RSS FeedReview of Dennis Edney’s Lecture, “The Rule of Law in an Age of Terror”
“Human rights have a dysfunctional relationship with justice. The language is certainly beautiful, but it’s all dressed up with nowhere to go,” charged Dennis Edney in a scathing lecture at the Faculty of Law at UBC on September 15.
Edney worked from 2004 to 2011 on Omar Khadr’s defence against charges stemming from the July 2002 firefight death of a US soldier. Khadr, who is Canadian, was 15 at the time. American forces interrogated him for three months in the US-operated Bagram Theatre Detention Facility in Afghanistan, before transferring him to Guantanamo Bay, where he remains. In 2005, Khadr’s chief interrogator from Bagram, US Sergeant Joshua Claus, was found guilty of offences relating to the routine torture and homicide of Bagram prisoners. Claus received a five-month prison sentence. He testified at Khadr’s military trial in 2010.
In April 2009, the Federal Court ruled that Canada was complicit in the US’s torture of Khadr and ordered Ottawa to seek his repatriation. The Federal Court of Appeal concurred, but the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that though Canada was violating Khadr’s human rights, it was not obliged to seek his repatriation.
In October 2010, after insisting on his innocence for years, Khadr pled guilty in a military trial to terrorism-related offences, in exchange for a promise from Canada to repatriate him by October 2011 to serve the rest of his prison sentence in Canada. On September 20, the Conservatives tabled the controversial omnibus Bill C-10, which adds “additional criteria” to decisions about “whether or not to allow the transfer of a Canadian offender back to Canada to serve their sentence.”
Shortly after the trial, Edney declared that Khadr “would have confessed to anything, including the killing of John F. Kennedy, just to get out of this hellhole” and that if he had refused, Khadr would have been faced with “an unfair [military] trial based on evidence that would be inadmissible in a real court.” On Thursday, Edney said the detainees are entitled “to all kinds of international protections, but our governments are not asking for them. And by not asking, we become complicit.” There are nearly 800 prisoners in Guantanamo, but only 4 have been charged and given a trial. Detainees cannot see the evidence used against them.
In his lecture, Edney denounced the Canadian government for perpetuating a culture of fear in the camp’s defence. Edney stated that “since there has always historically been terrorism, and since there will always be terrorist threats, this war on terror – if allowed to be one – is unlike any other, because it is never-ending.” Thus, last decade has been marred by “habeas corpus being abandoned, secret courts being created to hear secret evidence, guilt inferred by association, torture and rendition nakedly justified.”
“I went into Guantanamo Bay as a lawyer and I came out as a broken father,” said Edney. “I never thought that in my lifetime I would go to such an evil place and see such evil being done.” Of the infamous cages, Edney said that “people go into those cages thinking they’re having a holiday in there.” He drew attention to Camps 5, 6, and 7. The first two are “designed for enhanced interrogation tactics: torture.” He said about Camp 7 that “We are not allowed to talk about it. We have prisoners in there who came from Europe, about a year and a half ago, and they’re going to be there forever, because there’s no one there to help.”
Edney discussed the 9/11 witch hunt, in which “the US government detained hundreds, if not thousands, of people of colour on the suspicion of terrorist activity, some of them up to a year, all without charges.” He continued that “almost none of those individuals were found to have been in any way connected with terrorism. Yet many continue to be held without being formally charged with any crime or immigration violation.” In this way Guantanamo “provides powerful evidence of how America and the West are making war on terror synonymous with the war on Islam. No white Anglo-Saxon goes to Guantanamo Bay. Any American picked up for terrorism offences gets due process in a federal court system in New York.”
One audience member suggested that the camp must serve some purpose, because otherwise US President Barrack Obama would have followed through on his promise to shut it down. Edney responded that the camp primarily functions as “an important propaganda tool.” He argued the Obama administration has in fact “systematised” the culture of torture normalised under George W. Bush, for instance by disallowing victims of extraordinary rendition from suing Washington for torture suffered overseas.
Edney was also critical of “lazy” media and academics who have persisted in “slotting events into a sort of juicy clash of civilisations story,” as exemplified by mainstream media coverage of Anders Behring Breivik’s terrorist attack in Oslo. He killed 69 people in July, avowedly to protect Europe from Muslims. Edney said, “as soon as the bomb went off, media organisations began reporting on jihadist organisations.” This, he said, “fit perfectly the story we have all been telling each other since 9/11 that who else, who else could be so hateful, so crazy, so disrespectful of life but Muslims.” He pointed out that though Breivik is a white Norwegian Christian, “we don’t hold Christians or conservatives or liberals responsible for Brievek’s despicable acts.”
