Jump to content

Toss the Khadr's !


Winnipeg Fury

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply
quote:Originally posted by Massive Attack

Did you ever hear about that Governor from California?

That's my point! Most of the people who vote and sign petitions are totally uninformed!

PS... I live in New York City (not really part of America) so any bashing of the U.S.A. is gonna bounce right-off me. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Massive Attack

Did you ever hear about that Governor from California?

That's my point! Most of the people who vote and sign petitions are totally uninformed!

PS... I live in New York City (not really part of America) so any bashing of the U.S.A. is gonna bounce right-off me. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've followed this story, I am reminded of a political studies class I took many moons ago and a discussion of Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America. de Tocqueville worried that the "tyranny of the majority" would act to inhibit the rights and freedoms of the minority. Thus the freedom of speech, of belief, of association would be acceptable only so long as it met the approval of the majority.

The Khadr's belief's - at least those of the Khadr's in question - are repulsive (as are those of one George W Bush truth be told. Can we strip citizenship from people who support his views as well?). Thus far, they are only belief's. They have committed no crime beyond holding a set of belief's and values that run contrary to those of the overwhelmingly vast majority of Canadians. The husband and some of the son's have commited crimes, but it is not them that are targeted. Individuals who commit crimes, real crimes, are subject to punishment. Individuals who say the Hells Angels are just a bunch of fun loving boys; that Al Quaida is noble and just; or that ethnic purity is desireable are simply misguided or morons. That is not a crime. And we do not convict people on what they might do in this country: we tried that with Japanese Canadians to our shame. As far as anyone can show, the Khadr's that are the subject of this petition have commited no crime, no terrorist act, no act that could be considered treason. Therfore, this is a petion to strip these people of their citizenship simply because we do not agree with them: A very dangerous step to take.

These Khadr's are way out on the finge. But a truely free democratic society is always going to have people on the fringe. Its a sign of the strength of a society, not a weakness. Our tolerance of this as Canadians (and I know it can be hard) is what makes this nation one of the best - perhaps the best - in the world. It is too Paul Martin's credit that he understands this. While it may frost us that these people are canadians of convenience, they are nevertheless candian. And that entitles them to certain rights and privileges, even if they place no value on - and indeed would be happy to strip the rest of us of many of - those rights and privileges. The bigger picture is imporant here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I agree with Gordon in a lot of ways here, I think a dissenting voice needs to be heard in these matters too.

It is not the Khadr's beliefs that are in question here; it is their record, as a family, of involvement in criminal associations. "Innocent until proven guilty" is often the phrase bandied about in such matters; but the word "presumed" is almost as often forgotten. The issue ends up centring on the fact that members of this family have lied, lied, and lied again; at what point is our presumption of innocence stretched to the point of breaking? Our notions of justice are there to serve us -- we do not exist to serve them.

In the end, we as Canadians do not owe others any more than we can afford, and I would much rather have a family of Koreans, Rwandans, Senegalese, or Pakistanis benefit from our bounty than this family of liars.

And -- check your books if you must -- I believe you'll find that it was J. S. Mill in On Liberty who first came up with the 'tyrrany of the majority'. What it means, I think, is that the nation's constitution is to be taken above the demands of the rabble, whether the rabble be a mob demand, a referendum result, or a House of Commons vote. And with the state of things, thanks very much but I'll take the constitution for $1000, Alex. For better or for worse.

Allez les Rouges,

M@

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Blue and White Army

This is the internet. Everyone has to enter an email address.

It's actual easier to verify electronic petition entries than "real" petition entries....

Well, it's not hard to fake e-mail addresses.

Regardless, this campaign would be much more effective if the 10,000+ people who "signed" this petition were to write real letters to their MPs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a very big constitutional question about stripping people of citizenship. This has been done in the past usually only if people have lied to get citizenship. To strip people of citizenship because we don't agree with their views is very dangerous. If someone like George Bush, say Stephan Harper, ever got elected as prime minister and this precendent was set I might start to fear myself not being born in Canada but having lived here mostly since the age of two. As Canadians there are still many possibilities if they are breaking the law. She could lose custody of her child who has probably been brainwashed and could be charged for participating in terrorist activities. I have seen the interview and it pisses me off as much as any of you. I just think there are better and less dangerous remedies than stripping them of their citizenship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I , will win no friends with this post.

