Canada provided (and still provides) shelter for nazi war criminals (e.g. Helmut Oberlander).
He was stripped of citizenship and it was instated 3 times by the Canadian court system. Why? "2013 Supreme Court ruling that guilt by association is not sufficient grounds to be considered a war criminal."
What you called "sheltering nazi war criminals" I would call due process. You know, not actually punishing people unless they've been fairly judged as guilty according to the law.
Even more, in Canada there're memorials dedicated to nazi war criminals, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Shukhevych
Regarding the memorials, I could not find this in the link. Could you point me at it?
There is also no evidence that this person committed any war crime at all. The notes in the link document that his military division committed war crimes.
Guilt by association? Collective punishment? Really?
He isn't guilty by association - he was a leader of death squadron and he is directly responsible for extermination of tens of thousands of non combatants.
Same crown as today was in charge back then. Same head of state.
The Acadians were deported literally hundreds of years before.
Maybe we should demand Mongolia apologize for Genghis Khan as well?
Seems slightly early for it to go away, but the question did have a finite lifetime.
I wish I was making this up.
[0] https://www.foxnews.com/world/omar-khadr-ex-gitmo-detainee-w...
I'm glad he sued and won compensation.
We can play on words, that won't bring back his victims.
> Not getting your country invaded also, but that's a whole different matter
He was rather quick to claim Canada was "his" country despite having brutally murdered an allied soldier. Also, he was fighting "his" country pretty hard until it became convenient not to.
I really disagree with calling a soldier on a mission, an agressive overseas mission, getting killed in action "a victim". A casualty, yes. If anyone's a victim, it's the innocent civilians getting blown up by both sides in a conflict they didn't ask for, not the combattants on either side.
> He was rather quick to claim Canada was "his" country despite having brutally murdered an allied soldier. Also, he was fighting "his" country pretty hard until it became convenient not to.
He says he did so to be extradited there so that he actually has some human rights and dignity restored, because, remember, he was tortured for actions he did when he was 15. He's still technically a war criminal if he did indeed kill the US soldier (not being a regular soldier in uniform), but the US had no jurisdiction over him, illegally detained and tortured him for an alleged crime he committed while being a minor.
Anyone involved with this on the US side should rot for life in The Hague ( of course that would never happen).
A NATO operation. A NATO operation "his country" was very much involved in (and where citizens of "his country" paid the highest price).
Keep in mind he could have surrendered at any time.
> He's still technically a war criminal
Indeed.
NATO isn't the Red Cross or Doctors without borders. An overseas mission by NATO includes armed soldiers.