A majority of Canadians believe the long form census yields important data and should remain mandatory.
Many Canadians disagree with their government’s move to scrap the mandatory long form census, and are calling on the federal government to reverse its recent decision, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found.
In previous years, the census included a short form mailed to 80 per cent of Canadian households, and a longer, more detailed form mailed to the remaining households. Last month, the federal government decided to eliminate the mandatory long form census and replace it with a voluntary survey that will be mailed to one-in-three Canadian households beginning next year.
In the online survey of a representative sample of 1,012 Canadians, almost half of respondents (47%) oppose the federal government’s decision to scrap the mandatory long form census, while 38 per cent support it. Opposition to the federal government’s move is highest in Ontario (54%) and British Columbia (53%).
The federal government has argued that the long form census is intrusive and Canadians should not be forced to answer it. Only one-in-four Canadians (24%) agree with this assessment, while a large majority (58%) think the long form census yields data that is important to make policy decisions in all areas of public service, and should remain mandatory.
The decision to scrap the mandatory long form census has been criticized by several provincial premiers, and ultimately led the head of Statistics Canada, Munir Sheikh, to leave his post.
More than half of Canadians (52%) believe the federal government should reverse its decision and keep the mandatory long form census. Conversely, 27 per cent of respondents want the federal government to stick by its assessment and carry on with the voluntary survey.
Political Allegiance
A large proportion of Canadians who voted for the Liberal Party (72%) and the New Democratic Party (NDP) (71%) believe that the federal government should reverse its decision and keep the mandatory long form census. Respondents who voted for the Conservative Party are almost evenly divided on this issue, with 42 per cent wanting the government to reverse its move, and 39 per cent arguing that the decision should stand.
While respondents who voted for the Conservatives are more likely to side with the government’s argument that the long form census is intrusive (31%, compared to 19% for both Liberal and NDP voters), a majority of Tory supporters (53%) believe that the long form census yields data that is important to make policy decisions in all areas of public service, and should remain mandatory.
Full Report, Detailed Tables and Methodology (PDF)
CONTACT:Jodi Shanoff, Senior Vice President, Public Affairs
+416 712 5498
jodi.shanoff@angus-reid.com
Saturday, July 24, 2010
G 20 Policing tactics and arrests & Aftermath.
Aftermath
A total of 1105 people were arrested in relation to the G-20 summit protests,[72] the largest mass arrests in Canadian history.[73] Smaller-scale, non-violent protests took place the following day, June 28, during the afternoon and evening. Nearly 1000 protesters marched to Toronto City Hall and Queen's Park to protest the treatment of arrested individuals at the Eastern Avenue holding centre and demanded the release of individuals still being detained, although police had earlier released several arrested on minor charges.[74] Large numbers of Toronto Police Service officers continued to patrol the demonstrations.[75] On June 29, a group of gay activists gathered outside a community centre where Toronto Police Service chief Bill Blair was scheduled to speak to demand his resignation for the treatment of women and homophobia within the detention centre.[76]
Policing tactics and arrests
Police said they were allowed to arrest anyone within five metres of the fence who would neither leave nor identify themselves. No such five-metre rule existed.A group of lawyers requested court injunctions against the Toronto Police Service from using newly purchased Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRAD), also known as sound cannons, during protests.[77] Sound cannons have been used in previous summit protests and have the ability to produce sound at ear-piercing decibels, potentially causing hearing impairment. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice later ruled that officers can use sound cannons, with a few restrictions.[78]
The Toronto Star reported that the Executive Council of Ontario had implemented a regulation under the provincial Public Works Protection Act on June 2 granting the ISU sweeping powers of arrest within a specific boundary during the summit;[79] the rule was said to designate the security fence as a public works and, as such, allow any police officer or guard to arrest any individual failing or refusing to provide identification within five metres of the security zone. The regulation was requested by Toronto Police Service chief Bill Blair and debate in the legislature was not required. Orders-in-Council such as this one are announced in the Ontario Gazette, but the next issue of that publication was to be published after the order expired on June 28, a week after the summit ended. The new law came to light after a York University graduate student, who claimed to have been simply "exploring" the security zone but who did not provide identification when confronted by police, was arrested on June 24 under the regulation.[80] He later vowed to file a lawsuit against the law once the summit ended.[81] The Cabinet later confirmed that the new laws were not "special powers" and that those who were believed to have been arrested under the Public Works and Protection Act were in fact arrested under the Criminal Code of Canada.[82] The police chief later admitted that, despite media coverage, no such five-metre rule ever existed in the law.[83]
