Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Wanted and unknown

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, August 2, 2011 4:53pm - 32 Comments

One of the names on the most-wanted list of alleged war criminals is apparently something of a mystery.

“I have no idea who he is,” says Brian Concannon, director of the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti. Concannon has worked on the prosecution of crimes against humanity in Haiti since 1995, and is well-versed in cases from 1991 on.

“I’ve Googled him, I’ve looked through all the major reports, I’ve asked other people who work in human rights in Haiti and no one has heard of him,” says Concannon. ”It’s possible he changed his name, or he was working at a very low-level.” Concannon added he was puzzled that the Canadian government would label Prince a war criminal, given that “I don’t think there’s been a war in Haiti in a very long time.”

The Heritage Minister has questioned the CBC’s decision to not broadcast the names and faces of those on the list.

Tags: Brian Concannon, citizenship, Haiti, immigration, James Moore, Jason Kenney, Mathurin Prince

More by Aaron Wherry

Anonymous

When you throw out due process for Mad Cowboy Disease, you get these stupidities.
AVR

Concannon added he was puzzled that the Canadian government would label Prince a war criminal, given that “I don’t think there’s been a war in Haiti in a very long time.”

Concannon is either very bad at his job, or being deliberately obtuse in order to give friendly media a club with which to bash the government – there was a rebellion and coup in 2004, of the non-bloodless variety.

Anonymous

Still, rhetorically the government is treating these men as though they’ve been accused of war crimes by other nations and/or by the international community. As though there are international warrants for their arrest on war crimes charges. As though we’re extraditing them to face such charges. None of which, so far as we know, is actually the case.

These men are wanted on Canadian warrants for violating Canadian law by being here illegally, and we should capture and deport them for that. It’s nonetheless important to keep in mind, imho, that we’re capturing and DEPORTING them, not capturing and extraditing them to stand trial for war crimes (because so far as we know, outside of the secret hearings to determine their admissibility to Canada, no one anywhere has ever formally accused any of them of committing war crimes anywhere).

I think the whole “war crimes” angle is spin to make this whole operation seem more meaningful than it is (i.e. Look! We’re trying REALLY HARD to capture these 30 illegal aliens who are (supposedly) REALLY BAD so please pay less attention to our inability to deport the 100s (or 1000s) of other illegals who are awaiting deportation) and frankly, I’m waiting for it to backfire. I half expect some judge in the near future to rule in one of these cases “Yes, you have a legitimate deportation order, and yes, technically he should be deported, but the Government of Canada went on national television and accused this man of committing ‘war crimes’, and we can’t just send him back to his country of origin without giving him a chance to clear his name of that accusation (which no one else in the world has made, and which was only made in Canada in a secret immigration hearing, the evidence from which the government will not release to the public). I think in some of these cases, the whole “war crimes” accusation is, ironically, going to make it HARDER to get rid of these guys, not easier.

Anonymous

I think in some of these cases, the whole “war crimes” accusation is, ironically, going to make it HARDER to get rid of these guys, not easier.

How on earth would it make it harder to deport them? It doesn’t matter how they’re labelled–the fact is that they’re hiding out in Canada illegally and if they’re found, it’s simply a matter of enforcing the deportation order.

Anonymous

I hope that’s true, but somehow I can see a lawyer getting a judge to order that you can’t publicly accuse someone of “war crimes” and then just kick them out, and that it would have been fine kicking them out before the government went on national T.V. and called them all alleged war criminals but that having now been done they’re entitled to an opportunity to defend themselves against that public accusation, and that deportation would prejudice their ability to defend themselves against said accusations.

Anonymous

I don’t see that happening, because there’s no legal basis for a judge ruling that way in your hypothetical scenario. The “alleged war criminals” are in no way entitled to an opportunity to defend themselves, legally speaking. They’re non-citizens who are illegally violating a deportation order.
Anonymous

You’re probably right. I still think the whole press conference unnecessarily muddied the waters of cases that should be super simple.

On the politics of it, I also wonder how Canadians will react if, say a year from now, they ask the government “Say, what ever happened to all those alleged war criminals we rounded up, have any of them gone to prison yet?” and the government’s answer is “No. Nothing, happened to them, we just sent them all home. You didn’t think any of them were actually being charged with war crimes, did you? Whatever gave you that impression???”

Anonymous

BTW, I wanted to add that another way it might make it harder to deport them is that having accused them all of war crimes based on secret evidence from secret hearings, some broadcasters or other news outlets may be hesitant to publish the names and pictures of the accused for fear of being sued for associating them with alleged “war crimes” based on secret evidence no one can be shown.

Especially after one of the men in question actually files a lawsuit against the federal government for exactly that.

Anonymous

I still think you’re way too hung up on the “war crimes” language Do you have a link to the story about the lawsuit?
Anonymous

I don’t actually have a link to the lawsuit stuff, and I may have read that bit in the comments to one of the stories, so best take that part with a grain of salt for now. (Update: Perhaps, so far, they’ve just threatened to sue).

