British Government Compensates Guantanamo Torture Victims. What Does Omar Get?

What a difference it is living in a democratic country.

Compensation payments and legal costs for 16 British citizens and residents who claim they were tortured at Guantanamo Bay could leave the Government footing a bill of up to £30m.

The decision to settle the costly case also raises concerns about Britain's true role in the torture of prisoners during the "war on terror".

The case ends an already damaging court battle between MI5 and lawyers representing Binyam Mohamed, who alleges that Britain knew he was being tortured at the hands of the Americans.

Britain does not disown her citizens. No matter where you are you are still a British subject.

In Harperland your citizenship depends on the mood of our humble leader. Just ask Omar Khadr.

Omar Khadr: With All Due Respect. Canadians do Care. We Just Don't Know It.

On April 24, 2009, in response to queries about Omar Khadr, Lawrence Cannon shocked Members of Parliament and the media alike, when he stood up and made the claim:

" ... last night we were able to see television footage of Mr. Khadr's alleged building and planting of explosive devices that are actually planted in Afghanistan. Those devices are the devices that basically have taken away the lives of young Canadian men and women."

Khadr was tried in the House of Commons, based on the American television show 60 Minutes.

In July of this year, Lawrence Martin wrote a column in which he criticized our government's decision to not repatriate Omar Khadr, but did not confine his anger to the Harper government, but also expressed displeasure with the Canadian people.

To avoid depression over the standards of justice in this country, here’s a tip: Stay away from opinion polls on Omar Khadr. If you ever thought Canadians were a progressive, fair-minded people who believed in equal rights before the law, these soundings tell a different story.

They say most Canadians don’t want the Toronto-born Mr. Khadr to be returned to Canada from Guantanamo Bay for a legitimate judicial process. All other nations have repatriated their Gitmo detainees. Led by our counterclockwise Justice Department, we are the lone heathen holdout. (1)

First off, most polls that I read, showed the Canadian people were split down the middle on the issue. But the problem with polls is that the headline that accompanies their publication, is often misleading. And for those who read only the headlines, if they are called the next time the poll comes around, they often base their judgement on the headlines and not the facts.

The Omar Khadr case is far too complicated to be condensed to a few, often leading questions. And I think that if the poll was conducted after first giving Canadians all the facts, the results would be quite different.

The question was, should Omar Khadr be allowed to return to Canada and be tried by his peers? But before presenting the question, it should have included the fact that Canada was the only country NOT to repatriate our accused, housed at Gitmo. The only one. That's important information.

And they should also mention the fact that Khadr was a "child soldier".

And that he had been indoctrinated from the age of nine.

And they should remind us that when in Afghanistan, his homeland was invaded and occupied. Many children worked with the French Resistance, fighting Nazi occupation. They were considered to be heroes. I'm not suggesting that Omar Khadr is a hero, but he's not a monster either. He was the victim of circumstance, and as a Canadian citizen, deserved the same rights afforded all Canadians.

Or at least that's the way it's supposed to work.

New Laws in Harperland

Traditionally, Canadian leaders had tried to be a moderating influence on the foreign policy of American presidents. But with Harper and Obama, the roles were reversed in some areas. One was Guantanamo. Aware that the prison's judicial standards, bordering on the medieval, were damaging the American reputation for human rights, Obama was bent on closing it down, as was the Republican candidate, John McCain. Harper differed. He had no such inclination. He gave the impression that it was fine with him.

Even to many Tories, Harper's stance on Omar Khadr was primitive. Khadr was fifteen when he killed a U.S. special forces soldier in the midst of a firelight in Afghanistan. From all appearances, the Canadian-born youth had been indoctrinated by his terrorist father and jihadists since he was nine. Accused of terrorist activities and spying, he had been incarcerated in a Guantanamo cell since 2002. He was the only citizen of a Western country to remain there; all other nations had demanded that their Gitmo detainees be returned to home soil, where they could face legitimate jurisprudence.