Individuals arrested during the protests who claimed to be bystanders not taking part in protests condemned the treatment they received from police at the Eastern Avenue holding centre.[84] According to testimonials given to the Toronto Star and La Presse by a few arrestees, including university students, journalists, street medics, teachers, tourists, photographers, and a former mayoral candidate, "[individual] rights were violated" and "police brutality [was present]." The detention centre was described as "cold" with "barely any food or water," "no place in the cages to even sit," and "tantamount to torture." Other allegations included harassment, lack of medical care, verbal abuse, and strip searching of females by male officers.[85][86][87] At one point, a plain-clothed officer reportedly told a detainee that the federal government had declared martial law.[88] Blair defended the conditions in the temporary detention centre, citing the fact that every room in the centre was under video surveillance, and that to the best of the officers' abilities, occupants were read their rights.[89][90] However, a Toronto Star commentator editorialized that "some of the elements of classic authoritarian detention were there, albeit in embryonic forms".[88]
Amnesty International called for an official investigation into the police tactics used during the protests. The organization alleged that police violated civil liberties and used police brutality.[91] The Canadian Civil Liberties Association decried the arrests and alleged that they occurred without "reasonable grounds to believe that everyone they detained had committed a crime."[92]
Toronto Police Services held press conferences to speak out against inappropriate actions of protesters, including displaying items alleged to have been seized from protesters. However, when confronted, Chief Blair admitted that some of the items were unrelated to the G-20 protests.[93]
A total of 1105 people were arrested in relation to the G-20 summit protests,[72] the largest mass arrests in Canadian history.[73] Smaller-scale, non-violent protests took place the following day, June 28, during the afternoon and evening. Nearly 1000 protesters marched to Toronto City Hall and Queen's Park to protest the treatment of arrested individuals at the Eastern Avenue holding centre and demanded the release of individuals still being detained, although police had earlier released several arrested on minor charges.[74] Large numbers of Toronto Police Service officers continued to patrol the demonstrations.[75] On June 29, a group of gay activists gathered outside a community centre where Toronto Police Service chief Bill Blair was scheduled to speak to demand his resignation for the treatment of women and homophobia within the detention centre.[76]
Policing tactics and arrests
Police said they were allowed to arrest anyone within five metres of the fence who would neither leave nor identify themselves. No such five-metre rule existed.A group of lawyers requested court injunctions against the Toronto Police Service from using newly purchased Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRAD), also known as sound cannons, during protests.[77] Sound cannons have been used in previous summit protests and have the ability to produce sound at ear-piercing decibels, potentially causing hearing impairment. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice later ruled that officers can use sound cannons, with a few restrictions.[78]
The Toronto Star reported that the Executive Council of Ontario had implemented a regulation under the provincial Public Works Protection Act on June 2 granting the ISU sweeping powers of arrest within a specific boundary during the summit;[79] the rule was said to designate the security fence as a public works and, as such, allow any police officer or guard to arrest any individual failing or refusing to provide identification within five metres of the security zone. The regulation was requested by Toronto Police Service chief Bill Blair and debate in the legislature was not required. Orders-in-Council such as this one are announced in the Ontario Gazette, but the next issue of that publication was to be published after the order expired on June 28, a week after the summit ended. The new law came to light after a York University graduate student, who claimed to have been simply "exploring" the security zone but who did not provide identification when confronted by police, was arrested on June 24 under the regulation.[80] He later vowed to file a lawsuit against the law once the summit ended.[81] The Cabinet later confirmed that the new laws were not "special powers" and that those who were believed to have been arrested under the Public Works and Protection Act were in fact arrested under the Criminal Code of Canada.[82] The police chief later admitted that, despite media coverage, no such five-metre rule ever existed in the law.[83]