He said that “since September 11 2001, race, ethnicity, and religion have become proxies for suspected terrorist activity, which in turn has become a pretext for the application of Canadian immigration laws in an unequal manner towards Arabs, South Asians, Muslims and so on.” In an apparent nod to Bill C-4, the anti-refugee bill that the Conservatives tabled on Tuesday despite widespread condemnation, he noted that “we just have to listen to media descriptions coming out of Ottawa when we talk about refugees today. We call them queue jumpers and potential terrorists.”
Edney also expressed anger at the public’s willingness to be lulled into complicity. He described the transfer of the prisoners to Guantanamo “in rows in aircraft, hooded and shackled for transportation across the Atlantic” as similar to eighteenth century slave ships. He maintained that for “the watching world, no knowledge of international humanitarian conventions is needed to understand that what was being witnessed was simply unlawful.” He blamed public apathy for “allowing anti-Muslim sentiment to become part of our mainstream conversations.” He said, “I say to you we cannot tackle manifestations of intolerance, unless we learn and understand how the constant use of fear pervades our everyday life, and how that fear is being used to influence how you and I think and how you and I act. It’s that same manipulation of fear that has allowed military escapades into countries beyond those who bombed the twin towers. It is that same message that has been exploited by participating countries to reduce civil liberties and infringe upon human rights by allowing such places as Guantanamo Bay to exist.”
The need for action had been a prevailing theme throughout the lecture. Edney returned to it at his lecture’s close: “Not only does it [Guantanamo] continue to exist, they continue building it. Guantanamo is going to be there for a long, long time, unless you do something. Unless you really do something about it.” He concluded that “the only crime equal to wilful inhumanity is the crime of indifference, the crime of silence, the crime of forgetting.”
In that vein, we cannot afford to forget that Guantanamo Bay’s precedents in the West include Canada’s own internment camps, built in BC expressly to detain Japanese-Canadians during WWII. Similarly, Bill C-4’s predecessors include the Chinese head-tax policy.
George Stroumboulopoulos and Senator Romeo Dallaire discuss Omar Khadr
The full interview can also be accessed internationally online at http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/videos.html
Chris Selley Slams Levant over Khadr
Chris Selley of the National Post gives Ezra Levant a pretty good thrashing over his recent op-ed over Omar Khadr:
In a column published in various Sun Media papers earlier this week, Ezra Levant presented “some facts about [Omar] Khadr.” The facts were as follows: (1) there are photographs of Mr. Khadr apparently doing bad things on behalf of Taliban insurgents; (2) Canadian lawyers seem to care a lot more about Mr. Khadr than they do about, say, Chinese-Canadian political prisoner Huseyin Celil; (3) Article 38 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child makes it “clear” that “15-year-olds are not child soldiers”; (4) Mr. Khadr wasn’t a soldier at all, as defined by the Geneva Conventions; and (5) “no one cared [about him] until the Conservatives were elected.”
Mr. Levant’s argument is quite ingenious. It’s almost like a living thing: You can throw a counterargument at it, but it’ll just bob and weave and emerge as a different argument. For example, you could point out that, unfortunately, he’s misread the UN’s intentions on child soldiers. Article 38 of the Convention only applies to “States Parties,” and the Taliban insurgency is quite obviously neither a state nor a party to the Convention. Any honest reader of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the involvement of children in armed conflict would have to conclude it intends the term “child soldier” to apply to anyone under 18.
At which point, Mr. Levant could refer you to Fact No. 4: Mr. Khadr’s child soldier status is irrelevant, because he wasn’t a soldier at all — an opinion shared by notable international law expert Stephen Harper, incidentally, who opined last year that “to be a child soldier, you have to be in an army.”
But, you might then protest, look at Article 4 of the Optional Protocol: “Armed groups that are distinct from the armed forces of a State should not, under any circumstances, recruit or use in hostilities persons under the age of 18.” And look at the United States’ written declaration that it understands the term “armed groups” in Article 4 to mean “nongovernmental armed groups such as rebel groups, dissident armed forces, and other insurgent groups” — wording that clearly includes the gang Mr. Khadr was running with. And look here at Article 7, which commits States Parties to “the rehabilitation and social reintegration of persons who are victims of acts contrary [to the Protocol].” Clearly, you might argue, Omar Khadr was a child soldier as defined by both common sense and a United Nations document ratified by both Canada and the United States. And you’d be right.