... In the case of Khadr, six former Canadian foreign affairs ministers, including John Manley and Joe Clark, wrote an open letter of appeal to Harper, but it was ignored. Canadian courts repeatedly ruled in favour of repatriating Khadr. Guantanamo, the courts ruled, represented a clear violation of Canada's international human rights obligations. The verdicts found that Khadr's Charter rights had been violated. Even the conservative National Post would headline an editorial "Bring Back Omar Khadr." (2)

So why was Harper ignoring even his loyal fans? According to Martin, Harper " put forward a political argument, saying that the government, not the judiciary, should be the final arbiter of foreign policy. In this instance, the Supreme Court, while declaring that Khadr's Charter rights had indeed been violated, refused to order his repatriation. It said it would be inappropriate to dictate the diplomatic steps necessary to address the breaches of those rights. On this issue, Harper won the case. In the conduct of foreign affairs, his powers were deemed pre-eminent. (2)

He wanted to make it clear that his voice and his voice alone, spoke for Canada.

No courts, experts or human rights advocates would have a say. In Harperland, only Harper matters.

Throughout, the Tories refused to give their reasons for not repatriating Khadr. Wesley Wark, an Ottawa professor and the past president of the Canadian Association for Security and Intelligence was appalled at the arrogant silence. "The Harper government's view that it does not have to explain its actions," he said, "is nothing short of breathtaking."

At the same time, the Harper government rebuffed requests by the Obama administration to help resettle dozens of Guantanamo detainees and close the prison. The recalcitrance was striking. It was a matter, in the case of Khadr, of supporting high standards of justice or not. Harper chose not.

A Matter of Opinion?

Facing renewed criticism, the pollsters are once again coming to his aid, creating the impression that Canadians agree with the anointed one.

I think the most ridiculous, is this one published in the Sun.

OTTAWA — In a showdown between terrorist Omar Khadr and serial killer Russell Williams, Canadians say Khadr is the bigger threat to the public. Ottawa’s Abacus Data asked Canadians which of the two men, whose trials have dominated headlines recently, is the greater threat to Canada’s public safety. About 34% of respondents chose Khadr, 24% chose Williams, and the rest chose neither man. (3)

OK. First of all, who is the biggest threat to the public, Khadr or Williams? Who dreamt up that ridiculous question? It's apples and oranges. Omar Khadr killed in battle, Russel Williams is a rapist and serial killer. It was obviously intended to create the impression that Khadr was dangerous.

So I read down a bit and saw that the poll was conducted by Abacus Data.

I know. I'd never heard of them either. But I have heard of their president David Colletto. Colletto is a colleague of Harper insider Tom Flanagan, both belonging to the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy. And yet the Sun doesn't mention that.

The headline should have read 'Harper pal conducts country's most idiotic poll.'

And the information that Canadians should be privy to before answering any poll concerning Khadr:

The civilian populations are the first victims of contemporary armed conflicts. Over the course of the past decade, wars will have cost the lives of two million children and mutilated six million children. Many of them have been victims of sexual violence. Twenty-three million children are refugees or victims of forced displacement, often separated from their families or orphans. Each year, 10,000 children are victims of antipersonnel mines. Worldwide, there are more than 250,000 child soldiers at the heart of modern wars.

Omar Khadr was a child soldier and since 1999, the UN Security Council has adopted six major resolutions aiming to fight the phenomenon of child soldiers

But in July of 2009, Embassy Magazine reported that:

With subtle strokes of the pen, it appears the Conservative government has been systematically changing the language employed by the foreign service and, as a result, bringing subtle but sweeping changes to traditional Canadian foreign policy ... Among the changes identified [is]replacing the phrase "child soldiers" with "children in armed conflict."

... Striking Out 'Child Soldiers', while it might appear to be one of the least controversial language changes cited—changing "child soldiers" to "children in armed conflict"—sources told Embassy this may be related to the case of Omar Khadr... at the political level there is a sense that children involved with terrorists groups are not child soldiers, and that's simply not the case under international law."

Mr. Neve [ Alex Neve, secretary general of Amnesty International Canada] raised concerns about possible ramifications for the issues around Mr. Khadr. He said there is a very particular, legal reason to recognize him as a child soldier and to weaken that language could suggest an intention to avoid the legal obligations that come with it. (4)

If international law contradicts the views of Stephen Harper, Stephen Harper just changes international law, with a simple stoke of the pen.

