The Parties and the Rights of New Canadians

This week Stephen Harper made a point of wooing so-called New Canadians - immigrants who have gained citizenship through naturalization. One aspect of the Conservative Party Platform, just released today, is devoted to policies to enhance the security of minority communities within Canada, including New Canadian communities.

That minority communities in Canada are gaining some attention is to be applauded. But immigrants to this country can justifiably ask how secure their rights as Canadian will be under a government formed by either the Liberals or the Conservatives. There have been some horrific cases in recent years involving Canadians with dual citizenship being abandoned to detention and abuse by foreign regimes, in violation of their fundamental human rights. Canadian governments were at times complicit in the abuse, and in other cases simply refused to assert the rights of the Canadian victims, and indeed the rights of Canada being violated through the abuse of its citizens.

We will return to examine thes ramifications of these cases in more detail, but for the moment let us just take a quick look at some examples of governmental failure to protect the rights of Canadians. The first case has to be Maher Arar, which developed during the last Liberal government. A Syrian Canadian who was detained by U.S. authorities while in transit in New York, and "renditioned" to Syria on the basis of, in part, false information provided to them by the RCMP suggesting that he had terrorist links.


Arar was detained in Syria for one year under horrific conditions, during which time he was tortured. Moreover, it would later become clear that CSIS was providing his Syrian torturers with information and questions to be used in interrogations. A government Commission of Inquiry established by the Liberal Government determined that there was absolutely no evidence to link Arar with terrorist organizations. He would be ultimately given over $10 million by the government in compensation for his ordeal.

Next on the list is Omar Khadr. He is viewed as a much less sympathetic character by most Canadians, as his family clearly had links to Al Qaeda. Yet his story is important, and his case represents an egregious failure on the part of the government of Canada to stand up for the rights of both a Canadian citizen, and the rights of Canada under international law. His story is well known - he was captured at the age of fifteen fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2002. He was injured when captured, and was suspected as having thrown a grenade that killed an American medic in the firefight leading up to his capture. He was sent to Guantanamo Bay, where he was detained without charge or trial until 2010, when he was finally tried by a military commission. He is the first child soldier to be tried for "war crimes" in modern times.

The Supreme Court of Canada would find that not only were his international human rights being violated on an ongoing basis by the government of the United States, but that the Canadian government was complicit in those violations, and itself had violated Khadr's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. While deferring to the government of Stephen Harper in how to fashion a remedy, the Supreme Court's declaration clearly required government action to end the violations. Yet the Harper government still refused to act, arguing that he was subject to a valid legal process - a military commission system that virtually all non-American legal scholars argue does not meet the minimum standards required by international law. All the other political parties in Canada pressed for government action. Khader was finally convicted in these military commissions under a plea agreement, abandoned by his government, and will serve nine years in addition to the nine years he has already been detained.

The final example for this post is Abousfian Abdelrazik. His name may not be as familiar, yet his story is well known. A Sudanese Canadian who returned to Sudan in 2003 to visit an ailing mother, he was detained by Sudanese authorities. The evidence suggests that he was detained at the request of the Canadian government, or at the very least on the basis of information provided by Canada. He was imprisoned for eleven months and then released. By then, however, he had been placed on the U.N. Security Council authorized no-fly list, and so was finding it difficult to return to Canada (the list does provide exceptions for return to one's own country). The Sudanese government would go on to entirely exonerate Abderlrazik, and offered to fly him home to Canada if the Canadian government would help bear the cost. Canada refused.

As the saga continued, and various avenues were explored to assist Abdelrazik's return home, it became increasingly clear that the Canadian government was blocking his return. It eventually adopted a position of clear denial. The Globe & Mail reported obtaining documents establishing that CSIS had warned the government against repatriating Abdelrazik out of fear of upsetting the Americans, who thought that Abderazik had ties to terrorists. The government in turn blocked every attempt to bring Abdelrazik home - and meanwhile he lived in conditions of near detention in the Sudan. Finally, in 2009, the Federal Court found that the policy of the government of Canada was violating Abdelrazik's section 6 mobility rights under the Charter, which provides every Canadian the right to return to Canada. The government of Stephen Harper finally relented and facilitated his return, but rather than apologize and offer compensation, it has dismissed his requests for recompense, and decided to strenuously defend his claims in court.

We will return to these and other cases to consider the extent to which new Canadians should feel secure with a government of either major party. But the Conservative government in particular has shown itself to be the most contemptuous of the rights of Canadians detained in foreign lands. While making much of victims rights and tough on crime at home, it has been complicit in the victimization of Canadian abroad, and has undermined the rights of Canada to protect its citizens from abuse at the hands of foreign regimes. - CM.