The extradition process from Canada involves both a judicial and a political decision. Judges decide if there are grounds to extradite and Parliament, through the minister of justice, decides if extradition is otherwise just and appropriate. Last week's court decision refusing to extradite Abdullah Khadr to the United States illustrates a trend blurring the lines between the role of the court and the political judgment of Parliament.
3 comments:
If a person's rights have been violated, a court must act to remedy those violations, shouldn't it?
I applaud this court for being a guardian of this Khadr's rights; something the Supreme Court dismally failed to do when it ruled his brother's rights had been violated, but then refused to do anything about it to force the government to remedy it.
The biggest issue is there does not seem to be that great a connection between his illegal detention in Pakistan and his extradition to the United States. Admittedly I'm not a criminal lawyer but as far as I understand it an illegal detention in Canada would not result in the case being completely tossed out correct? So why should a different standard be applied to the United Staates?
It would be one thing if they intended to use unlawfully obtained evidence, or if they planned to send him to Guantanamo; but there really isn't much of a connection between the rights abuse and the remedy.
I don't agree with Mr. Tribe that the courts can or should order just about anything in the name of 'protecting rights'. There is a line that Canadian courts should not cross with respect to rights abuses that occur in foreign countries by foreign governments. Do we want the courts to order the government to arrange rescue missions for Canadians whose rights are being abused abroad? Or ordering the government to impose sanctions or cut of trade? Its one thing for the court to restrain actions taken by Canadian officials in violation by the Charter outside of our borders, but it is quite another to order the government to take active steps in its relations with foreign governments.
That said, I see nothing wrong with the remedy of ordering Canada not to deport someone. Thats well within the domain of our courts. This isn't a question of jurisdiction to order the remedy, but rather the appropriateness of the remedy given the rights violation.
This link might be more helpful.It would be one thing if they intended to use unlawfully obtained evidence, or if they planned to send him to Guantanamo; but there really isn't much of a connection between the rights abuse and the remedy.
Post a Comment