Proof Canadians support terrorism!

The Canadian Press ^ | Tuesday, February 11, 2003 | Nancy Carr

[InShanghai]

Ontario woman shocked at Air India plea

Nancy Carr The Canadian Press

An Ontario woman whose husband and daughter were killed in the 1985 Air India bombing reacted with outrage Monday after one of the accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to five years in jail.

It was one of a range of emotions -- from indignation to cautious optimisim -- expressed by relatives of the victims.

"The Canadian government is slapping on our faces," said Sushila Rauthan, 53, of Nepean, Ont.

Rauthan's husband and 17-year-old daughter were on Air India flight 182 from Toronto and Montreal to New Delhi and Bombay when the aircraft was ripped apart by a bomb, killing all 329 people on board.

Given the chance, Rauthan said she would tell authorities "they should return my husband and my daughter and we will tell them not to punish (Inderjit Singh Reyat).

"Can they return that?"

In Vancouver, Crown counsel Robert Wright said he was taking into account the time Reyat had served previously for manslaughter and had spent in custody awaiting trial.The five year term was sought by the Crown.

Jagat Paliwal, whose 15-year-old nephew Mukul Paliwal was on the ill-fated flight, said he trusted the judicial system to mete out the correct punishment to those behind the worst mass murder in Canadian history.

"I don't want to make some kind of judgment to say (the sentence) is wrong," Paliwal said.

"I trust their judgment right now."

After the death of his nephew, Paliwal and his brother campaigned relentlessly for a judicial inquiry into the bombing, which Paliwal carried on after his brother's 1988 death.

Paliwal said he is more interested in "why (the bombing) happened, could it have been prevented, and can we prevent something like this forever in the future," than ruminating on whether Reyat's sentence is just.

The RCMP has told Paliwal an inquiry would have to wait until after the trial -- which may last several years.

Reyat had been facing first-degree murder charges along with Ripudaman Singh Malik of Vancouver and Ajaib Singh Bagri of Kamloops, B.C., in a trial due to begin at the end of March.

Reyat stood in the Vancouver courtroom and pleaded guilty to 329 counts of manslaughter, as well as a charge of aiding in the construction of a bomb.

Charges against him of first-degree murder and conspiracy to murder were stayed.

Reyat was sentenced in 1991 to 10 years in prison for a bombing that killed two baggage handlers at Tokyo's Narita airport the same day as the Air India blast.

[InShanghai]

 

Reyat had been facing first-degree murder charges... and pleaded guilty to 329 counts of manslaughter... [and] was sentenced in 1991 to 10 years in prison for a bombing that killed two baggage handlers at Tokyo's Narita airport the same day as the Air India blast. 

 

If this is not someone who fits a terrorist description, then what is he?  Only in Canada.  Sheesh!

[altayann]

It's actually more proof of racism in Canada than it is proof that the Canadian goverment doesn't take terrorism seriously.

Most of those who died on the Air India flight were Canadians of Indian origin. That, more than anything else, helps explain why this crime was never treated as seriously as it should have been.

At any rate, if think Canada has never been serious on terrorism, I suggest you do a little reading up on the 1970 FLQ crisis.

Canada actually suspended habeas corpus for about two weeks after the Pierre Laporte incident, and that was just the murder of one man.

[and the horse you rode in on]

At any rate, if think Canada has never been serious on terrorism, I suggest you do a little reading up on the 1970 FLQ crisis.

If they had been serious tens of thousands would have died.

[canuck_conservative]

329 counts and the guy gets 5 years? How can that be, you ask?

Simple - Canada, for some incomprehensible reason, lets you serve your sentences concurrently - not consecutively. Bulk discounts, I guess.

What a joke.

[Taffini]

Is this correct: you get only 5 years for murder
If you kill one person you get 5 years
If you kill 500 people you get 5 years
If you kill 3,000 people you get 5 years, period?

[InShanghai]

October 12, 1970 Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau enacted Canada's War Measures Act, a tough stance to crack down on the FLQ terrorism. It also suspended some Canadian civil liberties to allow the government to incarcerate (without the right to habeas corpus) suspicious persons. Pierre Laporte was probably executed by the FLQ because of this.

