Hassan Diab, a professor in Ottawa, has been arrested in connection with a vicious bombing of a Paris synangogue. This is a brutal hate crime where people died and is worthy of vigorous prosecution. Extradition to France for trial, if the case is shown to be genuine, is a must.
But what happened at Professor Diab's bail hearing? (And usually we never hear about what happens in a bail hearing because of publication bans but here the ban was lifted).
The Federal Crown attempted to discredit Professor Diab because he went to Cuba with a woman who was not his wife. Professor Diab said his wife and he were on strained terms (yup) when he took the trip.
Why do we have bail hearings? To see if someone is a flight risk, will commit more crimes or is so notorious that releasing them would be a scandal. How does a trip to Cuba with a girlfriend (or boyfriend for that matter) come into this calculation?
Seriously, this appears to be little more than a character attack.
The crime is horrific -- if there is a real risk of flight bail ought to be denied -- but the trip to Cuba is hardly a basis to keep Professor Diab locked up.
1 comment:
That's worrisome that our courts are using these type of techniques. It reminds me a bit of Afghanistan, where three men were executed recently for involvement in the kidnapping and murder of a businessman. What struck me is that along with these charges, each man was found guilty of adultery. It just seemed strange that they would have adultery charges added and it made me wonder how many Afghanistan executions have adultery added to the list of charges.
I guess these two cases are very far apart, but it strikes me a bit the same - what does one have to do with the other and why adultery being brought up? Again, worrisome that Canada is going this route.
Post a Comment