# Air India Trial verdict: NOT GUILTY!



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Both of the defendants in the decades long Air India bombing trial have just been found NOT GUILTY.

The worst mass murder in Canada's history, more than three hundred innocent people killed, tens of millions of dollars spent on an investigation and trial that may be the most expensive and time consuming in this country's whole history of litigation....and now this.

Anyone have any comments?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

A typical result of a failed justice system.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> A typical result of a failed justice system.


I wouldn't though the baby out with the bath water just yet... but clearly something has gone wrong here. I've just read the CBC report, the Judge totally discounted a key witnesses testimony. My guess is that if this goes to appeal or th supreme court that it may get overturned.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Which means MORE expensive court time and MORE expensive lawyer time, does it not?

Guess who is footing the bill for this silly circus? Look in a mirror.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Add to what Sinc wrote, an "Unbelieveable!!!" from yours truly. Who actually has to foot the $130 million legal bill for this 20 year trial??? Granted, each person is innocent until proven guilty, however, from what I have read of the facts of the case, there was not much reasonable doubt of a guilty verdict. I guess that this is why I am a teacher and not a judge.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> however, from what I have read of the facts of the case, there was not much reasonable doubt of a guilty verdict.


There was reasonable doubt? or there wasn't ? I haven't followed the case that closely.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I honestly wish you were a Judge, Marc. You'd make a good one. 

Certainly better than the clowns with robes that we seem to have been cursed with in this country. 

My CAT would make a better judge! The spare tire on my old pickup would make a better judge.....


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Which means MORE expensive court time and MORE expensive lawyer time, does it not?
> 
> Guess who is footing the bill for this silly circus? Look in a mirror.


Nope I looked, my tax dollars are being spent on legalizing pot and same sex marriage... looks like you are picking up the tab for this one.


I shouldn't poke fun at you over this one... it is a shame and a waste, but the system is what it is. Pehaps one solution is that in capital cases rather than having a single judge a tribruneral could be used.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Gerry, granted, the key witness has some credibility issues, but, in my opinion, not enough to render a verdict of not guilty.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I have already filed my tax return and my wife shall do her return over the weekend. Between the sponsorship scandal and the failed gun control legislation, I am at a point of just making my paycheck a "direct deposit" to the federal coffers. Then I can REALLY rant and roar. My wife says that I should not personalize it, but I want to know where my tax dollars went to work to better the environment and people in need.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I haven't followed the case that closely, either, but it sounds to me that the RCMP and the crown screwed up. Seems to be a habit with them. I seem to remember reading a magazine article at least 5 years ago alleging just that.

In the early 90s I worked for the same company that the brother of the alleged ringleader, Parmar, the one who was killed in India, worked for. He was under investigation by the Mounties, although I don't know if he was ever considered to have been involved. Probably they were just harassing him to get any information they could out of him. One day, I had to deal with this 6 foot 5 inch plainclothes Mountie plowing his way into our office, demanding to speak with the guy. He was loud, abusive and threatening and wouldn't listen to us when we informed him that this guy was out on the road, doing deliveries. He seemed to think that if he yelled enough, and threatened us enough, we would just pull him out of the closet or something. I remember at the time thinking that if this was an example of how they do their investigating, it doesn't look too good for the trial.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

A 20 year long or 20 year old investigation would be a nightmare to coorinate and present in court. It would be easy to make the Crown team look foolish by just asking nitpicky, credibility oriented questions and wait for them to flip through their mountains of paper and references to find an answer.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

I'd say throw the defendents on a Jetsgo jet, if they can make it out of Canada on it, they're free, if they can't, they're either dead (the jet crashed) or they go to jail.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The Mounties are having a live news conference about the trial verdict as I write this. The gist of what I am hearing is that "our investigation is not concluded on this matter".

So there is still hope, even beyond a lot of expensive and time consuming appeals.

This whole silly mess has really made me think that anyone can get away with almost ANYTHING in this country. I'm betting that some others are looking at this verdict and thinking the same thing.

All they have to do is sneak past our crack immigration officials and the whole place is open to them. Ripe for the picking, and with a very soft landing if they get pinched.

Good thing our immigration guys are top notch. I'd be really worried if they were'nt......


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Apparently, our Liberal Justice Minister (who I believe is also our Deputy Prime Minister) has just gone on record as saying "there doesn't seem to be any justification for an inquiry into this matter". I guess she feels justice was done.  

Inept AND corrupt. Gotta love those Liberals.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

let's not forget that one person was found guilty earlier


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I'm surprised that the Indian government didn't stake a claim on these two if they were found not guilty in a Canadian court. Afterall they did blow up an Indian airliner and the passangers were either Indian or held dual citizenships.

I'd have no problem with our feds spending a few more bucks shipping these two over there. No doubt they'd receive swift justice there.

Macspectrum, the third individual only got 5years...incredible.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

One of the two has become a very rich man and is a leader in the Sikh business community here on the west coast. Oddly enough, some of the witnesses suddenly decided to change their testimony at the very last moment or "forgot everything they knew" about the whole incident, once they were put on the stand. 

Crime pays. And the proceeds will buy silence, even in a huge show trial like this. 

It even works that way at the very highest levels in this country where justice can be easily bought off. Just ask Chretien.


