24 M$ pour l’aide du gouvernement aux victimes d'actes criminels

Just like Whitesnake
Here I go again.

The feds did not give an amount for fun. They settled out of court a case where they were sure to lose as the Supreme Court had already ruled that the guy's fundamental rights had been breached. This was done on the advice of their lawyers who knew what they were talking about as opposed to most ignorant trolls on the internet.

The guy is not a terrorist, never was even accused of being one, even by the US military in that sham trial. He was deemed an illegal enemy combatant, not a terrorist. More importantly he did not try to advance a cause using terror (see that's the proper definition).

So you can continue to promote fallacies, it does not make them more accurate

As Alice Cooper would say: 'School's out!"

You the expert?
Here I go, for the twentieth time: show me where in the judgment the court talks about a monetary compensation. So you only follow the advice of other lawyers? I feel sorry for your clients man. "Oh we need to settle because opposing counsel said that we don't have a case, even though there is no case law with even remotely similar circumstances. But they're experts." Yeah, you the man.

Ok, I made a mistake, he's not a terrorist. He's an enemy combatant. The Federal government gave half that amount to a convicted terrorist.

Besides, this time I was complaining about the timing of the announcement. It must leave a bad taste in the mouth of the thousands of real victims who will indirectly get to share in 20M$ by way of counseling and support groups.

Mistake
I meant "The Federal government gave half that amount to a convicted enemy combatant."

Thick as a Brick?
The Supreme Court confirmed the breach of his fundamental rights. That suit did not seek financial compensation, so no money could be awarded.

There was a SECOND proceeding that had been instituted where he sought financial compensation for that same breach (the one confirmed by the Supreme Court). He was going to win.

The GOVERNMENT's lawyers recommended accepting that amount. You don't agree? Too bad, you don't know what you're talking about.

As explained before, if Maher Arar got 10 million and an apology from the Harper government for what he went through, I suppose 10,5 million for Khadr is actually a good price. Unless you think Harper did it because he wanted to appeal to minorities etc? Funny, I don't think you will.

You don't agree? Where are your precedents?

Your statement is right but incomplete "The Federal government gave half that amount to settle a lawsuit it was sure to lose to someone who was a child when he fought an invading army and who admitted certain acts to put an end to abuse and torture."

No conviction and the military court denied the basic principles of fundamental justice.

I knew it
I knew someone bring up Arar. You want to school others on the law but you obviously don't understand the concept of distinguishing in case law. Let's look at the jurisprudence. Milgard got roughly the same amount for serving 23 years for a crime he didn't commit. How much did Donald Marshal get for 11 years, 1.5M$?

As for Arar, he did not kill anyone, was not convicted or formally charged of any crime, was handed over to the Americans by Canadian authorities without any form of due process and the Canadian government actively participated in unsubstantiated attempts to gain information from him.

Your buddy had left the confines of Canada and he and his friends began shooting at interpreters when they came looking for information about the whereabouts of his dad. When the military stepped in many of them witnessed him throw a grenade that killed an army medic and blinded a sharp shooter. How can you even compare. Read your case law, dummy.

Lien?
J'aimerais que vous m'éclairiez sur le lien entre les deux annnonces, provenant de gouvernements d'ordres différents et qui visent des objets différents.

Moi aussi
Oufff. Je croyais être le seul à ne pas bien suivre..

Not quite
Wow, you've really tried to learn a little something to avoid displaying your ignorance as you usually do. Sorry, you still don't get it.

So back to school for you.

Everything in your last paragraph, even if it were true (and a lot of it isn't), is irrelevant. We don't get a pass to abuse someone's rights because of what they allegedly did. You should read the SC decision before spouting off high grade BS like you do. If you had, or had a basic understanding of Charter rights, you would understand that.

The Cdn gov. breached Khadr's rights, this was decided. You can't win in court with the very complex and mature reasoning of "but look at what he did first" which let's face it has been your only argument from the outset.

That ship has sailed, start from the fact that this was decided and the facts that seem to upset you so much have no bearing on the case.

So to compare with Arar: Khadr was a 15 year old at the moment of the events. He spent a decade without a trial being subjected to torture. You may think that this is just desserts, but the fact is Canadian law does not agree.

Please don't tell me that the military tribunal where military personnel decide the fate of someone alleged to have killed military personnel, with Khadr's lawyer being military, where fundamental evidentiary rules were broken was a conviction under Canadian legal principles (otherwise you're even more blinded by your right wing propaganda than I thought).


The funniest thing is that I remember very well that you were upset at the Arar settlement back when it happened. So I guess you hate this one even more?

Too bad. At least, you've learned to inform yourself before spouting off any incoherent prejudices. Good for you!