The original poster is presumably responding to the subject of Wherry's post — i.e., that the government is appealing the Federal Court's ruling. That's the topic of the post. So the logical inference is that the original poster thinks that launching an appeal amounts to "ignoring a law or order". That's what I was responding to.

I agree that the courts have duly ruled that the government violated Khadr's Charter rights. And that the Federal Court ruled that the remedy that the government offered up was not sufficient. But that wasn't the ostensible subject of Wherry's post. The launching of the appeal was the subject of his post.

So what about you, TB? Do you think that launching an appeal amounts to "ignoring a law or order"?

The question of whether they did something to correct the previous government's violation of Mr. Khadr's rights is the issue before the court. The government says they did what they reasonably could to correct the violation – Mr Khadr disagrees. The Federal Court decision is primarily a process-based one, that is, it was concerned with whether Mr. Khadr had been given adequate notice of the government's proposed solution to his problem and whether he should have had a role in crafting that solution. That, by itself, is an interesting issue which deserves further judicial consideration. The learned judge went further, however, and appears to have concluded that the government's remedy itself was inadequate in substance, not just procedure. That is another interesting issue and one on which he may well have been exceeding his jurisdiction in the motion before him. Anyway, these are important principles and the government really had no option but to appeal to ensure there is as much clarity about them as possible. So, no, the government clearly hasn't been ignoring the SCC ruling nor are they ignoring this one.

My participation here is being hampered by local internet service outages. My previous comment meant to point out that the government has already ignored a SCoC finding many months ago that Khadr's rights were being abridged. The government has only taken this most recent action because the court has commented again. Had the court not done so, there's no evidence this government would ever have addressed the court's original finding.

I do believe you're right. Thanks for filling in the blanks.

My point was really meant simply to say that I'd like the Supremes to rule that the government's actions (such as they were) are insufficient, and maybe this time even give the government a wee bit of a nudge towards what WOULD be sufficient.

Honestly, I think that simply asking for Khadr to be repatriated might be found to be sufficient, but I think the government is loathe to do that, lest the Americans just say "OK".

While I disagree with you about "liking" the idea of the SCOC deciding it should start directing foreign policy, I do agree with you that Ottawa is loathe to ask for repatriation, exactly for the reason you cite. And, I agree with Ottawa on the loathing thing.

Well if you want to say barely doing anything at all is different than doing absolutely nothing at all, I agree.

But even then, a Federal Court gave them 7 days to do more. They ignored that and have done nothing since then.

The big mistake the government made was in doing nothing (early on) and as a result pushing this all the way to the Supreme Court. As a result, the Supreme Court came up with a pretty clear (and I think groundbreaking) decision. Essentially in Canada, the court system now has a role in second guessing the Crown on foreign policy. There are lots of caveats to the above decision, but still it is now there and will encourage other cases in the future. Many would blame activist judges for this, but really in this particular case that requires a simplistic take on the case. It wasn't just that Khadr's rights were abused by the Americans, but that the Canadian government actively participated in abusing those rights. It would be virtually impossible to find a case better suited to diminishing the Crown's authority. It is hard to understand Harper's recklessness in this… the potential gain in pursuing this were minuscule both in terms of politics & policy. Harper may yet win the Khadr battle, but he already lost the war.

At this point, the government does get to pick and choose. They might choose to help a woman in Mexico, but ignore one in Nairobi. I think the best one can hope for is that common decency and political pressure drives the government to act in an appropriate fashion.

Stewart and Orson, have a look at "Bon Voyage, But" which is the published warnings that the federal government offers Canadians contemplating foreign travel. The gist: you won't be in Canada anymore. Don't expect royal treatment. The best we can do is insist you be treated as (un)fairly as a local, find you (but not pay for) a local lawyer and relay messages to family back home. There may be a few other little things, but that's what I recall from the brochure.

And yes, Ottawa SHOULD pick and choose how to balance the national interest in relations with another country with the interests of an accused criminal who happens to be a Canadian citizen abroad. To insist otherwise is crazy.

