Canada to pay Muslim terrorist C$10.5 million for killing US soldier

This story broke earlier this week. I'm commenting only today because at first I couldn't believe it. I'm only just now getting my head around it.

The man on the right is Omar Khadr -- Canadian citizen, Muslim fanatic, former "child soldier" fighting with Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. The man on the left [appropriately. Ed.] is self-styled "global citizen" Justin Trudeau, son and heir of Pierre Himself and now Prime Minister of the Not-so-great Not-so-white North.

Justin Trudeau is an Islamophile -- not an Islamophobe but an Islamophile, meaning he loves Islam and the followers of the Prophet. It seems he never met a Muslim he didn't like (especially those who vote), including Omar Khadr. So great is the regard that M Trudeau and his alleged government have for Mr Khadr that they are about to give him C$10,500,000 (= over $8 million in real money) in "compensation" for having his "Charter rights" violated by the governments of Canada and the USA. (No word yet on whether the American government will be asked to pony up part of the loot.)

What happened is this. Although only a lad of 15, Mr Khadr was able to raise a pretty good crop of chin whiskers, so immediately when to the Middle East sandpit to join his fanatical Muslim brethren in the fight against the evil Christian crusaders. In July of 2002, following a firefight at a suspected al-Qaeda compound in Afghanistan, American troops captured the badly wounded Islamist, who, they claimed, had thrown a grenade that killed Sgt. Chris Speer, a medic with the US special forces. Mr Khadr was shipped off to Guantanamo Bay, where, in 2010, her pleaded guilty to charges that included the murder of Sgt. Speer, and was sentenced to a further eight years in custody.

Almost before the door slammed on Mr Khadr's cell at Gitmo, the usual gang of snowflakes and SJWs in Canada and the USA started demanding his release. He was only a child, they said. He was being tortured, they said. (He later said he confessed just to get out of Guantanamo Bay.) His civil rights were being violated, the Americans said. His Charter rights were being violated, the Canadians said, and he's a Canuck, so shouldn't be in the USA at all. Thus the start of the "Bring Omar home" movement.

After years of litigation and negotiation, Omar Khadr was finally returned to Canada in 2012 and sent to a maximum-security prison. He was grated bail in May of 2015, pending an appeal in the USA of his military commission conviction. The appeal is still pending. Meanwhile, as part of the litigation just referred to, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 2010 that Canadian intelligence officials obtained evidence from the poor lad under "oppressive circumstances", such as sleep deprivation, during interrogations at Gitmo in 2003. Worse still, they shared that evidence with American officials. The horror!

Also meanwhile (in 2004) Mr Khadr's lawyers filed a C$20-million lawsuit against the Canadian government, arguing it had violated international law by not protecting its own citizen and, worse yet, conspired with the US in the wrongful imprisonment and abuse of the young Muslim "victim". The "abuse" may have included giving him nothing to read but the Holy Qu'ran and Playboy. Whatever... the Conservative government of Steve Harpoon stoutly resisted the lawsuit, but now that Mr Selfie is in power, things are looking up for the poor oppressed Muslims of Canada and the world. Very much so for Mr Khadr, who will get just over half of the amount claimed in his suit, plus the customary profuse apology.

Amidst this incredible perversion of justice, there is one small ray of sunshine. In 2015, in an American court, Sgt. Speer's widow won an award of $134.2 million for wrongful death. Her lawyers have filed an application in Canada for enforcement of that judgment, as well as an injunction which would divert any money given to Mr Khadr to her and Sgt. Layne Morris, who was blinded by the same grenade.

Mr Khadr, meanwhile, is out of jail, and is reported to be studying to become a nurse. Paying tuition won't be a problem for him, and I expect that on graduation he will do the right thing and volunteer to join the Canadian forces in Iraq, perhaps as a medic. Yeah.

If you find the payout to Canada's newest multi-millionaire offensive, SIGN THE ONLINE PETITION put up by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Over 50,000 disgusted Canucks have done so already (noon today). The Gliberals have a long history of ignoring public opinion because as "progressives", they know what's best. But who knows? Maybe this time.

Canadian Sikhs face extradition to India for honour killings

Not all honour killings -- in which young women (usually) are murdered by family members for bringing dishonour on the family -- are committed by Muslims from the Middle East and South Asia. Such despicable acts are all too common in south Asian Hindu and (especially) Sikh communities, not just at home in India, but wherever they may be found.