----------



## Vishalca (Aug 5, 2004)

No justice whatsoever in this country. I am of East-Indian descent, and although I didn't have any family members victimized, my parent's friends kids were killed in it. It makes no sense whatsoever that a person who commits theft (case in point: "Black Widow") can get 4 years of jail, when people who kill hundreds of people, and have credible proof that they did so, can be acquitted. I would not only launch an inquiry into this specific case, but the Canadian Justice System in general; it is miserably flawed.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

No question about it. This country needs a serious revamp. Something is deeply wrong...and it seems to be coming from the very top.  

Not only that, the evening news all over the planet has been reporting this huge miscarriage of justice. And I've just finished reading a whole fistful of emails from friends and former colleagues who I've met over the years while living and working away from Canada.

They are all saying exactly the same thing. The verdict on Canada's ability or will to prosecute major criminals who commit horible crimes from within Canadian borders? At least according to all of the stuff that I have just read?

We are shmucks. And Canada is now...officially...the laughingstock of this whole planet. We are the butt of jokes from every direction.

"_HOW many hundreds of millions of dollars did this cost you??!? For a "NOT GUILTY" verdict?? WTF??"_

"_You guys paid WHAT...500 thousand dollars to one single witness?? And then he suddenly forgot everything when he got on the stand?? Did you cancel the check? Or would that not be very "Canadian"?? _

" _Twenty years of investigation to round up a couple of high profile guys who openly admitted to doing the crime to anyone who would listen? And a trial that took a year...and you STILL got squat??"_

" _I hear that Canada is a great place for criminal activity. No real punishment for anything and NO death penalty. I know a couple of guys who are planning on moving up there next week. You won't like them much."_ 

Stuff like that.

It's a truly sad day to be Canadian. I never thought I'd ever say that.


----------



## Vishalca (Aug 5, 2004)

I agree 100%, MacNutt. If our country cannot openly deal with people the way they deserve to be dealt with, then I am sad to be Canadian today. I am more concerned about the verdict as a whole; what does that say about the Justice System? Why is "petty theft" (an oxymoron if I ever heard one) considered more severe than mass murder? Would Bin Laden be acquitted in Canada, if the CN Tower was bombed on 9/11? There is no such thing as justice in Canada.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

This is all very sad, very disappointing. I'm still trying to sort through and understand my own thoughts about it.

A professor I know lost his _entire family_ on that flight. Wife, children, and parents. Next time I see him I'll have to ask him how he feels about this verdict.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The Sikh community out here on the coast is absolutely stunned by this verdict. We saw many of them speak about it on the evening news tonight. As you have noted Doug, whole families were wiped out. Something like 88 children died in this terrorist act.

And the guys who've openly admitted to doing it are free men tonight.  

We should all be ashamed. Deeply ashamed.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> The Sikh community out here on the coast is absolutely stunned by this verdict. We saw many of them speak about it on the evening news tonight. As you have noted Doug, whole families were wiped out. Something like 88 children died in this terrorist act.
> 
> And the guys who've openly admitted to doing it are free men tonight.
> 
> We should all be ashamed. Deeply ashamed.


The witnesses that didn't come forward to help the crown should be ashamed as should the people cheering for a Kalsa homeland outside of Malik or Bagri's home.


----------



## Vishalca (Aug 5, 2004)

There is no compassion at all; like you mentioned, the man who lost his whole family in the tragedy must be absolutely raged by this decision. Why is it that those who are innocent become guilty, and those who are guilty become innocent? Why does our government make such ridiculous mistakes affecting the lives of thousands of people? And to make matters worse, Anne Mclennan is turning DOWN the offer of a public inquiry; she is citing concerns that it would not get anything done.    . Bureaucracy is only concerned about the $$, I guess.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

People who cheer for terrorists are beyond shame. The witnesses who didn't show up or who refused to talk were probably very well paid off. They have no shame.

We Canadians, on the other hand, have just witnessed how far our land has fallen when it comes to justice. Boy have we got a long way to go, before we can get back on track. Too sad.


----------



## youngbd1 (Jul 2, 2001)

Sorry - late to the debate. One of my favorite sites (eat the meat - leave the bones) is:
h**p://cryptome.org/
(If this live links - I'll never live it down ... )
Cheers, BY


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

I'm surprised that no one has thought of this.

Is it possible that the reason these terrorists got off scott free is that we are afraid of any repercussions that might come our way (in light of 9/11) if they were convicted?

Is it at all possible that their terrorist network would strike a Canadian target if these men were imprisoned, knowing full well that we as Canadians can't defend ourselves or are incapable of bringing terrorists to justice? Do you think the US would come to our aid if this happened??


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MaxPower said:


> I'm surprised that no one has thought of this.
> 
> Is it possible that the reason these terrorists got off scott free is that we are afraid of any repercussions that might come our way (in light of 9/11) if they were convicted?
> 
> Is it at all possible that their terrorist network would strike a Canadian target if these men were imprisoned, knowing full well that we as Canadians can't defend ourselves or are incapable of bringing terrorists to justice? Do you think the US would come to our aid if this happened??


No way... We aren't talking Al Qaeda here, the Sihk terrorists didn't target Canada... they targeted Air India. Unfortunately the vast majority of those killed happened to be Canadian.

The issue here is that an immensely important case came doen to the ruling of one individual as I understand it. I expect it will go to appeal (although my guess is that will be difficult as appeals are usually only on the grounds of error in the rule of law). If it doesn't, I think that we do need to think about changing things in captial cases. A tribuneral approach takes much of the subjective interpretation of the law out of the case... I suspect that if that were applied in this case the two individuals would likely have been found to be guilty.


