Education/Education/Education- BEST QUOTE: Kudoes to Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders Canada who go to incredible lengths to help others, but I think Stephen Cornish’s sense of immediate urgency is overlooking the stubborn long history of the problem.
The UNHCR was developed in 1951 to assist with the absorption of far smaller numbers of refugees. The world has changed. It is no longer possible to remove an entire chunk of a nation's people to foreign nations where they do NOT share the values of the host country. Not only is this unsettling for refugees, it is a big 'win' for those who wanted them removed. It is time to direct MORE effort and funds at setting up protected settlements and education programs in the same areas from which refugees hail.
The UNHCR has organized programs to remove refugees from various trouble spots in the world before ... but this has not yet ever reduced, prevented nor improved the situation in any of those zones.
Here is the UNHCR's reported disheartening data (released in early 2014) on the refugee crisis:
http://unhcr.org/globaltrendsjune2013/UNHCR%20GLOBAL%20TRENDS%202012_V08_web.pdf
We learn that an estimated 45.2-million people were displaced in one year (2012 - 2013), and that number has risen since 1994. Where did refugees comes from at the end of 2012 (that's ONE year's data), and in what numbers?
Afghanistan 2,585,600; Somalia 1,136,100; Iraq 746,400; Syria 728,500; Sudan 569,200; Democratic Republic of Congo 509,400; Mynamar 415,300; Colombia 394,100;Vietnam 336,900; Eritrea 285,100. Many of these areas disdain western values -- how would they adapt to being 'transplanted'? Look to the Netherland's experience, and the resulting changes to its immigration and refugee programs.
The UNHCR explains the rate at which people are being forcibly 'displaced'. Data for 2012 alone reveals 7.6-million people became newly displaced: 1.1-million as new refugees and 6.5-million as IDPs. This translates to a new refugee or Internally Displaced Person every 4.1 seconds, according to UNHCR. These people get added to the 'running totals'.
The real answer lies in EDUCATION, family planning and birth control to ensure people do NOT get uprooted due to territorial disputes and lack of food and resources, caused by enormous growing human population pressures. Until other cultures accept and understand this, there is no way western nations can solve these problems by accepting all the refugees. Education is the KEY, though we sometimes see it working in reverse to produce such violent trouble-making groups as ISIS, which accepts international converts to its death cult. This is a prime example of what can happen when western nations try to absorb huge refugee influxes ... along with the 'influences' that caused their exodus from their homelands in the first place.
Beyond rescuing migrants, we must recognize and share their humanity
STEPHEN CORNISH
Contributed to The Globe and Mail
Last updated Wednesday, Jun. 10, 2015 5:22PM EDT
Of the 92 people pulled from a small inflatable boat on the Mediterranean sea by a Doctors Without Borders team one day last month, one was an eight-months-pregnant woman named Sandra who was fleeing the violence in Libya. “It is risky for women to travel, but they do what they do because they are not safe where they are,” she said. “We take the risk of entering this water to look for a better life.”
Sandra is just one of millions of people around the world who have left their home countries in search of a safer, better life. She is among the luckier ones. On the Mediterranean so far this year, more than 1,800 migrants have died. In Central America, thousands of migrants are killed each year, and many more are raped, robbed or assaulted. A vessel filled with starving Rohingya Muslims fleeing persecution in Myanmar made headlines recently when it was trapped at sea; on land, Malaysian authorities revealed mass graves where the remains of other migrants were buried.
These tragedies expose the appalling human consequences of our approach to migration. Much of the reaction suggests we are unwilling to accept the idea that someone in search of a better life deserves to die on the way. And yet that sense of moral indignation seems strangely lacking when it comes to the conditions that drive migrants to make such dangerous journeys in the first place, or of the heavy-handed treatment they receive at our borders. We seem to recoil at the thought of people being left to drown in the Mediterranean, but seem less concerned if they drown in the hopelessness and despair of a life sentence in a refugee camp, despite international obligations to care for and resettle those who have been displaced by conflicts.
Our policies on migration, and our overall understanding of the issue, clearly need a rethink. The people who undertake these harrowing journeys are human beings fleeing miserable situations. Some are economic migrants seeking real futures for their children, while others are refugees trying desperately to escape violence and misery. They come from failed states, or countries ripped apart by war or by violence, such as Somalia, Libya or Mexico. (The number of deaths caused directly by armed violence in Mexico last year was 15,000, the third-highest in the world after Syria and Iraq.)
