Charter rights for the Taliban? (Part II)

This excellent ‘Post’ editorial comments on the recent federal court ruling on the Amnesty and BCCLU attempt to have the Canadian Charter apply to Afghan detainees:

The good news is that federal court Justice Anne Mactavish refused to order our soldiers to stop transferring enemy prisoners into the custody of the Afghan government.

The bad news is that she based her judgment not on the merits of the case ... [leaving] the door open for judicial intervention if circumstances require our soldiers to resume prisoner transfers at some future date.

Judge Mactavish -- and whoever else hears such cases going forward -- should realize that Kandahar is not Kitchener; and it is ridiculous to think that the residents of both places should be able to avail themselves of the same Charter rights and due process.

... the legal suit really seems more like a means of advancing the unstated third alternative: pulling out our troops altogether and washing our hands of the imperfect Afghan regime...

If Amnesty and the BCCLA get their way, then whole nations will be abandoned to their suffering for the sake of protecting Canadian moral purity in regard to a handful of suspects. Like so many pious defenders of human rights who have raised their voices since 9/11, these NGOs have lost the forest for the trees. It is a shame that Judge Mactavish found basis in her law books to provide them encouragement.

This is where mindless pacifism and legal idiocy lead.

Canada’s Charter applies to Afghan detainees?

That’s what Amnesty International Canada and the BC Civil Liberties Union are contending in federal court. As David Frum puts it to his American audience:

One reason to follow Canadian politics is that Canada's hyper-activist courts often function as a kind of test kitchen, in which the legal left can experiment with concepts before advancing them in the US.

As one of the lawyers for Amnesty and the BCCLU puts it:

"If detainees are just protected by international law, only the general decides; if the Charter applies, the courts can overrule the generals. The real difference is who can supervise the generals."

That would be one more hand tied behind our military’s back. With friends like Amnesty and the BCCLU who needs the Taliban?

I wish these clowns would take as much interest in seeing that Canada’s Charter actually applies to Canadians - as in "freedom of expression."

[via]

Update (Feb 4/08): A response to Amnesty and BCCLU. [via]