Was Jason Kenney's public outing of 30 wanted war criminals legitimate and/or effective?

It appears to have been highly effective and most Canadians are asking why this was not done before. Kudos to Kenney. The challenge going forward is to ensure that they are not tried in the media and court of public opinion first because their names have been made so public. That risk, however, appears to be slight. Canada should not be a safe haven and hiding place for those who want to escape the law.

Email

Share

Removing inadmissible immigrants is a legitimate public policy objective, but the press and the public have not been given enough information about the accusations against the individuals concerned. Immigrants can be found inadmissible without the kind of evidence of guilt that would be necessary for them to be sentenced in Canada.  To post their identities on the Internet is to brand them publicly as war criminals without the due process of law that would be necessary to establish this definitively.  Worse still, it contributes to the impression that immigrants are a danger to Canadian society.

Email

Share

Lawyers would call this a leading question: it is worded in such a way as to lead to a particular conclusion. But ask different questions:

• If the government has legitimate orders for the removal of individuals from Canada, should we call publicizing those individuals’ identity and asking the public to report their whereabouts an “outing,” a word that implies inappropriateness?

• Should the individuals named on the Canada Border Services Agency website be called “wanted war crimes suspects”?  The CBSA does not call them that.  Rather, they are individuals who have been deemed inadmissible as immigrants, and thus should be removed from Canada.  As such, should they not face removal?

• Was it legitimate for the CBSA to claim on its website that these individuals “had violated human or international rights under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act or under international law”?  While it is true that these individuals have not been charged with a crime, the administrative process that necessarily precedes a removal order requires the presentation of evidence, and is marked by several layers of appeal. Can the results of such a process not be appropriately called a “determination”?

The minister has clearly relished politicizing this initiative, opening himself to criticism that he is just trying to score cheap points.  But it is hard to see how the initiative itself is illegitimate.

Email

Share

I was a little stunned that the same government who showed so little interest in the International Criminal Court, who struck out humanitarian from DFAIT documents referencing international humanitarian law and who decided to cancel the mandatory long-census form to address privacy concerns would feel compelled to publicly release the names of 30 suspected war criminals.

Jason Kenney did not provide information on the exact nature of the war crimes or the crimes against humanity the men in Canada are alleged to have perpetrated.  When CBC News asked for specific information on the allegations, a CBSA spokeswoman said the agency is “unable to divulge specific details in accordance with privacy laws.”

So what message about Canadian values is Minister Kenney trying to project with this action?  Is vigilantism the new order of the day?  Where does the rule of law fit into this scenario? And how can the Canadian government determine if their labels of “war criminals” are accurate?

Email

Share