Also, maybe I am too hung up in the “war crimes” language, but it seems to me that getting hung up on the language is perhaps justified when the language is phrases like “war criminal” and “crimes against humanity”. It’s not as if the Immigration Minister publicly accused these men of being suspected of jay-walking.

Maybe it’s just me, but I’d put “war crimes” just below “pedophilia” in my list of “accusations we should maybe be cautious about making in public based on evidence we’re not willing to share”.
Anonymous

I still think you’re way too hung up on the “war crimes” language Do you have a link to the story about the lawsuit?

Anonymous

Haiti may not have had recent wars, but they’ve sure had lots of blood-soaked dictators in recent history. There have been plenty of human rights violations in Haiti. I’m going to assume there was a good reason for Prince’s deportation order.

Anonymous

I’m sure there’s a good reason for his deportation order, but as any evidence that he’s possibly guilty of war crimes was only ever brought up at his secret immigration hearing, and the evidence can’t be divulged publicly, as far as I’m concerned even mentioning the accusation from the secret hearings publicly just makes the whole thing unnecessarily complicated.

I’m just waiting for some judge somewhere to say “Sure, we were good to go ahead and deport these guys (or some of these guys) for being here illegally, but then the government went on national television and accused them all of possibly being guilty of war crimes. So now we need to let them stay long enough to clear their names before deporting them”.

I’m not even sure we should be deporting alleged “war criminals”. If they’re allegedly war criminals we should be working to EXTRADITE them somewhere to face charges. If they’re never going to face war crimes charges, let alone trials anywhere (and I suspect that most of these men aren’t) then the Minister never should have brought up the accusations in the first place. If you’ve got a valid arrest warrant for bank robbery, why bring up publicly that you also have secret evidence that the accused may be a serial killer (even though he faces no charges of murder, and you can’t discuss the evidence that he may have killed people publicly). Just capture the guy and punish him for bank robbery (or, in this case, capture the guy and deport him for being here illegally) and don’t muddy the waters with extraneous information that does little but make the system look like it’s doing more than it is.

Anonymous

Well one of them is already suing the govt. I’m sure there will be others.

Which is why the CBC is staying out of it. A wise legal move on their part.
Anonymous

It’s not Canada’s job to determine the guilt or innocence of suspected war criminals who are in this country illegally. Everyone on this list had the benefit of due process and fair hearings, which is what led to the deportation orders in the first place. If they face criminal charges in their country of origin, we absolutely should extradite them; otherwise, it’s enough to simply find them, kick them out of Canada, and make sure that they don’t sneak back in.

Anonymous

I agree with all of that, but I can still see a judge quashing a deportation order on the argument that now that the government’s gone on national T.V. and accused a man of allegedly committing war crimes, and that man is suing the government in a Canadian Court for making that public accusation, that carrying out the deportation order would be prejudicial to the accused’s ability to clear his name of the accusations that have now been leveled publicly against him.

I hope that doesn’t happen, but my main question is why even risk it happening in the first place? Why not just capture and deport them for being here illegally, and not bring up the acusations made in secret hearings based on evidence that can’t be divulged to the public? Maybe it’s just me, but if the immigration hearings are secret, and the evidence presented at them can’t be revealed, then the content of those hearings, and that evidence, shouldn’t even be hinted at, let alone made the centre of a press conference by the Minister of Immigration.

As you say, it’s enough to simply capture and deport these guys. Bringing up accusations of “war crimes” was totally superfluous and served no other purpose than to make this whole operation seem “sexier” and more important than it really is.

Anonymous

I agree….it’s not like this is a new situation. Canada has always had illegals, and/or people wanted elsewhere, and immigration goes after them.

I don’t know why the govt suddenly has ‘wanted’ posters and national publicity about it.
Anonymous

I don’t actually have a problem with “Wanted” style posters, I just think they should say “Wanted: For Evading a Deportation Order” whereas what they essentially are saying is “Wanted: For War Crimes (except they’re not really wanted for that and the accusations are based on secret hearings involving evidence we can’t talk about)“.

What’s the point of keeping immigration hearings secret and not sharing the evidence presented at them to the public if the Government can just go out and say “I can’t discuss what they’re accused of, nor what evidence was presented to substantiate the accusations, all I can say is simply that they’re alleged to have committed war crimes“??? To me the whole press conference was surreal. It was like hearing someone say “It would violate the accused’s right to privacy to say why we arrested him, all I can say is that we think he’s had sex with children”. I mean, wtf?
Anonymous

@Lord_Kitcheners_Own:disqus

Well we’ve never needed ‘wanted posters’ before….strikes me as some wild west American gimmick

And no, hearings of any kind in this country should never be secret.

They may well have blown the whole thing with this kind of nonsense.

I agree…WTF?
Anonymous

@OriginalEmily1:disqus

I can see why the immigration hearings should be secret though, to protect the privacy of those seeking admission to Canada. The thing is, you can be denied entry to Canada at a level of proof that is below that of a criminal charge, so accusations that can’t be proven in a criminal court (and even some evidence that wouldn’t even be admissible in a criminal court) can nonetheless be brought up at an immigration hearing and used to determine one’s admissibility. It would be unfair for that type of accusation/evidence to be made public, so I can see why the proceedings need to be “secret” and the “evidence” (such as it is) kept from the public.

