|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
Here is if you called essay from Peter Goldring Zionist man who is the Alliance MP
for Edmonton Centre-East in Canada and published by Report ;
Christian-Fornt Conservatives Magazine
This essay Turned by Zionism-Zionists web site it is very interesting !
If you really value freedom and justice, now would be a good time to prove itby Peter Goldring
IMAGINE that you are a teenager in Afghanistan, under the Taliban regime. The Taliban needs fighters and comes to your village to coercively recruit you and your friends. You are forced to join. Fortunately, you do not serve in areas where atrocities are committed. After the Taliban is defeated and in disarray, you apply to immigrate to Canada. Here are two scenarios to consider:
Scenario 1: The immigration officer asks you whether you were a member of the Taliban. You have two choices. You can say that you were, which will likely terminate your immigration application. After all, who will believe that you were not part of atrocities, and who is going to be around to support your story in any event? Or you can lie and get into Canada based on your lie, and hopefully spend the rest of your life in peaceful and gainful employment.
Scenario 2: The immigration officer doesn't ask you about Taliban membership. For some reason, perhaps due to the number of people waiting behind you, this particular question doesn't get asked. You get into Canada based on an assessment of your overall circumstances, independent of your involvement with the Taliban. After all, you weren't asked and you didn't say.
A half a century later, when you are well into your retirement, you are suddenly identified as a member of the notorious Taliban that had committed evils long ago in Afghanistan. You have a hearing before a court and the judge is convinced that you did not participate in any atrocities. The judge, however, determines on a balance of probabilities (i.e., that it's "more likely than not") that you lied to get into the country, since normal immigration practice would have been to ask about Taliban membership. With no positive proof, the judge rejects the possibility that you were not asked the question.
In the case against 78-year-old Wasyl Odynsky, that's exactly what did happen. It was established to the satisfaction of a Canadian court that Mr. Odynsky, while still a teenager in Ukraine, was forced into service by, and attempted to escape from, a Nazi SS auxiliary unit during the Second World War, and that furthermore he did not commit any war crimes. Mr. Odynsky has spent the past five years and virtually all of his savings trying to defend his name and avoid deportation. He even paid 50% of the costs of more than a dozen Canadian court personnel to travel to Ukraine to collect evidence about his wartime circumstances.
Every Canadian accused of being a war criminal should be brought to trial in a Canadian court of law to receive due process and be given the full benefit of reasonable doubt on all matters. The case against Mr. Odynsky found "on balance," but with no actual evidence, that he must have lied well over 50 years ago at the time of his immigration application. The finding is based on the judge's view that Mr. Odynsky must have been asked by an immigration officer about his wartime activities; however, no witnesses or records exist to substantiate such an accusation. While it's true that Mr. Odynsky's citizenship, livelihood and reputation are all at stake, giving him a motive to lie, surprisingly little weight is given for the possibility that he is telling the truth. Under the Citizenship Act, Mr. Odynsky has no avenue of court-appeal rights, as would exist in a normal independent judicial process.
The decision to implement the deportation order now rests with the Liberal federal cabinet, which, having spent over a million dollars on this case alone, has delayed any action to date, even though the judge's decision was made a year ago. In my opinion, since Mr. Odynsky has been exonerated in Canada of any involvement in war crimes, justice is not served by deporting a 78-year-old for unproven suspicions about what he told immigration 50 years ago.
As if revoking a Canadian's citizenship for a judge's guess half a century after the fact is not enough, the cabinet is now holding political court on the matter. The Liberals must recognize the potential ramifications. If cabinet allows Mr. Odynsky to be deported, what implications befall all more recent immigrants, along with their spouses and children? Could the latter be deported and lose their citizenships too?
While the Liberals unconscionably play cat's-paw with Mr. Odynsky's life, they threaten all immigrants who, rightly, never would have believed that they should keep all their official records, records to prove their original immigration statements in case the government lost theirs. Meanwhile, the Liberals miss the most obvious known fact of all: that Mr. Odynsky has been a model Canadian citizen all these years.
Does this not account for a lot? Has Mr. Odynsky not earned through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protection from tormenting prosecution? Fifty years of hard honourable work should qualify him for full rights under the Constitution. All Canadians should receive a fair trial in court, with full equality in the appeal process. They should not have their citizenship subjected to closed-door political decisions of the Liberal cabinet.
What do you think? If you'd like to help, contact the office of Justice Minister Martin Cauchon. You can call him at 613-995-7691, fax him at 613-995-0114, e-mail him at Cauchon.m@parl. gc.ca or write him at Rm. 312, West Block, House of Commons, Ottawa K1A 0A6.
Peter Goldring is the Alliance MP for Edmonton Centre-East.