 Jamila Bibi risks stoning if deported to Pakistan, lawyer saysMisc CDN | 206794 hits | Sep 16 12:52 am | Posted by: N_Fiddledog  Jamila Bibi, a Saskatoon, Sask., woman facing criminal charges for adultery in Pakistan, could be the target of a so-called honour killing by her husband's family if she is deported, her lawyer says.Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 2 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
Don't know what gave you the idea that Harper supports the UN.
Perhaps it's my imagination.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harper- ... -1.2767637
In any case this decision was one that was reached without his input (it was decided by the courts).
That's his governing style. Make up poor and unconstitutional legislation, then blame the courts when they overturn it.
He can overturn it, but you know how everyone complains about his adversarial relations with the judicial branch. Wouldn't want anymore of that would we?
He disgraced himself with that stunt. And no, he cannot overturn a judges decision, he's head of the Legislative branch. Only the Supreme court can overturn a Judges's decision. Harper can order Customs and Border personnel not to deport her in accordance with the agreement signed with the UN, but I'm betting he won't.
But Bashir Khan says there's still time for Canada to grant a stay of removal � which could eliminate the risk of the 63-year-old Bibi being killed by her husband's family.
On Monday, the Federal Court rejected Bibi's latest appeal of her deportation order, setting the stage for her flight early Tuesday morning.
Escorted by officials, she was put on a plane in Saskatoon and left the province.
"Right now, she is in one of the major cities, either Calgary or Vancouver," Khan said. "It's still not too late for her."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon ... -1.2767549
Just saying.
-J.
Don't know what gave you the idea that Harper supports the UN.
Perhaps it's my imagination.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harper- ... -1.2767637
Must be. So Harper addressed the GA and Canada gives foreign aid? We've had more trouble with the UN in recent times than I can remember us ever having previously.
Nothings been overturned in this case. A Federal Court judge has ordered this woman deported.
Not Harper.
Ok, so he can't overturn it but he can trump it. Something which you clearly want to happen.
So sometimes defying and going against the courts is a good thing?
Are we really going to give refuge to any one of them that manage to get here?
http://ccrweb.ca/sites/ccrweb.ca/files/ ... ersary.htm
If she is here illegally, or came here to escape charges and/or crimes in her home country, than should she not be deported? I'm not insensitive, I just am of the belief that if we don't stick up for our own laws, we are all setting double standards.
Canada signed the UN treaty on Refugees that says if someone shows up on our borders and has applies for Refugee status, we must give them a fair hearing into that claim. These are our laws.
She has applied to the UN for that hearing, and it has not happened yet. But we are deporting her anyway. Like you said Patriot, if we don't adhere to our laws we are setting a double standard.
So sometimes defying and going against the courts is a good thing?
Overturning a deportation order is not defying the courts. It's within the purview of the minister, says so right in the legislation. Defying the courts is continuing to act on a law that has been judged to be unconstitutional, without invoking the notwithstanding clause.
Are we really going to give refuge to any one of them that manage to get here?
http://ccrweb.ca/sites/ccrweb.ca/files/ ... ersary.htm
If she is here illegally, or came here to escape charges and/or crimes in her home country, than should she not be deported? I'm not insensitive, I just am of the belief that if we don't stick up for our own laws, we are all setting double standards.
Canada signed the UN treaty on Refugees that says if someone shows up on our borders and has applies for Refugee status, we must give them a fair hearing into that claim. These are our laws.
She has applied to the UN for that hearing, and it has not happened yet. But we are deporting her anyway. Like you said Patriot, if we don't adhere to our laws we are setting a double standard.
We did give her a fair hearing. Do our laws say we have to go by UN rulings in these matters? I hope not, or we'll have even more trouble with our FN's since the UN has found we're being naughty there too. She, like all refugee claimants, got due process and many appeals. We don't have to wait for the UN on this, unless our law specifically says so, IMO.
Don't know what gave you the idea that Harper supports the UN.
Perhaps it's my imagination.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harper- ... -1.2767637
Must be. So Harper addressed the GA and Canada gives foreign aid? We've had more trouble with the UN in recent times than I can remember us ever having previously.
We reap what we sow.
That's his governing style. Make up poor and unconstitutional legislation, then blame the courts when they overturn it.
Nothings been overturned in this case. A Federal Court judge has ordered this woman deported.
Not Harper.
I wasn't speaking about Harper in this case, but the general case. His appointment of an unqualified Supreme Court Justice and his embarrassing actions there; changes to prostitution laws, etc. He legislates knowing the legislation will be overturned in court, then blames the court for governing through the verdict and not through legislation.
He disgraced himself with that stunt. And no, he cannot overturn a judges decision, he's head of the Legislative branch. Only the Supreme court can overturn a Judges's decision. Harper can order Customs and Border personnel not to deport her in accordance with the agreement signed with the UN, but I'm betting he won't.
Ok, so he can't overturn it but he can trump it. Something which you clearly want to happen.
So sometimes defying and going against the courts is a good thing?
I want us to follow our own laws. This woman seems like the exact kind of person we should attract to this country, not like that Jamaican imam who likes to preach hate.
And yes, bad laws should be defied at every opportunity.
So sometimes defying and going against the courts is a good thing?
Overturning a deportation order is not defying the courts. It's within the purview of the minister, says so right in the legislation. Defying the courts is continuing to act on a law that has been judged to be unconstitutional, without invoking the notwithstanding clause.
Fine, he's trumping them.
I want us to follow our own laws. This woman seems like the exact kind of person we should attract to this country, not like that Jamaican imam who likes to preach hate.
And yes, bad laws should be defied at every opportunity.
We did.
She had a hearing.
Papers are 2 years old already.
So, go ahead and defy these bad laws.
Saskabush ain't that far away.
Get off the internetz and go DO something.
We did give her a fair hearing. Do our laws say we have to go by UN rulings in these matters? I hope not, or we'll have even more trouble with our FN's since the UN has found we're being naughty there too. She, like all refugee claimants, got due process and many appeals. We don't have to wait for the UN on this, unless our law specifically says so, IMO.
Did we give her a fair hearing?
it appears the Canadian government has decided to ignore the United Nation's ruling, Khan said. "Canada is violating international law," Khan said.
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Rest ... story.html
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Paki ... story.html
In a statement, Judge Marie-Jose� B�dard said: "The applicant has not presented evidence before this court that could support a finding that she will face risks if she is removed to Pakistan that have not already been assessed on two occasions."
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/jamila-bibi-fa ... an-1465653
As the article says, she faces stoning for Adultery if returned to Pakistan.
manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom
would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, member-
ship of a particular social group or political opinion.
2.The benefit of the present provision may not, however, be claimed by
a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to
the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by
a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the
community of that country.
http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html
This is the convention Canada signed.