And as for "Classic Canada" - if its classic to expect that our laws apply to everyone, then I'm in favour of it
Sure.
It is just a little ironic that people who refuse to follow our laws then seek them for protection and repatriation. And by saying this, I am not completely referring to this case.
Hugh... typically, when I think of child soldiers... I think of pre-teens in Africa wielding AK47s. While I agree that Khadr is kind of suitable for the category... I am not thinking for one second that he is a victim as much as the 'child' soldiers scared into soldiering such as we have witnessed in, say Liberia. He was young, but he was not naive.
Anyways... I offered my perspective. I have heard others and while mildly disagreeing with them... I appreciate them. Thank you for the exchanges.
Since the legal system generally deals with people who haven't followed the law, I don't find your argument that by not following it he has given up the right to its protections to be compelling.
Of course you wouldn't.
The legal system is there as a safeguard for people. It wasn't developed to protect and reward criminals as much as you favour it doing so.
It's there to protect both sides, both the accused and the accuser. It's designed that way because otherwise it's useless as it simply pre-judges guilt, something that is unfortunately a common occurrence.
Disagree.
It is there to protect the innocent. And, once it has been established you are not innocent, the law should not be working for you anymore in my mind.
no, it is not there just to protect the innocent. it is to keep society fair and balanced as much as possible.
Yes it is.
All are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Until guilty is established, the law serves to protect the innocent (all)- absolutely critical and non-negotiable.
Where I think debate begins is how we compensate people who have been wronged and how we deal with people who have wronged.
Not only do I believe that the Khadr settlement is correct, i would also have gone after america for the torture he experienced. I personally believe that of all the crap Harper did, not going after the US for torturing a Canadian citizen to be the worse thing he ever did
And as for "Classic Canada" - if its classic to expect that our laws apply to everyone, then I'm in favour of it
Sure.
It is just a little ironic that people who refuse to follow our laws then seek them for protection and repatriation. And by saying this, I am not completely referring to this case.
Hugh... typically, when I think of child soldiers... I think of pre-teens in Africa wielding AK47s. While I agree that Khadr is kind of suitable for the category... I am not thinking for one second that he is a victim as much as the 'child' soldiers scared into soldiering such as we have witnessed in, say Liberia. He was young, but he was not naive.
Anyways... I offered my perspective. I have heard others and while mildly disagreeing with them... I appreciate them. Thank you for the exchanges.
Since the legal system generally deals with people who haven't followed the law, I don't find your argument that by not following it he has given up the right to its protections to be compelling.
Of course you wouldn't.
The legal system is there as a safeguard for people. It wasn't developed to protect and reward criminals as much as you favour it doing so.
It's there to protect both sides, both the accused and the accuser. It's designed that way because otherwise it's useless as it simply pre-judges guilt, something that is unfortunately a common occurrence.
Disagree.
It is there to protect the innocent. And, once it has been established you are not innocent, the law should not be working for you anymore in my mind.
no, it is not there just to protect the innocent. it is to keep society fair and balanced as much as possible.
Yes it is.
All are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Until guilty is established, the law serves to protect the innocent (all)- absolutely critical and non-negotiable.
Where I think debate begins is how we compensate people who have been wronged and how we deal with people who have wronged.
you are only referring to half of the equation. the legal system is also designed to, as much you dislike this idea, protect those who are found guilty and imprisoned by it.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
And as for "Classic Canada" - if its classic to expect that our laws apply to everyone, then I'm in favour of it
Sure.
It is just a little ironic that people who refuse to follow our laws then seek them for protection and repatriation. And by saying this, I am not completely referring to this case.
Hugh... typically, when I think of child soldiers... I think of pre-teens in Africa wielding AK47s. While I agree that Khadr is kind of suitable for the category... I am not thinking for one second that he is a victim as much as the 'child' soldiers scared into soldiering such as we have witnessed in, say Liberia. He was young, but he was not naive.
