Defying Reason
Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert Maranger - after a five-day bail hearing for Hassan Diab, a Palestinian-Canadian held for extradition to France to stand trial on charges of murder, attempted murder and destruction of property - has decreed after due deliberation that the man be set free on bail. "In Canada, a citizen has the right to reasonable bail", Justice Manager claimed, citing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
"It applies with equal force to all Canadians, regardless of their country of origin." As a principle, it sounds very egalitarian, extremely fair, most laudable. However, doesn't justice hold to account one who has been accused of murdering four people, with intent to destroy the lives of even greater numbers? And haven't we an obligation with respect to international treaties to ensure that such an accused does not flee beyond justice?
This is no simple, ordinary charge of malfeasance, this represents a charge of murder through malice aforethought. And doesn't the honourable personage of the justice double-speak himself in claiming "In my view the risk of flight ... is a real concern in this matter", nonetheless taking that risk. "He is not a person who has specific long-term roots or family ties in this country.
"The concern here, to put it bluntly, is that if Mr. Diab were to somehow make his way back to Lebanon ... he could forever avoid extradition." Precisely, yet Justice Maranger, while recognizing that very real possibility of flight, has determined regardless that Hassan Diab's rights under the Charter will not be fully recognized and respected if he were to be kept under lock and key.
Offering instead, as his bail conditions, another kind of lock and key, that the judge considers "almost a virtual house arrest". For crimes as serious as those is 'almost' good enough? He may leave the home he will share with his common-law partner for work, legal or medical appointments, accompanied by one of five individuals who put up the $250,000 bail.
It will, truth to tell, be rather inconvenient for Mr. Diab as he will be required to wear an electronic monitoring bracelet, not apply for passport or travel documents, report weekly to the RCMP, not own a cellphone, remain in the area, and obey a curfew. But if those conditions are so onerous yet still leave risk, why not remain incarcerated, for safe keeping, after all?
Mr. Diab, for all the kind testimonials attesting to his good character, has spent twelve years living in six countries with a number of marriages, divorces and additional alliances, trailing after his past two decades of stop-and-start residence. He has held Canadian citizenship for sixteen years, which hasn't halted his peripatetic ambles. Why wouldn't it be assumed that he may exert himself to depart this country?
Making his way to any number of other countries with which he is familiar, and where he would most certainly find accommodating refuge. Does Justice Maranger quite apprehend the illogicality of his decision, given his rambling acknowledgement of flight risk?
"It applies with equal force to all Canadians, regardless of their country of origin." As a principle, it sounds very egalitarian, extremely fair, most laudable. However, doesn't justice hold to account one who has been accused of murdering four people, with intent to destroy the lives of even greater numbers? And haven't we an obligation with respect to international treaties to ensure that such an accused does not flee beyond justice?
This is no simple, ordinary charge of malfeasance, this represents a charge of murder through malice aforethought. And doesn't the honourable personage of the justice double-speak himself in claiming "In my view the risk of flight ... is a real concern in this matter", nonetheless taking that risk. "He is not a person who has specific long-term roots or family ties in this country.
"The concern here, to put it bluntly, is that if Mr. Diab were to somehow make his way back to Lebanon ... he could forever avoid extradition." Precisely, yet Justice Maranger, while recognizing that very real possibility of flight, has determined regardless that Hassan Diab's rights under the Charter will not be fully recognized and respected if he were to be kept under lock and key.
Offering instead, as his bail conditions, another kind of lock and key, that the judge considers "almost a virtual house arrest". For crimes as serious as those is 'almost' good enough? He may leave the home he will share with his common-law partner for work, legal or medical appointments, accompanied by one of five individuals who put up the $250,000 bail.
It will, truth to tell, be rather inconvenient for Mr. Diab as he will be required to wear an electronic monitoring bracelet, not apply for passport or travel documents, report weekly to the RCMP, not own a cellphone, remain in the area, and obey a curfew. But if those conditions are so onerous yet still leave risk, why not remain incarcerated, for safe keeping, after all?
Mr. Diab, for all the kind testimonials attesting to his good character, has spent twelve years living in six countries with a number of marriages, divorces and additional alliances, trailing after his past two decades of stop-and-start residence. He has held Canadian citizenship for sixteen years, which hasn't halted his peripatetic ambles. Why wouldn't it be assumed that he may exert himself to depart this country?
Making his way to any number of other countries with which he is familiar, and where he would most certainly find accommodating refuge. Does Justice Maranger quite apprehend the illogicality of his decision, given his rambling acknowledgement of flight risk?
Labels: Canada, Human Fallibility, Justice, Security
posted by Pieface | 5:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home