spring bear

[Bluebulldog]

Like all the people who blame Trudeau for Omar Khadr. Liberals got stuck with that from the previous governments.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry,

The lawsuit that was filed was before the courts. Not concluded under the Liberal Govt.

The decision to settle, and pay out the $10.5M fell to Trudeau and his Cabinet. Many Canadians polled thought that even $0.01 of taxpayers money was too much, and that his freedom and continued citizenship should have been more than enough.

Up until the 2015 Federal Election, the Govt was committed to defending the action in Court. One of the main pillars of that defense was that once outside of Canada, and participating in a war of aggression, and subsequently detained by a foreign government for acts of war / terrorism, it would be hard to prove direct culpability. We saw much of the same thing in the 90s when young men left our borders and went to the Balkans.

In 2013, Khadr filed a CA$20 million civil suit against the government of Canada alleging that it had conspired with the U.S. in abusing his rights. He said he had signed the plea agreement because he believed it was the only way he could gain transfer from Guantanamo, and claimed that he had no memory of the firefight in which he was wounded.[5][4]

On July 4, 2017, an unnamed government source leaked that the Canadian government would apologize and pay C$10.5 million in compensation to Khadr.[25] At a press conference on July 7, 2017, Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould and Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale confirmed the settlement and issued a formal apology on behalf of the government.[6] In an interview with Rosemary Barton of Power & Politics that day, Khadr said that he hoped the apology restores a little bit of his reputation. He also said that he hoped the settlement and apology would not cause the Speer family pain and said that if it does, he was sorry for that.[204]

[kokes]

Nice to see the CBC already out spreading mis information...cant say im surprised...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...ists-1.5431752

[fishermccann]

So if the libs continued to fight the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada , and lost , the payout was then moved up to 20 mill. on who would you place the blame then? You do know that you cannot keep appealing a verdict until you get the result you want.

[fishermccann]

Nice to see the CBC already out spreading mis information...cant say im surprised...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...ists-1.5431752

I read the entire article. I did not discern any misinformation , please enlighten me.

[Bluebulldog]

So if the libs continued to fight the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada , and lost , the payout was then moved up to 20 mill. on who would you place the blame then? You do know that you cannot keep appealing a verdict until you get the result you want.

Clearly you're confused.

The lawsuit ( Civil Action) launched by Khadr was in fact not ruled upon in the courts. It was seeking $20M correct.

The Supreme Court ruled on the Govt position that Khadr was improsoned legally.

Two different items.

Yes, if the Courts had made a ruling, then the verdict and subsequent award would have been the decision of an impartial panel ( Jury), or a Judge, with a view to the rule of law. Not by politicians who saw fit to pay out of the public purse by expediency.

However, continue to deflect from the original incorrect statement.

Rob Steward indicated that the Khadr settlement was a result of the Government prior to Trudeau, which in fact is wholly incorrect. The $10.5M was a figure wholly decided on, and awarded by Trudau and Ralph Goodale.

This statement, regardless of what spin suits you, is quite irrefutable.

[fishermccann]

So he may of saved the taxpayers 10 mill.?

[Bluebulldog]

So he may of saved the taxpayers 10 mill.?

1. May HAVE. Grammar is important.
2. Hypothesizing about legal outcomes, particularly in a "what if" scenario, is never a solid debate strategy.
3. A civil action before the courts asking $20M, may have any myriad of outcomes, including a greatly reduced award, or even a dismissal. It was the award, out of hand, of taxpayers dollars, without a fight that was the real issue. As the previous Govt was quite content to fight it based on the principle that a terrorist POS didn't deserve it.

But please continue to deflect the fact that the statement as put forward was completely without basis. Keep doing it and enough people may in fact lose sight of the fact that the award, WAS the Trudeau Govt decision.

[kokes]

I read the entire article. I did not discern any misinformation , please enlighten me.

Spring bear hunt proposal pits hunters against wildlife conservationists - you dont have to look any further than the title... misleading and infers hunters are not conservationists.
While the article did a good job with its feedback from the OFAH, These left leaning groups based out of downtown Toronto like Animal Alliance will be against any form of hunting or trapping so to label them as an authority or "wildlife conservationist" is laughable. Also, No mention of areas of Ontario where children cant go outside for recess due to too many bears around...
Maybe David Suzuki can pay Animal Alliance to do a study and find a new strain of bear like the Algonquin Bear or Sudbury bear and we can try and ban all hunting around this new species..it worked for coyote wolf hunting!!

[Bluebulldog]

Maybe you would like to read what the lawyers say.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/oma...erry-1.4199409

Yep.

And read the third opinion, coupled with the conclusion, even from the CBC. They had to admit that there had never been a civil case in Canada as unique as this one. ( particularly when someone was an enemy combatant, and imprisoned for same by another country), but also that the entire case " may have a pretty good chance".

All 3, opinions solicited by CBC in support of the government that funds them...

Yep, nothing to see here, move along.

[Bluebulldog]

Bluebulldog,

"The Supreme Court ruled on the Govt position that Khadr was improsoned legally."



Grammar is important.

Yes, and the supreme court ruling has nothing to do with the subsequent civil action.

Tort law differs from constitutional law. Given your credentials I would have assumed you knew that.

Otherwise a financial award would have been given ( except the Supreme Court were not in a position to do so, were they?)