To that end, this country signed onto the United Nations Convention Against Torture in 1985, one of the first to do so.
I don’t recall anyone objecting to our joining this agreement. Nor do I recall anyone arguing that Canada’s obligations, as a signatory to this convention, were too onerous.
So it’s depressing in the extreme to see the current federal government dismiss out of hand the UN’s well-reasoned critique of this country for failing to live up to its commitments.
“In times when there are serious concerns regarding human rights violations across the world, it is disappointing that the UN would spend its time decrying Canada,” a spokesperson for Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said Saturday.
In fact, the interim report from the UN’s Committee against Torture, a panel of 10 experts from a range of countries (including the U.S.), doesn’t single out Canada.
As part of ongoing efforts to monitor convention signatories, Friday’s report also looks at practices in seven other countries, including Syria.
Not surprisingly, the UN committee’s harshest words are for the Syrian dictatorship.
But part of the deal for those countries who signed the convention was that none would be exempt from the oversight of the expert committee.
And when this committee looked at Canada, they found that our government — while no Syria — hasn’t always been simon-pure.
The substance of the critique itself should surprise no one. The committee looked, for example, at the case of three Muslim-Canadians who — with Canadian complicity — were tortured in Egypt and Syria.
A judicial inquiry under former Supreme Court justice Frank Iacobucci has already concluded that that the actions of Canadian officials contributed to the ordeal suffered by Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad El Maati and Muayyed Nureddin.
The UN committee argues that the government should live up to its convention obligations by compensating them.
The report also chides Ottawa for stalling on the repatriation from Guantanamo Bay of Canadian Omar Khadr. Canada’s Supreme Court has already ruled that Khadr was abused at Guantanamo — again with the complicity of Canadian officials.
And the UN committee criticizes a recent directive from Toews that would allow the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to use information gleaned from torture whenever it deems public safety at risk.
The committee notes, accurately, that Toews’ directive contradicts Canada’s promise not to rely on torture.
On it goes. Is it sufficient, as Canada does when deporting people to countries with atrocious human rights records, to rely on “diplomatic assurances” that the returnees will not be tortured? The UN committee says no.
Echoing the courts, it says that Canada’s security certificate system for detaining suspected security risks is overly reliant on information gained by torture.
While lauding Canada’s efforts to counter human smuggling, it says a new law permitting the lengthy detention of illegal immigrants runs roughshod over rights that Canada has pledged to protect.
And it says well-publicized efforts to deport war criminals from Canada are merely letting some of the worst offenders escape justice. A better solution, says the committee, would be for Canada to prosecute them here.
Honest people can disagree over whether the UN committee is correct. But to cavalierly dismiss its critique, as the government has done, is absurd.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper routinely berates countries like Syria and Iran for human rights violations. But if Canada doesn’t take its own commitments against torture seriously, why should they. Why should any nation?
Original Article
Source: the star
Author: Thomas Walkom
No comments:
Post a Comment