John Geddes

John Geddes

John Geddes writes on politics and policy, with occasional reporting and comment on arts and culture.

A veteran court-watcher on the Khadr issue: a fine balance

by John Geddes on Thursday, February 4, 2010 8:16am - 73 Comments

After the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling last week in the Omar Khadr case, advocates for the Canadian being held by the U.S. at Guantanamo Bay said the government had little choice now but to ask for Khadr’s return to Canada.

They argued that even though the court hadn’t ordered Stephen Harper’s government to demand Khadr’s repatriation, the ruling left no other option, since it found his Charter rights were being violated. Now, the government is suggesting it will do no such thing.

Is Harper defying the top court? I asked Eugene Meehan, former national president of the Canadian Bar Association, former executive legal officer of the Supreme Court of Canada, and now chair of the law firm Lang Michener’s Supreme Court of Canada practice group in Ottawa.

This particular decision requires close reading, and Meehan knows his judicial nuances. “The judgment is a carefully calibrated balance between the power of the judiciary to decide legal issues, and the power of  the executive to engage or not engage government action,” he said. “It’s like they used  a carpenter’s leveling tool to balance it all out.”

Some other observers said that since the court found Khadr’s rights were violated, the judges must have meant the government should do something about it. But the possibility of doing nothing doesn’t seem to have been excluded.

“When you boil the decision down,” Meehan said, “it says Charter was breached, but you, the government, get to decide what to do, or what not to do, in these circumstances.”

Reading the ruling, this sentence seemed key to me: “Mr. Khadr is not under the control of the Canadian government; the likelihood that the proposed remedy [asking the U.S. to send him home] will be effective is unclear; and the impact on Canadian foreign relations of a repatriation request cannot be properly assessed by the court.”

In other words, the judges admitted they can’t be sure the U.S. would return Khadr if asked, and they aren’t in a position to say making the request wouldn’t hurt Canada’s interests abroad. So they didn’t order that or any other particular action, avoiding a direct clash between the court and the executive.

Bookmark and Share
  • hughandrew

    Though historically a Liberal, I give three cheers to Harper. Unfortunately, the Conservatives are the only party attending to the security of Canada. Canada has become a haven for terrorists and their supporters. In addition to courts assuring they have Charter Rights, protected at taxpayer expense, as soon as they get onto Canadian soil, politicians help them. I note, in particular, Bill Graham's blocking the Tamil tigers being labeled a terrorist group to ensure the support of a large Tamil population in his riding. Now Bob Rae is sucking up to the now terrorist base in the riding.

  • Julie Laflamme

    Have to agree with most of the commentors, Kadhr is and was a terrorist. Why should some appointed judge put anada's security at risk to satisfy Kadhr's family – who have openly proclaimed their hatred for Canada, its people, & all things western? Time to use a bit of common sense in keeping Canadians who want to be part of the country safe, & not listen to idealistic rhetoric spouted by people too ignorant to understand what Kadhr really stands for int relation to our culture – absolutely nothing. His family contributed absolutely nothing to Canada, and continues to act like greedy parasites, drawing off welfare payments, medicare, & whatever else they can scrounge from taxpayers- as though it's an honor to support these freeloaders.

  • Stephen Bogner

    For those who might actually be interested in Mr. Khadr's legal prospects in Canada, in the unfortunate circumstance that he once again sets foot on Canadian soil, I draw your attention to the following 153 page legal brief prepared by Members of the 2007-08 Foreign Policy Practicum under the supervision of Craig Forcese, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, which was submitted to the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights in January 2008.

    http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~cforcese/other/khadrrepat…

    From the Executive Summary:
    "…Contrary to recent statements recounted in the media, and provided the US allegations against Omar are true, this report concludes that viable criminal charges against Omar can be brought using a number of legal avenues, namely:
    A. Sections 431.2, 83.18 and 83.2 of the Criminal Code relating to terrorist activity; and Sections 16, 17 and 20 of the Security of Information Act relating to terrorist influenced threats of violence and communicating information to terrorist groups;
    B. Section 46 of the Criminal Code relating to treason and high-treason;
    C. Section 6(3) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act relating to war crimes; and
    D. Section 3 of the Foreign Enlistment Act relating to enlisting with a foreign state at war with a friendly state."

    It also observes that:
    "…any Canadian prosecution of Omar will have to consider that confessions made by Omar to US authorities may be inadmissible and Omar’s age may affect the nature of the proceedings against him and the length of any sentence imposed."

  • http://www.quadibloc.com/ John Savard

    While attempts have been made to extract intelligence from Omar Khadr under dubious circumstances, this has nothing to do with the case against him for shooting at an American soldier. If Canada's laws don't require a declaration of war for a treason conviction, then one is definitely possible in his case. However, a life sentence is not mandatory, because he may not necessarily be tried in adult court – he might be convicted as a young offender. And, of course, for political reasons, it is entirely possible he might not even be charged.

  • old fogey

    Should anyone having Canadian citizenship accused of a crime in a foreign country be brought back to Canada for trial? Get a life you bleeding hearts.

  • Steve

    Give up that priviledge. Sorry.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/NotStephen Not Stephen Colbert

    You could argue (though I would strenuously disagree) that that should be the case. You cannot argue, unless you really enjoy being demonstrably wrong, that it is in fact the case. So here's the question: do you want the state to act in accordance with what the law is, or in accordance with what you would like the law to be?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

    He was a kid at the time. And his status as a terrorist remains an allegation. And citizenship is not a revokable status.

    Other than that, I think you're on to something.

  • Paul S

    Khadr is a terrorist as is his whole family. Even at 15 he knew what he was doing when he killed that Medic.
    I hope that the U,S executes him

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

    His age is irrelevant, he was not a child soldier. His status as a terrorist is not in question. He has lengthy ties to Al-Queda, and no sane person would suggest otherwise. No, his citizenship can not be revokoed, but he could be left to rot in Gitmo for the rest of his life.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

    "His age is irrelevant, he was not a child soldier"

    What was he, then?

    "He has lengthy ties to Al-Queda."

    Really? He was 15 years old. At what age do you consider one legally accountable for decisions, and how do you define lengthy?

    "no sane person would suggest otherwise"

    Are you saying I'm insane? Really?

    "but he could be left to rot in Gitmo for the rest of his life."

    From this, I glean two bits of information about you. First, you have little education in history, and its lessons about mob judgements based on race and ethnicity (or you do have some education, and simply don't care because it will never affect you), and b) you'd probably support lynchings.

From Macleans