Today Canada’s Federal opposition party leader wants to reach out to the American family who allegedly lost a member in Afghanistan to a young dual Canadian citizen who has been judicially awarded several million dollars from the government of Canada’s ruling party for not upholding the dual citizen’s human rights while he was being held as a terrorist by the U.S.A..
This outreach is to inform the American family that not all Canadians agree with awarding the accused dual Canadian citizen millions of dollars even though it is known that he was not yet a teenager when the incident in which he is implicated occurred; and some argue no one witnessed his throwing the grenade that killed the American family member.
But the opposition leader’s outreach is not much more effective than the currently, politically popular apology. Canada’s Prime Minister’s saying that the millions awarded could have been more, which may be true and confirms that if the opposition politician had been Prime minister he too would have had to accept the judge’s human rights ruling and compensate the dual citizen from Canada’s tax fund coffers.
Hearing of the millions awarded by Canada bound by Canada’s rights and freedoms legislation that covers dual citizens of Canada reminded me of something I garbled some months back:
I finally put a Google search in for “law versus human rights” to see what the experts might have put online. Most files seemed to stress a citizen’s rights before the law or attempts to define human rights. So I’ll go back to my old naive view that western laws are based on the moral code of some of “The Bible’s”ten commandments that prohibit killing, stealing or perjurying. Rights seem to have evolved out of the prohibitions of law. The rights of a citizen are designed to protect one from being falsely accused of doing something prohibited by law. A nation’s laws protect citizens from the injuries caused by actions that the law prohibits. Human rights seem to be international and imply freedom from national law or citizenship. I’ve begun to sense that those who travel from country to country beyond the confines of a citizen’s national legal rights for business, education or employment may with the help of a human rights lawyer assert their international human rights which may be thought to supersede national law and citizenship. Increasingly Canada’s national government is speaking up for Canadians subjected to the constraints of the laws of the nations that gave birth to dual citizen Canadians, as though a Canadian citizen’s foreign birth place may have laws that interfere with one’s human rights, as though some national laws and systems of justice are intrinsically inferior to Canada’s. And in the United States of America President Trump’s effort to enforce laws that enhance the borders of the United States has caused people who travel to their countries of birth and back to their U.S.places of employment and learning appear to have begun asserting their human rights to avoid national immigration law.