Individuals arrested during the protests who claimed to be bystanders not taking part in protests condemned the treatment they received from police at the Eastern Avenue holding centre.[84] According to testimonials given to the Toronto Star and La Presse by a few arrestees, including university students, journalists, street medics, teachers, tourists, photographers, and a former mayoral candidate, "[individual] rights were violated" and "police brutality [was present]." The detention centre was described as "cold" with "barely any food or water," "no place in the cages to even sit," and "tantamount to torture." Other allegations included harassment, lack of medical care, verbal abuse, and strip searching of females by male officers.[85][86][87] At one point, a plain-clothed officer reportedly told a detainee that the federal government had declared martial law.[88] Blair defended the conditions in the temporary detention centre, citing the fact that every room in the centre was under video surveillance, and that to the best of the officers' abilities, occupants were read their rights.[89][90] However, a Toronto Star commentator editorialized that "some of the elements of classic authoritarian detention were there, albeit in embryonic forms".[88]
Amnesty International called for an official investigation into the police tactics used during the protests. The organization alleged that police violated civil liberties and used police brutality.[91] The Canadian Civil Liberties Association decried the arrests and alleged that they occurred without "reasonable grounds to believe that everyone they detained had committed a crime."[92]
Toronto Police Services held press conferences to speak out against inappropriate actions of protesters, including displaying items alleged to have been seized from protesters. However, when confronted, Chief Blair admitted that some of the items were unrelated to the G-20 protests.[93]
Friday, July 23, 2010
Independent Police Review Director will examine police conduct during the G20 summit in Toronto.
Watchdog will investigate G20 police
CBC News
The provincially appointed Office of the Independent Police Review Director will examine police conduct during the G20 summit in Toronto. Ontario police forces that took part in June's G20 security operation in Toronto will be investigated by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director.
Gerry McNeilly, the head of the provincial agency, said Thursday the inquiry will look into the more than 275 complaints his office has received about police behaviour during the summit June 26-27.
Police have been accused of illegal searches and unlawful arrests.
McNeilly said the review will include all Ontario police forces that were involved in the summit, but not the RCMP or other outside forces.
An investigation is necessary because of the volume of complaints and the systemic issues raised since the G20 summit, he indicated.
"The review will investigate common issues arising from complaints against police during the G20 summit," McNeilly said in a statement. "I can ensure that these issues are investigated thoroughly and in a way that is accountable, transparent, efficient and fair to both the public and the police."
The investigation will also examine the detention centre in Toronto's east end where hundreds of detainees were housed.
McNeilly intends to use the powers of his office to subpoena witnesses, including front-line officers — possibly even Chief Bill Blair of the Toronto police.
The investigation will not be held in public, but McNeilly said he hopes to be able to hold at least one public session.
The OIPRD was established less than a year ago by the province to "provide an objective, impartial office to accept, process and oversee the investigation of public complaints against Ontario’s police."
Also on Thursday the Toronto Police Services Board voted to plow ahead with its own review of events surrounding the G20 summit. The board and Blair promised to co-operate in the investigation.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/07/22/oiprd-g20.html#socialcomments#ixzz0uTUiWuly
CBC News
The provincially appointed Office of the Independent Police Review Director will examine police conduct during the G20 summit in Toronto. Ontario police forces that took part in June's G20 security operation in Toronto will be investigated by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director.
Gerry McNeilly, the head of the provincial agency, said Thursday the inquiry will look into the more than 275 complaints his office has received about police behaviour during the summit June 26-27.
Police have been accused of illegal searches and unlawful arrests.
McNeilly said the review will include all Ontario police forces that were involved in the summit, but not the RCMP or other outside forces.
An investigation is necessary because of the volume of complaints and the systemic issues raised since the G20 summit, he indicated.
"The review will investigate common issues arising from complaints against police during the G20 summit," McNeilly said in a statement. "I can ensure that these issues are investigated thoroughly and in a way that is accountable, transparent, efficient and fair to both the public and the police."
The investigation will also examine the detention centre in Toronto's east end where hundreds of detainees were housed.
McNeilly intends to use the powers of his office to subpoena witnesses, including front-line officers — possibly even Chief Bill Blair of the Toronto police.
The investigation will not be held in public, but McNeilly said he hopes to be able to hold at least one public session.