Anyways... I offered my perspective. I have heard others and while mildly disagreeing with them... I appreciate them. Thank you for the exchanges.
Since the legal system generally deals with people who haven't followed the law, I don't find your argument that by not following it he has given up the right to its protections to be compelling.
Of course you wouldn't.
The legal system is there as a safeguard for people. It wasn't developed to protect and reward criminals as much as you favour it doing so.
It's there to protect both sides, both the accused and the accuser. It's designed that way because otherwise it's useless as it simply pre-judges guilt, something that is unfortunately a common occurrence.
Disagree.
It is there to protect the innocent. And, once it has been established you are not innocent, the law should not be working for you anymore in my mind.
no, it is not there just to protect the innocent. it is to keep society fair and balanced as much as possible.
Yes it is.
All are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Until guilty is established, the law serves to protect the innocent (all)- absolutely critical and non-negotiable.
Where I think debate begins is how we compensate people who have been wronged and how we deal with people who have wronged.
you are only referring to half of the equation. the legal system is also designed to, as much you dislike this idea, protect those who are found guilty and imprisoned by it.
And as for "Classic Canada" - if its classic to expect that our laws apply to everyone, then I'm in favour of it
Sure.
It is just a little ironic that people who refuse to follow our laws then seek them for protection and repatriation. And by saying this, I am not completely referring to this case.
Hugh... typically, when I think of child soldiers... I think of pre-teens in Africa wielding AK47s. While I agree that Khadr is kind of suitable for the category... I am not thinking for one second that he is a victim as much as the 'child' soldiers scared into soldiering such as we have witnessed in, say Liberia. He was young, but he was not naive.
Anyways... I offered my perspective. I have heard others and while mildly disagreeing with them... I appreciate them. Thank you for the exchanges.
Since the legal system generally deals with people who haven't followed the law, I don't find your argument that by not following it he has given up the right to its protections to be compelling.
Of course you wouldn't.
The legal system is there as a safeguard for people. It wasn't developed to protect and reward criminals as much as you favour it doing so.
It's there to protect both sides, both the accused and the accuser. It's designed that way because otherwise it's useless as it simply pre-judges guilt, something that is unfortunately a common occurrence.
Disagree.
It is there to protect the innocent. And, once it has been established you are not innocent, the law should not be working for you anymore in my mind.
no, it is not there just to protect the innocent. it is to keep society fair and balanced as much as possible.
Yes it is.
All are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Until guilty is established, the law serves to protect the innocent (all)- absolutely critical and non-negotiable.
Where I think debate begins is how we compensate people who have been wronged and how we deal with people who have wronged.
you are only referring to half of the equation. the legal system is also designed to, as much you dislike this idea, protect those who are found guilty and imprisoned by it.
This is a weird way of framing it.
You call it protect? I call it punish.
how is it weird? while in custody, the system is responsible for the safety and well-being of its inmates.
before that happens, the system is responsible for fair treatment of all involved (due process).
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
And as for "Classic Canada" - if its classic to expect that our laws apply to everyone, then I'm in favour of it
Sure.
It is just a little ironic that people who refuse to follow our laws then seek them for protection and repatriation. And by saying this, I am not completely referring to this case.
Hugh... typically, when I think of child soldiers... I think of pre-teens in Africa wielding AK47s. While I agree that Khadr is kind of suitable for the category... I am not thinking for one second that he is a victim as much as the 'child' soldiers scared into soldiering such as we have witnessed in, say Liberia. He was young, but he was not naive.
Anyways... I offered my perspective. I have heard others and while mildly disagreeing with them... I appreciate them. Thank you for the exchanges.
Since the legal system generally deals with people who haven't followed the law, I don't find your argument that by not following it he has given up the right to its protections to be compelling.
Of course you wouldn't.
The legal system is there as a safeguard for people. It wasn't developed to protect and reward criminals as much as you favour it doing so.