In Harperland only one person's opinion matters and even legally binding international agreements mean nothing. Harper has spoken. End of.

Welcome to the new realities in the country formerly known as Canada.

Welcome to Harperland.

Sources:

1. In the matter of Omar Khadr, shame on us, By Lawrence Martin, Globe and Mail, July 15, 2010

2. Harperland: The Politics of Control, By Lawrence Martin, Viking Press, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-670-06517-2, Pg. 199-200

3. Khadr a bigger threat than Williams: poll, By Brian Lilley, Parliamentary Bureau, Toronto Sun, November 3, 2010

4. "Gender Equality", "Child Soldiers" and "Humanitarian Law" are Axed from Foreign Policy Language, By Michelle Collins, Embassy Magazine, July 29, 2009

The Harper Government and the Colour of Democracy

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

In September of 2005, Michael Ignatieff was invited to speak at the U. S. Coast Guard Academy, on leadership, and what that meant. He was originally going to talk about human rights and international politics, but this was in the wake of Katrina, so he changed his lecture to one of current relevance.

I wanted to share with you in a very raw form, a very direct form this civilian’s view of some of the challenges—some of the moral and ethical challenges that arise from the Katrina story, that is still unfolding. This is the largest natural disaster in US history, but it’s not just the loss of life and the scale of devastation that’s shaken the country. The most troubling aspect has been the failure of anticipation and the failure of response by almost all levels of government ... (1)

Using the levee as a metaphor, he suggests that the people in Katrina's path believed that it would protect them in the same way they expected their government to protect them, and just as the levee burst, so too did their faith in the government.

And to go off topic a bit, I think what happened in the U.S. in the wake of this disaster, epitomizes why neoconservative ideology will fail. There is far too much "assumption" and too little fact. But there is also a dismissive attitude toward those who are disadvantaged.

The evacuation plan for New Orleans ... assumed that people would leave by private car. Assumption number one. And assumption number two—that people, when they left, would be basically housed by their family and domestic networks. Both assumptions turned out to be flawed.

The assumptions were correct for seventy percent of the population or eighty percent of the population but not correct for twenty percent of the population, and we know what percentage of the population it wasn’t true for. It was not true for people who can’t drive. It was not true for people without extensive family networks out of state. It was not true for people without the resources to rent cars. It was not true for very large numbers of human beings. (1)

As images were shown from New Orleans and the surrounding area, and sent around the world, what we saw was a side of the United States that they tried very hard to keep hidden. These people were poor before the hurricane. And most of these devastatingly poor people were black.

A duty of care involves social knowledge—social knowledge about the facts of race and class, however unpleasant they may be in our society, and a willingness to create an evacuation plan that deals with a society that actually exists...

... Katrina was one of those moments where we saw the ties that bind the country together put under tremendous strain, the ties that bind were frayed by what happened in Katrina. One of the cries that went up from the people trapped in the convention center in New Orleans was very significant and I’ll never forget seeing the woman who said this: she said, “We are American citizens, we are American citizens, we are not refugees, we are not stateless objects of your charity, we are citizens of this republic, we have rights here and our rights have been denied.”

Ok, for that woman and for thousands of people who went through the experience of the last five or six days, the thing that was so shocking was that their citizenship counted so little.... But these ties of citizenship are legitimate and accepted as binding only if citizenship confers equal rights regardless of race and social class. (1)

"The thing that was so shocking was that their citizenship counted so little."

And sadly we are now living in a country where citizenship for many Canadians means very little indeed.

Sydney Sharpe, former member of the Ottawa Press Gallery, once wrote that: "This way of thinking characterizes the ideology and behaviour of right-wing Supremacist groups such as the Heritage Front. While such groups can, to a certain extent, be ignored because of their small numbers, such thinking is also evident in the doctrines of the Reform Party [those doctrines written by their policy chief Stephen Harper], who won a substantial number of votes in the federal election of 1993 and who hold 52 seats in Parliament." (2)

So should we really be surprised that the Reform Party, that changed it's name to Alliance Party and now call themselves the Conservative Party of Canada, have written a policy of selective citizenship?

