Lawyers Against the War – 2005-10-20 23:40:59
Gag Order Lifted on Canadian Torture Charges Against Bush
Lawyers Against the War / GlobalResearch.ca
CANADA (October 19, 2005) — Lawyers Against the War (LAW) is claiming a victory in its battle to have George W. Bush face charges in Canada for torture. The charges stem from the notorious cases of torture practiced by US forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. They were laid on the occasion of George W. Bush’s controversial visit to Canada in November 2004.
The charges were laid under sections of the Canadian Criminal Code enacted pursuant to the United Nations Torture Convention which requires extra-territorial jurisdiction to be exercised against officials, even Heads of State, who authorize or are otherwise responsible for torture.
On Monday, the Supreme Court of BC quashed an order banning publication of everything having to do with the charges imposed when they were first laid. In a secret hearing, held December 6th 2004 in BC. Provincial Court, the charges against Bush were rejected on the basis of arguments by the Attorney General of British Columbia that the visiting president was shielded from prosecution by diplomatic immunity. A ban on publication of anything to do with the proceedings was also imposed.
The secrecy, the immunity claim and the ban are vigorously opposed by LAW, who appealed all aspects of the decision.
On Monday, Justice Satanove of the Supreme Court of British Columbia quashed the ban on publication after government lawyers failed to come up with any argument to defend it. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association had intervened on the side of LAW against the ban.
“This is a very important victory”, said Gail Davidson, who laid the charges and, along with Howard Rubin, argued the case for LAW, “because it ensures that the proceedings will be scrutinized by people in Canada and throughout the world, to make sure that the law is applied fairly and properly and, above all, to make sure that Bush doesn’t get away with torture.”
“The American legal system seems incapable of bringing him to justice and there are no international courts with jurisdiction. So it’s up to Canada to enforce the law that everybody has signed on to but nobody else seems willing to apply.”
The next hearing in the case will take place on November 25th 2005, at 10:00 a.m. at the B.C. Supreme Court, 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver, B.C., when government lawyers have said they will argue that the case is no longer “moot” because the Attorney General of Canada has not yet consented to the prosecution.
Toronto law professor Michael Mandel, co-chair of LAW, calls this argument “bogus”: “He’s still guilty of torture, he’s still on the loose and we still have our obligations under the UN Convention to bring torturers to justice.”
Contact: Michael Mandel, Tel: +1 416 736-5039: Fax: +1 416-736-5736; Mmandel@osgoode.yorku.ca; Gail Davidson, Tel: +1 604 738 0338; Fax: 604 736 1175; email@example.com
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca
© Copyright Lawyers against the War, GlobalResearch.ca, 2005
Amnesty To Challenge Security Certificates in UN Committee
CBC News cbc.ca
(October 15, 2005) — Amnesty International plans to urge Ottawa to change its controversial security certificate system during a meeting of the UN human rights committee.
Amnesty International Canada, based in Ottawa, is to present a paper urging more open treatment of suspects when the UN committee meets in Geneva on Monday.
The security certificates, introduced as part of stricter counter-terrorism measures, allow the government to indefinitely detain non-citizens without charge or trial without releasing all the evidence against them.
Canadian authorities are holding four people under security certificates as the government tries to deport them. A fifth man, Adil Charkaoui, was released on bail in February under strict bail conditions and is fighting deportation to his Moroccan homeland.
In August, the federal Supreme Court agreed to hear his challenge to the constitutionality of the national-security certificates.
Charkaoui has argued that the security certificate violates both the Charter of Rights and Canada’s obligations under international law. His earlier challenge to a Federal court judge was dismissed. That decision was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal in December.
In December 2004, Britain’s highest court knocked down similar anti-terrorism legislation, ruling that the government couldn’t detain foreign suspects indefinitely without bringing them to trial.
Copyright ©2005 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation – All Rights Reserved
Posted in accordance with Title 17, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.