The OIPRD was established less than a year ago by the province to "provide an objective, impartial office to accept, process and oversee the investigation of public complaints against Ontario’s police."
Also on Thursday the Toronto Police Services Board voted to plow ahead with its own review of events surrounding the G20 summit. The board and Blair promised to co-operate in the investigation.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/07/22/oiprd-g20.html#socialcomments#ixzz0uTUiWuly
Thursday, July 22, 2010
G20 sexual abuse claims “The word of the police is not reliable,” .!
Allegations of abuse by women detained during the G20 summit are included in an alternative report presented Thursday into how Toronto police investigate sexual violence against women.
“The word of the police is not reliable,” said the activist known as Jane Doe at a news conference Thursday to detail those allegations. Women “hesitate to come forward because of fear of violence.”
Doe, the pseudonym of a woman who successfully sued police in 1986 after she was raped, women’s studies professor Beverly Bain, and Toronto Rape Crisis Centre counsellor Grissel Orellana were to present their own report to Toronto Police Services this afternoon as a counterpoint to the auditor-general’s report on how police handle sexual assault cases.
Toronto police “are unfit to conduct a review against themselves. They are not equipped to investigate themselves,” said Farrah Miranda, a spokeswoman for the activist group Toronto Community Mobilization Network that organized the news conference.
“Women’s groups are connecting the G20 violence against women with the ongoing police violence against women,” she said.
Allegations of sexual abuse first surfaced as women were being released from the Eastern Ave. detention centre during the June 26-27 weekend that brought world leaders and thousands of demonstrators to Toronto.
“It is the fear of sexual assault that was much more profound for them,” said Bain of the women detailing their allegations Thursday.
The Toronto Police Services Board has appointed lawyer Doug Hunt to investigate police accountability during the summit. Toronto police have asked people with allegations against them during that weekend to file a formal complaint.
“The word of the police is not reliable,” said the activist known as Jane Doe at a news conference Thursday to detail those allegations. Women “hesitate to come forward because of fear of violence.”
Doe, the pseudonym of a woman who successfully sued police in 1986 after she was raped, women’s studies professor Beverly Bain, and Toronto Rape Crisis Centre counsellor Grissel Orellana were to present their own report to Toronto Police Services this afternoon as a counterpoint to the auditor-general’s report on how police handle sexual assault cases.
Toronto police “are unfit to conduct a review against themselves. They are not equipped to investigate themselves,” said Farrah Miranda, a spokeswoman for the activist group Toronto Community Mobilization Network that organized the news conference.
“Women’s groups are connecting the G20 violence against women with the ongoing police violence against women,” she said.
Allegations of sexual abuse first surfaced as women were being released from the Eastern Ave. detention centre during the June 26-27 weekend that brought world leaders and thousands of demonstrators to Toronto.
“It is the fear of sexual assault that was much more profound for them,” said Bain of the women detailing their allegations Thursday.
The Toronto Police Services Board has appointed lawyer Doug Hunt to investigate police accountability during the summit. Toronto police have asked people with allegations against them during that weekend to file a formal complaint.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
discrimination during cadet training .
Expelled cadet wants to go back to RCMP
Wed, Jul 21 - 5:03 AM
TORONTO — An expelled RCMP cadet said Tuesday that he’s looking forward to heading back to training after winning an appeal against the Mounties in a discrimination case stretching back 11 years.
The Federal Court of Appeal has upheld a finding that Ali Tahmourpour was the victim of racial discrimination during cadet training in 1999 in Regina.
"I’m going back," Tahmourpour, 37, said in a phone interview.
"I’m fit in every respect to be a policeman and I have something to contribute to the RCMP. I love the RCMP."
Tahmourpour, a Muslim of Iranian heritage, had won his case in 2008, when the Canadian Human Rights Commission ruled in his favour. The tribunal found he was verbally abused, unfairly evaluated and singled out by his instructors because of his religious belief.
The RCMP terminated his contract after completing 14 of the 22 weeks training, and prevented him from enrolling again.
The tribunal found those decisions were made "based in part on his race, religion and-or ethnic or national background," and that he "was not given an equal opportunity to develop and demonstrate his skills."
The RCMP took the case to Federal Court, where a judge set aside the commission’s findings and ordered the matter back to the tribunal.
