There Are Mad Things Done
Under the midnight sun, and also "under the cover of darkness". Which is one lawyer's way of claiming that Canada is in the business of subverting justice. Of engaging in underhanded, subversive activities that claim helpless victims. In this country, which prides itself on its even-handed justice system, on its liberal democratic values and freedoms, there exists a dark and evil underbelly that citizens would never believe exists.
That situation exists purportedly because Canada, like all other democracies in the international community of nations with shared values, priorities and views of justice, has extradition agreements with other countries. That would be, for example, most countries in the European Union, and of course, our great neighbour to our south, the United States.
Because, during a time of crisis, post 9-11, some errors in judgement appear to have been made (not only on the part of both governments, but also on the part of the principal involved), principally in the rendition by the United States of a Canadian-Syrian citizen, Maher Arar, the lawyer for Hassan Diab, a Lebanese-Canadian, feels justified in slandering the justice system of both France and Canada.
Famously, criminal lawyers will stoop to any device available to them, in defence of their clients. The government of France, through its criminal justice system, feels it has more than adequate evidence to pursue a case against Hassan Diab, to have requested his extradition from Canada to face charges of an act of Palestinian terrorism conducted in that country in 1980.
Had that information been available to the Government of Canada, Mr. Diab would never have been admitted to Canada, and he would never have received citizenship. Should he be found guilty, if he stands trial in France for his alleged crimes, his Canadian citizenship would certainly be revoked. In the meantime, France awaits Canada's final decision on the extradition request.
Four people were murdered outside a Paris synagogue in October 1980, by a terrorist bomb attack. Crown layers claim the evidence they are prepared to present to Superior Court Justice Robert Maranger is in clear, legal conformation with Canadian legal standards, and validates France's request for extradition.
Mr. Diab's lawyer claims that France has no reliable evidence that would implicate his client in the bombing-murder. And that to entertain thoughts of rendering Mr. Diab to France to stand trial would represent a travesty of justice, counter to the "Canadian community's sense of fair play and decency". Now that's a stretch.
If Mr. Diab is indeed innocent of all charges being brought against him as he and his lawyer claim, then he should have no fears about returning to France to stand trial. If the legal justice system in France cannot be regarded as fair and just, where then does a fair and just system exist? If he is innocent, he has nothing to fear.
His desperate battle to avoid extradition and his lawyer's lapse in scruples all point to guilty as charged. A fair and just trial would clear things up acceptably.
That situation exists purportedly because Canada, like all other democracies in the international community of nations with shared values, priorities and views of justice, has extradition agreements with other countries. That would be, for example, most countries in the European Union, and of course, our great neighbour to our south, the United States.
Because, during a time of crisis, post 9-11, some errors in judgement appear to have been made (not only on the part of both governments, but also on the part of the principal involved), principally in the rendition by the United States of a Canadian-Syrian citizen, Maher Arar, the lawyer for Hassan Diab, a Lebanese-Canadian, feels justified in slandering the justice system of both France and Canada.
Famously, criminal lawyers will stoop to any device available to them, in defence of their clients. The government of France, through its criminal justice system, feels it has more than adequate evidence to pursue a case against Hassan Diab, to have requested his extradition from Canada to face charges of an act of Palestinian terrorism conducted in that country in 1980.
Had that information been available to the Government of Canada, Mr. Diab would never have been admitted to Canada, and he would never have received citizenship. Should he be found guilty, if he stands trial in France for his alleged crimes, his Canadian citizenship would certainly be revoked. In the meantime, France awaits Canada's final decision on the extradition request.
Four people were murdered outside a Paris synagogue in October 1980, by a terrorist bomb attack. Crown layers claim the evidence they are prepared to present to Superior Court Justice Robert Maranger is in clear, legal conformation with Canadian legal standards, and validates France's request for extradition.
Mr. Diab's lawyer claims that France has no reliable evidence that would implicate his client in the bombing-murder. And that to entertain thoughts of rendering Mr. Diab to France to stand trial would represent a travesty of justice, counter to the "Canadian community's sense of fair play and decency". Now that's a stretch.
If Mr. Diab is indeed innocent of all charges being brought against him as he and his lawyer claim, then he should have no fears about returning to France to stand trial. If the legal justice system in France cannot be regarded as fair and just, where then does a fair and just system exist? If he is innocent, he has nothing to fear.
His desperate battle to avoid extradition and his lawyer's lapse in scruples all point to guilty as charged. A fair and just trial would clear things up acceptably.
Labels: Canada, Inconvenient Politics, Justice, Terrorism, Traditions
posted by Pieface | 6:12 PM
2 Comments:
Why don't you take a look at all the underhanded ways in which France has played with their "evidence" before ASSUMING this is a fair process. I notice that all the doubters are all too content to glide over and ignore the evidentiary issues in the case - as if evidence does not matter. Instead, you are happy to put your trust in the authorities, who, as we all know, never get anything wrong. The juge d'instruction looks to me like a zealot eager to rewrite his case anyway he likes to get a conviction. Miscarriages of justice are not as rare in First World legal systems as you seem to think.
I see everything right with "assuming" that a country like France is well aware and dedicated to practising justice in all its forms. However tardily, finding the involved parties in an abhorrent act of terrorism and imposing an adequate sentence if found guilty, reflecting justice done. Who are you to judge otherwise?
Post a Comment
<< Home