----------



## goobertech (Jan 24, 2005)

You can lay this one at the feet of Csis, Police and Crown . They are inept from coast to coast. I know having been wrongfully dragged through the courts for three years myself . I hope the defendants sue for legal costs and such for this case never should have gone to trial . The Judge made the only reasonable decision he could make .


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

If the Crown can't persuade a single judge, I think it's unlikely they could persuade a panel of judges (let alone a jury, which is not an option you mentioned but seems an obvious one). And BTW, da_jonesy, there are no capital crimes in Canada, as by definition those are crimes punishable by death.

The guilty may well have walked free in this case (and I suspect the root cause is RCMP/CSIS bungling). But on principle I have to disagree with those who see this case as a symptom of a dead justice system. 

To me, justice is dead when every case results in a conviction. If the Crown and the police fail to do their jobs properly and the result is acquittal, then, sadly, that <i>is</i> justice. If they can bungle all they please and still get convictions, then that is a police state.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

> No way... We aren't talking Al Qaeda here, the Sihk terrorists didn't target Canada... they targeted Air India. Unfortunately the vast majority of those killed happened to be Canadian.


I realize what the terrorists target was and that isn't my point. 

As I questioned before: Do you think that the reason they got off is because Canada is afraid of a terrorist attack because we are unable to properly defend ourselves?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MaxPower said:


> As I questioned before: Do you think that the reason they got off is because Canada is afraid of a terrorist attack because we are unable to properly defend ourselves?


No


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

iMatt said:


> And BTW, da_jonesy, there are no capital crimes in Canada, as by definition those are crimes punishable by death.


Damn Law and Order reruns... I should have known that.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

I'm thankful that i , basically, don't know what all of you are talking about( being new to this country), and in this case, ignorance is bliss. And I don't want to know. I don't think you 'll be able to imagine this, but picture the way that you feel right now, and try to imagine feeling like this EVERYDAY for, let me soften the punch for you, say 5 years. That's right, total outrage and impotence every day for 5 years. 
Welcome to my world, just another Argentinean. 
Is with great sadness that i say to you, that i symphatize with Canadians today, but i don't want to get upset over this, so i don't want to know, i don't want to care.
Hopefully, in a few years, i'll recover my strength and debate seriously with all of you, but for now, i just want to relax and enjoy the tranquility and seriousness of this beautiful country of yours.

p.s.: nice to see 100% of you agreeing on something. When this happened in my country, we would spread the word all over the news to set a time, and at that precise moment, we'll grab an old iron pot and a spoon, went to the window or balcony and bang the hell out of the pot. All cars honking, and every window with someone making noise, all throughout the Country. We made our point, and sometimes, we got some result out of it. But in any case, to have everyone united behind one cause is beautiful.


----------



## sketch (Sep 10, 2004)

Glad to hear that all the work I do goes to pay for such a corrupt system. 

I am very, very sorry for the victims and their families. I cannot begin to imagine what they are going through.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The witnesses were uncredible. There was no physical evidence. There were a series of bungles by the investigating teams (who seemed to be in competition and were covering their butts for not intervening before the bombs were dispatched). It's 20 years after.

I can't see what good an appeal would do since the judgment threw out all of the primary witness statements. There was tremendous pressure to prosecute even though the testimonies were known to be flawed. I can't see what good an enquiry would do except shame CSIS and the RCMP well after the event. There may be a case for a civil suit on behalf of the relatives. In civil cases, the burden of proof is not beyond all reasonable doubt.

Beyond this, I think its well past time to honour the victims. One of the most shocking disturbing statements came from one of the family members who asked whether the investigation would have been more effective if the victims had been Anglo-Saxon whites. Just the perception that the investigation was not as thorough or the Canadian public as concerned because the passengers were of Indian descent should cause pause for thought.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

HUGE money spent (our tax money, no less)....NO effect whatsoever...complete futility...widespread public frustration....and the bad guys walk. AS USUAL.

I think GastonBuffet is really on to something here. We Canadians should all get up on our hind legs and agree on a set time and then all go out to our windows and start beating on pots and pans or yelling at the top of our lungs! We should all collectively yell "ENOUGH Of this NONSENSE!!"while pounding away on the langostina roaster with a steel spoon...or even just make armpit farting noises or something in the general direction of Ottawa.

This is clearly "not good enough". It's high time we let everyone at the top know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that we are NOT going to put up with this sort of thing any longer.  

Time to make your feelings known to those at the top of the food chain around here. They need to realise how upset we all are at this LATEST (of many) ridiculous waste of our hard earned money.

Make yourself heard. Or wait for it to happen again.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I'm sorry, but what will making a noise achieve aside from a brief episode of catharsis? It wasn't the law that failed here, it was the lack of credible evidence upon which to convict. How can that be remedied? Fabrication of evidence? Suspension of belief? Vigilante justice? 

The cost is NOT RELEVANT. We have to pay for court cases, just as we have to pay for police. In this country, the accused have a right to a defence. Just because we pay for a case, doesn't mean it should end in conviction!


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I agree with many here that it was CSIS and RCMP bungling that destroyed their case. I just heard today on the radio that CSIS mistakenly erased hundreds of hours of wiretap evidence that they had in this case.

This is the part of the justice system that is failing us.

Judging from my encounter with one of the investigators in this case, I would hope they aren't all as stupid as that guy was.

