Forget the fact of who the case involves. Forget the politics. The Federal government has made the most extraordinary statement as it relates to your rights under the Canadian constitution:

The federal government is telling the courts to back off when it comes to the Omar Khadr case and leave foreign affairs decisions to the Prime Minister and his cabinet. In a hearing yesterday, Justice Department lawyer Doreen Mueller urged the Federal Court of Appeal to reject the Federal Court's April ruling that the government should request Mr. Khadr's return from the United States. Ms. Mueller said the Crown rejects the view that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies when Canadians face charges outside the country. "There is clearly no duty to protect citizens under international law," Ms. Mueller told the court.

While it may be correct that the Charter does not apply in foreign courts where the Canadian state is not a participant, that second sentence is a bit wonky as is the limitation of the jurisdiction of the courts. Being a citizen means something. It affords you rights as against the state, the government. When the legislative or executive wings of the government does not respect your rights, you have recourse to the courts. Expensive recourse and slow moving recourse but at the end of the day the right to access power to assert that the state cannot to X or Y or Z to you.

In the statement above, the agent of the current Federal government seems to assert both that this right of recourse is not appropriate and that your recourse to the constitution only applies within the national boundaries. This is nuts. Find that in the constitution if you can. Section 32(1) states "This Charter applies to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament" and section 24(1) states:

Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

These words have meaning. "Anyone" means something like anyone gets access to court. But that is not what the position of the government in the Khadr case means. Could it mean that the state merely has to remove you from the national territory to undo the constitution? Or just find you out there to ignore you? It could also mean that they believe that the in that rights of a citizen as against the state differs according to the context of the subject matter in which those rights are affected by the state... and the degree to which the executive branch may determine itself to be the sole arbiter of what is due a citizen. This, of course, would leave the executive branch is also the sole arbiter of determining the contexts in which this absolute right to ignore the constitution arises. This is nuts.

This is why we have free and independent courts to fight back the temptation to assert the power of the tyrant. If the opposition leaders had a clue this would be the theme of the summer. Forget the case. Forget the politics. This is about what it means to be a citizen.