Canadian Politics Redux

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

oftenreading said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

oftenreading said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

oftenreading said:

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

oftenreading said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

oftenreading said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

oftenreading said:

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. 

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

oftenreading said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

oftenreading said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

oftenreading said:

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.

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

oftenreading said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

oftenreading said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

oftenreading said:

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. 

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

oftenreading said:

"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. 

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 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. 

oftenreading said:

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

And the interior is burning up. The situation is getting serious. I'm hoping for rain with no rain in sight.

Same here. It's been in the mid 30's to high 30's here in Southern Alberta all week and supposedly all next week. Fucking hot.