Their plight is a humanitarian crisis that should have no place in our globalized and interconnected world. By viewing migration solely through a macro-economic or political lens, we are losing sight of the individuals who are risking their lives to escape persecution, misery and violence. Instead of empathy, we offer obstacles and brute force. To stop the drownings at sea, Europe discusses blowing up smugglers’ boats. To stem the migrant flow on the roads north through Mexico, U.S. pressure led to detentions and forcible clearing of rail lines. This despite all the evidence that repressive policies and bigger barriers do not deter migrant activity, but push it farther underground and into the control of violent criminals.
For many in Canada, it is easy to assume these issues exist only in other countries. We do not have boatloads of people perishing off our shores, nor do we wrestle with hundreds of thousands of undocumented migrants crossing our southern border every year. We feel that we are a welcoming country, our doors open to the world.
But Canadians must reflect upon our role in the migrant tragedies. As a free-trade partner with Mexico, we are happy to let goods flow between our countries to create more wealth – but we rarely consider the movement of people in that system. Those who arrive here for non-economic reasons, such as fleeing persecution and war, are often treated harshly and with little care for their well-being. And when we face the mass arrival of refugees on our shores (as in 2010, when the MV Sun Sea appeared off the coast of British Columbia carrying hundreds of Sri Lankan Tamils) we have not always responded with openness.
Doctors Without Borders works in many countries where migrants start their journeys. We operate in refugee and displacement camps where people are forced to shelter due to war, conflict and violence, and we see first-hand the squalor, despair and hopelessness of life in such places. Many of our patients suffer from deprivation or assault while trying to move toward better lives.
We do not have all the answers, but we are part of a global system that we can see is failing large numbers of people seeking to live free from violence, poverty and misery. That is why we launched our first maritime medical operations on the Mediterranean in the spring, to remind everyone that migrants’ health and human needs are just as important as those of everyone else.
One of the physicians aboard our search-and-rescue boat is Simon Bryant, a physician from Canmore, Alta. In a recent dispatch, he explained why he wanted to help those struggling to reach Europe: “It’s not about simply rescuing them from dehydration, hypothermia and drowning, but sharing one’s humanity. Giving a damn. About a couple of young men in our clinic, quietly weeping, telling a tale I can’t imagine living.”
Thousands are dying at sea, in detention and on the way to what they hope are better lives. They are people struggling to develop futures for themselves and for their children, and they deserve more than our empathy, understanding and compassion. They also deserve – and need – a helping hand along the way, and a far more humane welcome than our global world has so far been able to muster.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/SOMNIA/article24904238/
--------------
BLOGGED: twitter
CANADA MILITARY NEWS-Refugees/ Gov. Assisted Refugee
Resettlement/Vietnamese Boatpeople and Canada Love /and BC Civil Liberties make
a lot of money off Canadian Taxes
.jpg)
-------------
WHY ARE SO MANY ISLAMIC NATIONS KICKING OUT THEIR POOREST PEOPLE?
We call the refugees - so many call people migrants...
Migrants Flee After Democracy Created Chaos In Their Countries
NgEX - 2 hours ago
What actions are African countries taking about the weekly sinking and ... Even worse, how the Christian and Muslim missionaries paved the way ... the treasury of poor countries whose children risk their lives to cross seas and deserts. ... Both Nigeria and Ghana had kicked one another out so natives can ...
and...
Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries -...
en.wikipedia.org/...exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countriesCached... "The thousands of poor Jews ... Jewish bank accounts were confiscated and many Jews lost their ... in smuggling Jews out of Syria, and bringing their ...
----------
CANADA
WHY ALL POLITICAL PARTIES ARE FAILING TROOPS- Why soldiers feel abandoned, and sometimes betrayed, when Parliament fails to connect them with Canadians. From A Question of Honour.
Soldier's Contract
Soldier's Contract
COMMENT:
I was there 94-95.
Good vid.
I wish all Canadian Politicians were forced to watch 2:20 - 2:42
----------------I was there 94-95.
Good vid.
