Interesting quotation in today's Globe -- "no duty to protect". Maybe that's the law (I doubt it) but it shouldn't be the policy.
Wasn't the glory of Rome the fact they made sure their citizens were treated properly by foreigners?
Khadr is Canadian -- punish him, perhaps but protect his status as a citizen of Canada and subject of the Crown:
"Justice department lawyer Doreen Mueller spoke on behalf of the Crown today as she urged the Federal Court of Appeal to reject an April ruling calling on the government to request Mr. Khadr's return from the United States.
Ms. Mueller said the Crown rejects the view that it is legally required to protect Canadians under the Charter of Rights when they face charges outside of the country.
"There is clearly no duty to protect citizens under international law," Ms. Mueller told the court"
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
3 comments:
Seems that all Canadians should never leave Canada anymore. You can get arrested, even falsely, & won't get any help from your govt. What BS! Our rights being even further eroded. We need Harper GONE!
If the government has no duty to protect someone not in Canada - then are they a citizen when not in Canada? Isn't citizenship a reciprocal contract: allegiance for protection? If this is true then no one could commit treason if they were not on Canadian soil at the time.
"There is no duty to protect" is case law in every nation with an Anglo type of law system.
And Chris is correct in his analysis of what citizenship is, a duty of loyalty in return to a duty of protection.
Lysander Spooner wrote a pamphlet called "No Treason: The Constitution of no authority"
His arguments (often used in the defenses of confederate soldiers was as follows)
A duty of allegiance can only come from an open and honest consent by the individual and those he allies with.
There is in existence no open and honest agreement or consent with with those who claim to be government, therefore no actual duty of allegiance and thus no action could be considered treason without there first being such a duty.
Of course those who claim to be government knew this all along, there being no open and honest agreement, this is why they recognize no duty to protect as courts in Anglo States repeat time and again.
Post a Comment