Saturday, August 08, 2009

Warman And Bourrie On Diab

From Warman's letter to the Ottawa Citizen:

While it's true that the presumption of innocence is a long-established pillar of Canadian criminal law, it's also a common labour law practice for those accused of substantial wrongdoing to be relieved of their duties pending resolution of their cases.

Larry O'Brien excused himself from his mayoral duities to face influence-peddling charges againtst him, and it would be shocking if this wasn't the case for someone accused of multiple murders at a place of worship like Diab is.

From Bourrie's blog:

Would Carleton faculty be as quick to support Hassan Diab's right to teach if he had been charged with killing four people in an abortion clinic bombing or the dynamiting of a mosque instead of a synagogue attack? I don't know if Diab is guilty, and there seems to, on the surface, be an argument for mistaken identity. This will be sorted out by the courts in Canada and, quite likely, France. I think, in times when universities bend over backwards to ensure Muslims, gays, people of colour, women and handicapped people are not made uncomfortable by faculty opinions, having an alleged synagogue bomber teaching Jewish students might be a bit, um, discomforting for them.

About where I stand on the matter, although is there any evidence at all of a negative response from Carleton's student community, Jewish or otherwise?


Dr.Dawg said...

Once again, the lie about Larry O'Brien is repeated. It's become a meme, in fact.

He did NOT stand aside when he was charged in December 2007. He hung around as mayor until April of this year, when his trial actually began.

Why can't the Diab-haters get their facts straight?

Meanwhile the case against Diab looks largely circumstantial, and he hasn't even had an extradition hearing yet. But for some--and I'm amazed to see that BCL has joined the chorus--he's guilty until proven innocent.

And then the abortion clinic non-analogy. Such bombers have proudly proclaimed their deeds, not denied them.

Here's the full analogy:

A man named "John Smith" ("Hassan Dian" is a common Lebanese name)is charged with bombing an abortion clinic nearly three decades ago. He vociferously denies it. His colleagues say he's never been particularly interested in the abortion issue. He gets a job teaching a summer sociology course. I don't see that I, for one, would treat this case any differently.

It's the blase assumption that we who are defending procedural fairness at Carleton are a) hypocrites and/or b) anti-Semites that has me really pissed off. What the hell happened to your normally acute critical faculties here, BCL?

bigcitylib said...

No, Dawg, I think the charges are likely bogus. I also think Dimant's rantings (for example, or Andrew Potter's or T. Glavins) are an embarrassment. Nevertheless, these are SERIOUS charges, and if they ARE proven then Carleton will have had a mass murderer on staff, and kept him on staff after people complained. All in the name of "procedural fairness"?

(Can Carleton and the Union work out something such that Diab is not rendered destitute until the extradition hearing?)

I realize the usual nutjobs have piled on here, but still...

Ti-Guy said...

and if they ARE proven then Carleton will have had a mass murderer on staff

Oh big deal. They probably already have several. ;)

Since nothing has been decided in court, I'm on side with Dawg because this witch-hunting/McCarthyism has to be opposed in all instances. We do not try people in the court of public opinion.