I think a public enquiry would help to point out just how those people we entrusted to investigate the guilty parties, fell down on the job. If they get shamed in the process, so be it. It might do them some good.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## oldmachead (Nov 2, 2002)

1. The enforcement and investigation agencies screwed up. Big time.
2. The Justice Minister displayed callous indifference to the suffering.

Prior to 9/11 this was the largest terrorist action in the world.

Shame on Canada for dealing with this so shabbily. This case and its handling, especially the Minister's cold comments on the outcome, have made me ashamed to be Canadian. We have let over 300 innocent souls down. Their families will never recover from this. We have let them down too. All they seek is justice and closure. Our Minister is having none of that. Shame!

Incidentally, India has no jurisdiction in the case - someone pointed out that India could have got involved. India does not allow dual citizenship - that is changing, but until now it was not allowed. The crime was hatched in Canada and executed in Canada - so jurisdiction belongs here. India has no say in this. They helped by providing the recovered wreckage for Canada to use in the investigation.

We must be the only country in the world to mollycoddle our criminals and terrorists. The only country where you can genuinely get away with murder.

Shame.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

My thoughts exactly.

And our Justice Minister should be made to resign for her offhand public attitude toward this verdict. THEN we should have a public inquiry into how this massive and terribly expensive trial went so very wrong. 

Canada has been made to look absolutely stupid. In publc. Yet again. 

How much more of this are we going to take?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MasterBlaster said:


> Trust me. Most of them are.


No, but they are all human.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## goobertech (Jan 24, 2005)

As I understand it , the RCMP and CSIS were both battling each other to solve the case and show up the other . They were not sharing evidence or speaking to each other , and any communication from the other was ignored. Finally when ordered ( I think the rcmp had gone to court I can't remember and may be wrong) the CSIS agents destroyed evidence rather then hand it over to the RCMP , It was real funny they had an ex-Csis agent on the CBC that could not keep the lies straight , he said they destroyed the tapes because they ran out of space . When told that earlier clams was to protect a witness, he started going , umm yes.... ummm no ... maybe?? I' m not sure.

But any way the Crown with out any hard evidence or a single untainted witness , or real witness of any kind , also any evidence they did have was tainted because of the destuction by Csis . Still went ahead with the case anyway , even though it could not be won , either because they are morons or more likely they say "eventhough I have no evidence I still think you are guilty and will abuse my power to drag you through court and punish you that way" 

Please remember that the millions of dollars was pissed away on these corrupt inept idiots ( the crown and police that is) that have made it impossible for anyone to be convicted now .

Not a liberal judge or court system 

It was they law and order types , the Crown ( or is that Clown ) and Rcmp / Csis
( could I get an Order of Law hold the rights and some abuse of power on the side, Thanks)

The reason I hope the Defendants sue is because , one the crown abused it's power and should be held responsible for this fiasco . two that hopefully this would cause such outrage as to get something done for once , for it has been a long running theme here in ontario . Once and awhile something floats to the surface .
guy paul morain , stanley george ,steven trustcot , jamel jamel . otto vass.....
Could fill a phonebook with names ....


----------



## oldmachead (Nov 2, 2002)

Correct. The investigating agencies blew it. The judge/legal system can only adjudicate on the basis of what is presented to the court and within the framework of the law. The outcome is not the judge's doing.

But if the agencies blew it by sheer ineptitude/stupidity (whatever you want to call it) then who are they accountable to? Who watches them?

And if everyone sees that this situation was avoidable and that there is an injustice that cries out for some form of redress ... and THEN the justice minister brushes the cries away with a callous comment ... perhaps that explains why people are upset.

It would not have hurt the minister to have made a softer remark - without committing anything. All she needed to be was sensitive to the suffering of the victims.

By 'victims' I am referring to the families left behind - the ones who have to live with this tragedy and will never really get closure from the horror.

We needed to be a kinder, gentler nation for these victims. Instead we ended up being harsh and unsupportive. (I'm sure that there are many in the RCMP/CSIS/other agencies who are sincerely doing their best - but the net result is cold comfort to those affected.)

<Sigh> The sadness of all of this is overwhelming.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

OMH, I agree. McClennan seems to chew razor blades. She has no compassion. The families of the victims are distraught and they deserve both sympathy and answers. I would hope they can file a civil suit but there may be legal blocks to that. They need closure and after 20 years, they only have a bad taste in their mouths.

CSIS and the RCMP both must shoulder the blame for ineptitude. I doubt a public enquiry would achieve anything concrete except for a long list of recommendations that are largely common sense since CSIS can declare much of their activities as off limits for reasons of national security (as would the CIA, FBI, etc). But the wishes of the families must be a major consideration in whatever happens. They must be afforded respect and dismissal of their views is callous, whatever the reason.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I agree, MacLennan's an idiot. Whenever I've heard her speak on any issue it has been pretty bad. CSIS and the RCMP blew it. They should now be compelled to tell us in detail exactly how they blew it and write it on the blackboard a few hundred thousand times. Maybe fire a few of them too.

I heard that interview on the CBC yesterday, where the former CSIS agent tried to justify why they trashed all that evidence. What an ass!

This is a good argument for why they shouldn't be allowed to keep all of their doings top secret. We should at least have a public ombudsman with appropriate clearances who can monitor the nonsense they get up to. The Maher Arar case is another instance where these clowns, under the cloak of secrecy, screwed up and then use that cloak to cover up their mistakes. What the hell do we pay these clowns for?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

More leadership from the Government would have done wonders with this. There seems to be a serious vacuum at the very highest levels in this country these days. No wonder it all fell apart.

