The Palestinian town of Bil'in has tried to stop construction in Modiin Illit by turning to the Quebec Superior Court. The town tried to claim that since the construction company Green Park is based out of Montreal the Quebec courts should order a halt to the construction. They wanted to claim that the mere construction of the homes is a war crime.
The reasoning behind the ruling was that the jurisdiction belongs to the Israeli courts and should be taken there. The Israeli courts have handled hundreds of claims dealing with Palestinian complaints regarding land claims. The route of the security fence has been altered many times as a result of these law suits.
The courts were wise in avoiding making political decisions across the ocean. The construction is located in the neighbourhood of Kiryat Sefer. This Haredi community has full autonomy over their religous life including an approval committee for new residents. It is a community that takes no interest in the political aspirations of the nation. They simply want a place where they can raise their families according the way they see fit.
The construction is located just below the boundaries of where the current housing is already built. It is the most logical place to put more housing to provide for a growing community. The land is located a mere 1/2 km from the Green line. The commonly held belief is that any final status agreement will have Israel borders redrawn to include this community in exchange for land that would be better suited to a Palestinian political entity somewhere more practical. Palestinians have repeatedly rejected any land compromise. Palestinian leadership would rather have hundreds of thousands of Jews kicked out of their homes rather than take include land settled by Palestinians in Israel proper to be included in a future Palestinian State.
Issues of settlements are part of a comprehensive political solution. Israel has proven that they are willing to expel citizens for political gains. Forcing Israel to make concessions on final borders without the benefits of negotiation and compromise only undermines the whole process. Israel has already tried the focus on small issues and has received terrorism in return. The bigger problems must be solved first and then everything else will fall into place. Anything less is unacceptable.
Showing posts with label Justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Justice. Show all posts
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
Watering Down Terrorism Hits Pan Am Flight 103
It has been 20 years since Pan Am Flight 103 went down over Lockerbie, Scotland. 270 people lost there lives in the terror attack. To date Al-Megrahi isthe only person ever sentenced for the bombing. After serving 8 years of a life sentence, he will have the opportunity to spend the end of his life on his death bed at home with his family.
Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill gets full credit for taking responsibility for his decision. His simply applied of Scottish law that allows prisoners within 3 months of their death bed can be granted the chance to live out their lives at home with their families. He was addament that the decision to let him go had nothing to do with any considerations that he was wrongly convicted. He also denied any political considerations. The US Administration was against the decision. The fact the Muslim prisoner was released on the eve of Ramadan must have been purely coinicidental. Another important fact MacAskill pointed out was that there was some sort of custody arrangement. It sounded like he will have some form of house arrest enforced by Libyan officials.
Some people are outraged that comopassion is being shown to someone who's crime had none for others. Those who support the decision are buying into the compassionate grounds arguement or the belief that Al-Megrahi is the victim of miscarriage of justice. Has it reached the point where terrorism is scene as a form of political expression as opposed to one of the most despicable forms of murder.
When Karla Holmolka was let out of jail, there was outrage that she served out her entire 12 year sentence. Paul Bernardo is technically eligible to apply for probation next year. Any attempts to be released on bail would be met with equal outrage. This murderer/rapist would not recieve any compation to enjoy the end of his life even on his death bed.
Next week Gilad Shalit will spend his 4th birthday since being prisoner. He has been denied the most basic level of human rights under the Geneva Convention. He has been denied access by the Red Cross and communication with his family. Hamas frequently uses his captivity to taunt Israelis. World leaders have at most paid minimal lip service for his freedom.
The price for Shalit is well known and unchanged. Approximatly 1000 Palestinians serving various sentences for crimes against Israel. So far Israel has balked at including prisoners that have commiteted terrorist attacks similar to those of Al-Megrah. They are serving multiple life sentences in some case dozens for the number of Israelis they have been convicted of killing. Hamas is willing things out until they get the deal they want.
When Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up it was considered an unforgivable crime. The very notion that someone could kill 270 people and be released from jail was inconceivable. Now being a murderer does not have the same stigma, no matter how much damage was caused. They are subject to the same mercy as other who have commited much lesser crimes.
Justice Secretary MacAskill may sleep well tonight proud of his ability to show compassion to others. His decision just reaffirms that terrorism is no different than other serious crimes. Taking the stigma out of being a terrorist just makes it that much easier for the perpetrators of future attacks to not fear being brought to justice.
Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill gets full credit for taking responsibility for his decision. His simply applied of Scottish law that allows prisoners within 3 months of their death bed can be granted the chance to live out their lives at home with their families. He was addament that the decision to let him go had nothing to do with any considerations that he was wrongly convicted. He also denied any political considerations. The US Administration was against the decision. The fact the Muslim prisoner was released on the eve of Ramadan must have been purely coinicidental. Another important fact MacAskill pointed out was that there was some sort of custody arrangement. It sounded like he will have some form of house arrest enforced by Libyan officials.
Some people are outraged that comopassion is being shown to someone who's crime had none for others. Those who support the decision are buying into the compassionate grounds arguement or the belief that Al-Megrahi is the victim of miscarriage of justice. Has it reached the point where terrorism is scene as a form of political expression as opposed to one of the most despicable forms of murder.
When Karla Holmolka was let out of jail, there was outrage that she served out her entire 12 year sentence. Paul Bernardo is technically eligible to apply for probation next year. Any attempts to be released on bail would be met with equal outrage. This murderer/rapist would not recieve any compation to enjoy the end of his life even on his death bed.
