Canada’s Extradition Law: The Least Fair Act on Earth? | Prism Magazine. – by Gary Botting
An excerpt from the above linked-to article follows:
Canada’s Extradition Act (S.C. 1999 c. 18) is perhaps the least fair statute ever to be passed into Canadian law. As Anne Warner LaForest bluntly stated shortly after the statute was adopted, no other country on earth has found it necessary to forsake all of the procedural safeguards of criminal justice that have evolved in common law countries over the centuries while blithely sending its own citizens to face trial in foreign regimes.
The Act allows for the deportation of persons accused of criminal offences in other countries – including the de facto exile of Canadians – solely on the strength of a note from a foreign prosecutor “certifying” in a single sentence that the evidence summarized in an attached “record of the case” is available and (in the opinion of the prosecutor) sufficient to warrant prosecution under the laws of the requesting country. On the basis of this certification, the record of the case is said to be “presumptively reliable” – even though the record of the case does not come close to meeting Canadian standards of evidence and is by definition “hearsay”.
Gary Botting, Matthew Behrens and many other (actual) professionals, together with many regular people, are protesting the extremely unjust treatment Hassan Diab is getting from his own government following France’s request that Hassan be extradited to France to stand trial for a bombing that took place near a synagogue in Paris in 1980. The thing is, Hassan, by all accounts, is innocent. The available evidence not only doesn’t incriminate him, but it exonerates him. No matter. Another useless Canadian judge, namely Robert Maranger, a far too free, too fat, comfortable and uncaring, judge, hears power tell him to end the life of a Canadian citizen who it has targetted for extermination, for whatever reason, and he has complied.
From “Legitimizing Torture,” by Carmenkcheung on the BC Civil Liberties Association Blog:
=== === =
This morning, Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert Maranger signed a committal order for Hassan Diab’s extradition to France, based primarily on handwriting evidence that Mr. Justice Maranger himself described as “problematic” and “confusing”. As is usual in extradition proceedings, France’s request must be first reviewed by a judge and found reasonable before the Minister of Justice can authorize the extradition. During the extradition hearing, France’s position is put forward by the Canadian Department of Justice.
Darren Brown/QMI Agency
Mr. Diab, as readers of these pages may recall, is a former lecturer at Carleton University and the University of Ottawa whose extradition is being sought by the French, in connection with a bombing in Paris that took place over 30 years ago.
The primary evidence submitted in support of Mr. Diab’s extradition had consisted of the handwriting analysis and “intelligence” information from unidentified sources. (As outlined in our earlier post, the use of unsourced intelligence in judicial proceedings is extraordinarily problematic, given the very real possibility that the intelligence is information derived from torture.)
The handwriting evidence was vigorously challenged by Mr. Diab throughout the extradition proceedings. The first two handwriting experts offered by France to support its extradition request were so thoroughly discredited by the defence experts that France actually withdrew their evidence. And even though Justice Maranger eventually admitted the use of evidence tendered by France’s third “expert” on the subject, he acknowledged that the evidence was “problematic.”
= === ===
My online response to the top of page linked-to article (which I typo corrected in one place) and to another reader’s comments about it, follows:
I enjoyed Paul’s comment, and, of course, Gary’s very informative account. I’ve been following Hassan’s case since the beginning. It’s appalling.
Bureaucratic rectitude eh? Exactly! Professionalism in other words.
Sure, There’s the idea and, sure, there are individuals out there who are positive about themselves and the prospects they see for contributing to society, with the result that they make an effort to do their part, taking pride in that fact and in their accomplishments in that regard. They demonstrate what it means to be professional, unlike the professionals whom Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway write about in “Merchants Of Doubt” and unlike Antonin ‘Troposphere, whatever. I told you before I’m not a scientist’ Scalia and unlike that Japanese radiological health and safety risk management adviser for the prefecture in which Fukushima resides, namely Dr. Shunichi Yamashita, who said, in response to the disaster: “The effects of radiation do not come to people that are happy and laughing. They come to people that are weak-spirited, that brood and fret.” And so on.
In this world, As long as you have the Right outlook, you find you can say and do quite a bit with impunity. I call them gatekeepers. They are too free, too willing to hinder those whose views are different (by being anti-corporate rule for example) than their’s and they are habitualized in that behavior, all of which serves power – by shielding the powerful from the “rabble” who might like some accountability from ‘their’ leaders.
Canada demonstrates that it is truly dependent on those in the world who wield power and too unwilling to listen to the voice of it’s own people who, increasingly, are victims of powerful capitalist special interests, which is the definition of being a part of the corporatocracy.
The corporatocracy (a term coined by John Perkins, who has some interesting things to say about the subject) is simply the network of nation states presided over by a dominant power which just happens to be, at this time, the United States. The corporatocracy is an empire made up of empires. In a way, it’s not an empire – since an empire is a state that goes beyond it’s borders not because it has to but for power and riches. In the case of our corporatocracy, Uncle Sam doesn’t just overrun other terrorities. He also corrupts their leaders and absorbs ruling classes into his criminal operation whose main business is exploiting ‘the people’, the majority, mainly through the instruments of the World Bank and IMF.
Very few states push back successfully against the U.S.-led corporatocracy. South America is leading the way, with a number of it’s states resisting. But it’s important to note that uncle Sam doesn’t take no for an answer. There is no ‘freely’ choosing your path in this world in which corporatocracy prevails, the few holdouts notwithstanding. As I type this, efforts are underway to rein in ‘wayward’ states like Venezuela. (Check out Eva Golinger’s blog for some info in that regard. There’s also the website “Upside Down World.”)
Chavez (and even French leaders for gosh sakes, to a degree), listens to his people rather than to spokespersons for the corporatocracy and he uses his country’s oil wealth to benefit his people, which makes Venezuela ‘independent’. Canada, however, with it’s habit of jumping when uncle Sam says jump, or holding the bully’s coat, as one Canadian author put it in her book of the same name (Linda McQuaig) shows in many ways, and notably in it’s indifference to this unbelievably irrational and dangerous extradition law, that it’s quite dependent on the corporatocracy and it’s centers of power. It’s people are, as Walter Lippman put it when talking about ‘the people’ in his day, a “bewildered herd.” That’s on a good day. At other times, we are the enemy and we are attacked accordingly.
The mafia capitalism that is a feature of corporatocracy means that you play along or go away. The difference, because this is a money system, is between life and death. The beast can compel our obedience because the beast, which prints money, makes everything, including the means of survival, dependent on money that you either have or don’t have, depending how well you ‘behave’. There is only the marketplace. Outside of that is death. If we could live without having to [go] to the ‘marketplace’, then there’d be no compulsion. You could freely tell the beast “Nah. I’ll pass on getting your slave’s brand. Thanks anyway!” And so, In this wonderful, perverted, dark, technocratic, mafia capitalist system, professionals everywhere are keeping their heads down, winging it, going through the motions and, because all of that’s draining, too often selling their souls in the process just because it makes it easier to do what they believe they have to do to survive.
It’s a mess.
* “The Complex Case Of Hassan Diab,” by Chris Cobb (Ottawa Citizen)
The following YouTube video is not easy to watch. The audio is crappy in spots. Gary Botting’s presentation (he looks real tired and may make you feel the same way), together with the audio problems, makes this really hard to follow. By the same token, Gary’s incredible knowledge of this subject and eloquence in talking about it is compelling. The video is lengthy but it is worth struggling through if you want to get a good handle on this affair. Watch it in parts perhaps.