But here goes , I find this thread offensive . As a nation of mostly immigrants , we have a long history of sending moneys and support back to the old country ,to support what we would call to-day terrorists groups.

I , will speak only of my ancestory , so not to offend others .

As a first generation Canadian , I remember, as a child , collections made for "The Orange Cause " sometimes supported by local churches.

With the " troubles " in Ulster, could not advocating support for either side be construed as supporting terrorism .

Who stands in judgement , to decide self determination , nationalism , loyalty or terrorism.

Or do we leave these things to whatever is the popular view of the day?

This , may not be along the same vein as the case described on this thread. But please be very careful in who you label as a terrorist or one who supports terrorism.

We , have not at this moment , hired thought police , and thinking or advocating policies in our countries of origin ( if you like ) is not a crime . An action is what would have to happen . Are we to send whole families to prison for the crimes of some members .

I thought , to use an American example . The HOUSE UN-AMERICAN COMMITTEE , was disolved.

The parallel , of the 50's witch-hunt , for suspected communists and this decades search for suspected terrorists is uncanny .

Please be very carefull , who is to judge , what makes you or me a real Canadian .

That , is my view , I now will leave this subject alone.

In our open society , feel free to disagree .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The message is being heard:

Liberal MP calls for charges against Khadrs

TORONTO - An MP from Scarborough, Ont. is calling for the justice minister to charge the Khadr family under Canada's new anti-terrorism laws.

* INDEPTH: Canadian security

John Cannis, the Liberal MP for Scarborough Centre, says the family has admitted they supported al-Qaeda and that should be enough.

But Abdurahman Khadr says Canadians should stop trying to have his family kicked out of the country because of his mother's support for al-Qaeda values and his dead father's connections to terrorism.

Abdurahman Khadr"Me and my brother Abdullah, we are the only two people who went to training camps and we didn't do anything… I'm sure [Canadian] intelligence knew we'd been [to the training camps] when we came to Canada… We have never thought of harming Canada, especially me."

But passerby Tim Dunham recognized Khadr. "I recognize that man. He's a terrorist. I mean soldiers are being killed, Americans, Canadians, and we allow this family back into the country [to] enjoy the fruits of this country.

"I mean they haven't blown up the CN tower yet in Canada, well that's great. I mean I believe a decade ago we had the patriarch of this family in prison and he was lobbied for on behalf of [former] prime minister [Jean Chrétien] I mean what's going on. Get them out."

Cannis, who represents the riding where the Khadrs live, feels the same. He wants Justice Minister Irwin Cotler to bring charges against members of the family. He says Bill C-36, Canada's new anti-terrorism laws, allow for such charges.

"If a person commits auto theft there are provisions to be charged. Why did we bring in Bill C-36 [if not] to provide the means to safeguard our society."

Cannis' views directly conflict with what Prime Minister Paul Martin said on Thursday.

Martin said the fact that Canada is once again home to the Khadr family is not a signal that Ottawa is soft on terrorism.

Maha Elsamnah Khadr and her son Karim are Canadian citizens who have been living in Pakistan. Elsamnah told CBC television a few weeks ago her family was befriended by Osama bin Laden. The Khadrs returned to Canada last week. Karim is in need of medical care.

Martin said the Khadrs are Canadian and have a right to their own opinions. He says it is Ottawa's responsibility to protect Canadians and it will do whatever is required.

Legal experts also say charges are unlikely.

Wesley Wark, a history professor at the University of Toronto with an expertise in international relations, says it would be difficult to prove the family helped al-Qaeda.

"I think the government wants to reserve the use of this legislation for the most serious cases and I think they'd have a difficult job putting together a criminal case against the family."

He says it's unlikely Khadr's mother will ever be charged and even more unlikely the government would go after any of the children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is one thing to charge someone, something quite different to strip them of their citizenship without trial.