We saw this with Suaad Hagi Mohamud, the Canadian woman who visited relatives in Kenya but was not allowed home until she took a DNA test.

If Canadian citizen Suaad Hagi Mohamud were wealthy or politically connected or media savvy, she would never have been stripped of her passport and her rights while travelling through Kenya.

She might have been stopped at the airport in Nairobi. Initially, a Canadian consular official might even have supported her detention. When she presented her identification, the Canadian system would have rallied to her side. Suaad Hagi Mohamud, however, is not rich. She's not a political insider. She's not a media darling. She is a black Somali immigrant who had to live on charity once Canadian authorities sent her passport to Kenyan police and suggested they prosecute her for not really being one of us. She had produced a half-dozen forms of valid identification, but our bureaucrats closed their ears to her desperate pleas for help. By cancelling her passport, they rendered her stateless. (3)

Her "citizenship counted so little."

And we are seeing it with Omar Khadr:

Lawrence Cannon stood up in the House of Commons and pronounced his guilt, before a court of law had determined that he was guilty of anything, and they refuse to bring him home.

"There's never been any allegation that Omar conspired to injure Canadians," said Nate Whitling, one of Mr. Khadr's Canadian lawyers .... it seems to me a terrible abuse of power that government ministers (or even little spokespersons) should be able to make insinuations about the criminal guilt of individual Canadian citizens, especially when no legitimate prosecutor has ever raised such charges and when Omar Khadr is still, under any legal process, however suspect, as the U.S. military commissions are universally considered to be entitled to the presumption of innocence. (4)

His "citizenship counted so little."

Or Brenda Martin, the Canadian woman languishing in a Mexican jail. Helena Guergis said that her government was doing everything possible to help her. Guergis even flew to Mexico herself, but never visited Martin or anyone involved. Instead she went partying and later said that she spoke to someone at the party about her.

Supporters of a Canadian woman imprisoned without trial in Mexico for nearly two years were astonished when they learned that a federal cabinet member is publicly claiming she and her government have worked hard behind the scenes to expedite Brenda Martin's case and to ensure her legal and human rights have been respected. Incredulity turned to anger when Helena Guergis, the secretary of state for foreign affairs and international trade, warned in a letter to the editor published in the Edmonton Journal that "those who are playing politics with Ms Martin's regrettable situation . . . are not helping to advance her case or get her home any faster."

... In her letter to the editor, Guergis, who is engaged to Edmonton MP Rahim Jaffer, said the federal government has "strongly and repeatedly pressed senior Mexican officials" to expedite Martin's case. But Dan McTeague, the Liberal foreign affairs critic for consular services, said he met with the Mexican ambassador to Canada, Emilio Goicoechea Luna, earlier this month and the ambassador told him no one from foreign affairs had ever contacted him about Martin's case. (5)

Martin wasn't black but was not wealthy. She didn't move in their circles.

Her "citizenship counted so little."

Or Jason Kenney removing gay rights from the citizenship guide.

Their "citizenship counted so little."

Or Stephen Harper removing the word "equality" from the Status for Women.

As for Canadian women, it is doubtful that Harper’s sudden interest in championing women in the developing world will wash. They have heard those words before. Shortly after taking power, Harper broke his pre-election promise to “take concrete and immediate measures…to ensure Canada upholds its commitments to women.” He removed the words “equality” out of the Status of Women’s mandate, closed 12 out of 16 SWC offices, abandoned a Universal childcare program and killed off the Courts Challenges Program. The program subsidized Constitutional test cases for finally disadvantaged groups including women. A major beneficiary of the program was the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) that intervened in over 150 constitutional equality cases including violence against women, sexual assault and pay equity issues. (6)

Our "citizenship counted so little."

Which brings us to Abousfian Abdelrazik.