Is this the reason Canada is so reluctant to punish terrorists?

Your comment leads me to believe that the Canadians think:
1) The Indian-Canadians on the flight were just second rate Canadians, therefore it's no big deal.
2) The Indian-Canadian terrorist is also a second rate Canadian, therefore, also, no big deal.

Those reasons would definitely fit in the racism category.

I guess what I should be researching here is why the 1985 bombing on the airlines and at Tokyo's Narita Airport, and why by this guy?

Any insight to share here?

[canuck_conservative]

Technically, they could ask for consecutive; but it's rarely done, because that would be "too tough" on the criminal.

So yes, in Canada, you can get a "discount" on large-volume crimes. Some deterrent, eh?

[altayann]

No, I'm citing the FLQ crisis as proof that Canada, when it wants to, can crack down fairly heavily on terrorists. Suspending civil liberties for two weeks qualifies in my book.

As for Air India, I hate to admit it, but I do think that part of the reason that the case was never strongly pursued was due in some part to a feeling that it actually had very little to do with Canada.

[InShanghai]

My guess would be Inderjit Singh Reyat is a Sikh Militant seeking some sort of political or religious point to prove in India by bombing India Airlines flights. The Narita bomb probably went off late.

If this happened to a United Airlines flight, by say perhaps, Chinese Muslim Uighur separatists, would this be an internal affair for the Chinese to handle?
How do you think the innocent American and Chinese victims families would take this kind of news?

Canadians should be screaming that a light sentance for this heinious act should never have even been comprehensible. But alas, they're Canadians right? It's part of their French heritage, I'd guess!

[Squawk 8888]

I guess what I should be researching here is why the 1985 bombing on the airlines and at Tokyo's Narita Airport, and why by this guy?

During the 80s a group of sikh extremists launched a wave of terrorist attacks in retaliation for India's raid on the Golden temple. The 1985 plot was to simultaneously down two Air India flights on opposite sides of the world. One bomb was placed on flight 182 in Toronto, the other was placed on a Canadian Airlines flight from Toronto to Tokyo in a suitcase that was to be transferred to an Air India flight leaving Tokyo. Due to delays on the flight, the bomb exploded in the baggage handling area in Tokyo (the Air India flight was scheduled to be underway at the time of the explosion).

[Snowyman]

But alas, they're Canadians right? It's part of their French heritage, I'd guess!

Baloney!

Poll Result from the Globe and Mail , a Toronto daily paper

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the Air-India case, did Inderjit Singh Reyat's punishment fit the crime?

No 4972 votes (93 %)

Yes 372 votes (7 %)

Total Votes: 5344

[Snowyman]

The War Measures Act was repealed in 1988. It was replaced with the Emergencies Act. The Emergencies Act allows the federal government to make temporary laws in the event of a serious national emergency. The Emergencies Act differs from the War Measures Act in two important ways:
A declaration of an emergency by the Cabinet must be reviewed by Parliament
Any temporary laws made under the Act are subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Thus any attempt by the government to suspend the civil rights of Canadians, even in an emergency, will be subject to the "reasonable and justified" test under section 1 of the Charter.

[Squawk 8888]

The War Measures Act was repealed in 1988. It was replaced with the Emergencies Act.
Actually, Trudeau replaced the War Measures Act with the Emegency Planning Order in the early 80s. The Emergency planning Order gave cabinet the power to declare emergencies without parliamentary scrutiny and gave cabinet the authority to suspend civil liberties, ban all movement, seize private property, conduct warrentless searches and establish civilian internment camps. It was repealed in 1988 by Brian Mulroney and replaced with the Emergencies Act.

Thus any attempt by the government to suspend the civil rights of Canadians, even in an emergency, will be subject to the "reasonable and justified" test under section 1 of the Charter.
Given the Supreme Court's track record for interpreting what constitutes "reasonable and justified" limits on our freedom and the fact that Supreme Court justices are appointed at the sole discretion of the PM, the "protections" of the Charter aren't worth the paper they're printed on. The Charter was written by Pierre Trudeau after all, and he deliberately framed it to make it useless.