Off Topic

Trudeau paid khadr while ensuring it couldn't be touched.

Deal Expert
User avatar
May 10, 2005
27690 posts
3832 upvotes
Ottawa
Archanfel wrote:
Aug 8th, 2017 10:06 am
The thing is I am not sure what is your opinion exactly. Sure, you don't like the payment, I don't either, but you also don't sound all that confident that continue fighting it would be cheaper or have much chance of success. In fact, national post, not the most liberal friendly publication, quoted a legal expert saying the chance of that is slim at best and it's probably sensible to settle. So it's hard to know whether your opinion is that we could save some money or we should just fight it for the sake of it. That's the problem with a lot of the opinions of "majority of Canadians". They complain a lot without offering any viable alternatives and concrete plans. Things like I don't like this tax, but I don't like cut welfare funded by the tax either. Yes, it's valid to have an opinion, it's also fruitless. Come election time, nobody would offer anything different and the same old gets elected in.

You can vote to change our constitution and I will even support you, but I suspect the majority of Canadians don't have the stomach for it.
My opinion is that while the SSC said we violated the rights of this guy , I don't think it was worth 10.5 million.
My opinion I that it could have been less that 10.5 million but who decided on that amount" It was not like it went out to public tender. Why that much vice 3 or 5 million?
My opinion, was about your statement that it would cost a lot to go through the courts and I said it would cost no more to go through the courts than it does to sit at their desks doing nothing. The lawyers get paid regardless.
My opinion of would we have had to pay more if we went to court is that it may not have gone to court if the guy has no money to take it there.
My opinion is Khadr got way way more then he deserves and it irks me (and the majority of Canadians). Can I do anything about it? No, just bitch about it and that makes me feel a bit better.
As I said before, 50 pages, now 753 posts of 50/50 split of disagreements.
'Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional minority, and rabidly promoted by unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds the proposition that it is possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.' Anonymous
Deal Addict
Apr 22, 2014
2609 posts
364 upvotes
Oshawa, ON
kevindurant1 wrote:
Aug 7th, 2017 10:09 pm
There was no judgement because they decided to SETTLE it. Face With Tears Of JoyFace With Tears Of JoyFace With Tears Of Joy

You do realize that in 2010 the SCC already agreed that his rights were violated right?.



https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... 2/index.do



This is what they are talking about.
Yup it's f'ing hilarious that the government decided to rip off the taxpayers rather than face the courts. It'll be hilarious when the taxpayers get their revenge too.
signature removed for inappropriate content
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 11, 2008
4687 posts
333 upvotes
Pete_Coach wrote:
Aug 8th, 2017 10:16 am
My opinion is that while the SSC said we violated the rights of this guy , I don't think it was worth 10.5 million.
My opinion I that it could have been less that 10.5 million but who decided on that amount" It was not like it went out to public tender. Why that much vice 3 or 5 million?
My opinion, was about your statement that it would cost a lot to go through the courts and I said it would cost no more to go through the courts than it does to sit at their desks doing nothing. The lawyers get paid regardless.
My opinion of would we have had to pay more if we went to court is that it may not have gone to court if the guy has no money to take it there.
My opinion is Khadr got way way more then he deserves and it irks me (and the majority of Canadians). Can I do anything about it? No, just bitch about it and that makes me feel a bit better.
As I said before, 50 pages, now 753 posts of 50/50 split of disagreements.
First of all, he has fought for 15 years without spending a single penny. You think he or his lawyers would give up with the pay day right in front of them? He is the one who has nothing to lose. Not to mention that we might have to pay his legal fees. (You acknowledged that you don't know).

As for cost, although a lot of companies have in house lawyers who are paid "sitting at their desks doing nothing", law suits still cost them money and they often end up settling. From the 2014-2015 fiscal year, the federal government (under Harper) ended up with $547M in out of court settlements. I find it hard to believe that they would do so without any cost fighting the law suits.

So both assumptions are rather shaky. The question is really whether fighting it would be cheaper than $10.5M. That's the only thing matters. Whether he deserves it morally or not is irrelevant (most of the 753 posts seem to be on that, rather than on the financial details). I am not a legal expert, so I don't know the answer, but I have yet to see anybody making a convincing case that it would. I get irked by a lot of things, I don't spend money fighting them.

To me, this should be a simple investment decision (as most government decisions should be, sadly they are often not). Much like holding a losing stock, do you cut your losses now or do you continue to hold and hope for a better outcome. It's for legal experts to decide and it seems that they came to a decision. While I suspect political considerations were involved, third party legal experts seem to agree with their decision as well. The other thing is what should we learn from this so that we don't get into this situation again. Yet the 50 pages seem to be filled with emotions and venting instead.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Oct 14, 2003
13867 posts
859 upvotes
eldeejay wrote:
Aug 8th, 2017 10:35 am
Yup it's f'ing hilarious that the government decided to rip off the taxpayers rather than face the courts. It'll be hilarious when the taxpayers get their revenge too.
Would it still be a rip off if the SCC decided that the amount Khadr was asking for be paid? Would you rather the 10.5m definitely be paid or fairly high chance of 20m?
Science
is the new
rock 'n'
roll.
Deal Addict
Apr 22, 2014
2609 posts
364 upvotes
Oshawa, ON
Ojam wrote:
Aug 8th, 2017 11:01 am
Would it still be a rip off if the SCC decided that the amount Khadr was asking for be paid? Would you rather the 10.5m definitely be paid or fairly high chance of 20m?
well for KD1 it'd be doubly hilarious, right?
signature removed for inappropriate content
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 19, 2010
4456 posts
1440 upvotes
Pete_Coach wrote:
Aug 8th, 2017 7:31 am
"always on a full and final basis" Really? What information and/or evidence do you have of that? Were there not 2 SSC statements as it went before them twice? What is there to prevent another claim under a different section or clause?
Any legal team that handed over a cheque without a release of any and all claims, present and future, wouldn't be lawyers for very long. It would be extremely unlikely, notwithstanding the airhead purportedly "leading" this country, that in consideration of a windfall retirement payment, Khadr wouldn't have had to agree that the money satisfied all claims he might have had or might dream up in the future.
Sr. Member
Apr 12, 2012
704 posts
161 upvotes
Toronto
I think it's time we introduce Swiss-style referendums here in Canada. I think an overwhelming majority of Canadians would be against paying this convict millions of dollars after having killed a US veteran.
Deal Fanatic
Apr 8, 2013
7023 posts
219 upvotes
Pete_Coach wrote:
Aug 8th, 2017 7:20 am
Yup and Yup the SSC decided Canada was guilty of allowing rights to be violated but there was no judgment or monetary award.
That was the decision of the government.
Huh?. The lawsuit was still ongoing that is why they SETTLED. It didnt end in the 2010 lawsuit.