The Harper government was warned shortly after it came to office in 2006 that Sudan’s notorious military intelligence agency was ready to “disappear” Abousfian Abdelrazik, a Canadian citizen, unless Ottawa allowed him to go home, The Globe and Mail has learned. Sudan wanted to “deal with this case for once and for all: we judge as significant their verbal reference to a ‘permanent solution,’” Ottawa was bluntly told by Canadian diplomats in the Sudanese capital, according to documents now in possession of The Globe.

Instead of protesting the threat or warning Sudan – a regime notorious for its human rights abuses – that Ottawa would hold it responsible if harm came to a Canadian citizen held in one of its prisons, diplomats in Khartoum were ordered by a senior Canadian intelligence official to deliver a non-committal response “notwithstanding the expected displeasure of the Sudanese.” (7)

And rather than deal with it, Lawrence Cannon simply lied to the Canadian people and to Mr. Abdelrazik.

The lobby of the Canadian embassy in one of the world’s leading basketcase nations is an odd place for our government to house a man posing a serious threat to national security, wouldn’t you say? And yet, this is what Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon would have us believe he and his predecessor have been doing with Abousfian Abdelrazik for over a year. Yesterday, the latest chapter in the Sudanese-Canadian’s mind-boggling six-year struggle to return home unfolded as many had ruefully predicted. Having booked and paid for a flight to Canada, thus fulfilling the conditions under which the government had promised, in writing, to issue an emergency passport, the apparently destitute Abdelrazik was instead told he needed somehow to get himself removed from the United Nations’ no-fly list before the papers would be issued. (8)

So I am pleased to learn that Abousfian Abdelrazik has won the right to sue not only the Harper government, but Lawrence Cannon personally.

A Montreal man who claims he was abandoned by Canada and subjected to torture in Sudan has the green light to pursue his lawsuit against the federal government. The Federal Court this week rejected a government motion to strike significant parts of Abousfian Abdelrazik's suit for $27 million. The government argued it couldn't be sued by individuals for torture, that the government isn't duty-bound to protect Canadians detained abroad and that
Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon couldn't be named personally in the
lawsuit.

In his statement of claim, Abdelrazik alleges the government arranged for him to be detained, encouraged or condoned his torture and actively obstructed his repatriation to Canada. In it, he singles out Cannon, seeking $3 million in damages for allegedly blocking his attempts to return. (9)

We need to let this government, and any future government, know that this kind of behaviour reflects badly on Canadians. It's not who we are and it's not who we want to be. Because despite the Reform Party mindset, our equal citizenship counts for everything!

Sources:

1. U.S. Coast Guard Academy Institute for Leadership presents the 2nd event in the 2005-2006 academic year’s Leadership Speaker Series: Dr. Michael Ignatieff, September 8th, 2005

2. The Colour of Democracy, Racism in Canadian Society, By Frances Henry, Carol Tator, Winston Mattis, and Tim Rees, Harcourt Brace & Company, 1995, ISBN: 0-7747-3255-5, Pg. 24

3. A country that abandons its own, Toronto Star, August 29, 2009

4. Lawrence Cannon aspires to be ... Richard Nixon?!? By skdadl, Peace, Order and Good Government, eh?, April 25, 2009

5. Guergis warns against 'playing politics', By The Vancouver Province, December 26, 2007

6. STOP PLAYING WITH WOMEN’S LIVES, Ad Hoc Coalition for Women's Equality and Human Rights Media Release, February 22, 2010

7. Canada 'indifferent' to Sudan's threat to kill Abdelrazik, files show, By Paul Koring, Globe and Mail, July 31, 2009

8. "The Trial," by Lawrence Cannon, By Chris Selley, National Post, April 04, 2009

9. Feds fail in attempt to avoid Sudan torture lawsuit, By Tobi Cohen, Postmedia News, September 1, 2010

Lawrence Cannon and the Omar Khadr Case

It's an understatement to say that the Omar Khadr case has been mishandled, yet this government continues to use every legal loophole imaginable to keep him detained, even after President Obama has suggested he be returned to Canada.

But if they are using every legal loophole, they are also using every loopy something else hole, and Lawrence Cannon is definitely one of the loopiest.