On Monday the Federal Court of Appeal restored the commission’s 2008 ruling, except on the issue of compensation — which has been referred back to the tribunal.
Wed, Jul 21 - 5:03 AM
TORONTO — An expelled RCMP cadet said Tuesday that he’s looking forward to heading back to training after winning an appeal against the Mounties in a discrimination case stretching back 11 years.
The Federal Court of Appeal has upheld a finding that Ali Tahmourpour was the victim of racial discrimination during cadet training in 1999 in Regina.
"I’m going back," Tahmourpour, 37, said in a phone interview.
"I’m fit in every respect to be a policeman and I have something to contribute to the RCMP. I love the RCMP."
Tahmourpour, a Muslim of Iranian heritage, had won his case in 2008, when the Canadian Human Rights Commission ruled in his favour. The tribunal found he was verbally abused, unfairly evaluated and singled out by his instructors because of his religious belief.
The RCMP terminated his contract after completing 14 of the 22 weeks training, and prevented him from enrolling again.
The tribunal found those decisions were made "based in part on his race, religion and-or ethnic or national background," and that he "was not given an equal opportunity to develop and demonstrate his skills."
The RCMP took the case to Federal Court, where a judge set aside the commission’s findings and ordered the matter back to the tribunal.
On Monday the Federal Court of Appeal restored the commission’s 2008 ruling, except on the issue of compensation — which has been referred back to the tribunal.
MPs question public works adviser's dismissal CBC News .
MPs question public works adviser's dismissal
John Nicol CBC News
Opposition MPs want to know why the federal Conservative government fired a public works special adviser who went on to win a precedent-setting award for damages.
Douglas Tipple, a real estate expert, brought wrongful dismissal charges against the federal government. CBC) Douglas Tipple, a real estate expert hired in 2005 under the Liberal government's attempt to cut billions from the federal budget, was unceremoniously fired at the end of August 2006 after erroneously becoming the subject of a media-led scandal.
Instead of defending him, Public Works let him suffer in silence under the media storm and then said they were laying him off with fellow special adviser David Rotor.
A public service labour board adjudicator ruled, in a decision released Tuesday, that Tipple deserved $1.35 million and counting for the psychological damage, loss in reputation and wages. Rotor, who was also a victim of similar treatment, is expected to reach a similar settlement.
"I want to know why these two men were hung out to dry, why were their reputations destroyed, and why are taxpayers paying millions of dollars to cover up for the mishandling of this file by Michael Fortier and his colleagues," said NDP MP Charlie Angus, referring to the former minister for public works.
Although the adjudicator, Dan Quigley, laid much of the blame on deputy minister I. David Marshall for casting Rotor and Tipple adrift in a callous manner, he noted in his decision that Marshall had a meeting with the minister during which his thoughts "crystallized" on the need for their dismissal.
'"I want to know why these two men were hung out to dry ….'
— NDP MP Charlie AngusMarshall is traveling in Europe and unavailable for comment, but another former public works minister, Liberal MP Scott Brison, knew Marshall well and finds it shocking that Marshall would have instigated their dismissal.
"David Marshall was extremely dedicated to The Way Forward reform package and to ultimately help the Canadian taxpayers save billions of dollars," Brison told the CBC on Wednesday from Halifax. "These two gentlemen were committed to the same program and they were all part of the same team.
"I think there's a larger agenda at work here."
Quigley, upon hearing the testimony from Marshall, also found it shocking that he could fire two men who were implementing his program and about whom he gave glowing reviews. The adjudicator called Marshall's treatment of Tipple "disingenuous" and "callous."
"In all my dealings with Mr. Marshall he was fair and decent, hard-working and earnest, and focused on getting the best value for Canadian taxpayers," Brison said. For Marshall to do what he did, "I believe there was significant political pressure from either the minister's office, or perhaps even the Prime Minister's Office, to get rid of these two men."
Dimitri Soudas, a spokesman for Harper, says the decision was made by Public Works and Government Services Canada.
"It was the Department of PWGSC who hired these individuals," he wrote in an email. "It was then PWGSC Deputy Minister David Marshall's decision to end their term.
"This had nothing to do with the Prime Minister's Office."