Thanks to decades of open-door immigration policies, the Great No-Longer-White North is now "home" to hundreds of thousands of Sikhs, who bring the religions and customs of the old country with them and refuse to adopt or even adapt to Canadian ways. One such area is Peel Region, west of Toronto. The other is British Columbia's Lower Mainland, surrounding Vancouver.

Two residents of the latter are Malkit Kaur Sidhu and Surjit Badesha, of Maple Ridge BC. They have fighting since 2012 to avoid extradition to India, where they are wanted for arranging the honour killing of Jaswinder (Jassi) Kaur Sidhu, right, and her husband, Sukhwinder (Mithu) Singh. Surjit Singh Badesha is Jassi's uncle; Malkit Kaur Sidhu is her mother. All of them are (or were) Sikhs.

Jaswinder Kaur Sidhu's body was found in a canal in India in 2000. Her throat had been slit. Her husband was badly beaten and left for dead at the scene. Jassi's crime, for which her mother and uncle are allegedly responsible, was secretly marrying Mithu, a humble rickshaw driver, a man of much lower social status, instead of the older man her family had arranged for her to wed in Canada.

Malkit Kaur Sidhu (Jassi's mother) and Surjit Singh Badesha (her uncle) were arrested in Canada in 2012, on charges of orchestrating the honour killing. Indian courts asked to have the pair extradited to face trial, but a surrender order signed by former Justice Minister Peter MacKay was challenged and ultimately struck down by a British Columbia appeals court last year. See "No Justice In Jassi Sidhu Murder Case: Court Rejects India’s Extradition Order For Victim’s Mother & Uncle", The Aerogram, 10/3/16. The appeal court found the pair could be subject to violence, torture or neglect ["neglect"? Seriously? Ed.] based on India's human rights record.

Mr Badesha's lawyer (((Michael Klein))) told CBC News the pair could be in danger if sent to India, and Canada is obliged to protect them. "Both of these people are elderly and both have health issues and that makes them more vulnerable in an Indian prison system, especially one which has been characterized as quite brutal."

The Attorney-General of Canada begs to differ. In a 46-page submission to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Crown says the BC appeal court erred, calling its decision an "unwarranted interference" with the minister's order to return alleged perpetrators in the "brutal and notorious 'honour' killing of a Canadian citizen." It said the ruling jeopardized Canada's ability to live up to its obligations to extradition treaty partners. "The need to fulfil Canada's obligations in relation to extradition is always a crucial factor," the brief says, "precisely because of the objectives of the extradition regime including the importance of seeing justice done in the jurisdiction in which crimes are committed and the need to prevent Canada from becoming a safe haven for criminals."

A number of SJWs and members of the human rights industry have intervened in the case. (((Juda Strawczynski))), president of Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights, said alternatives to extradition are available in cases when a recipient country's human rights record is spotty. In a remarkable twist of logic, he told CBC News Canada cannot forego human rights in the pursuit of justice! "We have to look at what we can fully consider as justice, and here we have to be mindful of Canada's reputation and trying to avoid injustices as much as possible," he said.

Seven men were convicted of the crimes in India, but (Indian courts being what they are) several of those convictions have been overturned on appeal. Now apologists for Ms Sidhu and Mr Badesha say that justice for those who (allegedly) arranged the crimes trumps justice for Jassi and Mithu. Remarkable, isn't it?

Further reading - Latest on the Shafia honour killings: Do you remember Hamed Shafia? He was the young Afghan-Canadian who was found guilty in 2012, along with his father and his father's second wife, of the murder on his father's first wife and his (Hamed's) three sisters. Hamed was tried and sentenced as an adult, as all concerned admitted he was 18 at the time of the honour killings. After the conviction and sentence, Hamed suddenly discovered he was only 17, therefore should have been tried and sentenced as a juvenile. Oopsy!

The Supreme Court of Canada is now considering whether to hear his appeal on those grounds. See "Portrait of a young 'honour killer': How an old family photo could derail Hamed Shafia’s last-ditch appeal", Maclean's, 16/3/17. And click here for the complete play-by-play account of the Shafia case as posted on WWW, 8/12/11 to 4/3/16.

Canucks! Trust in Justin! (VIDEO)

This post is for Canadians who are fretting about who to vote for in the federal election on October 19th. There must be a great temptation to adopt the stance of Mark Twain [or was it H.L. Mencken? Ed.] who wrote "Don't vote. It only encourages them."