He has made himself judge, jury and executioner, standing up in the House of Commons and pronouncing that Mr. Khadr is 'guilty'. And why? Because he saw it on TV.

Lawrence Cannon aspires to be ... Richard Nixon?!?
By skdadl,
April 25, 2009

Mr. Cannon's comments in the Commons yesterday also strayed from the usual Conservative talking points on the file - namely, that Mr. Khadr faces serious charges, including murder, and that Ottawa will not interfere with continuing legal proceedings in the United States.

"As a matter of fact, last night we were able to see television footage of Mr. Khadr's alleged building and planting of explosive devices that are actually planted in Afghanistan," Mr. Cannon told the House. "Those devices are the devices that basically have taken away the lives of young Canadian men and women."

Mr. Cannon was apparently referring to footage that was previously leaked, in violation of court rules, to the news show 60 Minutes. Mr. Khadr's defence lawyers have so far been unable to prove who leaked the video.

"There's never been any allegation that Omar conspired to injure Canadians," said Nate Whitling, one of Mr. Khadr's Canadian lawyers.

"This is clearly an attempt to prejudice our client on spurious grounds." I am not a lawyer, so I don't know the grounds on which a court or the Speaker could censure Mr Cannon for remarks made in Parliament, but that statement is surely deserving of censure. The odd reference to viewing a video "last night," a video that has been around for a long time and about which there is much prior intelligent comment, suggests that Mr Cannon is simply clueless on this file, as does the cover-up conflicting statement from his communications director.

But it seems to me a terrible abuse of power that government ministers (or even little spokespersons) should be able to make insinuations about the criminal guilt of individual Canadian citizens, especially when no legitimate prosecutor has ever raised such charges and when Omar Khadr is still, under any legal process, however suspect, as the U.S. military commissions are universally considered to be (well, except by the Harper cabinet), entitled to the presumption of innocence.

As Foreign Affairs critic, Bob Rae was appalled at Cannon's actions.

Rae on Khadr
by Aaron Wherry
April 24, 2009

Question: The statement by Mr. Cannon today introducing new elements, the death of Canadian soldiers. What do you make of this? What’s going on?

Bob Rae: Well first of all, I mean I think it’s extraordinary to conduct a trial on the floor of the House of Commons. If the Government of Canada has new evidence with respect to Mr. Khadr, whether he was, when he 12, 13, 14 or 15, I would hope that they would think that that was even more reason for Mr. Khadr to be brought home and tried in Canada.

Question: Are you suggesting that they’re suggesting new evidence or new (off microphone)?

Bob Rae: I don’t know what Mr., I don’t know what Mr. Cannon is doing. You better ask him. He’s the one who introduced this. He’s the one who in response to a question about the decision of Justice O’Reilly referred to footage that he’d just seen on television, a Minister of the Crown carrying out a one-man prosecution against Mr. Khadr on the floor of the House of Commons. We have courts for this kind of thing in Canada. We don’t try people on the floor of the House of Commons. We have courts that do this job and Mr. Justice O’Reilly of the Federal Court has said that the court that Mr. Khadr should be facing is in Canada, not in the United States because of the mistreatment that Mr. Khadr has received in Guantanamo.

You know, this government is essentially trying to wag the dog and change the story and trying to rile up opinion against Mr. Khadr because of some footage that they’ve got and then bring in the name of the, of the young woman who was killed last week in Afghanistan as if Mr. Khadr had, you know, what, what are they saying? What is Mr. Cannon doing? It’s a classic McCarthyite tactic. And it is not the way we do, should be doing business or politics in Canada and I take, if Mr. Cannon says well, all I was saying was these are serious charges, you say fine, they’re serious charges that should be faced in Canada.

No one’s denying that the charges against Mr. Khadr are serious. What Mr. Justice O’Reilly is saying, what the Federal Court is saying is that the evidence of mistreatment in Guantanamo is such that he should be brought home. And that seems to me the argument that Mr. Cannon has to face and hasn’t faced that argument. He’s decided not to face up to it.

Back to: The Lawrence Cannon Story: Intelligent Incompetence