Mr Bernier said he regretted the embarrassment the manual caused
The Canadian foreign minister has apologised for including the US and Israel on a list of states where prisoners are at risk of torture.
Maxime Bernier said the list, which formed part of a manual on torture awareness given to diplomats, "wrongly includes some of our closest allies".
Mr Bernier insisted the manual was not a policy document and did not convey the official views of his government.
The listing was criticised by the US and Israel, who demanded it be changed.
"We find it to be offensive for us to be on the same list with countries like Iran and China. Quite frankly it's absurd," said the US ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins.
A spokesman for the Israeli embassy in Ottawa, Michael Mendel, said the Israeli Supreme Court was "on record as expressly prohibiting any type of torture".
"If Israel is included in the list in question, the ambassador of Israel would expect its removal," he added.
'Reviewed and rewritten'
In a statement on Saturday, Mr Bernier said he regretted the embarrassment caused by the public disclosure of the list and promised it would be changed to reflect the Canadian government's official position.
The manual is neither a policy document nor a statement of policy - it does not convey the government's views or positions
Maxime Bernier Canadian foreign minister
"It contains a list that wrongly includes some of our closest allies. I have directed that the manual be reviewed and rewritten," he said.
"The manual is neither a policy document nor a statement of policy. As such, it does not convey the government's views or positions."
The manual lists US interrogation techniques such as forced nudity, isolation, sleep deprivation and the blindfolding of prisoners under its "definition of torture".
It also refers to the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, where a Canadian man, Omar Khadr, is being held. Critics say it ridicules Ottawa's claims that he is not being mistreated.
The manual refers to Guantanamo Bay where a Canadian is being held
Other countries on the watch list include Afghanistan, China, Iran, Israel, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Syria.
The document was mistakenly provided to the human rights group, Amnesty International, as part of a court case it is bringing against the Canadian government over the treatment of detainees in Afghanistan.
The torture awareness course was introduced after Ottawa was strongly criticised for its handling of the case of a Canadian who was deported from the US to Syria in 2002.
Syrian-born Maher Arar, who was accused of being an al-Qaeda member, has said he was tortured during the 10 months he was detained in a prison in Damascus. An inquiry exonerated him of any links to terrorist groups in 2006.
Do illegal aliens have rights to basic services? Will local regulation herd them all into massive “sanctuary cities?
I am aware we all have basic human and constitutional rights regardless of our immigration status. To what extent however can local government alter those rights based on that status?
While not the first to try it, the Dallas suburb of Farmer’s Branch,Texas is the latest to test the Constitutionally perilous waters of limiting the right of those not in this country legally to rent housing and obtain other basic services. This is primarily a Hispanic issue in this part of the country but the ban would of course apply to any person in this country illegally.
The controversy started back in May of 2007 when Farmer’s Branch passed a law targeting illegal immigrants by barring them from renting apartments. Ordinance 2903 would require apartment management to obtain proof of citizenship or legal immigration status before entering into or renewing leases or rental agreements.
The only exception to the ban would be that mixed-status families could stay if they were already living in the apartment, the spouse or head of household is a citizen or here legally, and the household includes the head of household and spouse and their minor children or parents. You can read about more about the ban here.
The ordinance was modeled after an similar ordinance passed in Hazleton, Pa. which also made national headlines. It is important to note that in July 2007 a federal judge struck down Hazleton ordinance as unconstitutional . The city’s appeal is pending. You can read that story here.
While the Farmer’s Branch statute has not worked its way that far up the federal court ladder, a permanent injunction has been granted by Federal Judge Sam Lindsey blocking the enforcement of the ordinance pending a full trial. You can read that story here. The important connection between the two cases is that both judges focused on the same issue which was Federal Preemption and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. What does that tell you?
So there you have it. Battle lines formed. Swords drawn. Troops storming the field on both ends bent on destruction with those in this country illegally standing right in the middle wondering if they will survive the carnage. The question is actually very simple:
What rights if any, do those living in this country illegally have? If you ask the cit of Hazleton and Farmer’s Branch and other communities trying to pass similar laws, they have none, zilch ,nada except maybe basic human rights not to be killed tortured etc.
Once such an ordinance passes constitutional muster ,anyone who thinks it will stop there is delusional. After rentals, come education, after education comes medical care, etc etc. The goal is seems to be to make it so miserable for illegals to be in this country that they become of the mindset that there is a better quality of life where they are from and head on back home.
Is it even that complicated? Just get the hell out of our city! Flock to some sanctuary city! Just not here! That may be what many want.
After all, why should those here illegally reap the benefit of services that they are not paying the taxes that are designed to subsidize these services. I am no tax attorney but isn’t it a crime to intentionally not file a tax return to avoid paying taxes? While I do not necessarily agree, I certainly understand the mindset. I don’t like the idea of anyone getting a free ride off my tax payments regardless of whether they are here legally or unless they have been accounted for and and a legitimate determination made that they don’t have to pay.
Of course the counter-argument is that the vast majority illegals don’t file tax returns to avoid detection as illegals and not because they are trying to avoid paying taxes. You say tomato I say…….. Makes perfect sense to me… or does it?
Does it even matter?
It really does not matter.
Whether you agree or disagree with the basic premise, it simply is not a local or state issue. The Federal Government has already spoken on this issue and when the Federal Government speaks the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution listens and shouts back.