Perhaps Levant should stick to bankrupting newspapers, instead of opining on international law.
Ottawa shoots itself in the foot in the Khadr case
There is a dramatic development in the Khadr story. A Federal Court judge ordered the government to do something about Omar Khadr, and the government has seven days to comply. Justice Zinn handed down his judgement three days ago, on July 5, 2010, so if we are still a country of the rule of law we should hear from Ottawa around Monday or Tuesday. Although the judge didn’t order the government to ask the US for Khadr’s return, his repatriation may be the only logical outcome of the chain of events that Justice Zinn set off in Edmonton on Monday.
Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen, is the last Western citizen remaining in Guantanamo Bay. The US authorities allege he threw a grenade that killed a US soldier in an Afghan firefight in 2002 when Khadr was 15 years old. In Guantanamo, he was subjected to physiological techniques to facilitate interrogation. The US denied Khadr the usual legal process rights. Canadian officials interrogated Khadr in Guantanamo and turned the findings over to the Americans. The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) ruled that the Canadian government breached Khadr’s rights to fundamental justice by participating in the tainted US process against Khadr. SCC left it to Ottawa to choose a remedy for the breach of Khadr’s rights.
In response to the SCC decision, the federal government sent a diplomatic note to the US Department of State asking that evidence from Canadian interrogations be excluded from proceedings against Khadr. The US essentially refused.
No doubt the federal government believed the diplomatic note discharged its duty to Khadr flowing from the government’s breach of his rights. Not so fast, said Khadr’s lawyers. According to them, Ottawa’s decision to send the note concerned Omar Khadr’s fundamental rights as a Canadian citizen. The government was about to affect Omar’s liberty and possibly survival, when it chose to send the note instead of asking for his repatriation. Government decisions affecting an individual to this extent require at least some notice and an opportunity to be heard. These are principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. Justice Zinn agreed.
He held that the federal government breached Khadr’s procedural fairness rights when it failed to give him notice of its decision and to let him make written submissions in response. Khadr’s lawyers had specifically asked federal lawyers for notice and a chance to make submissions before the government made its decision. They didn’t receive any response to this request.
So the government breached Khadr’s constitutional rights again. Justice Zinn held that since the diplomatic note had no effect, it did not cure the first breach. He ruled that the federal government would have to try something else, this time with notice and an opportunity for submissions from Khadr’s lawyers—to remedy the second breach. But since the diplomatic note proved ineffective, the government may not resort to it again. It will have to propose another remedy. That is what Justice Zinn ordered the government to do within seven days—to propose a new remedy of the original breach of Khadr’s s. 7 rights. Of course, the government would have to comply with procedural fairness requirements in proposing this new remedy. After receiving the government’s notice of proposed new remedies, Khadr’s lawyers will have further seven days to make written submissions. Then as soon as “reasonably practicable,” the federal government is to act on its chosen remedy.
The curious aspect of this case is that if the government had respected Khadr’s procedural rights in making its original decision to send the diplomatic note, this case would probably not even have come up. The Americans would dismiss Canada’s note, and Khadr would be left in Guantanamo without any legal recourse in Canada. But since Ottawa had breached his rights once more in making its decision to send the note, it found itself pushed up against the wall in court again—this time without the option of sending a lip-service letter to the US. And what remedies other than a request for repatriation can the federal government come up with now to get Justice Zinn off its back? I am not sure there are any. And whatever your position on Khadr, the federal government has only itself to blame.
(Post sponsored by AdviceScene)
Are there inalienable rights in Canada?
We in Canada like to think of ourselves as free. We also like to think we have rights. The police can’t throw us in jail for our political views. And if they do throw us in jail for any reason, the police must let us call a lawyer. A part of Canada’s constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees our rights and freedoms. But the constitutional rights and freedoms such as freedom of expression, a right against arbitrary detention or imprisonment, and even our right to life, liberty and security, are not absolute. The Charter leaves loopholes for the federal Parliament, provincial legislatures, or even judges to limit or take away any rights or freedoms. There are no inalienable rights in Canada.