Without a firm hand on the wheel, we can only expect our fine country to drift even further off the road. Let's hope someone notices that the helm seat is vacant right now. And does something about it. 

First order of business? Dump our "Justice" Minister. Prefereably tomorrow.


----------



## oldmachead (Nov 2, 2002)

OK. So let's stir the pot and kick things up a notch in this discussion ... so for the sake of this discussion (which may just turn into an argument now ;-) ) let's consider what the outcomes may have been if:

1. Maher Arar's name was Michael Adams and that his address was in, oh, let's just say, Rosedale or Forest Hills, Toronto ... (even if he just happened to have been born in Syria while his parents were, say, diplomats posted there - so his passport will still show Syria as his place of birth);

2. Of the 330 passenger victims of the Air India bombing, 315 had last names like Jones, Smith, Mclachlan, Doyle, Stewart, McDonald etc etc ... and the rest had last names like Singh, Kumar, Gupta ...

Would these cases have been handled differently? Would the government's response have been any different?

Whaddya think?

I know that this is pure speculation ... but I'm curious to know what others think of this subject.

Thoughts/ideas??


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I'd like to think not, but some of the families of the victims clearly think the efforts to get to the bottom of the tragedy were influenced by the fact they were largely of Indian descent, on an Air India plane, downed by Sikh terrorists. The same sort of under-the-table racism is applied to muslims (generalized as pro-terrorists), etc.

In Mahers case, I'm not so sure his ethnicity was so relevant. The Canadian government did very little in freeing Bill Sampson.


----------



## oldmachead (Nov 2, 2002)

Good point about Bill Sampson. The only thing he had going for him was his British citizenship. After his release he's pretty much stayed in the UK.

One of the unspoken things in Bill Sampson's case was that there was another Canadian citizen who was similarly incarcerated (the entire case was bogus - having lived in that region I sorta know what it was all about - another discussion thread entirely).

Anyway, this other person was of Indian descent who was a Canadian citizen. I read that he wants no publicity ... but interestingly he's also chosen to move to the UK. From what I read of the case, the Canadian government did little in his case too.

Could it be that we don't have any clout internationally? Maybe the government was genuinely trying to help ... behind the scenes of course ... and the Saudi's couldn't care less about Canada? (After all, they released other people who were jailed in the same so-called 'alcohol' case ... and those others were from European nations.)

Maybe other countries don't take us too seriously since we are not powerful or we come across as being an emasculated nation, too full of good intentions and little else?

Goody two-shoes, so to speak ...

I can see us having that impression/perception overseas ... we have wussy laws and are seldom seen 'getting tough'. Today's Globe has an article on money laundering and some lawyer said that Canada is one of the best places to launder money - way easier than in the US.

I've sat and observed a court case down at University Avenue and seen how lightly we treat criminals. It really is an encouragement for crime. We're more concerned with the rights of the criminal than the rights of the victims ... maybe that's what's underlying the AI case?

Ya tink??


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Sounds about right to me. Unfortunately.

I can't think of a better place on the whole planet to be based in when pulling off a major ciminal act. You can snuff someone here in Canada and be pretty much assured that you'll be able to apply for day parole within seven years. Or less.

If you do it using a car as a weapon, when drunk...or as a hit and run...you'll likely serve less than two years real prison time. Pretty easy lockdown time too...by all accounts.

And murder is considered to be the very worst crime...which makes everything else a walk in the park. So do the math.

There is NO death penalty in Canada. And it seems like even a terrorist act of mass muder committed on an airliner is a pretty easy thing to get away with, after this weeks revelations about our Canadian "justice" system

Also...it's the easiest and simplest way into North America. Bar none. And Canadians have unprecedented access to America.

Think the world's bad guys haven't noticed this? Think the world's terrorist groups haven't noticed it too?

Think again.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Whatever MacNutt. I'm sure you'd prefer a system more akin to the US where there are two million inmates and a murder rate significantly higher than Canada. Martha Stewart didn't seem to have too much of a hard time..... Or maybe China where over 15,000 criminals are executed every year. Stiff penalties are supposed to be effective deterrents. Unfortunately, that is not the case for most crimes and all they do is perpetuate the problem.


----------



## oldmachead (Nov 2, 2002)

*AI Tragedy and justice in Canada ...*



used to be jwoodget said:


> Whatever MacNutt. ... Stiff penalties are supposed to be effective deterrents. Unfortunately, that is not the case for most crimes and all they do is perpetuate the problem.


Hmmm ... so you mean we *should* have wussy laws and be soft on criminals ... wouldn't want to upset them and all that, right?

Margaret Wente has a few good points in her essay in today's Globe: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...y/LAC/20050319/COWENT19/TPNational/Columnists

Food for thought ...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> Sounds about right to me. Unfortunately.
> 
> I can't think of a better place on the whole planet to be based in when pulling off a major ciminal act. You can snuff someone here in Canada and be pretty much assured that you'll be able to apply for day parole within seven years. Or less.
> 
> ...


I can't believe that many Canadian's think conservatives are nuts for proposing changes to our justice system. When will people realize that serious changes are necessary?

