Original author: Alex Neve
Source: The Toronto Star
URL: N/A
Date: October 19, 2006


Canada should not inflict torture, nor should it be complicit in the infliction of torture by others. That simple and sadly necessary reminder comes in Justice Dennis O'Connor's recent report from the public inquiry into the Maher Arar case.

In fewer than 20 words, he captures one of the most fundamentally important human rights lessons to emerge from Arar's tragedy of unlawful imprisonment and torture. Canada should never be complicit when it comes to torture.

Over the coming weeks, much has to be done to ensure that the entire range of O'Connor's recommendations go forward.There must be compensation and an official government apology for Arar. The policy, training and institutional gaps at the RCMP, CSIS, foreign affairs and elsewhere in government must be addressed. Canada must actively and meaningfully pursue official protests with the U.S. and Syrian governments. The independent and credible review of the cases of other Canadian citizens detained and tortured abroad must promptly be launched. This should also be a time of broader reflection about the issue of Canadian complicity in torture. The distressing truth is that beyond the wrongdoing brought to light in the Arar case there are numerous other ways in which Canada is complicit in torture inflicted by others. It is time to curtail that complicity and ensure that when it comes to the unconditional global ban on torture Canada's record is unassailable - no exceptions. Look to Afghanistan. For close to five years now, Canadian soldiers have regularly handed individuals captured on the battlefield over to troops from other countries. Until late in 2005, those transfers were to U.S. forces; since then it has been into the custody of Afghan authorities. In both instances, the transfers almost certainly expose some, even most, of the prisoners to a very real risk of torture. Well-documented human rights violations in both U.S.- and Afghan- run jails in Afghanistan make that only too clear. The military must adopt a different approach to the handling of prisoners in Afghanistan, one that would safeguard against torture. Until that happens, Canada remains complicit in the infliction of torture by others. Look also to our immigration policy. International law is specific: Torture is absolutely forbidden, as is deporting someone to a country where they face a serious risk of being tortured. Yet the Canadian government insists it is okay to send someone off to face the likelihood of torture elsewhere if they are alleged to pose some sort of security risk in Canada. The assessment of that security risk is often made in the course of deeply unfair legal proceedings such as the security certificate process, which make it nearly impossible for the individual concerned to mount any sort of meaningful defence. Regardless, no one should be sent off to a foreign torture chamber and turning a blind eye to torture is certainly no road to security. In doing so, Canada becomes willingly complicit in the infliction of torture by others. Then there are the concerns that Canadian airports and airspace may have been used by CIA planes involved in the "extraordinary rendition" of individuals in counterterrorism cases; off to countries where they are likely to suffer the same experience of detention and torture as did Arar. These concerns touch various regions of Canada, including Newfoundland, northern Ontario and Nunavut. For more than a year, federal officials have been asked to clarify the nature of these mysterious flights, which number at least 75. They have been pressed to adopt safeguards to ensure that it does not happen in the future. But they will say or do very little and will not even confirm whether they have reviewed the possibility that some of these flights may have been involved in activities that violate international human rights laws, such as the ban on torture. We are left to worry that Canada has been complicit in the infliction of torture by others. And finally, what about Guantanamo Bay, a travesty of human rights protection by any measure? There have been persistent and serious allegations that torture and ill-treatment have been the harsh reality for the hundreds of individuals kept there without charge or trial, including one Canadian citizen, Omar Khadr, who was still a minor when he was first imprisoned. Instead of improving, the situation at Guantanamo Bay appears to be getting worse, with President George Bush having just signed into law the new Military Commissions Act. This law abolishes the centuries-old legal remedy of habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees, an important means of bringing forward concerns about torture. Canada's voice of protest about Guantanamo Bay has been virtually silent. In that silence, Canada risks being complicit in the infliction of torture by others. Canadians have rightly been deeply troubled by the revelations to come out of the Arar Inquiry. They understandably now expect the government to take steps to guard against the repeat of such a tragedy again in the future. We must go further, however, and demonstrate willingness and readiness to live up to O'Connor's exhortation - to never be complicit in torture. Alex Neve is secretary general of Amnesty International Canada.

----------- 59% oppose torture: Poll
by Olivia Ward The Toronto Star October 19, 2006 Shipping terror suspects out to torture an act of self- betrayal, not self-defence. Editorial, A28Government efforts to legitimize torture of suspected terrorists have largely failed, according to a new poll that found the majority of people around the world are opposed to the practice, even to gain information that could save lives. Overall, 59 per cent of those questioned were unwilling to compromise on human rights, according to the 25-country survey of 27, 000 people conducted for the BBC World Service by GlobeScan and University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes. "The results give one the sense of common values in the world, in spite of the fear that is present," says GlobeScan's London-based president Doug Miller, a Canadian. He said it reveals "a public relations climate in which human rights violations by governments are likely to cause outrage, especially in Western Europe." Canada ranks third worldwide in rejecting torture, behind Italy, Australia and France, which are tied. Of Canadians surveyed, 74 per cent said it was unacceptable; 22 per cent believe "some degree" could be used by governments to save innocent lives. Italy ranks first with 81 per cent opposed to torture and 14 per cent in conditional agreement. France and Australia jointly rank second with 75 per cent opposedunder any circumstances. The survey asked whether clear rules against torture should be maintained, or governments should be allowed to use "some degree" in view of a terrorist threat. Alex Neve, the Canadian head of Amnesty International, called the results "very encouraging." But he said, after the Maher Arar report, "this should be a wake-up call to the Canadian government that more needs to be done to ensure that our laws, policies and practices unequivocally align with a ban on torture." The U.S., where a fierce debate is raging over the use of torture, rates significantly lower than Canada: 58 per cent absolutely opposed it while 36 per cent believed it could be used conditionally. The percentage of those condoning limited use was "one of the highest" of the 25 countries polled, said the survey. "The message for Canadians is that we probably share more values with Europe than with the U.S. these days," says Miller. In international law, the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture bar the use of brutal coercion. But since the "war on terror" was declared in 2001, Washington has led the drive for more flexible rules. A law signed by President George W. Bush this week allows coercive interrogations of "unlawful combatants." In general, fewer citizens in countries with political violence believe in banning torture. However Britain, which has endured attacks by the IRA and Islamic terrorists, is strongly opposed to torture, with 72 per cent against and 24 per cent conditionally agreeing to its use. In Israel, 43 per cent of those surveyed favoured some degree of torture, the most in any country. Still, 48 per cent of Israelis were totally against its use. India, also rocked by sectarian and political violence, is the only nation where those conditionally favouring torture outnumber those opposed.