|
what some people don't seem to be getting here is that an extradition treaty is based upon the fact that if you do something illegial in one country, and you go somewhere else, you can be sent back to stand trial for your crime.
this is designed to stop criminals shoving off somewhere else and not being punished.
now, just because a law doesn't exist in your country, doesn't mean that it isn't legitimate. Germany has passed a law saying that you can't deny the holocaust in an attempt to stop various nasty things happening (i won't go into political and legal wranglings).
now, this law is perfectly justifiable in germany, but naturally, canada doesn't have this law because it's never been needed. Why would canada have the right to stop deportation of someone who (for sake of argument) had broken this law?
the sentance isn't extreme, and isn't going to involve anything particually bad beyond the standard fine/minimal jail term. if he was going to be executed, then there would be a case, but simply, canada really doesn't have a good reason not to honour their treaty.
now, they don't want this guy to be buggering off, so they put him in a prison until the time that he can be deported (then you get the beaurocracy and crap, which is generally where the whole thing falls down).
everything is legal, unfortunatly, it's just not undertaken with the greatest of sense or intelligence.
|