11.13.2009

my canada includes omar khadr

Omar Khadr will receive less justice than a man accused of masterminding 9/11.
A U.S. military commission will resume hearing the case against Omar Khadr, the U.S. Department of Justice announced Friday, the same day the Supreme Court of Canada heard a federal government appeal in his case.

It is unclear when or where the 23-year-old inmate will face charges, but he is one of 10 high-profile detainees to be sent to the U.S. to face justice.

Five of those inmates, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, will be on trial in a federal civilian court in New York City.

So Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen, will be "tried" by a phony military tribunal, for a crime he could not have committed, while he was a child soldier.

And this is just fine with the Harper Government.

That same Government warns the Supreme Court of Canada against declaring that a government has a legal duty to protect its citizens detained abroad.

This Government is an absolute disgrace. The longer they stay in power, the more damage they do to Canada's good name and international standing.

Bring Omar Home!

12 comments:

geek guy said...

also the PMO is thinking that if it loses the case it may Not obey .. the supreme court of Canada
I don't know how they think they can do that!!

L-girl said...

I know. It's maddening. They've already ignored the court's very clear directive, that's how it got this far.

soho44 said...

Hi there,

Just recently found your blog. And thanks for keeping it going. Very informative for people trying to fight their way thru the bureaucracy.

Generally, how is emigrating now? Has the process eased up somewhat? I heard that it's more expensive and restricted.

Cheers!

geek guy said...

I know
did you see the press conference ware thy said thy may not obey .. the supreme court of Canada??.

L-girl said...

Soho44, thanks for your kind words about the blog, I'm glad you found it useful.

The process has changed a lot since we applied, and I don't follow the changes, since I'm already here. I'm not sure what you mean by "eased up"? There are greater restrictions, yes. I have no idea about expense. My guess is it's less expensive than when we came, as I think one large fee has been removed, but I'm not sure.

In general, I urge you to not base anything on what anyone says, including me. Go to the CIC site and get your own information. There's tons of wrong information out there, and it's too important a decision and process to listen to anyone or anything except your own research.

Best of luck!

soho44 said...

Hi,

What I meant was comparing immigration rule changes in the past few years.

I've lived in both the U.K. and Japan. So I also know that there are other places in the world where you can live and be quite happy.

In Canada, I know that the other main parties were fighting it out with the Conservatives (esp. re: letting American vets who object to the Iraq War stay). I know the official term for them is AWOL. But I prefer to think of them as being courageous.

This has made immigration rules stricter (more forms to fill out, more fees, etc.). Like you, I've dealt with immigration, visas and other roadblocks. And being an expat currently in the States, I see things from a dual perspective.

I'm currently in the Midwest. But next Jan. I'll be moving for more and bigger opportunities. Not to Canada. But especially now I'm a firm believer in keeping all options open. Good thing my passport is up to date :).

L-girl said...

In Canada, I know that the other main parties were fighting it out with the Conservatives (esp. re: letting American vets who object to the Iraq War stay). I know the official term for them is AWOL. But I prefer to think of them as being courageous.

This has made immigration rules stricter (more forms to fill out, more fees, etc.). Like you, I've dealt with immigration, visas and other roadblocks. And being an expat currently in the States, I see things from a dual perspective.


That's an interesting perspective. I wish it were true! Unfortunately, the parties aren't exactly fighting it out over war resisters. Now that there is finally a private member's bill, there is some actual fight within the HoC. But it has not been a very high priority for any party. It simply doesn't affect enough people (voters) for it to be.

The changes in immigration have nothing to do with war resisters. They have more to do with a Conservative govt that is less amenable to immigration, and to public perception that "immigrants are taking jobs".

I don't believe the paper work has changed, I think it's as voluminous as ever. And as I said, I think it's a bit less expensive.

I can't say I experienced any roadblocks in my immigration process. There were many hoops to jump through, and a lot of waiting, but no real impediments.

Now, however, my partner and I would be unlikely to qualify. I'm eternally grateful I got out when I did.

soho44 said...

I sit corrected :).

I see your points re: the Conservatives. It's just that when the other parties were pushing for the non-binding resolution to allow the U.S. vets to stay, it came across on C-PAC (way better than C-SPAN) as a battle between the parties. But I guess not.

I've checked into various countries (the U.K., Canada, France and others) as emigration possibilities. My next move is from here to Houston. I know some people there and I used to live there. Plus, it's a bigger area with more opportunties overall.

At the moment (mainly for economic reasons), I can't afford a lot of the emigration fees. Plus I don't have another visa catagory option to use at the moment. But the important thing is to always try to keep your options open. And to compartmentalize stuff (the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, no universal health care and other issues). You can't single handedly change it all. So just protect yourself as best you can.

Have you heard anything about the States trying to close the dual-citizenship part of immigration law? I heard some rightwinger in Congress was trying to do that. But I don't know if it went anywhere or not.

Keep up the great work on your blog :).

L-girl said...

It's interesting that it appears that way on CPAC! Knowing what I do from working on the campaign - how hard we worked to get those motions passed, the bit of interest we cling to - it's an interesting perspective. This is not to say that there aren't MPs who care about this issue. There certainly are, and we'd have gotten nowhere without them. But it's not an issue that has widespread traction.

Good luck with your plans. Sorry, I don't know anything about US citizenship law.

L-girl said...

And thanks for your support. :)

M. Yass said...

There's a greater issue here that needs to be screamed from the rooftops. Simply put, this Harper government is illegitimate. It has stolen power no less than Bush stole at least one U.S. presidential election.

Harper seized power about a year ago in a coup d'etat when he prorogued Parliament to avoid the sure loss of a confidence vote. He did so on the pretext of not allowing "the separatists" to become part of the government.

Besides the fact that Harper shouldn't be PM, this set an extraordinarily dangerous precedent. And he was aided and abetted by Michaelle Jean when she let him do it!

I am very distressed that Canadians not only seem to have forgotten this sorry episode, but now seem more prepared than ever to hand him a majority.

L-girl said...

Those of us who hate the Harper Govt remember it all too well. But it was not a coup d'etat and it's not an illegitimate government. It was completely wrong and ridiculous and frustrating and maddening. But as far as I saw, no Canadian constitutional scholars say that the events of that crazy month were actually illegal or unconstitutional.

This govt wouldn't exist NOW if the Liberals could get themselves together. It's as much down to their complete and utter ineptitude than anything else.