Canadian Politics Today

You are assuming that this privy council would agree with your definition of 'common sense'.  What if they did not, and instead agreed that Canada could not simply ignore their own Charter?

Trudeau has to get re-elected and I bet he/his advisors had a clue there'd be backlash about this.  Still, they did it anyway.

But the Supreme Court doesn't have to get elected or re-elected. Their decisions don't reflect the will of the people. And Trudeau doesn't get blamed for them any more than Harper did. Sure I might not agree with the privy council. But we do know they would, at least, be considering both common sense, and what the will of the people is, when they make their decisions. It's not like they would overrule the SC lightly. I can think of a few cases, though, which would have saved us a bloody fortune, like the Singh decision, as one example. Overruling that wouldn't have upset many, and would have saved us untold billions of dollars.

But the Supreme Court doesn't have to get elected or re-elected. Their decisions don't reflect the will of the people. And Trudeau doesn't get blamed for them any more than Harper did. Sure I might not agree with the privy council. But we do know they would, at least, be considering both common sense, and what the will of the people is, when they make their decisions. It's not like they would overrule the SC lightly. I can think of a few cases, though, which would have saved us a bloody fortune, like the Singh decision, as one example. Overruling that wouldn't have upset many, and would have saved us untold billions of dollars.

If continuing to fight the court decision would have cost us millions more, then Trudeau showed common sense by settling for less now.   Imagining that a privy council would have made a decision that you like better, because they rely on voter goodwill, seems a bit odd since you regularly bemoan your belief that Liberals are voted in by stupid and lazy people who think only of the freebies that they'll get.  Why would you expect that those same voters would force a privy council to make decisions that you like more times than not? 

Imagining that a privy council would have made a decision that you like better, because they rely on voter goodwill,

Not just because they rely on voter goodwill, but because they can bring an element of practicality into their decisions the SC ignores. For example, the Sing decision, which granted full Charter rights to all refugees, has turned our refugee determination process into an agonizingly slow, drawn out, and hideously expensive farce where phony refugees go through years of expensive appeals (all of which we pay for) before we can boot them out. A privy council law council might just overrule that, saying it was impractical and not in Canada's interest. They likewise might have overruled the courts on the subject of native oral histories, dismissing them as completely unreliable (which they are, of course) and not be used as evidence.

  Why would you expect that those same voters would force a privy council to make decisions that you like more times than not?

As unreliable as the largely indifferent public is, especially given the third-rate nature of Canada's media, democracy is the only brake we have on governmental stupidity, criminality and arrogance. And the SC, as constituted, has NO brake or restraints whatsoever. They can quite literally make any sort of decision they want on the basis of whyever they want to make it, and cannot be challenged.

Not just because they rely on voter goodwill, but because they can bring an element of practicality into their decisions the SC ignores. For example, the Sing decision, which granted full Charter rights to all refugees, has turned our refugee determination process into an agonizingly slow, drawn out, and hideously expensive farce where phony refugees go through years of expensive appeals (all of which we pay for) before we can boot them out. A privy council law council might just overrule that, saying it was impractical and not in Canada's interest. They likewise might have overruled the courts on the subject of native oral histories, dismissing them as completely unreliable (which they are, of course) and not be used as evidence.

  I do not think it 'practical' that Canadian law treat folks within its jurisdiction with differing levels of rights. Some get legal rep, some don't. That strikes me as very impractical.  And regarding oral histories, they are not completely unreliable, of course, and can be used as evidence - See testimony in courtrooms.

  I do not think it 'practical' that Canadian law treat folks within its jurisdiction with differing levels of rights.

And yet we do that anyway. Some people get to vote, others don't. Some can consume alcohol, others can't. There are requirements for certain government jobs that you be a citizen.

Practicality would be putting all refugee applicants into camps, giving them very quick hearings, and then deporting any who fail. But the courts won't allow that. Instead we have them here for years on welfare while they launch expensive appeal after appeal. And by the time they've run through them all years have passed and they launch fresh appeals based on their having established ties here, perhaps married, and that it would now be inhumane to remove them.

The deal gets the Fox News treatment:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/07/17/omar-khadr-canada-pays-ex-gitmo-detainee-who-killed-us-soldier-millions-but-soldiers-widow-may-never-see-dime.html

The perspective of the medic who saved Khdr's life:

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/world/medic-account-omar-khadr-1.4218853

Interesting read.

i think im less bothered by the settlement than i am by the belief some seem to have that our constitution is an infallible document and things are the way they are because they have to be.   

Has anyone explained the cozy link between the LPC and this family?  Why did Chretien get his father out of a Pakistani prison while under suspicion of terrorism in the first place and did they go out of their way to ignore Omar because of this embarrassing link?  I really got a kick out of Goodale trying to lay blame with the conservatives when he was in the government that violated Khadrs rights, it smells of something.

I don't really expect our media to investigate the LPC but you do have to wonder.  In the end we are responsible, we have to follow our own laws and our constitution, but that comes up pretty short from the same thing as saying that our Constitution was ever meant to cover this sort of situation.  Excluding the child soldier aspect, this is a family of bad people, I feel no loyalty towards them, and they only seemed to have had any towards us when it was advantageous to them, our constitution wasn't designed with that in mind.