Those who cheer the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and related amendments to the State Immunity Act (former Bill S-7) should carefully consider what 'foreign states' a future government will list (or Courts allow).
The legislation which would allow suits against listed foreign states, for loss or damage that occurred as a result of an act of terrorism committed anywhere in the world, is a major departure from the customary rules of sovereign immunity.
Consider someone who is injured by a drone (say in a 'Tribal Area') or an attack prompted as a response to, say, earlier attacks (say from disputed territories). Would that person be forbidden from suing one state or another based on a political decision? Would the Courts allow that (why the inequality)? (Remember the Courts do intervene in foreign policy matters).
This is a Pandora's Box.
4 comments:
Let's add Israel to the list and sue them for forging a Canadian passport for one of their Mossad assassins. What? No?
Got to disagree with you here, Morton.
If you read the legislation, there's actually a pretty good protection against lawsuits aimed at Canada's friends. The law only allows victims to sue countries that do not have extradition treating with Canada.
The extradition point is a good one
When our friends - like Israel, USA etc.- commit crimes, murder civilians, and so on, that is NOT illegal. It is business as usual. Those who disagree with our way of life are legits for elimination. Mossad Assassins are free to use our passports, as they are on a goodwill mission of murdering our perceived enemies.
This is my understanding, watching what is going on, drone attacks, napalm bombing of little Palestinian kids by Israel...
Post a Comment