

Again we trampled on his right when he was accused of terrorism. You seem to forget that rights are taken away from those convicted, but they are there to protect those accused. One is innocent until proven guilty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Again we trampled on his right when he was accused of terrorism. You seem to forget that rights are taken away from those convicted, but they are there to protect those accused. One is innocent until proven guilty.

He used a controvertial section - #7 - of the Charter to plead for Khadr (who was a terrorist, actively working to kill us and our allies and who still has not renounced his terrorist beliefs) and then circumvented the SOC to settle out of court.

Something needs to change here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Goddess said:

And the root cause of his rights getting pissed on?  That would be because the entire Khadr family pisses on Canada.  Unfortunately, they are legally allowed to piss on Canada.  Which is what needs to change.  The entire family is warped.  They need to GTFO.

The root cause under the law was that he was accused and then not allowed a fair trial. And the accusation that he threw a grenade that killed a US soldier seemed to be become doubtful after testimony even in the kangaroo military court in Gitmo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Goddess said:

He used a controvertial section - #7 - of the Charter to plead for Khadr (who was a terrorist, actively working to kill us and our allies and who still has not renounced his terrorist beliefs) and then circumvented the SOC to settle out of court.

Something needs to change here.

Had he not have settled and gone to court in all likelihood we would have paid more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Omni said:

The root cause under the law was that he was accused and then not allowed a fair trial. And the accusation that he threw a grenade that killed a US soldier seemed to be become doubtful after testimony even in the kangaroo military court in Gitmo.

Yeah, yeah, I know.  He's completely innocent and deserves 10.5 million.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Yeah, yeah, I know.  He's completely innocent and deserves 10.5 million.

I don't know if he's completely innocent or not. Maybe only he knows that for sure. Again, the settlement was based on the violation of his charter rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Omni said:

I don't know if he's completely innocent or not. Maybe only he knows that for sure. Again, the settlement was based on the violation of his charter rights.

Yes, yes.  Charter rights, charter rights.  You're one of those people who think the charter rights are the most important thing and should be upheld  no matter if the person is an active terrorist and hates Canada.  I'm one of those people who sees a huge flaw here that needs to be dealt with.  Otherwise we'll go broke paying off terrorists.  But do go on about the rights of terrorists being the most important thing to Canada, not safety or security.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...