Exclusive: Diab Speaks
Well, the Ottawa Citizen certainly dedicated a lot of first-page, upper-fold space on the issue of Hassan Diab, a Palestinian-Canadian by way of Lebanon, being extradited to France on request to stand trial on charges of having been involved in a terrorist-inspired bombing of a synagogue on rue Copernicus thirty years earlier.
Mr. Diab insists he is innocent of all charges that France has brought against him. He had nothing whatever to do with the explosion of a bomb that killed innocent people. And of course no one has the right to insist that this is not true, that he was involved and that the charges brought against him are warranted.
His lawyer insists that he is innocent. As do his defenders, and he has many who defend him. Which may be comforting for Mr. Diab, and perhaps deservedly so, but does this serve justice? Justice is certainly never served when an innocent individual is charged with a crime not committed by them.
And this is precisely why we have judges and juries and western jurisprudence that seeks to ensure that justice will be done and will be seen to be done. The issue is the charge, and the trial to take place. Mr. Diab, his supporters and his lawyer claim by default that French justice is not to be trusted, that the state prosecutor is more concerned with his own reputation than with truth.
This is their defence. On the other hand, if someone insists on their innocence, this is what a trial will prove or disprove. Why fight so passionately to avoid a trial that may prove his innocence? Mr. Diab's lawyer's disputation of the reliability of handwriting experts has found much support. It appears to be a weak point in French evidence.
The article published today makes much of little. That the RCMP recommended a lie detector test, and Mr. Diab refused, twice. While countering that recommendation with one of his lawyer's devising, that they choose a "mutually agreeable" polygraph examiner, which the RCMP turned down. Since such tests have no real legal status, it's not much of an issue to bring forward.
Nor is the fact that Mr. Diab was followed for a prolonged period of time by undercover RCMP officers. Nor the fact that while living in Canada Mr. Diab has conducted himself in a perfectly legal manner. His argument that the extradition system between France and Canada is "irrational, unreasonable, illogical", and that "something" should be done "to change it", may have merit.
In that France does not respond to any requests from any other country to extradite its citizens. It is that inconsistency in logic and entitlement that the Government of Canada may wish to assess. But it really does not have much to do with Mr. Diab's current situation. Which can be resolved when he eventually appears before a French court to disprove the charges against him.
Mr. Diab insists he is innocent of all charges that France has brought against him. He had nothing whatever to do with the explosion of a bomb that killed innocent people. And of course no one has the right to insist that this is not true, that he was involved and that the charges brought against him are warranted.
His lawyer insists that he is innocent. As do his defenders, and he has many who defend him. Which may be comforting for Mr. Diab, and perhaps deservedly so, but does this serve justice? Justice is certainly never served when an innocent individual is charged with a crime not committed by them.
And this is precisely why we have judges and juries and western jurisprudence that seeks to ensure that justice will be done and will be seen to be done. The issue is the charge, and the trial to take place. Mr. Diab, his supporters and his lawyer claim by default that French justice is not to be trusted, that the state prosecutor is more concerned with his own reputation than with truth.
This is their defence. On the other hand, if someone insists on their innocence, this is what a trial will prove or disprove. Why fight so passionately to avoid a trial that may prove his innocence? Mr. Diab's lawyer's disputation of the reliability of handwriting experts has found much support. It appears to be a weak point in French evidence.
The article published today makes much of little. That the RCMP recommended a lie detector test, and Mr. Diab refused, twice. While countering that recommendation with one of his lawyer's devising, that they choose a "mutually agreeable" polygraph examiner, which the RCMP turned down. Since such tests have no real legal status, it's not much of an issue to bring forward.
Nor is the fact that Mr. Diab was followed for a prolonged period of time by undercover RCMP officers. Nor the fact that while living in Canada Mr. Diab has conducted himself in a perfectly legal manner. His argument that the extradition system between France and Canada is "irrational, unreasonable, illogical", and that "something" should be done "to change it", may have merit.
In that France does not respond to any requests from any other country to extradite its citizens. It is that inconsistency in logic and entitlement that the Government of Canada may wish to assess. But it really does not have much to do with Mr. Diab's current situation. Which can be resolved when he eventually appears before a French court to disprove the charges against him.
Labels: Canada, Crisis Politics, Human Rights
posted by Pieface | 2:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home