Except that the "everyone" clauses of the Canadian Charter do not mean the same thing for non-Canadians. If an American attempts to exercise certain of those "everyone" rights in Canada to the extent that a Canadian citizen may, the RCMP will promptly kick his ass south of the
49th parallel.What's more, certain clauses of the Charter have exceptions that are NOT in the Charter. For example, an Act of Parliament states that the provisions against warrantless searches and compulsion to testify against oneself do NOT apply to a substantial number of law-abiding Canadians. It went to the Supreme Court, which found that it violated the Constitution and the Charter, but they decided not to overturn it because Parliament wanted it.
All governments, throughout the world, claim that power.
The Canadian Supreme Court lacks both power and much independence from Parliament. Remember, Canada's Constitution gives the federal (or any provincial government) the power to overrule a decision by the Supreme Court that declares a law unconstitutional.
Prisoners of war are not entitled to lawyers.
If they were military combatants, then the Geneva Convention would apply. However, Geneva only provides protection to uniformed combatants; even if Geneva did apply, they still could be held until the cessation of hostilities without access to lawyers.
The terrorists in question are lucky they weren't shot immediately upon capture. That *is* the normal fate throughout history of captured non-uniformed combatants; a category which includes partisans, spies, saboteurs, and terrorists.
Not always.
That's only if Parliament says that they aren't Really Important Laws; since otherwise the Supreme Court won't overturn it even if it does violate the Charter (and yes, without using the "notwithstanding" clauses). What's more, even if the Supreme Court overturns it, the federal and provincial governments can overturn the overturning.
The checks and balances in the US do a better job of protecting the rights of non-citizens in the US than Canada's Charter does of protecting the rights of Canadian citizens.
The Canadian Charter talks about "[everyone has | citizen have] the right to such-and-such" ... all granted by government and thus subject to government's "reasonable" control. The US Constitution talks about "Congress shall make no law", "the right of such-and-such shall not be infringed", "no such-and-such shall be done"...all prohibiting acts of government ("reasonable" or otherwise).
That's a big difference.
It would be helpful for you to use more diverse sources of information. CBC is not an unbiased (or particularly independent) source. I've caught them presenting unfounded speculation, or even outright falsehood, as proven fact. They're not particularly good on broadcasting corrections or retractions either; they just stop talking about the matter when they are proven wrong.
That isn't to say that the US media is much better. Hence the requirement for *diverse* sources of information.
That depends upon the definition of "basic rights".
-- Mark --