The Idiot can chaperone that terrorist straight to Afghanistan - good bye loser.
Posted at 2006-04-07 20:36:02 [PermaLink]No doubt about it Alexandre is a twit. However:
I think visiting the sins of the father on the son is wrong. I also feel that if the judicial system says the burden of proof is to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then that's the way it should be.
"I think visiting the sins of the father on the son is wrong."
But that isn't what's happening. Presumably Alexandre admires his father, and believes him to have been a good PM; whether deliberately or not he is certainly trading on his father's (inexplicable) popularity. That being the case, it is a fair question to ask him about the WMA - just as it would be if Ben Mulroney (shudder) were to enter politics, and campaign against open trade arrangements. In either case, the boys have the opportunity to disavow their father's legacy, and that is fair enough.
Alexandre, though, seems to want it both ways - he is the heir to the Trudeau admiration and notoriety; but he prefers it to be on an a la carte basis. I think he needs to explain himself more fully, and either accept and defend his father's policies, or explain why he disagrees with them.
Mark:
Regarding the judicial system - you are correct in so far as Canadian citizens go. The Federal Court of Appeal has ruled Security Certificates are constitutional:
"The court ruled that non-citizens and permanent residents can be subjected to a different standard of legal treatment than citizens."
There is no reason that I can see that people like Adil Charkaoui can show up in Canada uninvited and demand all of the rights of citizens. As far as I know, all of these prisoners could be free tomorrow - IF they leave Canada.
"Friday's decision upheld a December 2003 ruling by the separate Federal Court that said sections of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act fell in line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms."
"The appellant has been unable to demonstrate that the procedure for reviewing the reasonableness of the security certificate issued against him ... do not meet the requirements of the Charter," the appeal court wrote in the 89-page ruling."
"he court ruled that non-citizens and permanent residents can be subjected to a different standard of legal treatment than citizens."
"The judges also upheld the use of secret evidence, and said that authorities have an obligation to suppress evidence if its release might harm national security."
[External Link]