Next week Gilad Shalit will spend his 4th birthday since being prisoner. He has been denied the most basic level of human rights under the Geneva Convention. He has been denied access by the Red Cross and communication with his family. Hamas frequently uses his captivity to taunt Israelis. World leaders have at most paid minimal lip service for his freedom.
The price for Shalit is well known and unchanged. Approximatly 1000 Palestinians serving various sentences for crimes against Israel. So far Israel has balked at including prisoners that have commiteted terrorist attacks similar to those of Al-Megrah. They are serving multiple life sentences in some case dozens for the number of Israelis they have been convicted of killing. Hamas is willing things out until they get the deal they want.
When Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up it was considered an unforgivable crime. The very notion that someone could kill 270 people and be released from jail was inconceivable. Now being a murderer does not have the same stigma, no matter how much damage was caused. They are subject to the same mercy as other who have commited much lesser crimes.
Justice Secretary MacAskill may sleep well tonight proud of his ability to show compassion to others. His decision just reaffirms that terrorism is no different than other serious crimes. Taking the stigma out of being a terrorist just makes it that much easier for the perpetrators of future attacks to not fear being brought to justice.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Does the Shoe Fit?
In Canadian politics there have been many incidences that could have been major issues. They range from a pie in the face, to a Prime Minister being defended in his own home by his wife with an Inuit statue, to a pie in the face, to people eating their electoral ballots. The Canadian psyche has been to downplay the significance of these events. No harm, no foul and good for a laugh.
The case of Muntadhar al-Zeidi, who through his shoes at George Bush would have fallen into the same category. The fact that shoe throwing has become a popular form of protest around the world adds to the amusement factor. Even George Bush was willing to shrug it off when it happened.
Then the lawyers and the courts got involved. All of a sudden they are dealing with serious charges. Someone attempted to physically assault a foreign dignitary, who happens to be the President of the United States. This is the frame of mind the court took when the handed out a 3 year jail sentence. It appears that the courts only showed leniency because of his clean record and age rather than in reality it was really a minor incident.
The arguments put up by his defence team are quite disturbing. What is more disturbing is that these arguments have been picked up around the world and are being used to justify other acts of violence. He told the judge that it was a natural response to the occupation. This seams to be a growing trend. Any action can be justified by blaming the situation around them. It is amazing that in the entire country he is the only one who was forced by the occupation to throw his shoes at politicians. It is still better than bombing civilians or military personal. In some cases Aboriginal groups in Canada have turned to blockades to fight for their land claims. They seem to be getting more violent. Can they now blame the 'occupation', if they choose to attack police officers or others that stand in their way? How far can society go with 'natural responses' until enough is enough. Why can't people take responsibility for their own actions.
The most unusual argument was that Bush was not on an official visit and therefore just an ordinary visitor (who happens to be President of the United States). If his actions were motivated by the occupation what difference does it make if an official invitation was issued? Is it normal to throw shoes at other people?
The most ironic argument was that his actions should be protected under freedom of speech. Tariq Aziz was sentenced to 15 years in jail for his role in the execution of 82 merchants. They were guilty of price fixing. Without, the liberation of Iraq Aziz actions would have gone unpunished. Sadam Hussien tested chemical weapons on his own people and was executed for murdering 148 people in response to an assassination attempt. Does al-Zeidi really believed that his freedom of expression would have been protected if he decided to throw a shoe at Saddam Hussein. The death sentence would have been carried out quickly.
This incident was relatively minor and the court should have taken that into consideration. His justifications for his actions should not be used to condone what he did. He should have never done it. This incident is minor enough to justify a more lenient sentence.
The case of Muntadhar al-Zeidi, who through his shoes at George Bush would have fallen into the same category. The fact that shoe throwing has become a popular form of protest around the world adds to the amusement factor. Even George Bush was willing to shrug it off when it happened.
Then the lawyers and the courts got involved. All of a sudden they are dealing with serious charges. Someone attempted to physically assault a foreign dignitary, who happens to be the President of the United States. This is the frame of mind the court took when the handed out a 3 year jail sentence. It appears that the courts only showed leniency because of his clean record and age rather than in reality it was really a minor incident.
The arguments put up by his defence team are quite disturbing. What is more disturbing is that these arguments have been picked up around the world and are being used to justify other acts of violence. He told the judge that it was a natural response to the occupation. This seams to be a growing trend. Any action can be justified by blaming the situation around them. It is amazing that in the entire country he is the only one who was forced by the occupation to throw his shoes at politicians. It is still better than bombing civilians or military personal. In some cases Aboriginal groups in Canada have turned to blockades to fight for their land claims. They seem to be getting more violent. Can they now blame the 'occupation', if they choose to attack police officers or others that stand in their way? How far can society go with 'natural responses' until enough is enough. Why can't people take responsibility for their own actions.
The most unusual argument was that Bush was not on an official visit and therefore just an ordinary visitor (who happens to be President of the United States). If his actions were motivated by the occupation what difference does it make if an official invitation was issued? Is it normal to throw shoes at other people?
The most ironic argument was that his actions should be protected under freedom of speech. Tariq Aziz was sentenced to 15 years in jail for his role in the execution of 82 merchants. They were guilty of price fixing. Without, the liberation of Iraq Aziz actions would have gone unpunished. Sadam Hussien tested chemical weapons on his own people and was executed for murdering 148 people in response to an assassination attempt. Does al-Zeidi really believed that his freedom of expression would have been protected if he decided to throw a shoe at Saddam Hussein. The death sentence would have been carried out quickly.
This incident was relatively minor and the court should have taken that into consideration. His justifications for his actions should not be used to condone what he did. He should have never done it. This incident is minor enough to justify a more lenient sentence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)