The problem is when a Minister of the Crown holds a press conference to announce to the country that while he can’t talk about the secret hearings, or the evidence presented therein, he’d like everyone to take a look at these pictures and names and know that it’s been alleged (in the secret hearings based on evidence that can’t be made public) that they’re all war criminals. The problem, imho, is that the Immigration Minister doesn’t understand what the word “secret” means.
Anonymous

@OriginalEmily1:disqus

I can see why the immigration hearings should be secret though, to protect the privacy of those seeking admission to Canada. The thing is, you can be denied entry to Canada at a level of proof that is below that of a criminal charge, so accusations that can’t be proven in a criminal court (and even some evidence that wouldn’t even be admissible in a criminal court) can nonetheless be brought up at an immigration hearing and used to determine one’s admissibility. It would be unfair for that type of accusation/evidence to be made public, so I can see why the proceedings need to be “secret” and the “evidence” (such as it is) kept from the public.

The problem is when a Minister of the Crown holds a press conference to announce to the country that while he can’t talk about the secret hearings, or the evidence presented therein, he’d like everyone to take a look at these pictures and names and know that it’s been alleged (in the secret hearings based on evidence that can’t be made public) that they’re all war criminals. The problem, imho, is that the Immigration Minister doesn’t understand what the word “secret” means.
Anonymous

@OriginalEmily1:disqus

I can see why the immigration hearings should be secret though, to protect the privacy of those seeking admission to Canada. The thing is, you can be denied entry to Canada at a level of proof that is below that of a criminal charge, so accusations that can’t be proven in a criminal court (and even some evidence that wouldn’t even be admissible in a criminal court) can nonetheless be brought up at an immigration hearing and used to determine one’s admissibility. It would be unfair for that type of accusation/evidence to be made public, so I can see why the proceedings need to be “secret” and the “evidence” (such as it is) kept from the public.

The problem is when a Minister of the Crown holds a press conference to announce to the country that while he can’t talk about the secret hearings, or the evidence presented therein, he’d like everyone to take a look at these pictures and names and know that it’s been alleged (in the secret hearings based on evidence that can’t be made public) that they’re all war criminals. The problem, imho, is that the Immigration Minister doesn’t understand what the word “secret” means.
Anonymous

@Lord_Kitcheners_Own:disqus

They don’t have to be ‘secret’…..

It should be on the record, but it doesn’t need to be broadcast across the country….ordinary court sessions [divorce etc] are private but not secret.

It’s outrageous that a govt witch hunt has been started for Canadians …with photos and names….based on no evidence [cuz it's secret] …and nobody talks about slippery slopes!
Anonymous

@Lord_Kitcheners_Own:disqus

They don’t have to be ‘secret’…..

It should be on the record, but it doesn’t need to be broadcast across the country….ordinary court sessions [divorce etc] are private but not secret.

It’s outrageous that a govt witch hunt has been started for Canadians …with photos and names….based on no evidence [cuz it's secret] …and nobody talks about slippery slopes!
Anonymous

@Lord_Kitcheners_Own:disqus

They don’t have to be ‘secret’…..

It should be on the record, but it doesn’t need to be broadcast across the country….ordinary court sessions [divorce etc] are private but not secret.

It’s outrageous that a govt witch hunt has been started for Canadians …with photos and names….based on no evidence [cuz it's secret] …and nobody talks about slippery slopes!
Anonymous

I don’t believe immigration hearings are “secret” in the way you imply either Emily. I was using “secret” in a colloquial sense, that’s all. There are written records, and I think you might even be able to attend them in-person as an observer as a member of the public, it’s just that the records of the hearings are not “public”.
Anonymous

@Lord_Kitcheners_Own:disqus

Then they can tell us all about it….it’s certainly no worse an invasion of privacy than putting their photos and names all across the country, and claiming they’re guilty of war crimes!
Anonymous

@OriginalEmily1:disqus

Then they can tell us all about it….it’s certainly no worse an
invasion of privacy than putting their photos and names all across the
country, and claiming they’re guilty of war crimes!

That I certainly agree with Emily. It is rather Kafkaesque for the government to say “It’s alleged that they’ve committed war crimes, but we can’t tell you what evidence there is that they committed war crimes, because doing so would violate their privacy”.

Anonymous

Mr Wherry, the fourth word in your article, inconsequntial as usual, is a glaring example of the inability of poorly educated modern commentators to even spell let alone reason. How in the world is any reader going to pay the slightest attention to anything you say when you use such barbarisms?

Anonymous

I’m sure the misplaced apostrophe is a typo.

http://www.facebook.com/stribe Scott Tribe

I find it ironic Mr Wherry is being criticized for bad spelling when senorito can’t even spell ‘inconsequential’ correctly.

Anonymous

Also, senorito has arranged his clauses in such a way as to say that in Wherry’s articles, the fourth word is usually inconsequential. One imagines he has a spreadsheet ranking these things.