This is Canada, and we thankfully do not have a "Guantanamo Bay" equivalent.

I find this thread, and your petition, biggotted. Let the justice system deal with this family, not the lynch mob.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Gordon

As I've followed this story, I am reminded of a political studies class I took many moons ago and a discussion of Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America. de Tocqueville worried that the "tyranny of the majority" would act to inhibit the rights and freedoms of the minority. Thus the freedom of speech, of belief, of association would be acceptable only so long as it met the approval of the majority.

The Khadr's belief's - at least those of the Khadr's in question - are repulsive (as are those of one George W Bush truth be told. Can we strip citizenship from people who support his views as well?). Thus far, they are only belief's. They have committed no crime beyond holding a set of belief's and values that run contrary to those of the overwhelmingly vast majority of Canadians. The husband and some of the son's have commited crimes, but it is not them that are targeted. Individuals who commit crimes, real crimes, are subject to punishment. Individuals who say the Hells Angels are just a bunch of fun loving boys; that Al Quaida is noble and just; or that ethnic purity is desireable are simply misguided or morons. That is not a crime. And we do not convict people on what they might do in this country: we tried that with Japanese Canadians to our shame. As far as anyone can show, the Khadr's that are the subject of this petition have commited no crime, no terrorist act, no act that could be considered treason. Therfore, this is a petion to strip these people of their citizenship simply because we do not agree with them: A very dangerous step to take.

These Khadr's are way out on the fringe. But a truely free democratic society is always going to have people on the fringe. Its a sign of the strength of a society, not a weakness. Our tolerance of this as Canadians (and I know it can be hard) is what makes this nation one of the best - perhaps the best - in the world. It is too Paul Martin's credit that he understands this. While it may frost us that these people are canadians of convenience, they are nevertheless candian. And that entitles them to certain rights and privileges, even if they place no value on - and indeed would be happy to strip the rest of us of many of - those rights and privileges. The bigger picture is imporant here.

This a very, very good point. They have committed no crime in Canada and cannot be stripped of citizenship simply for their opinions. Once someone has the passport, they have the same rights has everyone else and public opinion be damned. Further points in this thread about fund raising for politically unpopular groups is also well taken. One person's rebel is another's freedom fighter - and we are far too much of a multicultural society here in Canada to look at these issues in the black and white of broadsheet headlines.

<<<Hear me out, folks.>>>

However...

Karim Kadhr(the reason for the return to Canada) was injured during a battle with Pakistani military forces within the borders of the Pakistan. There was a semi-autonomous, terrorist/tribal network living and operating within Pakistan. Whether is was al-Qaeda or not is irrelevant (it was, anyway). The legitimate government of Pakistan took offence and mounted offensives in the region. People were killed, including Karim's father and numerous Pakistani soldiers.

People should not be offended when his family says that Ahmed Said Khadr died a martyr. So he did, says I. People should not get all hot and bother about al-Qaeda connections which may be impossible to justify (although true).

The Government of Pakistan sought to remove autonomous military organizations from its territory. How would you like it if a band of independent militants set up shop in the Gaspe and stopped paying taxes, declared the quasi-free state of Gaspesia and started collecting hordes of money for other Gaspesian abroad to buy anti-personnel mines?

Porbably not so friendly.

This is life in the tribal regions of Central Asia. It's war. This kid was injured during a battle against the Pakistani military, in Pakistan, against Pakistan. That makes him a mercenary, a rebel or a terrorist...I'm not sure which. He did not hijack any planes, he did not blow up Israeli border posts and he did not put explosives in his shoes. His family was/is members of a militant group operating outside Pakistani law, and the kid has been caught up in it. But, it's too late now.

I recommend they not be stripped of citizenship, not charged with impossible to prove charges within Canada and not hounded by Canadian media. Instead, I recommend they be deported to Pakistan for the crime of - at the very least - tax evasion. Whether they are charged there with the theoretical crime of setting mines in hills that vapourized a Pakistani soldier who had 3 kids back home in Karachi is not my problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...