In that case, the government should indiscriminately surrender ALL Canadians abroad to the vagaries of foreign justice. Otherwise, it must presume guilt or innocence of the individual (witness Khadr), and pass judgment on the adequacy of due process in other countries. Do you really want the government exercising such judgment, given its apparently hoary record in some cases?

The only way to avoid such moral minefields is to afford every Canadian abroad the same (i.e. consistent in all cases) advocacy, including the presumption of innocence, as odious as that may seem in some cases. To do less is arbitrary.

I would hope anybody traveling would read that brochure, and your statement wrt what a Canadian traveling is entitled to is as usual completely correct. However, it's connection to reality is a little strained. There are numerous reports of the Canadian government arranging for ransom payments etc to obtain the release of Canadians. (I don't think it is in the brochure) However, I do agree that it has to be left to the government to decide which cases it can engage in and how. So to conclude, our current status is that a Canadian abroad is entitled to practically nothing, but sometimes the government does a great deal to help them.

The point is that the ruling of the Supreme Court has now opened the door for a clever lawyer to construct an argument why the government should be compelled to do something. Given that the nature of precedents is like a racket, I expect more and more court cases of these sorts. It is not a good thing.

I 'm not persuaded that this, or any, government should be left to discriminate for its own on such matters.

Then think things through a little more. If a country is willing to send in special forces to extract a particular citizen in difficulty abroad, then, under your no-discrimination rule, it must do so for all of its citizens in trouble abroad?

There will always be nuance. If you don't like the particular nuance at any given time, (a) don't ever leave Canada, (b) keep your nose absolutely squeaky clean if you do ever leave Canada, (c) vote for a different style of nuance at the federal election.

But good on you and madeyoulook
Why thank you, and thanks again!

Consular staff will do their consular stuff. The extent to which my country decides it needs to escalate its stance towards another nation over the detention of a Canadian citizen MUST absolutely be left to the politicians who answer to the electorate.

Do you think it was the receptionist in our Beirut Embassy who called in a ship or two for the "I am Canadian all of a Sudden" Mediterranean cruise to Cyprus? Here's a hint: no, it wasn't.

Your "assertiveness of intervention" on behalf of my country is above the pay grade of the Consul General. And it should be.

Not "etc." Exactly! Foreign relations, diplomacy and our armed forces are (checking the Constitution) some of the major reasons why we bother to HAVE a federal government, (Ignatieff wanting to become a grand provincial premier revamping childhood education notwithstanding).

We elected them to make those decisions. We can change the people who make those decisions. You are catching on.

Although charter rights law in Canada is as amorphous as the Gulf oil spill, there has evolved over time a fairly standard remedy in situations where the prosecution has gained evidence in breach of one's charter rights – exclusion of the evidence. This is precisely what the Harper government sought from the Americans. The Americans politely refused, operating under an obvious delusional misapprehension they were equally subject to the authority of the Canadian courts, silly dolts!

I still think Harper needs to push harder for the American military prosecutors to exclude any thing they got from the Cdn embassy folk who visited Omar after he'd only had a few hours sleep and had eaten the McDonalds food they brought him (surely as egregious a breach of charter rights fathomable). This would leave the Americans having to make their case on the thinnest gruel of evidence imaginable, to wit:

1. Omar was one of two "insurgents" to have survived the bombing of the compound and it seems rather likely either he or the other lad tossed the grenade the killed the US medic;

2. That rather colourful video tape the US found hidden beneath the floorboards of the bombed out compound the day after the firefight (while the dead medic's US colleagues were doing their darndest to save Omar's life) that showed Omar assembling bombs, joking about jihad, etc. (of course, it's probably safe to assume the US didn't get a warrant from the Afghani warlord prior to sifting through the rubble, tainting THIS evidence);

3. The satellite phone signal that alerted the US patrol about the the presence of the insurgents in the nearby compound was traced to a phone that belonged to Omar or his family.

I'm quite sure there must be other evidence as well – not even a kangaroo court like the now-Obama sanctioned US military tribunals would allow a prosecution to proceed without something more than this – but we true believers in Canadian judicial exceptionalism must keep our spirits up and think of that happy day when Harper hands over the big cheque and makes the emotional apology to Omar when he is finally back in his beloved Canada!