It's there to protect both sides, both the accused and the accuser. It's designed that way because otherwise it's useless as it simply pre-judges guilt, something that is unfortunately a common occurrence.
Disagree.
It is there to protect the innocent. And, once it has been established you are not innocent, the law should not be working for you anymore in my mind.
no, it is not there just to protect the innocent. it is to keep society fair and balanced as much as possible.
Yes it is.
All are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Until guilty is established, the law serves to protect the innocent (all)- absolutely critical and non-negotiable.
Where I think debate begins is how we compensate people who have been wronged and how we deal with people who have wronged.
you are only referring to half of the equation. the legal system is also designed to, as much you dislike this idea, protect those who are found guilty and imprisoned by it.
This is a weird way of framing it.
You call it protect? I call it punish.
how is it weird? while in custody, the system is responsible for the safety and well-being of its inmates.
before that happens, the system is responsible for fair treatment of all involved (due process).
I place that responsibility on the penal system.
The legal system might set terms on how the penal system should operate, but it is not (as you put it) 'designed to... protect those who are found guilty and imprisoned by it' (key term- designed).
With that said, the law sets terms on virtually all aspects of life.
"He's a bad guy so he doesn't deserve the protection of a fair legal system"
How did we find out he's a bad guy?
Because the legal system decided he was, while ignoring its own rules.
Kind of a vicious circle.
I didn't see this.
Where this got a little fuzzy for me was the interrogation methods. We can't employ torture and force confessions under any circumstances.
Yes, of course. That's my point. He confessed under circumstances that are known for producing false confessions, and to make matters worse was a minor at the time, and yet many choose to see his subsequent treatment as valid and thus decide he isn't worthy of fair due process. Anyone that isn't bothered by that isn't really invested in a just legal system.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
And am I the only one who finds it odd that a court (American court, so maybe that explains it) awarded the families of the soldiers killed and injured civil damages? They were active military and being engaged in conflict situations is expected. I would not have thought they could then sue for damages incurred during that service.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I still can't believe that Khadr was rewarded with $10.5 million dollars. Is his family not a major contributor to his misfortunes? I keep hearing that Canada owes Khadr an apology but what about his own family? This was a child raised by terrorists yet Canada owes him an apology and a huge payout. The Japanese Canadians who were stripped of their property and interned during WWII were treated far worse by our government. How many of those people received as individuals the kind of settlement that Khadr received? What about the individuals who were abused by our residential school system? What makes Khadr deserving of such a large sum of cash?
I still can't believe that Khadr was rewarded with $10.5 million dollars. Is his family not a major contributor to his misfortunes? I keep hearing that Canada owes Khadr an apology but what about his own family? This was a child raised by terrorists yet Canada owes him an apology and a huge payout. The Japanese Canadians who were stripped of their property and interned during WWII were treated far worse by our government. How many of those people received as individuals the kind of settlement that Khadr received? What about the individuals who were abused by our residential school system? What makes Khadr deserving of such a large sum of cash?
Because our government bent over backwards to let a Canadian kid get imprisoned and tortured. What his family does or thinks is irrelevant.
I still can't believe that Khadr was rewarded with $10.5 million dollars. Is his family not a major contributor to his misfortunes? I keep hearing that Canada owes Khadr an apology but what about his own family? This was a child raised by terrorists yet Canada owes him an apology and a huge payout. The Japanese Canadians who were stripped of their property and interned during WWII were treated far worse by our government. How many of those people received as individuals the kind of settlement that Khadr received? What about the individuals who were abused by our residential school system? What makes Khadr deserving of such a large sum of cash?
Because our government bent over backwards to let a Canadian kid get imprisoned and tortured. What his family does or thinks is irrelevant.
Again, what makes Khadr so deserving of such an enormous payout? The thousands of Japanese Canadians interned during WWII did nothing to warrant their detainment and were treated far worse by our government. A comparable payment to them would be in the hundreds of billions. Moreover, if we want to speak to Canada's mistreatment of Canadians wouldn't comparable reparations to our First Nations peoples then work out in the Trillions? When do these people get their enormous piles of cash?