A legal right is a claim to a benefit. The law sets legal rights, and the courts will enforce them if no one else will. When you sign a contract to lease an apartment in exchange for rent, your tenant has a right to use the apartment, and you have a right to some of the tenant’s money. Your right is always someone else’s duty, which is either to give up the benefit you claim or to let you claim the benefit freely. You can also have rights against the government. For example, habeas corpus is a right to see a judge if the police arrest you. Freedoms are like rights but they are more about enjoying benefits you already have, such as speech or movement. Still, the flip side of every freedom is someone’s duty to respect it. For example, if you have a freedom of religion, the government may not ban your faith.
But rights and freedoms in our relations with the government are tricky because the government is a sovereign. It means that within its geographic borders the government writes the law. What good is a right if the government can scrap it? That’s where a constitution comes into play. It’s a superlaw that tells the government what laws it can and cannot write. And it’s very difficult for the government to change the constitution. The Canadian Charter is the part of our constitution that orders the government to respect certain human rights. If a provincial or the federal legislature passes a law infringing on our Charter right, the courts can strike that law from the books. It will have no force and effect. That way the Charter protects us from the government.
Even democracies need this protection to stop majorities from oppressing minorities. For example, our legal tradition has very good reasons for protecting some rights of the criminally accused. Only a minority of the total population will ever need these rights. Whether justified or baseless, a fear of crime can bring a party that wants to do away with these rights to power. In theory, our Charter will always stop the Parliament from touching the rights of the criminally accused. Before the Charter, the Parliament could throw out the presumption of innocence or the law against self-incrimination. A constitution can also protect racial, gender, or other minorities from discrimination. We can be sure of our human rights only when they are safe from the majority and the government it elects.
The Charter promises us this safety, but it doesn’t really deliver. There are several loopholes in the Charter that let the federal parliament, provincial legislatures, or the courts take away rights. First, the notwithstanding clause in s. 33 empowers legislatures to suspend fundamental freedoms (s. 2) and legal (ss. 7-14) and equality (s. 15) rights. Perhaps for fear of the ballot box, legislatures tried it for real only very few times. But if the government can suspend the rights, they are not inalienable.
Second, the most obvious limitation on all rights and freedoms in the Charter is in s. 1. It basically says that sometimes the Charter will not protect our rights. Suppose the Parliament passes a law that bans newspapers in a certain language. If the government can justify this law as reasonable “in a free and democratic society,” it can get away with it under s. 1. Who decides what’s reasonable and what’s free and democratic? Ultimately, it’s the nine people on the Supreme Court of Canada. Sometimes a s. 1 justification is a very hard task, but a right or freedom is guaranteed only if it’s legally certain, not if it’s probable or very likely. So the government can strip anyone of any Charter right with the consent of the Supreme Court.
Third, the courts decide what each right and freedom in Canada actually means. For example, s. 7 allows the government to deprive anyone of “the right to life, liberty, and security of the person” only in accordance with “the principles of fundamental justice.” The Supreme Court decides what these principles are. Next, the Charter often defines rights using the principle of “reasonableness,” which is really a code word for letting the courts fill in the details. See, for example, the right against “unreasonable search” (s. 8), the right to be tried within a “reasonable time” (s. 11(b)), etc. When the police breach our Charter rights to obtain evidence against us in a criminal investigation, we have a right to have it excluded from our trial—but only if “the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute” (s. 24(2)). Again, the courts decide what that means by applying factors laid down by the Supreme Court.
Finally, if the government breaches your Charter rights, the courts decide what compensation you get if any. It is little comfort to you and little deterrent to the government if the courts merely declare government action unconstitutional. Denied or insufficient remedies gut Charter rights and freedoms. As the recent case of Omar Khadr has shown, the Supreme Court can deny a meaningful remedy even for breaches of the most basic rights such as a right to fundamental justice in s. 7. Most Canadians don’t seem to like Omar Khadr or his family, so the majority is clearly not on his side. The Supreme Court didn’t say that it let the government off the legal hook because of the views of the majority of Canadians. But these views possibly encouraged the government when it violated Khadr’s Charter rights or denied him the requested remedy. What is the value of rights that depend on politics?
