[gruez]

>The Khalistani perpetrators of the worst terrorist act on Canadian soil, second only to 9/11 in deaths, walked free.

>I can't comment on Canada's justice system broadly. But when it comes to holding terrorists accountable, Canada's track record is a joke.

The wikipedia article says the Canadian government spent $130M prosecuting the accused, but was unable to secure a conviction. If these people can't be convicted, isn't the correct course of action "walked free"? I'm not sure what the alternative is here? Should we lock them up anyway? Is there any reason to doubt that their prosecution was botched?

[empyrrhicist]

Seeing people defending the most blatant kinds of authoritarianism online gives me the fucking creeps.

[ffgjgf1]

> prosecution was botched

Well… wasn’t it:

> In his verdict, Justice Ian Josephson cited "unacceptable negligence" by CSIS when hundreds of wiretaps of the suspects and other informants were destroyed.

But that’s just how due process and judicial systems work.

[screye]

Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice

[tinuviel]

‘Unacceptable negligence by CSIS’ - how will this be perceived by countries like UK and India whose citizens were killed in the attack?

[renewiltord]

That's exactly it, isn't it? Claiming you have rule of law while being unable to secure prosecutions makes it a farce.

[EatingWithForks]

The rule of law made it so you cannot run kangaroo courts when you just personally believe someone is guilty. If the process is failing to prosecute the guilty, the process should be updated with... more laws, which themselves are passed through representative democratic governance. If one outcome is unsatisfactory to you, you can vote for someone who will tear down the system, you can become a prosecutor, you can run campaigns for people who will tear down systems for you, etc.

[VancouverMan]

> representative democratic governance

It's questionable if that exists in Canada given the system that's currently in place.

Look at the results of the most recent federal election, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Canadian_federal_election

A party that received 32.62% of the popular vote got 160 seats in the House of Commons, while another party that received 33.74% of the vote got only 119 seats.

A party that received only 7.64% of the votes got 32 seats, while another party that received 17.82% of the vote got only 25 seats.

A party that received 2.33% of the votes got 2 seats, while another party that received 4.94% of the vote got no seats.

With a votes-to-seats situation like that, there are a lot of Canadians who don't have proper representation in the House of Commons, or in some cases, effectively none at all.

It's no surprise that the voter turnout wasn't even 63%; many Canadians are completely disillusioned with how the current system works, and don't feel that any of the parties can offer them meaningful representation.

[SuperNinKenDo]

I don't think there's many democracies that function on a purely national popular vote in allotting seats proportionally. I think maybe Israel does. Hardly disqualifies a country as democratic.

[eynsham]

I can't tell whether this is ironic, but, no, it is usually expected that the rule of law requires that the government can't obtain convictions just because it wants them.

[eganist]

> That's exactly it, isn't it? Claiming you have rule of law while being unable to secure prosecutions makes it a farce.

Seems like that's exactly what rule of law should entail: laws so strictly enforced that people can't be prosecuted when the prosecution is botched because doing so would... violate the rule of law.

So if anything, this further reinforces the idea that Canada hews closely to its laws than not.

[kelnos]

Quite the opposite. The bar for depriving someone of their freedom through force of law should be very high. Sure, the ideal is that all actual criminals are convicted, and all innocent people are acquitted (or aren't even charged in the first place). But until we have a magical system that can achieve perfection, I would much rather the occasional criminal goes free than an innocent person has their life ruined.

If the prosecution fails to make their case, either through incompetence, or simply being outwitted by the defense, that's life. That's how the system as a whole should function. That is rule of law.

[empyrrhicist]

What you're asking for isn't "rule of law" it's "absolute rule".

Fuck everything about that.

[__loam]

Utterly ridiculous assertion.