I wish all Canadian Politicians were forced to watch 2:20 - 2:42
One of the greatest achievements the Canada Catholic Churches along with Christian communities did was sponsor large families of the Vietnamese Boat People.... of course that's when communities where tight knit and fully functioning and giving... there were many hard truths... example many Refugees across Canada thought they were entitled 2 a house, car and all the perks whilst refusing 2 learn English/French which must be mandatory in this day and age.... also getting the adults educated and opportunities 4 the Vietnamese women.... 2 many just stayed home and hidden.... our families in Nova Scotia grew so close... and wonderful... and so much love
Strangers by sea: A tale of Canada's boat people
Last updated
No one knows how they were received by the local inhabitants, the Beothuks. Probably not well. The Beothuks' response to later European arrivals, before they became extinct, was to hide from them by moving inland.
But historians know the next boat people, Jacques Cartier and his Breton mariners, who sailed into Gaspé harbour in 1534, and quickly developed a sour relationship with Iroquois chief Donnacona, ticking him off by their pushy behaviour in claiming the land for the French king and kidnapping his sons.
The primal fear of the stranger, the Other, seems edgiest when they arrive by sea.
They can be watched, coming across the blank, huge canvas of the ocean, moment by moment growing larger and more ominous on the horizon, carrying alien stuff. Hence the noisy narrative of the MV Sun Sea's progress over the Pacific into Canadian territory with its Tamil cargo.
That archetypal fear of the stranger-by-sea was inherent in the two most shameful moments of Canadian boat-people history, the stories of the Komagata Maru and the MS St. Louis.
Across the Pacific from British Columbia at the turn of the century was the Other of the Empire's colonial world - the "lesser breeds without the law," Rudyard Kipling called them in his poem Recessional, composed for Queen Victoria's diamond jubilee in 1897. They were the yellow peril, the dark-skinned wogs (derived from the Golliwogg, a minstrel doll character from a children's book published in 1895), the threats from a different human order.
In May, 1914, the Japanese-owned steamship Komagata Maru, chartered out of Hong Kong, arrived at Vancouver with 376 passengers from India intent on emigrating to Canada.
"Hindu invaders now in Vancouver harbor," read a welcoming newspaper headline, incorrectly. Almost all of them were Sikhs.
At that time, Indians, even though they were British subjects, were kept out of Canada by an order-in-council requiring them to come to Canada by continuous passage from India, service that no steamship line provided.
The order was challenged successfully in court in 1913, leading to the Komagata Maru's journey.
But the ship was kept waiting in Vancouver harbour for two months, with most of its passengers detained on board while immigration officials manoeuvred to keep them out of court. On July 20, the naval cruiser HMCS Rainbow arrived as a manifestation of intimidating state muscle and, on July 23, the Komagata Maru weighed anchor and sailed back across the Pacific to Calcutta, where 20 of its passengers were killed in a shootout with colonial police suspicious of their politics and others were jailed for refusing to return to the Punjab.
Twenty-five years later, the persecution and genocide of two-thirds of Europe's nine million Jews was well launched when the captain of the passenger liner MS St. Louis, carrying 907 German Jewish refugees, asked permission of the Canadian government to dock in Halifax.
The Jews were the only Other who were part of European civilization (the Gypsies were mere vagrant children and a nuisance), uncomfortably close-up, perceived as undermining the broader culture with their non-conformism and clothed with the mythological mantle of Shylocks and Christ-killers.
In 1939, all governments of the Americas refused the St. Louis permission to land. Franklin Delano Roosevelt's administration in the U.S. didn't even bother to reply to the captain's request but dispatched a coast guard vessel to make sure the ship didn't get too close to land as it sailed north along the Atlantic seaboard. Canada was the last hope.
A group of prominent Canadian businessmen and academics sent prime minister Mackenzie King a telegram urging him to allow the ship to dock in the name of "true Christian charity."
But Mr. King felt that the St. Louis "was not a Canadian problem." Justice minister Ernest Lapointe declared himself "emphatically opposed." And immigration director Frederick Charles Blair said no country could "open its doors wide enough to take in the hundreds of thousands of Jewish people who want to leave Europe: The line must be drawn somewhere."
The St. Louis returned to Europe. Many of its passengers died in the gas chambers of the Nazi Third Reich.
