Canada risks being seen as pandering to mass murders


Advertise with us

Here's an ethical dilemma for you: does a person who may face torture deserve more compassion than hundreds of thousands of innocent murder victims?

Read this article for free:


Already have an account? Log in here »

To continue reading, please subscribe with this special offer:

All-Access Digital Subscription

$1.50 for 150 days*

  • Enjoy unlimited reading on
  • Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
  • Access News Break, our award-winning app
  • Play interactive puzzles

*Pay $1.50 for the first 22 weeks of your subscription. After 22 weeks, price increases to the regular rate of $19.00 per month. GST will be added to each payment. Subscription can be cancelled after the first 22 weeks.


Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 28/01/2012 (3901 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Here’s an ethical dilemma for you: does a person who may face torture deserve more compassion than hundreds of thousands of innocent murder victims?

Apparently Canada’s immigration laws can’t make a distinction or, if it does, seems to consider the threat of torture more inhumane. At least that seems the case by allowing an alleged killer to gain protection in Canada against punishment for his possible involvement in one of the biggest mass murders in modern history.

Our immigration rules afforded freedom to Leon Mugesera, who is accused in his homeland of Rwanda as being one of the trigger men the 1994 genocide that saw a 100-day massacre claim about one million Tutsis and Hutus.

Mugesera fought his deportation through the seemingly endless court proceedings that are entitled to him under our laws. His luck finally ran out on Monday, when the courts ordered him on a plane to Rwanda at Montreal’s Pierre Elliott Trudeau Airport.

The sticking point during the laborious proceedings was that Mugesera could face torture if returned.

This country has been reluctant to deport suspected criminals, on “ethical grounds,” no matter how serious their crimes. Torture and the death penalty are among the reasons.

But, essentially, it means we apply our standards of justice to other countries through our immigration process.

Serial killer Charles Ng, who evaded California authorities for the sex-torture murders of between 11 and 25 people by sneaking into Canada, enjoyed the same luxury.

Ng and Leonard Lake carried out these horrific executions on Lake’s California ranch in 1983 and videotaped the gruesome details. Lake committed suicide after his arrest in 1985, while Ng fled to Calgary and was captured that same year. After a lengthy extradition battle, during which Canadian authorities refused to turn him over to the U.S. because he faced a death sentence if convicted, he was finally handed over in 1998. He now sits on death row in San Quentin State Prison.

As a nation, we must take care not to gain a reputation for pandering to and protecting murderers from the justice of their own countries. It’s an extremely costly process to taxpayers and, ultimately, can mean we house other nations’ criminals in our prisons.

It is time we re-examined the avenues of appeal open to such criminals and alleged criminals.

In 1992, Mugesera, then a fiery political Rwandan operative, delivered a blistering speech calling the Tutsis “cockroaches” and urging their extermination. Shorty after the speech, he was charged with inciting hatred and fled to Canada for protection.

While a handful of Mugesera’s Canadian supporters wept at the airport on Monday, Rwandan authorities applauded Canada’s decision, saying it was “the right thing.”

Report Error Submit a Tip


Advertise With Us