I don't agree with the Death Penalty though because I don't think it has any effect as a deterent.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

OMH, no I don't think we should have wussy laws, but I also think the evidence that stronger penalties are effective deterrents is sorely lacking. All prisons do is defer the problem. I do not think this is a solution at all. We do need to tighten our deportation laws and be more effective in screening new immigrants. But I think our money would be better spend on investing in our police forces than in prisons.

Our laws and penalties did not get "wussy" overnight. The current government did not set out to re-decorate cells and hook them up with cable TV. The idea that stricter penalties are more effective in curbing crime is not supported by the facts. It might seem like a good idea and this people support it. But it does not solve anything and be deleterious in the long run.


----------



## Toca Loca Nation (Jun 22, 2004)

I'm always a little leery when it comes to cries made in the heat of the moment. The Canadian justice system has flaws, of that we can all be sure. But I really am unconvinced that anyone has come up with a significantly better model. As others have pointed out, calls for longer, easier and colder incarceration would all go far in making us feel better, but no one can really show that they would do anything to deter further incidents. And, if gallons of money are an issue, just look at what the US spends on their prison system, and talk to me about responsible use of funds. 

I am reminded of the drama of both of the Guy Paul Morin verdicts, something that I always think about when Canadian society wants to "get tough on criminals". I also think of the much more recent slayings of four RCMP officers, and the way that this has been twisted and spun to suit the politics of a huge spectrum of lobbies and special interest groups, often in a blatantly misleading fashion.

I don't mean to appear callous. I have only sympathy for the victims and their families of the terrorist act. My father was once the victim of an act of unbelievable violence and cruelty. The police never found the perpetrators, and when the media asked me about this, I realized that I just didn't care. Nothing would change what had happened.

As someone pointed out in a previous post, the fact that a not guilty verdict was rendered is proof that our justice system works. It is a system that is fundamentally flawed, but knowingly flawed. There is no doubt that many guilty people walk away scot free, and this is the cost of a system that does its best to make sure that the innocent are never wrongly convicted.


----------



## oldmachead (Nov 2, 2002)

used to be jwoodget said:


> But I think our money would be better spend on investing in our police forces than in prisons.


I agree ... at times it almost looks like we're putting our police forces at a disadvantage (those rights need to be protected - even for criminals) ... it's like we're tying their hands and telling them that they need to do a better job in policing.

The lawmakers don't seem to help policing ... which compounds the problems that they (the police) already face. (Hang on, didn't we elect those lawmakers? Do they listen to the voters after they're elected? Maybe we should make them more accountable, n'est ce pas?)

No, there is no perfect model ... but it wouldn't have cost the government very much to be compassionate in the Air India case. I think that the minister came across as very harsh. If there was a time to show compassion, this was it.

All of this is, of course, cold comfort to the victims. Especially those who live with this tragedy day-in and day-out.

Very, very sad.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

used to be jwoodget said:


> We do need to tighten our deportation laws and be more effective in screening new immigrants.


What does that mean? I'd be careful with this one it borders on racism. Does this mean that anyone fighting for their peoples independence gets the boot? What about political disidents or political refugees. Clearly you want to screen out the hardcore criminal element... but where do you draw the line?



used to be jwoodget said:


> But I think our money would be better spend on investing in our police forces than in prisons.


Perhaps the money would be better spent stopping/preventing criminal acts prior to them happening. How about job programs and educational incentives
to those parts of the population more at risk to fall into criminal tendencies?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

UTBJW said:


> Whatever MacNutt. I'm sure you'd prefer a system more akin to the US where there are two million inmates and a murder rate significantly higher than Canada.


Actually he would, MacNutt has already made his preference clear for a United States of North America in another thread recently.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Why does this discussion keep devolving into calls for getting tougher on criminals? That was not the problem here, the problem was that our police agencies couldn't come up with a winnable case against the defendant without completely screwing it up. They acted liked keystone cops and wasted millions of bucks on this nonsense. 

It seems that many here are saying, the solution to problems like this is to be able to prosecute criminals with less evidence. That the judge should have found them guilty even though he had nothing credible to work with. Whoever the cops drag into court gets convicted on their say so, no evidence required. The logical extension of this is called a police state.

If the cops had done their job in this case we would have probably got convictions. That's the part of the justice system that didn't work here.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> What does that mean? I'd be careful with this one it borders on racism. Does this mean that anyone fighting for their peoples independence gets the boot? What about political disidents or political refugees. Clearly you want to screen out the hardcore criminal element... but where do you draw the line?
> 
> Perhaps the money would be better spent stopping/preventing criminal acts prior to them happening. How about job programs and educational incentives
> to those parts of the population more at risk to fall into criminal tendencies?


Da-jonesy, we currently draw a line. The problem is that we do not do enough to ensure deportation of convicted felons. That should not be too hard to do. There are numerous examples of landed immigrants commiting crime, being convicted and deported, only to return and repeat their offences.

Post 9/11 there has been a tendency to block more political refugees and this has undoubtedly been unfair in some cases. There again, we should not allow such refugees to support insurgencies in their native lands from Canada since that simply shifts the battle onto our territory. If they wish to fight for their cause, they should do it in their home country and not use Canada as a staging post.

I completely agree about emphasis on prevention.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

used to be jwoodget said:


> If they wish to fight for their cause, they should do it in their home country and not use Canada as a staging post.


I absolutely have to agree with you on that one... 