A film was made about the St. Louis in 1976 - Voyage of the Damned. Award-winning Canadian director and screenwriter Deepa Mehta is making a film about the Komagata Maru.
In a 1972 essay on migration and the efforts of millions of the world's poor and oppressed and casualties of conflict to get to a better place on the planet, Irish author Conor Cruise O'Brien wrote: "The advanced world may well be like, and feel like, a closed and guarded palace in a city gripped by the plague."
The great boat-people success story in Canada, of course, has been the refugees from Indochina - the Vietnamese, Vietnamese Chinese, Lao and Kampucheans who now number a quarter of a million people, most of them originally sponsored in the late 1970s and early 1980s by church and community groups with federal government assistance after the U.S.-supported South Vietnamese government fell to the North Vietnamese communists. Most of the refugees were highly educated professionals who fit quickly into Canadian society.
Similarly, the so-called Mariel boatlift of 130,000 Cubans to the United States over a few short months of 1980 transformed Miami.
But Professor Kyle Killian of York University's Centre for Refugee Studies says boat people are rarely welcomed anywhere, even in Canada.
"First, they have been displaced as a result of a conflict elsewhere in the world, and therefore are often deemed as 'someone else's problem.'
"Second, they have been displaced often as a result of an armed conflict with another ethnic community. And as history is written by the victors, representatives of the ethnic community who displaced the boat people are often quick to sound an alarm about the supposed inherent dangers that the boat people represent. These attempts at negative public relations can be successful because they activate xenophobic responses in citizens of the prospective host country.
"Third, it has long been established in social psychological research - the 'bystander' studies - that human beings tend to be more helpful to persons in need when they are perceived as attractive and possess characteristics similar to bystanders."
Increasingly, of course, just about everyone now looks Canadian. Which may already have helped the Rohingyas, who are possibly the most unloved people on Earth.
Few people outside the corner of Southeast Asia where they come from have heard of the Rohingya. They claim to be both an ethnically distinct group descendant from the first Muslims who migrated into western Burma (now Myanmar) in the eighth century and a mixture of Bengalis, Persians, Moghuls, Turks and Afghan Pashtuns who came to the area somewhat later.
In any event, under the current rulers of Myanmar, they have been denied citizenship, subjected to various forms of extortion and arbitrary taxation, land confiscation, forced eviction and house destruction, torture, extrajudicial executions, relocation without compensation, forced labour on roads and at military camps, and financial restrictions on marriage.
Half a million Rohingyas have crossed the border into Bangladesh, where they claim to have been subjected to illegal force to return home. Their boat migrations to Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Australia and elsewhere in the region have been grim horror stories with accounts of being robbed and murdered by pirates and pulled back out to sea by authorities when they've attempted to land, and left in rotting boats without food, water or power and interred on tiny, remote islands in the South Pacific and refused the right of repatriation by the Myanmar government, which claims they are not citizens.
Canada has accepted a few. Australia announced two years ago that it would consider applications from Rohingyas held on an island under its so-called Pacific Solution - whereby thousands of islands governed by Canberra were excised from the "Australian migration zone," meaning boat people held in detention camps had no legal right to apply to enter the country.
That still leaves a lot of Rohingyas nobody wants. Maybe if they and the Tamils and the rest travelled by plane …
Globe and Mail reporter Rod Mickleburgh discovered nearly 10 years ago that refugee claimants arriving by plane at Vancouver airport were almost never detained, were soon given access to social and medical benefits, were rarely deported and had a cracking good chance of being smuggled into the U.S.
Most claimants arriving on filthy, rusting ships or stowed away in containers, on the other hand, saw the inside of jails, lost their applications for refugee status and were deported. Immigration officials say it's because the boat people are being trafficked by organized criminals.
There's trafficking by plane, as well. But maybe it doesn't look as bad.
---------------
Vietnamese Boat People
Between 1975 and 1976, Canada admitted 5,608 Vietnamese immigrants. In 1979 and 1980, another 50,000 people from Vietnam, refugees who later became known as the "Boat People," settled in Canada. Unlike earlier groups of Vietnamese immigrants, the "Boat People" were internally diverse: they included a variety of social classes and both urban and rural dwellers. The majority did not speak English or French and had no relatives in Canada. They also arrived during a period of economic downturn in Canada. These factors led to a struggle to integrate in Canada and to achieve economic independence. They also settled in many places in Canada where there was previously no Vietnamese community. The largest groups are in Toronto and Montreal, with significant communities in Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton.
