What a twisted tale this is – one which may, once again, illuminate the difference between what minions in government believe or suspect to be true, and what they can actually prove to be true.
Or put differently: the difference between (a) the “cautionary principle”, that is applied in the exercise of a governmental discretions, where things are uncertain and (b) the more formal legal standards that are imposed on decision makers, when they are empowered to determine, or to curtail, actual “legal rights”. A standard that distinguishes suspicion from fact and evidence.
.
Especially in respect of “Charter Rights”, which cannot be easily suspended by legislative fiat; and certainly not “quietly”.
That said, I suspect that there is a good chance that the public will not hear very much about how all of these events unfolded; moreover, the more the proceeding is required to be “open”, the more pressure there will be on the government to quietly settle the case.
Just like in the “Admiral’s case”, where probing into what was “really going on”, eventually prompted the Crown to fold its tent.
Or the hue and cry over Senator Duffy – Fraud! Deceit! and Bribery! – that all came to nothing, there consuming 58 hearing days and producing a Court decision of over 500 pages.
Nevertheless (and of course knowing absolutely nothing at all about the details of the case), it still seems to me that the government may quietly settle the matter.
After all, its only public money.
And burying embarrassment and avoiding “bad precedents” are both good reasons for doing so.
Especially if errors in judgement can be partially ascribed to a former government or to civil servants long departed.
Be that as it may, thanks again for this peak into the twilight world that is otherwise only accessible through spy fiction.
While he may be held to be guiltless in the strict eyes of our laws, I can understand why his associates and behaviour did not ´smell right’ by CSIS and others, in the post 9/11 era. It would be nice to know on what evidence the US put him on the UN no - fly list.
Indeed. Perhaps the same kind of evidence that supposedly showed "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, where so much else that was alleged, turned out to be untrue. Causing how many avoidable deaths?
What a twisted tale this is – one which may, once again, illuminate the difference between what minions in government believe or suspect to be true, and what they can actually prove to be true.
Or put differently: the difference between (a) the “cautionary principle”, that is applied in the exercise of a governmental discretions, where things are uncertain and (b) the more formal legal standards that are imposed on decision makers, when they are empowered to determine, or to curtail, actual “legal rights”. A standard that distinguishes suspicion from fact and evidence.
.
Especially in respect of “Charter Rights”, which cannot be easily suspended by legislative fiat; and certainly not “quietly”.
That said, I suspect that there is a good chance that the public will not hear very much about how all of these events unfolded; moreover, the more the proceeding is required to be “open”, the more pressure there will be on the government to quietly settle the case.
Just like in the “Admiral’s case”, where probing into what was “really going on”, eventually prompted the Crown to fold its tent.
Or the hue and cry over Senator Duffy – Fraud! Deceit! and Bribery! – that all came to nothing, there consuming 58 hearing days and producing a Court decision of over 500 pages.
Nevertheless (and of course knowing absolutely nothing at all about the details of the case), it still seems to me that the government may quietly settle the matter.
After all, its only public money.
And burying embarrassment and avoiding “bad precedents” are both good reasons for doing so.
Especially if errors in judgement can be partially ascribed to a former government or to civil servants long departed.
Be that as it may, thanks again for this peak into the twilight world that is otherwise only accessible through spy fiction.
Thanks for the info Mr. Champs but I sincerely hope you lose the case.
While he may be held to be guiltless in the strict eyes of our laws, I can understand why his associates and behaviour did not ´smell right’ by CSIS and others, in the post 9/11 era. It would be nice to know on what evidence the US put him on the UN no - fly list.
Indeed. Perhaps the same kind of evidence that supposedly showed "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, where so much else that was alleged, turned out to be untrue. Causing how many avoidable deaths?