The case of cancer-suffering refugee claimant Saleen Akhtar isn't the first that doesn't fit neatly into the narrative of the federal Conservatives.
But the sudden silence is more than a little hypocritical from a government that's filled with MPs - especially in Saskatchewan - who too often are eager to latch on to moral/religious causes.
As a government that fulfilled promises to end the gun registry and do away with the Canadian Wheat Board as a single-desk seller, and has been tough on crime - presuming that generally means adding to the incarceration costs of provinces - Prime Minister Stephen Harper's administration has won favour for sticking to its principles.
Perhaps because of this, a tolerant Canadian public has cut Harper's Conservative government a lot of slack when it comes to their narrative, even when they haven't quite lived up to the principle of transparency and accountability they had preached.
For example, Toronto Star columnist Tim Harper noted the Conservatives' demand that First Nations leaders disclose salaries and expenses, and "transparency" from unions, even though in Stephen Harper's Ottawa that transparency "is a one-way mirror." He noted the government's unwillingness to disclose "fundamental documents" on public spending, including "the true cost of the F-35 fighter jets and spending on the G20 summit."
However, such issues of accountability are often seen by the public correctly as issues of political gamesmanship. Most people prefer to measure a politician in more tangible terms, such as whether an MP's position is consistent with her stated principles.
It is here that our federal Conservative MPs' lack of support for refugee claimant Akhtar of Saskatoon appears to butt up against their supposed moral and ethical beliefs.
In an interview Sunday with StarPhoenix reporter Jason Warick, Akhtar begged from his hospital bed for the government to "please allow my wife and sons to come to Canada" and not to worry about his medical care for spleen and pancreatic cancer.
The Christian man and teacher explained that he was hounded by a local cleric back in Pakistan to convert to Islam - harassment that concluded with a bullet in the back. "They chased me yelling, 'You non-believer! You Christian dog!' And then I was shot," Akhtar told Warick.
Upon reporting the incident to police, Akhtar was told he could be charged under Pakistan's blasphemy law. However, he says his worry now is not his own health but the future of his five sons:
"They threaten them. They kidnap boys like that to be suicide bombers. They are not in a safe place," he said. "There are good people in the Canadian government. I hope they will help."
Yet when it comes to Akhtar's health, the federal government's new rules for refugees deny him such treatments as chemotherapy. Saskatchewan's Conservative MPs have been anything but helpful.
First, there was Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar MP Kelly Block's gleeful touting that new rules for "new arrivals" such as Akhtar would prevent them from receiving excessive eye and dental care. And now we are being told by Immigration Minister Jason Kenney and Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre MP Tom Lukiwski that the vast majority of refugee claimants like Akhtar are here illegally, and are ultimately rejected anyway.
One gets it that we need to carefully scrutinize refugee claimants, including this one. Not all claimants will be honest. But how do Saskatchewan MPs, who so eagerly weave their Christian ethics into their policy choices, now justify saying nothing about a man who fled religious persecution?
Oddly enough, they haven't said much of anything about this important aspect of Akhtar's story.
All but three Saskatchewan Conservative MPs voted in favour of the last private member's anti-abortion bill, presumably on religious and moral grounds. And we have heard endless anti-gay rights views from the likes of Maurice Vellacott and David Anderson, up to and including their defence of civil marriage commissioners who cite religion as justification for refusing to perform their duties.
But where's their support for a Christian who says he faced persecution and perhaps death for himself and his family had he remained in Pakistan? And what about their support for his cancer treatment?
Something seems to have happened to their moral compass.
Original Article
Source the star phoenix:
Author: Murray Mandryk
But the sudden silence is more than a little hypocritical from a government that's filled with MPs - especially in Saskatchewan - who too often are eager to latch on to moral/religious causes.
As a government that fulfilled promises to end the gun registry and do away with the Canadian Wheat Board as a single-desk seller, and has been tough on crime - presuming that generally means adding to the incarceration costs of provinces - Prime Minister Stephen Harper's administration has won favour for sticking to its principles.
Perhaps because of this, a tolerant Canadian public has cut Harper's Conservative government a lot of slack when it comes to their narrative, even when they haven't quite lived up to the principle of transparency and accountability they had preached.
For example, Toronto Star columnist Tim Harper noted the Conservatives' demand that First Nations leaders disclose salaries and expenses, and "transparency" from unions, even though in Stephen Harper's Ottawa that transparency "is a one-way mirror." He noted the government's unwillingness to disclose "fundamental documents" on public spending, including "the true cost of the F-35 fighter jets and spending on the G20 summit."
However, such issues of accountability are often seen by the public correctly as issues of political gamesmanship. Most people prefer to measure a politician in more tangible terms, such as whether an MP's position is consistent with her stated principles.
It is here that our federal Conservative MPs' lack of support for refugee claimant Akhtar of Saskatoon appears to butt up against their supposed moral and ethical beliefs.
In an interview Sunday with StarPhoenix reporter Jason Warick, Akhtar begged from his hospital bed for the government to "please allow my wife and sons to come to Canada" and not to worry about his medical care for spleen and pancreatic cancer.
The Christian man and teacher explained that he was hounded by a local cleric back in Pakistan to convert to Islam - harassment that concluded with a bullet in the back. "They chased me yelling, 'You non-believer! You Christian dog!' And then I was shot," Akhtar told Warick.
Upon reporting the incident to police, Akhtar was told he could be charged under Pakistan's blasphemy law. However, he says his worry now is not his own health but the future of his five sons:
"They threaten them. They kidnap boys like that to be suicide bombers. They are not in a safe place," he said. "There are good people in the Canadian government. I hope they will help."
Yet when it comes to Akhtar's health, the federal government's new rules for refugees deny him such treatments as chemotherapy. Saskatchewan's Conservative MPs have been anything but helpful.
First, there was Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar MP Kelly Block's gleeful touting that new rules for "new arrivals" such as Akhtar would prevent them from receiving excessive eye and dental care. And now we are being told by Immigration Minister Jason Kenney and Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre MP Tom Lukiwski that the vast majority of refugee claimants like Akhtar are here illegally, and are ultimately rejected anyway.
One gets it that we need to carefully scrutinize refugee claimants, including this one. Not all claimants will be honest. But how do Saskatchewan MPs, who so eagerly weave their Christian ethics into their policy choices, now justify saying nothing about a man who fled religious persecution?
Oddly enough, they haven't said much of anything about this important aspect of Akhtar's story.
All but three Saskatchewan Conservative MPs voted in favour of the last private member's anti-abortion bill, presumably on religious and moral grounds. And we have heard endless anti-gay rights views from the likes of Maurice Vellacott and David Anderson, up to and including their defence of civil marriage commissioners who cite religion as justification for refusing to perform their duties.
But where's their support for a Christian who says he faced persecution and perhaps death for himself and his family had he remained in Pakistan? And what about their support for his cancer treatment?
Something seems to have happened to their moral compass.
Original Article
Source the star phoenix:
Author: Murray Mandryk
No comments:
Post a Comment