One can argue that these cases are extreme and that limits on our Charter rights are fine because we trust our government. After all we elect it. But consider this. First, majorities elect the government, and how certain are you what the majority will be like 20 years from now? Are you going to be in that majority? Do you want to entrust your most basic human rights to a majority? Second, even election rights in the Charter are not inalienable. Mix a national emergency with the right people on the Supreme Court (appointed by the Prime Minister; no Parliament’s consent required), and the words “reasonable,” “free,” and “democratic” in section 1 of the Canadian Charter can have a very different meaning.
The word “inalienable” expresses the idea of rights that the law can never let anyone take. An inalienable right is yours by the fact of your membership in the human species. No government or person gave you this right, so they can never take it away. It is yours by birth. It recognizes your inherent value as a human being regardless of who you are, what you did, or what you think. Very few rights can be inalienable but those that can are truly fundamental: a right to a fair trial, freedom of speech, habeas corpus. The US Declaration of Independence speaks of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” as inalienable rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes “the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family.”
Our Charter does not have the word “inalienable,” neither in letter nor in spirit. It uses other words. But social conditions change, and what’s not “reasonable,” “free,” or “democratic” today can become such in the future. There is a fully legal path to breaches of any rights in Canada. It doesn’t necessarily mean it’s possible politically, socially, or economically, but legally our rights are uncertain. A constitution that fails to protect minorities from the majority’s changing moods does not guarantee rights. The loopholes in the Charter show that we have rights and freedoms only as long as the government and the Supreme Court let us. Rights and freedoms in Canada do not inherently belong to us as human beings but are revocable gifts from the government and the courts. And if we can’t change our Charter, we must at least hold our government to account especially strictly when it comes to human rights.
“Bleeding hearts in law school”
On Friday, Kory Teneycke, a former top adviser to PM Stephen Harper, was interviewed on CTV’s Power Play about the Khadr decision:
Here’s a transcript of the best parts:
Aside from showcasing the Harper government’s ideological approach to human rights, Teneycke’s dialogue serves to remind us of the importance of the Charter with respect to individual rights. As eloquently stated by then-Chief Justice Dickson, the Charter safeguards minorities from the “tyranny of the majority” (R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] S.C.J. No. 17 at para. 96).
I personally hope that most Canadians would prefer to see an alleged terrorist brought before our functional justice system, rather than lower our justice system to a terrorist-like level of disregard for human rights. But even if the Harper government, and the majority of Canadians, wouldn’t care to see Khadr treated as a human being, there is still Charter-based justification for the judiciary (and the “bleeding hearts in law school”) to seek protection of his fundamental rights.
Unique photos of Omar Khadr may be evidence of his innocence
Omar Khadr Omar Khadr ‘innocent’ in death of U.S. soldier
Michelle Shephard writes for the Toronto Star:
Guantanamo detainee Omar Khadr was buried face down under rubble, blinded by shrapnel and crippled, at the time the Pentagon alleges he threw a grenade that fatally wounded a U.S. soldier, according to classified photographs and defence documents obtained by the Star.
Litigious
Ottawa to launch Supreme Court appeal of Khadr ruling
The federal government will go to the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal a court order to bring Omar Khadr home from a U.S. military prison, according to a CBC report.
A Duty to Protect
Abousfian Abdelrazik, Omar Khadr and Suaad Hagi Mohamud all have something in common — they have faced, at one time or another, the federal government’s indifference to their intolerable circumstances.
Our national legal community is not keeping silent. The Canadian Bar Association recently called upon the Harper government to accept the August 14th decision of the Federal Court of Appeal that upheld the ruling of Justice James O’Reilly of the Federal Court of Canada. Justice O’Reilly had ordered the government to seek Omar Khadr’s repatriation from the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay.
With an abundance of highly publicized cases of Canadian citizens detained abroad and subsequent government inaction on their plight, is it not time for Parliament to legislate a ‘duty to protect’ — a duty for government to protect the interests of Canadians detained in foreign jurisdictions?
—–
Abandoning duty in the name of security
By Ihsaan Gardee, The Ottawa Citizen
August 4, 2009
The lingering saga of Abousfian Abdelrazik almost seems too hard to believe — a Canadian citizen in virtual exile for six years in a distant land, shadowy involvement of intelligence services and a violation of the rights of a Canadian citizen under the Charter. Coupled with the recent announcement that the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) will conduct a probe into the role played by CSIS — Canada’s enigmatic intelligence service — in Mr. Abdelrazik’s arrest, imprisonment and alleged torture overseas raises, once again, the thorny issue of balancing civil liberties, human rights and due process with national security.