Reviewing decision
A Public Works Department spokesman said department officials "will review the Public Service Labour Relations Board's decision and determine its options. It would be inappropriate to make any further comment on these legal proceedings."
Angus, the NDP public works critic, doesn't believe the government has many options, especially when the adjudicator had to make five extra disclosure orders —what he called "obstruction" — when the government continuously failed to deliver information for the case that was drawn out over almost four years.
"When you read the decision, it's a staggering indictment of this government," Angus said in an interview in Ottawa. "I mean, what you're seeing is a government that allowed the reputation of two men, who suddenly became problematic, to be trashed … to see obstruction of justice.
"You know, it certainly would send a chill down the spines of anybody who has to deal with this government on any level."
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/07/20/tipple-public-works-reaction.html#socialcomments#ixzz0uI5PA1pm
John Nicol CBC News
Opposition MPs want to know why the federal Conservative government fired a public works special adviser who went on to win a precedent-setting award for damages.
Douglas Tipple, a real estate expert, brought wrongful dismissal charges against the federal government. CBC) Douglas Tipple, a real estate expert hired in 2005 under the Liberal government's attempt to cut billions from the federal budget, was unceremoniously fired at the end of August 2006 after erroneously becoming the subject of a media-led scandal.
Instead of defending him, Public Works let him suffer in silence under the media storm and then said they were laying him off with fellow special adviser David Rotor.
A public service labour board adjudicator ruled, in a decision released Tuesday, that Tipple deserved $1.35 million and counting for the psychological damage, loss in reputation and wages. Rotor, who was also a victim of similar treatment, is expected to reach a similar settlement.
"I want to know why these two men were hung out to dry, why were their reputations destroyed, and why are taxpayers paying millions of dollars to cover up for the mishandling of this file by Michael Fortier and his colleagues," said NDP MP Charlie Angus, referring to the former minister for public works.
Although the adjudicator, Dan Quigley, laid much of the blame on deputy minister I. David Marshall for casting Rotor and Tipple adrift in a callous manner, he noted in his decision that Marshall had a meeting with the minister during which his thoughts "crystallized" on the need for their dismissal.
'"I want to know why these two men were hung out to dry ….'
— NDP MP Charlie AngusMarshall is traveling in Europe and unavailable for comment, but another former public works minister, Liberal MP Scott Brison, knew Marshall well and finds it shocking that Marshall would have instigated their dismissal.
"David Marshall was extremely dedicated to The Way Forward reform package and to ultimately help the Canadian taxpayers save billions of dollars," Brison told the CBC on Wednesday from Halifax. "These two gentlemen were committed to the same program and they were all part of the same team.
"I think there's a larger agenda at work here."
Quigley, upon hearing the testimony from Marshall, also found it shocking that he could fire two men who were implementing his program and about whom he gave glowing reviews. The adjudicator called Marshall's treatment of Tipple "disingenuous" and "callous."
"In all my dealings with Mr. Marshall he was fair and decent, hard-working and earnest, and focused on getting the best value for Canadian taxpayers," Brison said. For Marshall to do what he did, "I believe there was significant political pressure from either the minister's office, or perhaps even the Prime Minister's Office, to get rid of these two men."
Dimitri Soudas, a spokesman for Harper, says the decision was made by Public Works and Government Services Canada.
"It was the Department of PWGSC who hired these individuals," he wrote in an email. "It was then PWGSC Deputy Minister David Marshall's decision to end their term.
"This had nothing to do with the Prime Minister's Office."
Reviewing decision
A Public Works Department spokesman said department officials "will review the Public Service Labour Relations Board's decision and determine its options. It would be inappropriate to make any further comment on these legal proceedings."
Angus, the NDP public works critic, doesn't believe the government has many options, especially when the adjudicator had to make five extra disclosure orders —what he called "obstruction" — when the government continuously failed to deliver information for the case that was drawn out over almost four years.
"When you read the decision, it's a staggering indictment of this government," Angus said in an interview in Ottawa. "I mean, what you're seeing is a government that allowed the reputation of two men, who suddenly became problematic, to be trashed … to see obstruction of justice.
"You know, it certainly would send a chill down the spines of anybody who has to deal with this government on any level."