The counter-argument is that all that's necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing. So Walt recommends voting in every election, if you live in a country where elections are free, fair and meaningful. Ah, but we risk going around the Horn here. Let's not. The question for Canucks is, which party and/or which leader is the least of the three evils.

The prospect of Steve Harper's quasi-Conservatives being returned to power for a fourth term fills most of Walt's Canadian agents with fear and loathing. It's one thing to have a dictatorship forced on you at the point of a gun, but to go out and vote for the Dear Leader -- on the better-the-devil-you-know theory -- is beyond contemplation.

That leaves the quasi-socialist New [sic] Democratic Party, led by Angry Tom Mulcair, and the decidedly liberal Gliberals, Canada's former Natural Governing Party. The same old Toronto-centric elite have a shiny new front man, Justin "Nice Hair" Trudeau, son of Himself.

As Walt sees it, there are two ballot issues. Canadians are rightly worried about their economy, which has sunk into a recession from which it can only recover if there is a miraculous increase in the price of oil. [Is there a patron saint of oil? Ed.] Mr. Harpoon claims he (and he alone) can pilot Canada through the rough waters. At the same time, he says the country's economic and financial crisis is due to global conditions, not to any failure of management on his part.

The NDP and Liberals claim to have plans to revive the economy by throwing money at Canada's middle class, which neither Mr. Mulcair or Mr. Trudeau can really define. In fact, the Liberal economic policy begins with "Oremus", and the NDP version with "Let us pray."

The other issue is nothing less than the future of democracy in Canada. More than ever before, political power in Ottawa resides with and in the Prime Minister's Office. The House of Commons, where Mr. Harper commanded a majority in the last parliament, has no power. The Senate, packed with Tory hacks and bagmen [and bagwomen. Ed.] marches to the beat of the PMO's drum. When the Supreme Court of Canada rules against Mr. Harpoon's legislation, the Dear Leader ignores the ruling.

Stephen Harper has more power, in "his" country, than the Prez of the Excited States of America, perhaps even more than Vlad the Impaler in Russia. The ongoing trial (for bribery and fraud) of Senator Mike Puffy -- Harper's appointee -- reminds us of Lord Acton's dictum: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. In Walt's opinion, Canadians must end the corrupt Harper dictatorship. Throw them out!

But who to vote for? Ed. won't give me any more space today to explain why I can't recommend either the NDP or the Liberals. Good arguments can be made for and against both parties. But, for today, I'll leave you with a little ditty by "Canada's Favorite [sic] Musical Comedy Duo", Bowser and Blue. Thanks to Agent 6 for sending this along.



Note from Ed.: I have no idea why the screen is split like that. Reminds me of an old stereopticon. (Look it up.)

Further listening: Click here to check out the Bowser and Blue YouTube Library.

A prayer mourning the prohibition of public prayer

In mid-April, Canada's activist liberal Supreme Court decided to emulate its American counterpart by ruling, once and for all, that although a nation may be "under God", it's a violation of some people's "human rights" to invoke His help and mercy in public, as, for instance, at the opening of a meeting of a municipal council.

The court ruled on April 15th that the mayor and council of Saguenay QC must stop praying before meetings. And -- get this -- they must pay compensatory and punitive damages of C$30,000 (nearly $25,000 in real money) to an atheist who complained of discrimination!

Alain Simoneau had complained to the Québec Human Rights Tribunal of discrimination because the Saguenay mayor and council pray before their official meetings. The tribunal ruled he had been discriminated against and ordered the mayor and council to pay damages. Saguenay Mayor Jean Tremblay, a devout Catholic, began soliciting funds to fight for the right to pray at council meetings and appealed the tribunal ruling to the Québec Court of Appeal, which overturned it. The Supreme Court of Canada reinstated the tribunal's judgment and ordered the payment of the original fine plus interest.

Mr. Justice Clement Gascon (who probably describes himself as a Catholic) wrote, "The prayer recited by the municipal council in breach of the state's duty of neutrality resulted in a distinction, exclusion, and preference based on religion -- that is, based on Mr. Simoneau's atheism -- which, in combination with the circumstances in which the prayer was recited, turned the meetings into a preferential space for people with theistic beliefs."

"People with theistic beliefs", eh... Like Mayor Tremblay. Like Walt [and Poor Len and Ed.! Ed.] And, Walt is sure, like the anonymous 15-year-old Minnesotan who (according to Agent 6, to whom be thanks) wrote the following New School Prayer, to be said in the place of the now-prohibited "Lord's Prayer" (or "Our Father", as we Catholics call it).