I agree that the treatment of many First Nations in the residential school system needs a more robust redress than the system of payments that currently exists. I guess one of the problems is that we have information on that system and none on how the amount of the payment to Khadr was decided, and we likely won't, due to the conditions of the payment.
One argument, of course, is that what the government and other institutions did to our First Nations people and to Japanese Canadians was horrible but not illegal at the time. What was done to Khadr was illegal at the time it was done and was done in defiance of that fact.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I agree that the treatment of many First Nations in the residential school system needs a more robust redress than the system of payments that currently exists. I guess one of the problems is that we have information on that system and none on how the amount of the payment to Khadr was decided, and we likely won't, due to the conditions of the payment.
One argument, of course, is that what the government and other institutions did to our First Nations people and to Japanese Canadians was horrible but not illegal at the time. What was done to Khadr was illegal at the time it was done and was done in defiance of that fact.
Let us not forget the fact that it was also done in response to him blowing up and killing soldiers who are our allies. He was actively soldiering against us in a conflict zone.
I'm not down with the techniques employed to get him to admit to what everybody already knew, but he denounced his citizenship when he took arms against us.
At face value, it seems preposterous to award a militant responsible for killing allied soldiers 10 million dollars.
With the aforementioned said, I'm not sure what choice he had in the situation.
Personally, I agree that Canada was complicit in violating his rights, as the court has twice found, and thus he has ground for compensation. I am a strong believer that the legal system needs to operate absolutely cleanly and transparently at all times, given the enormous power it has. Similarly, that's why I also don't complain when accused individuals "get off on a technicality" because police or lawyers have broken the law in the course of prosecution - if your job is to uphold the law, then you'd damn well better be following the law to get there.
I totally agree. And honestly, I think that the vast majority of people who are upset about this just don't really know wtf they're talking about. They just read the headlines and got mad. What's really stupid is that so many of them blame the whole thing on the Trudeau government, when it's the Harper government they should be pissed at - they are the ones who fucked it all up and necessitated the settlement. To be angry with the current government in this case shows a pathetic lack of understanding about - or perhaps a pathetic lack of appreciation for - our laws and protections as citizens.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Again, what makes Khadr so deserving of such an enormous payout? The thousands of Japanese Canadians interned during WWII did nothing to warrant their detainment and were treated far worse by our government. A comparable payment to them would be in the hundreds of billions. Moreover, if we want to speak to Canada's mistreatment of Canadians wouldn't comparable reparations to our First Nations peoples then work out in the Trillions? When do these people get their enormous piles of cash?
his unlawful detention and torture.
when they file a class action lawsuit. unfortunately, it is so far reaching, and so long ago, it would likely, and unfortunately, go nowhere.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
And the interior is burning up. The situation is getting serious. I'm hoping for rain with no rain in sight.
Terrible. I can't believe how fast it all started happening this time. I have been saying for at least a few years now that BC is doomed because pretty much the whole province will simply burn down, and we'll be fucked ... seems like a really obvious conclusion at this point. I sure am glad I live on the coast. That's the only safe region now.... for the time being, anyway.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Of course, this case isn't really about just consenting adults partaking in polygamy. If it were, this guy probably never would have been tried. It's about this being the only avenue they could take to make charges stick to a guy who partakes in the brainwashing and oppression of children/girls, and who has been linked to more sinister actions involving underaged girls.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Rolling Stone Magazine just unveiled their newest cover shot today. Thought my neighbors to the north would get a smile from it: Also, a flattering article about him:
I know some Canadians don't like all the media attention he gets, and they blame it on him instead of the media. I guess they expect him to turn down these kinds of things. But I think that's dumb. His positive media exposure is proving beneficial to Canada IMO, and he knows it. That is okay with me. Also, while I don't like everything he does, I like some of what he's done. I also like that he is my age instead of some old dude stuck in the past. I personally appreciate his progressive outlook and positive attitude. Plus he seems to actually have some fairly good ideas when it comes to diplomatic issues, especially when it comes to handling Trump. And he's not destroying the country, muzzling scientists, or restricting freedoms. That's pretty good for a political leader, lol.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I know some Canadians don't like all the media attention he gets, and they blame it on him instead of the media. I guess they expect him to turn down these kinds of things. But I think that's dumb. His positive media exposure is proving beneficial to Canada IMO, and he knows it. That is okay with me. Also, while I don't like everything he does, I like some of what he's done. I also like that he is my age instead of some old dude stuck in the past. I personally appreciate his progressive outlook and positive attitude. Plus he seems to actually have some fairly good ideas when it comes to diplomatic issues, especially when it comes to handling Trump. And he's not destroying the country, muzzling scientists, or restricting freedoms. That's pretty good for a political leader, lol.
