doing ok, should be doing better
That was the conclusion of the UN committee against torture about Canada. Canada and six other countries were up for review at the committee's latest session. The committee monitors compliance with the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Citing extradition and torture victim Maher Arar, the UN committee said Canada should do more to prevent extraditions where torture is a likely outcome.
Unfortunately, the countries who most need the panel's review are the least likely to heed their recommendations, but that will always be the problem with an international body of any type. Article here, thanks to ALPF, of course.
Citing extradition and torture victim Maher Arar, the UN committee said Canada should do more to prevent extraditions where torture is a likely outcome.
The committee also criticized Canada's Immigration and Refugee Protection Act 2002 for what it described as a blanket exclusion of refugees and other people in need of protection. The new law, enacted almost a year after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, allows for the removal of foreign nationals who constitute a danger to the public or the security of Canada.On the positive side, the panel praised Canada for using the UN's broad definition of torture in its own criminal code (which, as we know, the US does not), and for deeming evidence obtained by torture inadmissible.
However, the Canadian report to the committee said "this is to be done only in exceptional circumstances and after the risk to the individual has been carefully balanced against the risk to Canadian society ... To date, Canada had not deported anyone to a country where the person was determined to face a substantial risk of torture."
It also welcomed Canada's application of criminal standards to its military personnel wherever located worldwide. Under this stipulation, soldiers cannot use the argument that they were following orders or plead exceptional circumstances -- including armed conflict -- in their defence.This is heartening, and it makes sense for Canada to examine its own role in Arar's ordeal. (There is an ongoing inquiry in Ottawa.)
Unfortunately, the countries who most need the panel's review are the least likely to heed their recommendations, but that will always be the problem with an international body of any type. Article here, thanks to ALPF, of course.
"The new law, enacted almost a year after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, allows for the removal of foreign nationals who constitute a danger to the public or the security of Canada."
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the UN criticism in this regard. I believe it is the right of any country to deport anyone who is a threat to domestic security, regardless of whatever sanctions the individual may face in his own country. We are under no obligation to provide safe haven to terrorists. The fact that we have never used this option is proof we are being responsible.
"The new law, enacted almost a year after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, allows for the removal of foreign nationals who constitute a danger to the public or the security of Canada."
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the UN criticism in this regard. I believe it is the right of any country to deport anyone who is a threat to domestic security, regardless of whatever sanctions the individual may face in his own country. We are under no obligation to provide safe haven to terrorists. The fact that we have never used this option is proof we are being responsible.
If someone is a threat to security, why not try and imprison them in Canada?
ReplyDeleteAlso, dont' the conventions have to be the same for every country? Most countries can't be trusted. Ahem. She says, pointing to where she's sitting...
If someone is a threat to security, why not try and imprison them in Canada?
ReplyDeleteAlso, dont' the conventions have to be the same for every country? Most countries can't be trusted. Ahem. She says, pointing to where she's sitting...
"If someone is a threat to security, why not try and imprison them in Canada?"
ReplyDeleteThat introduces a whole other human rights problem. The people in question may not have committed any crimes in Canada, so they would be incarcerated for their intentions.
"Also, dont' the conventions have to be the same for every country? Most countries can't be trusted."
I do recognize the necessity of international human rights conventions, but I think it is more constructive to condemn the abusers. Take the case of Maher Arar. He is a Canadian citizen and he was travelling on a Canadian passport. The US government was well within its rights to deport him if they felt he was a threat to national security, but instead of deporting him to Canada, they sent him to Syria. This is a clear abuse of his rights. You can bet Canada would never deport an American citizen to a third country.
"The people in question may not have committed any crimes in Canada, so they would be incarcerated for their intentions."
ReplyDeleteOf course. I see your point.
Re Arar - of course. And the US didn't actually deport him - they abducted him. Deportation would involve due process, and he was given none.
The third-party extraditions are among the most shameful actions in recent US history, and there are so many to choose from.
"The people in question may not have committed any crimes in Canada, so they would be incarcerated for their intentions."
ReplyDeleteOf course. I see your point.
Re Arar - of course. And the US didn't actually deport him - they abducted him. Deportation would involve due process, and he was given none.
The third-party extraditions are among the most shameful actions in recent US history, and there are so many to choose from.
"And the US didn't actually deport him - they abducted him."
ReplyDeleteTrue, but to me, even that would have been tolerable. Failing to respect the passport of a friendly country and sending someone to a country where you know he will face imprisonment and torture when a clear alternative exists, however, is completely unacceptable.
It's all unacceptable in my book. It's not about honoring the Canadian passport (though that should happen). Human rights transcends little pieces of paper that state national origin.
ReplyDeleteIt's all unacceptable in my book. It's not about honoring the Canadian passport (though that should happen). Human rights transcends little pieces of paper that state national origin.
ReplyDeleteFair enough
ReplyDelete