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/07/20/tipple-public-works-reaction.html#socialcomments#ixzz0uI5PA1pm
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
long road to justice .... Omar Khadr
Omar Khadr's long road to justice
t was almost exactly eight years ago when a firefight broke out as U.S. forces approached a mud-walled compound in eastern Afghanistan. When the dust settled, a Green Beret was mortally wounded and four other U.S. soldiers had sustained injuries. Beneath the rubble, next to a dead body, lay Omar Khadr, a Toronto-born 15-year-old, blinded by shrapnel and bleeding from bullet wounds to his chest and shoulder. He was taken into custody and transferred to the U.S. detention centre at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, accused of lobbing the grenade that killed the U.S. soldier.
All these years later, it looks as though Mr. Khadr, now 23, will have his day in court, starting on Aug. 10, before a U.S. military commission. The precedent-setting case will be the first war-crimes trial for the Obama administration, and it will involve a defendant considered by many to have been a child soldier, deserving special protection because of his age.
Key players, including the Harper government, Canada's top court, the Obama administration and Mr. Khadr himself, have all made important moves recently that could help to shape his future. Here is a look at the latest developments:
January, 2009 U.S. President Barack Obama promises to close the Guantanamo Bay detention centre within a year.
January, 2010 The Guantanamo Bay detention centre remains open, and Omar Khadr is the only remaining Westerner held among nearly 200 detainees. (There are 180 now.) David Hicks, known as the Australian Taliban, was repatriated in 2007. Detainees have been released to several other Western nations, including Denmark, France, Germany, Russia, Spain, Sweden and Britain.
Jan. 29, 2010 The Supreme Court of Canada rules that Canada has violated Mr. Khadr's rights by taking part in illegal interrogation methods, including sleep deprivation. But it says the federal government must be given an opportunity to rectify the situation.
Feb. 16, 2010 Ottawa announces it has delivered a diplomatic note to the United States in response to the Supreme Court ruling. The note asks the U.S. not to use Canadian-collected evidence in prosecutions against Mr. Khadr, a gesture observers call “inadequate and invalid.”
April, 2010 The senior U.S. special forces officer in charge of the assault in Afghanistan where Mr. Khadr was captured testifies that he was only trying to set the record straight when he changed his report of these events after the fact. He initially wrote that the person who threw the grenade was killed himself. The military official changed that report some time later to indicate that the thrower of the grenade had survived. Mr. Khadr's lawyer claimed the changed report was evidence that the “government manufactured evidence to make it look like Omar was guilty.”
May, 2010 The lead military interrogator at Bagram prison in Afghanistan testifies that he used accounts of Afghan boys being fatally gang-raped “by four big black guys” to extract Mr. Khadr's confessions.
May 25, 2010 A New York Times editorial headlined “Tainted justice” calls on the Obama administration to repatriate Mr. Khadr. It states, “The conditions of Khadr's imprisonment have been in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions and international accords on the treatment of children.”
July 5, 2010 The Federal Court of Canada rules that the federal government has a week to come up with a list of remedies to its breach of Mr. Khadr's constitutional rights. “This is the time to bring Omar Khadr home,” says NDP human-rights critic Wayne Marston, who contends that Mr. Khadr was a child soldier at the time of his alleged offences.
July 7, 2010 Mr. Khadr says he wants to fire his court-appointed U.S. lawyers, saying he will defend himself before the U.S. military tribunal. “It's going to make it even more farcical if there's no defence,” says Nathan Whitling, one of Mr. Khadr's Canadian lawyers.
July 12, 2010 At a pre-trial hearing, Mr. Khadr calls the military commission process a sham. He also reveals that he was offered a deal if he pleaded guilty: a 30-year sentence, with five years to be spent at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and the rest in Canada. He rejected the deal.
“I will not willingly let the U.S. government use me to fulfill its goal,” Mr. Khadr says. “I have been used too many times when I was a child, and that's why I'm here – taking blame for things I didn't have a choice in doing, but was forced to do by elders.”
The Harper government issues a statement saying it will appeal the Federal Court decision requiring the government to determine how to safeguard Mr. Khadr's rights. The move is a bid to avoid being compelled to ask the United States to send Mr. Khadr back to Canada.
