Prizes for Murderers

It’s just been announced that Mr Short-Pants, Canada’s pantomime Prime Minister, will be apologizing to Islamic terrorist Omar Khadr, a former Gitmo resident who murdered an American medic, and awarding him in excess of $10 million.

Ah! The caring! The sensitivity! The inclusivity!

Apparently, the fatuous Supreme Court of Bozos in Ottawa found that…

Canadian officials through assisting the United States’ interrogation of Khadr had violated “the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects.” These officials, the court ruled, violated Khadr’s rights as listed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
(h/t…Daily Caller)

Umm, no mention of the rights of the murdered victim. Perhaps, in the interests of vibrant multiculturalism, Mr Short-Pants should propose the Order of Canada for Osama bin Laden and his Merry Men, al-Quaeda.

Ain’t Diversity great?

Rebel Yell

Bookmark and Share
Frances Auger

I can hardly wait for the Liberal wannabe MP candidate to come to my door next election – I have a list and it is getting longer every day. Khadr, pipelines, Alberta, CO2tx, transfer payments, veterans, FNP, income splitting, Bono (really frosts me that he paid a pompous Irish band to play on Canada Day), China, fundraising, CBC, Caribbean vacations and so on. This list is going to marinate and become a nasty, mouldering pile of excrement.

Gabby in QC

Justin Trudeau is not the only one responsible for what some believe was/is a miscarriage of justice. The courts, from the lowest to the Supreme Court, constitutional “experts”, the media, Senator Romeo Dallaire among others, all contributed to lulling the Canadian public into believing the “child soldier” scenario. But …
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 38, (1989) proclaimed:
“State parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of 15 years do not take a direct part in hostilities.” However, children who are over the age of 15 but still remain under the age of 18 are still voluntarily able to take part in combat as soldiers.
The Optional protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict to the Convention that came into force in 2002 stipulates that its State Parties “shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons below the age of 18 do not take a direct part in hostilities and that they are not compulsorily recruited into their armed forces”. … (Art 6(3) Optional Protocol)
Under Article 8.2.26 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), adopted in July 1998 and entered into force 1 July 2002;
“Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities is a war crime.”
Omar Khadr was 2 months shy of his 16th birthday (born September 19, 1986, apprehended on July 27, 2002)
• Omar Khadr was accused of committing a crime against a foreign national, NOT a Canadian.
• The alleged crime was committed on foreign soil, NOT in Canada.
• Khadr was apprehended by foreign forces, NOT Canadian forces
• He was fighting for a foreign force, NOT for Canada
, thus his Charter rights were not breached, as was determined by the SC. Yet the same SC determined that
“Canadians accused of crimes abroad are not protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when they’re being investigated by Canadian or foreign police, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Thursday.
“When individuals choose to engage in criminal activities that cross Canada’s territorial limits, they can have no guarantee that they carry charter rights with them out of the country,” wrote Justice Louis LeBel.
“… investigated by Canadian or foreign police …” surely includes the US military?
“Canadian law, including the Charter , cannot be enforced in another state’s territory without the other state’s consent.”
• Khadr was assigned a foreign (US) lawyer to defend him, as well as Canadian lawyers, to plead on his behalf.
• On June 12, 2008 the United States Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that the Guantanamo captives were entitled to the protection of the United States Constitution. Thus, Khadr’s rights were more than amply protected.

I suppose it is pointless to rehash the case but it just goes to show how easily public opinion — including that of all those “experts” — can be manipulated into acquiescence.

jan scheit

Not pointless at all. Much of what you say I suspected but have never had the time or patience to do my own research. Thanks very much.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *