Hate crimes aside, am I understanding correctly that the charges against Jamal have evaporated? If so, the cartoon seems completely unfair to the couple on an individual level, whatever you make of the Muslim angle.
Posted at 2008-05-20 06:48:41 [PermaLink]I wonder if anyone will run a cartoon of Duke lacrosse players talking about how many strippers they can lure back to their house with the settlement money?
Ironically, the cartoon actually illustrates exactly why she has a valid claim to compensation from the government. Her husband will never walk away from these charges.
Dara, do you believe that everyone against whom criminal charges have been brought that did not result in a conviction should receive compensation, or is is this a special case? If so, why?
Posted at 2008-05-20 09:46:36 [PermaLink]The Duke lacrosse players hardly need a cartoon when the 88 professors (Gang of 88) are still busy slagging them at very turn.
"Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years."
A little over the top isn't it?
From what I understood the cartoonist depicted her, exactly how she looked ,and quoted her own words. So how that can be offensive to Muslims I don't know unless wearing a burka is offensive to Muslims.
Posted at 2008-05-20 10:09:07 [PermaLink]Bruce,
Only when it completely takes way a person's earning potential by branding them as a potential mass murderer and traitor to their country and holding them for 17 months without being charged with anything. I think that kind of gross misuse of the legal system is "special" enough, but I don't think it's worth "millions" though.
Which begs the question: With her husband locked up for the past 17 months and 4 children to feed, what about this woman indicates that she would have the money to pursue a libel case against a newspaper in civil court?
In the U.S., she wouldn't have a case, but high profile cases are sometimes litigated at little to no cost to the plaintiff. For example, the now-defunct Capital Legal Foundation litigated Westmoreland v. CBS at no cost to Westmoreland.
As for Qayyum Abdul Jamal, I don't know enough about his case to form an opinion as to whether, or not, he did what he is accused of, but I would note the case is stayed, not dismissed, and there has been no determination on the merits. Jamal remains under that peculiar Canadian instrument, a peace bond.
The Duke Lacrosse players established their innocence and the lawsuits they brought are against individuals and the university. Accusing someone of rape is defamation, per se, so no actual damages need be demonstrated.
An important distinction, at least under American law, is that in a criminal case the state is under the burden to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas in a libel suit the plaintiff must merely establish defamation by either a preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence. Acquittal, or dismissal of criminal charges, is not proof of innocence.
Judging by most of these comments it is no wonder Canada is the Fd up country it is.
Posted at 2008-05-20 13:16:31 [PermaLink]Branded a traitor to his country?
I will bet you a fiver that he couldn't name 5 PM's, the capital of Manitoba, or lucidly tell us why Canada values its freedom of speech and democracy..
His ilk are economic and religious opportunists.
"Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years."
Then a lot of imams should be shaking in their shoes right now. . .
"He said Halifax Muslims are "law-abiding citizens born and raised here, (who) speak English, eat french fries, eat hamburgers and at the same time (are) living in an environment where you have made it a hateful environment."
Hamburgers?!