Aug. 10, 2010 Omar Khadr's trial before a U.S. military commission is scheduled to begin.
t was almost exactly eight years ago when a firefight broke out as U.S. forces approached a mud-walled compound in eastern Afghanistan. When the dust settled, a Green Beret was mortally wounded and four other U.S. soldiers had sustained injuries. Beneath the rubble, next to a dead body, lay Omar Khadr, a Toronto-born 15-year-old, blinded by shrapnel and bleeding from bullet wounds to his chest and shoulder. He was taken into custody and transferred to the U.S. detention centre at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, accused of lobbing the grenade that killed the U.S. soldier.
All these years later, it looks as though Mr. Khadr, now 23, will have his day in court, starting on Aug. 10, before a U.S. military commission. The precedent-setting case will be the first war-crimes trial for the Obama administration, and it will involve a defendant considered by many to have been a child soldier, deserving special protection because of his age.
Key players, including the Harper government, Canada's top court, the Obama administration and Mr. Khadr himself, have all made important moves recently that could help to shape his future. Here is a look at the latest developments:
January, 2009 U.S. President Barack Obama promises to close the Guantanamo Bay detention centre within a year.
January, 2010 The Guantanamo Bay detention centre remains open, and Omar Khadr is the only remaining Westerner held among nearly 200 detainees. (There are 180 now.) David Hicks, known as the Australian Taliban, was repatriated in 2007. Detainees have been released to several other Western nations, including Denmark, France, Germany, Russia, Spain, Sweden and Britain.
Jan. 29, 2010 The Supreme Court of Canada rules that Canada has violated Mr. Khadr's rights by taking part in illegal interrogation methods, including sleep deprivation. But it says the federal government must be given an opportunity to rectify the situation.
Feb. 16, 2010 Ottawa announces it has delivered a diplomatic note to the United States in response to the Supreme Court ruling. The note asks the U.S. not to use Canadian-collected evidence in prosecutions against Mr. Khadr, a gesture observers call “inadequate and invalid.”
April, 2010 The senior U.S. special forces officer in charge of the assault in Afghanistan where Mr. Khadr was captured testifies that he was only trying to set the record straight when he changed his report of these events after the fact. He initially wrote that the person who threw the grenade was killed himself. The military official changed that report some time later to indicate that the thrower of the grenade had survived. Mr. Khadr's lawyer claimed the changed report was evidence that the “government manufactured evidence to make it look like Omar was guilty.”
May, 2010 The lead military interrogator at Bagram prison in Afghanistan testifies that he used accounts of Afghan boys being fatally gang-raped “by four big black guys” to extract Mr. Khadr's confessions.
May 25, 2010 A New York Times editorial headlined “Tainted justice” calls on the Obama administration to repatriate Mr. Khadr. It states, “The conditions of Khadr's imprisonment have been in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions and international accords on the treatment of children.”
July 5, 2010 The Federal Court of Canada rules that the federal government has a week to come up with a list of remedies to its breach of Mr. Khadr's constitutional rights. “This is the time to bring Omar Khadr home,” says NDP human-rights critic Wayne Marston, who contends that Mr. Khadr was a child soldier at the time of his alleged offences.
July 7, 2010 Mr. Khadr says he wants to fire his court-appointed U.S. lawyers, saying he will defend himself before the U.S. military tribunal. “It's going to make it even more farcical if there's no defence,” says Nathan Whitling, one of Mr. Khadr's Canadian lawyers.
July 12, 2010 At a pre-trial hearing, Mr. Khadr calls the military commission process a sham. He also reveals that he was offered a deal if he pleaded guilty: a 30-year sentence, with five years to be spent at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and the rest in Canada. He rejected the deal.
“I will not willingly let the U.S. government use me to fulfill its goal,” Mr. Khadr says. “I have been used too many times when I was a child, and that's why I'm here – taking blame for things I didn't have a choice in doing, but was forced to do by elders.”
The Harper government issues a statement saying it will appeal the Federal Court decision requiring the government to determine how to safeguard Mr. Khadr's rights. The move is a bid to avoid being compelled to ask the United States to send Mr. Khadr back to Canada.
Aug. 10, 2010 Omar Khadr's trial before a U.S. military commission is scheduled to begin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)