Now I sit me down in school

Where praying is against the rule

For this great nation under God

Finds mention of Him very odd.

If scripture now the class recites,

It violates the Bill of Rights.

And any time my head I bow

Becomes a Federal matter now.

Our hair can be purple, orange or green,

That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.

The law is specific, and precise;

Prayers spoken aloud are serious vice.

For praying in a public hall

Might offend someone with no faith at all.

In silence alone we must meditate;

God's name is prohibited by the State.

We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,

And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.

They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.

To quote the Good Book makes me liable.

We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,

And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.

It's 'inappropriate' to teach right from wrong,

We're taught that such 'judgments' do not belong.

We can get our condoms and birth controls,

Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles,

But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,

No word of God must reach this crowd.

It's scary here I must confess,

When chaos reigns the school's a mess.

So, Lord, this silent plea I make:

Should I be shot, my soul please take!

AMEN!

Once a refugee, always a refugee?

Interesting ruling today from the Supreme Court of Canada on the rights of refugees. At issue was the question of whether, once you've been officially declared to be a refugee, you can lose that status.

We all know (because the lamestream media tells us) that gypsies -- oops, sorry, "Roma" -- are the most persecuted people in the world. Why only recently France has decided to expel 1000s of them. Something to do with dirt, crime and abuse of welfare systems, some say.

But that's France. In Canada, gypsies are welcome, as long as they know enough English or French to holler "refugee" or "réfugié" when they get off the boat. Or out of the first-class section of the airplane.

Take the cases of Joszef and Joszefne Nemeth, who came to Canada in 2001 from Hungary, and Tiberiu Gavrila, who arrived in 2004 from Romania. [Does that mean "land of the Roma"? Must check. Ed.]

It's worth noting that by the time these "refugees" had arrived, they couldn't claim to be fleeing the godless Communists, because the Communist dictatorships of both countries had fallen in the wake of the breakup of the Soviet Union. So they said they were at risk of persecution because they were Roma. And of course the Canadians bought it. To deny their refugee claim would have made the Canadian government seem racist, eh.

Somewhat later, the Hungarian government sought extradition of Mr. and Mrs. Nemeth to face a charge of fraud. At about the same time, Romanian asked that Mr. Gavrila be sent back to serve time on a conviction for, errr, fraud.

Agent 3, who studied the subject, tells me that the general principle of international law is that refugees cannot be sent back to countries where they were persecuted. But there are exceptions, one such being cases of serious, non-political crime. Like, errr, fraud.

The Québec Superior Court thought both cases fell within the exception, and authorized the extradition of all three "refugees". The Canadian Minister of Justice, Rob Nicholson, ordered the removals, saying the people involved had not shown they were at risk of persecution if they were sent back.

But the Nemeths and Mr. Gavrila appealed, assisted no doubt by lawyers paid for by Canadian taxpayers. Their cases were heard together at the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa. Their grounds for appeal were that they couldn't be extradited unless their refugee status was formally revoked, which it wasn't.

The Supreme Court quashed the extraditions. Why? Because the Minister of Justice hadn't followed the right procedure and applied the correct test. The onus wasn't on the refugees to show that they were at risk, the court said. Rather the onus is on the government to show that they are not.

The court accepted that Minister Nicholson looked at the situation in Hungary and Romania at the time the extradition was sought. Both countries have joined the European Union and come under its human rights rules and conventions. So the minister thought there was little chance of persecution.

Speaking for the court, Mr. Justice Cromwell wrote “Change of circumstances in a refugee's country of origin may lead to cessation of refugee protection. In short, protection ceases to apply to persons who, by virtue of a change in circumstances, no longer need it.”

But, he added, the minister must be satisfied that the threat of persecution no longer exists. One wonders what the minister should have done to satisfy himself. Should he have dressed up like a gypsy and gone to Hungary and Romania to see what would happen to him? Should he have taken into account the pro-gypsy propaganda fed to Canadians through the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star?

Whatever it was Nicholson did, he didn't do enough of it or he didn't do it well enough. The cases of all three "refugees" now go back to him so that he can review his decision.

And what if Mr. Nicholson looks at the files again and stands by his original decision? Well, his decision can still be appealed...again...courtesy of the Trudeau Charter of Rights and the Canadian taxpayer.