I'd trade you leaders in a heartbeat! Every politician is going to have some disagreeable traits or policy positions or history, but Trudeau seems like a squeaky clean Boy Scout compared to Trump. Trudeau and Obama were a pretty good match and looked like they got along really well not just diplomatically, but personally. I don't think anyone gets along with Trump except Putin.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Rolling Stone Magazine just unveiled their newest cover shot today. Thought my neighbors to the north would get a smile from it: Also, a flattering article about him:
Rolling Stone Magazine just unveiled their newest cover shot today. Thought my neighbors to the north would get a smile from it: Also, a flattering article about him:
Comments
All are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Until guilty is established, the law serves to protect the innocent (all)- absolutely critical and non-negotiable.
Where I think debate begins is how we compensate people who have been wronged and how we deal with people who have wronged.
-EV 8/14/93
Where this got a little fuzzy for me was the interrogation methods. We can't employ torture and force confessions under any circumstances.
You call it protect? I call it punish.
before that happens, the system is responsible for fair treatment of all involved (due process).
-EV 8/14/93
The legal system might set terms on how the penal system should operate, but it is not (as you put it) 'designed to... protect those who are found guilty and imprisoned by it' (key term- designed).
With that said, the law sets terms on virtually all aspects of life.
-EV 8/14/93
One argument, of course, is that what the government and other institutions did to our First Nations people and to Japanese Canadians was horrible but not illegal at the time. What was done to Khadr was illegal at the time it was done and was done in defiance of that fact.
edit - https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/trudeau-enjoys-warm-reception-including-from-trump-at-g20-in-hamburg/article35623480/
I'm not down with the techniques employed to get him to admit to what everybody already knew, but he denounced his citizenship when he took arms against us.
At face value, it seems preposterous to award a militant responsible for killing allied soldiers 10 million dollars.
With the aforementioned said, I'm not sure what choice he had in the situation.
when they file a class action lawsuit. unfortunately, it is so far reaching, and so long ago, it would likely, and unfortunately, go nowhere.
-EV 8/14/93
Of course, this case isn't really about just consenting adults partaking in polygamy. If it were, this guy probably never would have been tried. It's about this being the only avenue they could take to make charges stick to a guy who partakes in the brainwashing and oppression of children/girls, and who has been linked to more sinister actions involving underaged girls.
Also, a flattering article about him:
Justin Trudeau: The North Star
I know some Canadians don't like all the media attention he gets, and they blame it on him instead of the media. I guess they expect him to turn down these kinds of things. But I think that's dumb. His positive media exposure is proving beneficial to Canada IMO, and he knows it. That is okay with me. Also, while I don't like everything he does, I like some of what he's done. I also like that he is my age instead of some old dude stuck in the past. I personally appreciate his progressive outlook and positive attitude. Plus he seems to actually have some fairly good ideas when it comes to diplomatic issues, especially when it comes to handling Trump. And he's not destroying the country, muzzling scientists, or restricting freedoms. That's pretty good for a political leader, lol.
I just threw up a little in my mouth, lol.
10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022