I suppose the issue becomes much more grey when you take into account situations where law abiding immigrants are sending money oversea's to fund conflicts. That's a hard nut to crack.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

My view on nthat is that if they are sending money abroad to support groups that are recognized as terrorists, then they are directly supporting such terrorism and using your own money for that end is illegal in Canada. In practice, it's much harder to trace the money flow/laundering, though. $$ sent for humanitarian causes have been known to be channeled to freedom fighters, etc. Plus, if one sends money overseas to support your family, you have no control over their use of those funds. Ultimately, it has to be education and our comon values that will curb such misguided funding.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

CSIS threw the case away, 20 years ago, when they destroyed the wiretap evidence they had, that probably would have resulted in a conviction. What's to be done now?

How about we take CSIS apart from the top down and put back to them back together as an organization that won't make mistakes like this again? With a public ombudsman, who has appropriate security clearances, to guarantee that they can't misuse their power. Is anybody proposing that?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Bottom line here?

Canada is VERY easy on it's criminals. Especially easy on it's long-term career criminals. 

We keep on hearing about how car thieves are caught and then let go the same day by the courts. Some of them are caught several TIMES in ONE day...and they are STILL let go. Even after one HUNDRED or more well-documented charges of car theft, they are still set free to do it again by the courts and the judges!

Very few are ever sent to jail for any real length of time. It's only a few months at best. And only for a precious few. There is NO real deterrent. NONE! 

Just this month, there have been several deaths of innocents at the hands of drug-addled car thieves. And this pales when compared with the past record! 

How much longer must we put up with this travesty of "justice"?

With well-established car thieves or well-documented terrorists??

Again, your choice.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> We keep on hearing about how car thieves are caught and then let go the same day by the courts. Some of them are caught several TIMES in ONE day...and they are STILL let go. Even after one HUNDRED or more well-documented charges of car theft, they are still set free to do it again by the courts and the judges!


Is that a BC thing? Because I don't hear that much about Car Theft here in Southern Ontario. I lived in the GTA and never had any concern about car theft...

Mind you i drive a mazda and chrystler... couldn't imagine anyone would want them.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

It's virtually impossible to be caught and released several times in one day. Petty crime is a problem and can escalate. Stolen cars are more frequently in accidents and the case in Maple Ridge of a stolen car running over a gas bar attendant (for the sake of not paying $12) was tragic. The profession car theft rings are targetted but the police and courts do not turn a blind eye to these thefts since anything that involves a vehicle (or property) worth over $5000 is automatically a serious larceny. When it involves minors, it is more difficult, but again, given the dangers and costs associated with car theft, these crimes are taken seriously.

Exaggeration isn't a great way to make a point. MacNutt, if this is "well documented", please trouble yourself to provide some of that documentation so we can get an idea of how widespread the problem of 100+ car theft criminals being let off really is.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> "Bottom line here?
> 
> Canada is VERY easy on it's criminals. Especially easy on it's long-term career criminals.
> 
> We keep on hearing about how car thieves are caught and then let go the same day by the courts. Some of them ... " etc, etc, etc, etc.


What the hell does this particular rant have to do with the subject of this thread? MacNutt derailing his own thread? 

Whether Canadians are soft on criminals or not, has nothing to do with this subject. There were no convictions because arrogant and incompetent CSIS agents threw away evidence and botched the case. 

That's the bottom line here.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MasterBlaster said:


> It's not even a considered a crime by VPD in Vancouver.


Am I the only one that's getting tired of you whining about how bad you think the VPD is? Granted, you had a bad experience, but it's getting old. As I asked before, if you're that dissatisfied with the city, why don't you move?


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MasterBlaster said:


> Tell that to my girlfriend who is traumatized by this crime against her.


You had a bad experience, I already granted that point. What, not phrased dramatically enough for you?



MasterBlaster said:


> Obviously you don't give a damn about anyone other than yourself.


Obviously you'd know, I mean we've spent so much time together. Oh, wait, we haven't. You're just making a snap judgement.



MasterBlaster said:


> This is NOT an isolated incident. This is a systemic problem with the VPD. So if you think that is OK, it says a lot about your low standards.


See, I've never had anything but good experiences with the VPD. That said, I never said that your experience with them was "ok" or anything of the sort, I just said I'm getting tired of you bringing it up what seems like every time it's even remotely related to the topic of discussion.



MasterBlaster said:


> Grow up.


Who's putting words in who's mouth here? Who's posting about their own bad experiences with a law enforcement agency not related to the topic of discussion? Who's insinuating things about another person based on the content of one post?



MasterBlaster said:


> All that we ask for is a reasonable level of protection and service in Vancouver.
> 
> One of the reasons that I posted it here is because I am looking for an effective and legal solution.


So why don't you keep up the thread you already have going? Or start a new one for discussion on that topic? 

You know what flogging you stance on something in only barely related threads ends up doing? Marginalizing it, and derailing the existing discussion.

So, to that end, if you want to wax on this anymore with me, feel free to PM me or to start a new thread. Otherwise, let's let the discussion about Air India, CSIS and the RCMP continue, shall we?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Pretty much every night we hear about this stuff on the evening news out here.  

Car theft and theft from auto is a major part of the permissive drug culture out here on the west coast. The judges are VERY lenient, by all accounts. Some hard core car thieves with more than a hundred charges are let go the very same day...only to be busted for the same crime later that day. Some even have the audacity to show up for their court dates in a stolen vehicle. Recently, a witness to one of these car thefts was asked to appear in court and say what she'd seen, in order to help convict the criminal.