For many of us, knowing we hold the Canadian passport is more than enough to naively convince ourselves of our inalienable rights as citizens. Yet, for Abdelrazik and those who faced similar ordeals, that reliance was quickly betrayed by the reality that any sense of security conveyed by citizenship is imaginary.
Abdelrazik’s story now joins the ranks of the cautionary tales of Canadian citizens detained abroad and abandoned by their government. Maher Arar was one of them. His ordeal paved the way for a full public inquiry, and Canadians learned about his suffering and the acts and omissions that led to his detention and torture. Not long thereafter surfaced the accounts of Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad El Maati and Muayyed Nureddin that put into question the government’s claim that this was a one-off event and not part of a pattern of systemic failures by government officials and security agencies.
For Abdelrazik, it took a Federal Court order to finally compel the Harper government to bring him home. The government’s delays, obfuscations, and cruel games were finally put to an end.
Now, thanks to intrepid journalism, the commitment of social justice organizations such as those involved in Project Fly Home, and the decision of federal justice Russell Zinn, we know some of the frightening details of Abdelrazik’s ordeal.
We know Canadian security officials operated behind the scenes to have a citizen detained in Sudan without the knowledge of government ministers in Ottawa. Moreover, Canadian diplomats in Khartoum were kept in the dark about Abdelrazik’s detention until three months after his arrest. When Sudanese government representatives ominously warned in March 2006 that military intelligence would create a “permanent solution” for Abdelrazik if Canada did not act to bring him home, Ottawa remained shockingly indifferent.
These troubling revelations all point to a stark deficit in accountability and transparency, and a shirking of responsibility by government and security officials to uphold the rights and safety of a Canadian citizen. They also demonstrate the government’s misuse of the “national security” argument as a means to thwart a citizen’s right to return and right to due process.
The lack of definitive action by the Canadian government illustrates the crux of Abdelrazik’s case and those of other Canadians such as Omar Khadr or Huseyin Celil: the fundamental absence of a governmental duty to protect Canadian citizens detained in a foreign country. Unlike in the United States, a formal duty to protect has not been legislated or enshrined in Canada. It urgently needs to be.
Without such a duty, detained citizens are left at the mercy of foreign jurisdictions even when no evidence exists, as in Abdelrazik’s case, to justify their captivity. The government is then able to rationalize its unwillingness to take the necessary action on a citizen’s detention, as Crown lawyers aptly demonstrated in recently filed arguments with the federal appeals court on the Khadr case.
Similarly, in the case of Celil, a three-month window of opportunity to repatriate him when he was originally detained in March 2006 by Uzbek authorities — prior to being deported to a Chinese prison where he remains in solitary confinement — was ignored or missed by the government. To their credit on this particular file, the government has since been more active in raising the issue of Celil’s detention to their Chinese counterparts.
In 2006, Justice Dennis O’Connor’s report from the Maher Arar inquiry called for critical changes to the way our security agencies and government officials conduct themselves in the arena of national security. The demand for greater accountability and oversight was unmistakably clear. Yet, more than two years after the release of these reports, at a cost of millions of taxpayer dollars, we have only glib general assurances from government that these recommendations have been enacted without any reporting on specific implementations. Meanwhile, over the course of many months, Canadians watched with utter dismay at the treatment meted out to Abdelrazik.
As famed civil liberties advocate Clarence Darrow once said: “True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else.” Indeed, Abdelrazik faced an unconscionable injustice at the hands of his own government that should never have been allowed to transpire.
Perhaps we may never be able to fully undo the damage, but Canada can act now to ensure these sordid events are never repeated again.
Ihsaan Gardee is executive director of the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-CAN).
Government loses again in Khadr case
Ottawa must seek Khadr’s return: Court
The Federal Court of Appeal ruled today that the government offered no compelling reasons why it should not comply with an order to request that Khadr, 22, be repatriated to Canada.
Government argued that foreign policy is its exclusive prerogative. The court held that a court’s order to ask for Khadr’s repatriation is a “relatively small intrusion into the conduct of international relations.”
More on Omar Khadr
Kenney’s Canada: Who’s in, who’s out and who is getting kicked out
By Krystalline Kraus
Published on rabble.ca (http://www.rabble.ca), reproduced here on author’s request
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney have the political power to decide who they want to let into Canada and who they want to keep out.
