Khadr payout was pure political expediency
According to Liberals and some Ndpers, the two-thirds of Canadians who opposed apologizing to Omar Khadr and giving him $10.5 million are utterly ignorant of the rule of law, likely bigots or racists, and probably shop online for jackboots.
Social and regular media alike have been aflame since the Trudeau government apologized to Khadr for Canada’s treatment of him, and announced they cut him a cheque.
The howls of rage and disgust about the apology and payment were foreseeable to anyone with a semblance of sense. Canada did indeed apologize and give millions to a self-admitted terrorist.
But there was no choice, the prime minister insisted. The government had no defence against Khadr’s lawsuit, and could have been held liable for twice that amount, Justin Trudeau said.
As public outrage mounted, supporters of the payout lectured their fellow Canadians about the rule of law. It’s a phrase that isn’t heard often these days, because most people take it for granted. Why? Because it’s 2017.
Essentially, it means equality before the law. No citizen, or ruler, is above the law, or outside the law. The law and constitutional rights apply to all.
Fair enough. It should be recognized, though, that “rule of law” is a malleable concept. While Khadr-payment supporters extoll its supremacy and brand payout opponents as right-wing, “alt.right” Trump admirers, they should stop and ponder some of the other aspects of the rule of law that were ignored in this loathsome case.
Let’s go back to the beginning. Khadr-payment supporters are wrong, and the rule of law says they are wrong, to label Omar Khadr a “child soldier.”
It’s fine for the United Nations to proclaim any fighter younger than 18 is a child soldier, but, fortunately, Canadians are governed by their own laws, not by UN proclamations.
Khadr was 15 years old when he fought with al-qaida against American soldiers in Afghanistan in July 2002.
Section 2(1) of Canada’s Youth Criminal Justice Act reads: “‘child’ means a person who is or, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, appears to be less than twelve years old.”
Some people would have us believe that when American soldiers overran the al-qaida stronghold that day, there was our Omar, huddled at the back of the ruined bunker, sucking a lollipop and reading Dr. Seuss.
The people who this week have expounded the sanctity of the rule of law are the very ones who have ignored the rule of law in the Khadr case.
Canadian law states a 15-year-old is not a child, but rather is a “young person.” Furthermore, the law recognizes that teenagers can be and should be held accountable for their decisions and actions. The attorney general has the discretion to have a young person tried and sentenced as an adult if he or she commits a serious crime “after the young person attained the age of 14 years” (s. 64(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act).
Numerous Canadians have rightly said Khadr should have been charged with either murder or treason, or both, and tried as an adult. Liberal and Conservative governments refused this option. (See statement above regarding the rule of law being malleable.)
Had the Canadian government laid charges against Khadr, the case would have evolved much differently. Khadr could hardly claim his constitutional right to liberty was violated if he faced charges of murder or treason.
Far from adhering to the rule of law, the payout to Khadr is a corruption of it. The payment amounts to crass political expediency. Justice, and the rule of law, demanded that Khadr be charged.
Why wasn’t he? Politics. Many Canadians think Khadr was a victim rather than a perpetrator, so any government that charged him would ignite controversy and opposition. Politics trumped the rule of law.
Strangely, the pro-khadr, rule-of-law crowd hasn’t complained about that.
Some people would have us believe that when American soldiers overran the al-qaida stronghold that day, there was our Omar, huddled at the back of the ruined bunker, sucking a lollipop and reading Dr. Seuss.