If that was the case then we wouldnt be talking about this now. The book would have been closed.

The monetary award and apology is not supposed to come from the SCC.

K's lawyers told the government what kind of compensation he deserved. Either the government fights it in court or they settle.

Settling saves more money. Its actually very irresponsible for JT not to do it.

Scheer already made his point. He is Harper 2.0 which means more losses for the government for the sake of political brownie points.
Diversity Is Our Strength 😎
[OP]
Penalty Box
Nov 1, 2001
1427 posts
52 upvotes
Ojam wrote:
Aug 8th, 2017 11:01 am
Would it still be a rip off if the SCC decided that the amount Khadr was asking for be paid? Would you rather the 10.5m definitely be paid or fairly high chance of 20m?
It would have been years before the SCC was involved again as any trial would not have been held before them.
If there had been an actual trail with damages awarded or not and then any appeals exhausted, I would have accepted that.
To have trudeau cut a check for this POS is pathetic.
If he is so concerned about saving taxpayers a ew million dollars then why has he spent billions overseas while running up a $20 billion plus deficit?
It is ludicrous that people use that as an argument to support this.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Oct 14, 2003
13867 posts
859 upvotes
Kaz wrote:
Aug 8th, 2017 12:01 pm
It would have been years before the SCC was involved again as any trial would not have been held before them.
If there had been an actual trail with damages awarded or not and then any appeals exhausted, I would have accepted that.
To have trudeau cut a check for this POS is pathetic.
If he is so concerned about saving taxpayers a ew million dollars then why has he spent billions overseas while running up a $20 billion plus deficit?
It is ludicrous that people use that as an argument to support this.
Nothing to do with saving tax money. Would you rather Kadr have 10 million or 20 million? People keep blaming Trudeau directly but it's government lawyers that would have made the recommendation based on the likely hood of winning a trial.
Science
is the new
rock 'n'
roll.
[OP]
Penalty Box
Nov 1, 2001
1427 posts
52 upvotes
Ojam wrote:
Aug 8th, 2017 1:51 pm
Nothing to do with saving tax money. Would you rather Kadr have 10 million or 20 million? People keep blaming Trudeau directly but it's government lawyers that would have made the recommendation based on the likely hood of winning a trial.
I would rather he have nothing, so to me, the amount of the payment is moot.
And yes, some lawyer made the recommendation but Justin would have agreed to it.
Deal Fanatic
Apr 8, 2013
7023 posts
219 upvotes
Kaz wrote:
Aug 8th, 2017 1:57 pm
I would rather he have nothing, so to me, the amount of the payment is moot.
And yes, some lawyer made the recommendation but Justin would have agreed to it.
What you want is insignificant. I would rather not get involve in the middle east and be saudi's killing machine yet we are there and that is what we are.

The question is simple would you settle for $10m or pay more?. For the sake of argument. Let say the number is $20m-$40m.

Keep emotions out of it and tell me what sounds logical to you.
Diversity Is Our Strength 😎
Deal Expert
User avatar
May 10, 2005
27690 posts
3832 upvotes
Ottawa
kevindurant1 wrote:
Aug 8th, 2017 11:56 am
Huh?. The lawsuit was still ongoing that is why they SETTLED. It didnt end in the 2010 lawsuit.

If that was the case then we wouldnt be talking about this now. The book would have been closed.

The monetary award and apology is not supposed to come from the SCC.

K's lawyers told the government what kind of compensation he deserved. Either the government fights it in court or they settle.

Settling saves more money. Its actually very irresponsible for JT not to do it.

Scheer already made his point. He is Harper 2.0 which means more losses for the government for the sake of political brownie points.
The world according to kevindurant1.
No wonder we are in doo doo :)
'Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional minority, and rabidly promoted by unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds the proposition that it is possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.' Anonymous
[OP]
Penalty Box
Nov 1, 2001
1427 posts
52 upvotes
Pete_Coach wrote:
Aug 8th, 2017 5:03 pm
The world according to kevindurant1.
No wonder we are in doo doo :)
Lol
Deal Expert
User avatar
Dec 7, 2012
25158 posts
5575 upvotes
GTHA
Former PM Paul Martin regrets government’s early handling of Omar Khadr case

Martin, who became prime minister in late 2003 after serving in the previous Liberal cabinet, says he wishes Ottawa had taken a different approach in the early stages of the Khadr case, and says his own government followed the precedent set by its predecessors.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/201 ... -case.html

Top