Guess what? While she was testifying, her CAR WAS STOLEN from the courthouse parking lot!!

Some of these scumbags have 175 (or MORE) previous car theft charges on their police record...but they are still out threre on the streets plying their "trade". Because of terribly lenient courts, and because of almost nonexistant punishments.

The west coast of Canada is now, apparently, the car theft CAPITAL of the whole english-speaking world. Bar NONE!

WORSE than New York. WORSE than LA. WORSE even, than Detroit! Or Chicago!

Here on the west coast, in the last four weeks, we have seen no less than four deaths of innocent people at the hands of well known car theives who were at the wheel of yet another stolen vehicle. 

This isn't working. I'm thinking it's time for a change. Many others are with me on this.

How about YOU?


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

*I must ask Pamela and the other ladies here how they would feel if this had happened to them.
*

That is one of the reasons I have left Vancouver. The good no longer outweighed the bad and the Vancouver police doesn't help matters. I could tell you countless stories of their ineffectiveness/inefficiency/indifference.

I never felt that safe in Vancouver from day one and with each passing day the daily battle of the "big city" (scoff) and it's BS grated on my last nerve. crime....traffic....cost of living....cultural differences....and the general assholio-ness of Vancouverites has made it a very hard place to get some peace and quiet in your soul. I have opted out.


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

*As I questioned before: Do you think that the reason they got off is because Canada is afraid of a terrorist attack because we are unable to properly defend ourselves?*

Yes. I believe so. (It is my understanding that some of the witnesses were scared sh*tless) And this is unfortunate because it perpetuates further terrorism. At least the Americans stand by the fact that they won't give in to terrorism (although I'm sure they do behind closed doors). We are openly saying..."here....come take advantage of us...there are no reprocutions here!" No wonder the Americans hate our lack of a stand on terrorism. We don't even have the guts to stand up to them IN COURT when they kill our own....nevermind standing up to them militarily.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Bravo, Pamela.

Despite any previous differences we may have had in the past, I suspect that you and I are now much closer in our current perception of how the world works. At least in this particular area.

I differ with you on the ineffectiveness of the local police, tho.

I actually place most of the blame for this ongoing travesty of justice (and good sense) at the feet of the non-eclected judiciary. The cops are really trying to do their jobs...and the judges are selling them short and tossing all of that hard work into the round file, on a daily basis.

This has GOT to have an effect on their ongoing efforts, after all. And it's also GOT to colour their judgement. Especially when it comes to the all important question of "will I get a conviction? Or is all of this risk and effort for naught?"

Think about it.....

Meanwhile Pamela, welcome to the "rest of BC".

Hopefully you have settled yourself into a much more friendly west coast community, now that you have vacated Vancouver. There are lots of fine ones to chose from, after all. 

Trust me on this.


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

Well I don't know about who controls the puppet strings attached to the Vancouver Police...all I know is that the public is being let down.

And don't EVEN get me started on the kickbacks that the ICBC head honchos are getting! Holy Crap! THIS is why I pay $1500 a year for insurance on a crappy old toyota and a full 40% discount for an excellent driving record in Vancouver??!! My husband pays $1900 for the same car, but he can't claim the perfect record he had for 10 years in the States so he get stuck having to pay close to full price!

I can't stand beaurocracy 

No more big city and no more listening to the news or reading the paper. It's a huge waste of my time, energy and stress level.

Let's see if I can get some peace and quiet on this island...


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Pamela said:


> And don't EVEN get me started on the kickbacks that the ICBC head honchos are getting! Holy Crap!


FWIW, as I understand it they are getting big bonuses (everyone in the company almost, not just the head honchos) but they've given up most of their benefits including their vacation time.

I don't know about you, but if I had no vacation time I'd want a huge monetary benefit in exchange, too.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

ICBC is a monopoly. A government controlled monopoly.

Question here:

When exactly did a government controlled monopoly...especially one that is pretty much controlled by the more powerful unions...actually produce a good or a service that was satisfactory to the buying public? And when did same govenment controlled and union manned monopoly actually RESPOND to ANY of the wants or needs of the public that it actually "serves"?

Such government controlled monopolies only exist to provide fat cat jobs for their unionised workers. Just like the ferry system out here in BC.

The wants and needs of the users of this monopoly will ALWAYS be a secondary consideration. Because they have NOWHERE else to shop for this stuff, after all.

Think about it.


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

BC Ferries is private now....but I get your point. And (yikes) I agree. So much waste and corruption in government controlled enterprises.

But to play the devils' advocate...are private businesses any better when thinking bottomline vs. consumer/customer/client?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

BTW, Pamela...

Welcome to whatever island you have chosen. I bet it's a big improvement over what you have lived with previously in the Big Shi**y.

If you want to tell me in a PM what island it is...then I can arrange to have a few free bottles of Carley Spring water delivered to your door. We have distributors all over the Gulf Islands.

Consider it a sort of welcome wagon thing. It's there if you want it.

Just let me know.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

BC ferries may be privately managed...but they are still publicly owned and manned by massively powerful public sector unions.

We have a long way to go with this. But we HAVE made the first few steps in the right direction. Finally.

No more multi-billion dollar boondoggles like the so-called "fast ferries". No more rusting old hulks that can barely stay afloat while the workers get fat paychecks for doing nada.

Thank goodness the NDP period is finally over in BC politics.


----------

