Sunday, March 14, 2010

Human Rights Lawyer Calls Iacobucci Review "Massive Diversionary Tactic"

In an interview with the CBC (video below), Human Rights lawyer Paul Champ claims the Conservative government is using the Iacobucci review "to divert the public's attention from this scandal and controversy in the hope it'll just go away."

To perhaps avoid a crisis between Parliament's constitutional right to review Afghan detainee documents and the Conservative government's refusal to hand them over, Frank Iacobucci, a former Supreme Court justice, was appointed by the government to review the documents and decide on the issue. However the opposition and critics have rightly claimed that it doesn't matter what Iacobucci decides, Parliament has a right to see the documents in question.

Paul Champ in an interview with the CBC described the Iacobucci review as:

"A massive diversionary tactic, it's a political slight of hand to divert the public's attention from this scandal and controversy in the hope it'll just go away."
The Human Rights lawyer went on to explain why the whole review process is a waste of time:
"[Iacobucci]'s not being asked to ask any questions of any witnesses, he's not going to be holding any hearings, and he's not being asked to draw any conclusions on what he reads."
Both the Liberal and NDP leaders also expressed strong dissatisfaction with the terms of reference Frank Iacobucci was given. Michael Ignatieff at a press conference announced:
"We think he's been given an impossible job and we don't think we'll get to the bottom of the Afghan detainee abuse scandal this way."
Jack Layton responded that Iacobucci's review is part of a delay strategy "to avoid Parliament and the elected representatives of the people."

Update: Though there is no question of Paul Champs creditials, it must be noted that it appears that he is the lawyer of Amir Attaran, a law professor who has recently appeared in various new interviews giving true but quite provocative statements concerning this Conservative governments actions. I find it highly coincidental of all the legal experts in Canada, the CBC and CTV are relying on two men that just happen to have such a connection to each other.

Considering the views of these two men are substantiated by other experts, I am more inclined to think this is an example of the media pursuing experts who speak in soundbites than any kind of conspiracy theory.

1 comment:

Greg said...

The question remains, what are the opposition parties willing to do about it? The answer at this point, appears to be nothing.