To me Mr Khan lacks the capability and information to answers all the questions rathar.... all accusations were baseless one may have figured out by now. If not then those people either use corpus cavernosum alone or dont have any callosum at all.
Secondly all who think Mr Khan is straight forward, he may be manipulative or ill informed as always who comes up with issues without investigating them. The verdicts against MQM, Mr Khan was referring to, in which MQM was considered terrorist were NOT from Canadian Supreme Court but were from 1 of the Canadian Federal Court of Citizenship and Immigration judge on a request of an asylum application of one of the MQM members. There are evidence that in the same week when this verdict came out there were asylum applications which were approved dismissing the same evidence and ground. See below for details.
Anyways, let me clear some facts about the Canadian Federal Court Judgment, Two members of the MQM who applied for refugee status or asylum in Canada have received dramatically different judgments: One was declared a member of a terrorist group, the other accepted as a legitimate refugee. At a same time a large number of MQM supporters actually got asylum or right to stay not only in Canada but in UK and various countries as well thanks to the genocide in 90s.
Canada is not an exception where decisions in remarkably similar cases based on the same package of government evidence highlights the difficulties of handling security cases and has drawn judicial consternation.
Let me quote a Canadian Newspaper here, The packages of documentary evidence in the two cases were the same, the time frame the same, and the issue to be determined was the same, writes Michael L. Phelan, a Federal Court of Canada judge, in a judgment published yesterday.
In one case a member held an organization not to be engaged in terrorism, while in the instant case, on the very same evidence, the member found that the organization had engaged in terrorism, he ruled.
The failure to explain the basis for the different conclusion undermines the integrity of Immigration Authoritys decisions and gives them an aura of arbitrariness which is no doubt not intended nor is it acceptable.
The answer, for Judge Phelan, was to send the case of Mohammad Ashraf Siddiqui in which the Muthida Qaumi Movement (MQM) was found to be an organization that engaged in terrorism back to the Immigration and Refugee Board for a fresh hearing.
The case of the second man (Javed Memon Case) in which evidence of terrorist involvement by the MQM was dismissed.
And again we have to look at the end result? Did the deportation actually take place in any of the cases? No it did not.
(some views were shared and borrowed from a friend Ali K Chishti)
The Canadian Federal Court later itself expressed concern about the quality of the evidence routinely put forward in immigration proceedings. Where decisions are being made as to what the subject did or did not do, preference should be given to direct evidence and less weight to generalized, otherwise unsupported statements, even if from apparently reliable sources. While the standards of accuracy, impartiality and reliability that librarians normally use to assess Internet documents may not be readily achievable, particularly when dealing with the history of events in regions where records are not kept with the rigour of a North American university library, a number of frailties with the sources relied upon by the immigration officer were identified.