The Supremacy Clause is shouting that we already have the Immigration and Nationality Act in place speaking loud and clear for all. No arm chair legislation needed or wanted.
If municipalities like Farmer’s Branch want to arrest every illegal alien within their borders, call INS and have them deported I have no issue with that. Whether I agree or disagree that is within the framework of Federal Law. If that is simply not feasible, write your Congressman, cast your vote for someone with a constitutional fix. Don’t make up crap as you go along and pour perfume on it….. It is still going to stink.
Local municipalities like Farmer’s Branch and Hazleton have lawyers. They have very good lawyers. It is a safe assumption that these good lawyers knew all about the Supremacy Clause when they drafted these statutes It is also a safe bet that they are very familiar with federal court disdain for pre-text bullshit disguised as lofty motives…..
So what does a good lawyer do when faced such an obstacle? A good lawyer tries to find any and every perceived pinhole that will allow them to squeeze that statute right on through…… The pinholes these lawyers try to find is every little fact or situation that the Immigration Act does not mention. If it is not mentioned it must have been the intent to leave it to the states right?
“We are not regulating illegal immigration, we are protecting our tax base and the ability to provide basic services to our tax paying constituents”
“We are not engaging in housing discrimination since we ask for proof of citizenship from everyone.”
There you go! Problem solved! States Rights! 10th Amendment! Equal Protection as well! In other words…
Get the hell out and don’t touch the “Not Welcome” sign as you go!
What does that sound like to me? Take form and call it substance. Take a tomato and call it an orange. It is all hogwash.
It is not where you start, it is where you finish. At this finish you are still regulating illegal immigration regardless of your motives and definitions. You are venturing into an area that Congress has already decided only the Federal Government has the power to regulate.
So why do cities, local governments,etc waste time and money on such futile attempts? The answer is so simple that you don’t have to be smarter than a Fifth Grader to figure it out.
What does every elected official serving a first term want? They want a second term. Constituency trumps futility every time. These statutes have no chance. But hey, people get re-elected, lawyers get paid big bucks and maybe get to argue before the Supreme Court. People find a reason to protest and more people vote. In the end those affected the most, sit in the middle and suck on it. So what, they should not be here anyways right?
So what do you think? Should local government be allowed to regulate illegal immigration even to the extent of denying housing and other basic services? If the answer is yes, what is the legal authority to do so? What is the rational legal argument? I have yet to see one….
Chinese officials said Monday that the country's one-child policy exempts families with a child killed, severely injured or disabled in the country's devastating earthquake.
A mother of a student who died in a collapsed school in May 12 earthquake cries at the site in...
A mother of a student who died in a collapsed school in May 12 earthquake cries at the site in Juyuan, southwestern China's Sichuan province, Monday, May 26, 2008. The death toll from a powerful earthquake in China that toppled buildings, schools and chemical plants climbed Monday to 65,080, Cabinet spokesman Guo Weimin said, with 23,150 people still missing and 360,058 others injured. (AP Photo/Eugene Hoshiko)
(AP)
Those families can obtain a certificate to have another child, the Chengdu Population and Family Planning Committee in the capital of hard-hit Sichuan province said.
With so many shattered families asking questions, the Chengdu committee is clarifying existing one-child policy guidelines, said a committee official surnamed Wang.
"There are just a lot of cases now, so we need to clarify our policies," said Wang, who declined to elaborate.
The May 12 quake was particularly painful to many Chinese because it killed so many only children.
The earthquake has left more than 65,000 people dead so far, with more than 23,000 missing. Officials have not been able to estimate the number of children killed.
Chinese couples who have more than one child are commonly punished by fines. The announcement says that if a child born illegally was killed in the quake, the parents will no longer have to pay fines for that child — but the previously paid fines won't be refunded.
If the couple's legally born child is killed and the couple is left with an illegally born child under the age of 18, that child can be registered as the legal child — an important move that gives the child previously denied rights including free nine years of compulsory education.
China's one-child policy was launched in the late 1970s to control China's exploding population and ensure better education and health care. The law includes certain exceptions for ethnic groups, rural families and families where both parents are only children.
The government says the policy has prevented an additional 400 million births, but critics say it has also led to forced abortions, sterilizations and a dangerously imbalanced sex ratio as local authorities pursue sometimes severe birth quotas set by Beijing and families abort girls out of a traditional preference for male heirs.
A mother holds the portrait of her son who died in a collapsed building in May 12 earthquake, at the...
A mother holds the portrait of her son who died in a collapsed building in May 12 earthquake, at the site in Mianzhu, China's southwest Sichuan Province Monday, May 26, 2008. The confirmed death toll from the disaster rose Monday to 65,080, Cabinet spokesman Guo Weimin said, with 23,150 people still missing and 360,058 others injured. (AP Photo/Kyodo News)
(AP)
Though commonly called a one-child policy, the rules offer a welter of exceptions and loopholes, some of them put into practice because of widespread opposition to the limits.
For example, in large parts of rural China, most families are allowed a second-child, especially if the first was a girl. Local officials often have wide discretion on enforcement, a fact that has made the policy susceptible to corruption.
Posts
The manual is neither a policy document nor a statement of policy - it does not convey the government's views or positions 
