Torturing Youth is Okay with us?

“More than two-thirds of Canadians feel Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made the wrong choice in awarding a $10.5 million settlement to Omar Khadr, according to a new poll by the Angus Reid Institute.” CBC News

But we don’t see the survey questions in this article. How was the poll actually worded? Reading one article might make us believe we are well informed, but how does a single poll actually tell us how people feel?  

“And while the survey shows that a majority of Liberals and New Democrats are opposed to the government's decision, how the numbers compare to previous polling suggests that views on Khadr have hardened over the last decade — and that he remains a divisive figure.”

How can a single poll tell whether Khadr is a divisive figure or not? What information do respondents have to make such a claim? 

The article then switches to a former US special force soldier who was blinded in one eye during the 2002 firefight in Afghanistan involving Khadr.  Of course he would be critical of this, but who needs a US soldier’s advice on a decision between Canada and Khadr. Why would we expect the widow of Sgt. Christopher Speer who was killed in that battle to agree either? 

The article claims 71% of respondents agreed the government had "done the wrong thing".  "Though Khadr has publicly renounced the radicalized worldview of his father, almost two-in-three Canadians (64%) don’t appear to believe him." says the ARI article. What information do they have to believe or disbelieve? What news sources do they get their information from? Who paid for the Angus Reid Poll? 

How would these respondents feel if their son or daughter was imprisoned and tortured at the age of 15? How would they feel if their government did nothing to help for ten years and left them there to be interrogated by a formidable power?

But here is the reason I suspect this CBC article was written. "This disapproval with the government's decision extended to Trudeau's own supporters: 61 per cent of Canadians who said they voted Liberal in 2015 felt that the wrong decision had been made. That increased to 64 per cent among NDP voters.”

This article is much more about a Conservative push to win public opinion with help from a single poll and media.   Andrew Sheer was quoted here almost as a wink that we can expect him to be the next prime minister.

The article claims the “poll suggests Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer, in his fierce criticism of Trudeau's decision to settle with Khadr, is on the right side of public opinion.”

I don't believe a single poll represents public opinion in a deep and meaningful way. I believe we feel more comfortable when justice is done. We would probably be sickened to see or hear of the cruelty that happens in prisons and battlefields. We value kindness and helpful neighbours, but we haven't figured out how to create that politically and economically. 

Do people really support a bill they haven't read based on questions that interpret this bill?

New poll finds Harper’s anti-terror bill is a political juggernaut? Here is the Globe and Mail article.

Here are the questions Angus Reid said they used in the poll.

And to support the Harper government Gordon Gibson claims The Supreme Court is a greater threat to Canada than Harper.

Tom Mulcair in The Tyee: "What Stephen Harper is proposing is a bogus choice," Mulcair told reporters in French. "We don't have to choose between our freedoms and our safety; we have to deal with both at the same time."

Elizabeth May in the Georgia Straight says the bill would create a secret police force.

And from Christopher Majka on rabble.ca:
"As many astute commentators have pointed out "terror" is a tactic. It has been -- and continues to be -- employed by various groups in pursuance of political agendas.

Thus, a "war on terror" is a terminological absurdity. One cannot wage a war on a tactic. One cannot bomb a "tactic" out of existence. Nonetheless, such terminological (and consequently tactical) nonsense has dominated the foreign policy of a variety of nations (United States, Great Britain, NATO, and now, seemingly, Canada) for the past 15 years."

Finally a quote by James Baxter "There are, quite literally, hundreds of thousands of ways you are more likely to die or be critically injured than at the hands of a terrorist in Canada. Cancer, heart disease, diabetes… medical malpractice, bad drug interactions, falls in the bathtub… poor food inspection… bad water, malaria, drunk drivers, venereal disease… improper antibiotics, toxic shock syndrome… heck, even bed sores.

"When it comes to violence, statistics would indicate you are still many hundreds of times more likely to die at the hands of your spouse than some whacked-out extremist. According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, the average American is as likely to be crushed to death by televisions or other furniture as they are to die in a terrorist attack."