This collection chronicles the lives, struggles, and achievements of the "Boat People" and those who assisted them. It includes hundreds of hours of oral history interviews conducted by volunteers, community members, and professionals. The interviews cover the topics of migration from Vietnam to Canada, and life in both countries, including their adaptation to Canadian society and their links to Vietnamese traditions and religious practices. Approximately 30 per cent of the content is in English and 70 per cent is in Vietnamese.
Collection contributed by: Multicultural History Society of Ontario
‘Boat People’ vietnamiens
Entre 1975 et 1976, le Canada a accueilli 5608 immigrants vietnamiens. En 1979 et 1980, 50,000 réfugiés vietnamiens, plus tard appelés ‘Boat People’, sont venus au Canada. Contrairement aux immigrants vietnamiens précédents, ces ‘Boat People’ étaient très différents les uns des autres et ils étaient issus de différentes classes sociales. Certains avaient habité dans un milieu urbain, alors que d’autres étaient des paysans. La majorité de ces réfugiés ne parlait ni anglais, ni français, et n’avait aucune famille au Canada. De plus, ils sont arrivés alors que le Canada traversait une période de récession économique. Ces facteurs ont rendu difficile l’intégration de ces Vietnamiens pour qu’ils puissent devenir autonomes au niveau économique. Ils se sont établis à différents endroits au Canada, là où il n’y avait pas de communauté vietnamienne. On retrouve les plus importantes communautés vietnamiennes à Toronto et Montréal, ainsi qu’à Vancouver, Calgary et Edmonton.
Cette collection détaille la vie, les difficultés et les réussites de ces ‘Boat People’ et des gens qui les ont aidés. Elle contient des centaines d’heures d’entrevues menées par des bénévoles, des membres de la communauté et des professionnels. Les entrevues traitent de sujets comme l’émigration du Vietnam au Canada et la vie dans les deux pays, notamment l’adaptation à la société canadienne et, le respect des traditions et des pratiques religieuses vietnamiennes. Environ 30 pour cent du contenu est en anglais et le reste est en vietnamien.
Contribution de la Société d’histoire multiculturelle de l’Ontario
---------------------
Do NOT give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning
to breathe free
On August 14, 1979, 210 Vietnamese refugees flew into an Edmonton military base aboard a Canadian Forces 707. That night they were housed in a military barracks.
Over the next 18 months, at the rate of more than 500 a week, Canada took in some 60,000 so-called boat people from Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.
The actions of the Joe Clark government and the arrival of the boat people were in keeping with Canada's reputation for taking in huge numbers of refugees in turbulent times of human upheaval.
Back in 1956, the people of Hungary rose up against their Communist overlords. Russian tanks brutally crushed the revolution and more than 200,000 Hungarians fled to Austria. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in 1956 was the hyper-powerful Liberal politician Jack Pickersgill. He ordered more than 200 chartered flights to bring to Canada any refugees who wanted to come. In less than a year, Canada took in more than 37,000 Hungarian refugees.
Years later, Pickersgill said his proudest moment in public life was bringing the entire forestry faculty of Sopron University to the campus of the University of British Columbia where they could continue teaching.
And in 1968, Canada welcomed tens of thousands of American deserters and draft dodgers, driven out of the U.S. by the disastrous Vietnam War.
The world has turned over a few times since those heady days, and things have changed. Most things about this country have changed since the mid-fifties. What has changed profoundly is Canada's attitude toward refugees.
Instead of being the open, welcoming nation we once were, we have become pinched, fearful, meaner. We have become a bit smaller.
There are something like 3.5 million Syrian refugees scattered across Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq and they are running out of food. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres has called the predicament "the most dramatic humanitarian crisis the world has faced in a very long time."
Canada's response to the crisis has been lukewarm to say the least. In July, 2013, we agreed to bring in a piddling 200 government-sponsored and 1,100 privately sponsored Syrian refugees by the end of 2014.
We don't know precisely how many Syrians we really have brought in, because the government numbers are vague. We could bring in thousands more, tens of thousands more quite comfortably. And those thousands would enrich the country. They would expand the workforce, encourage investment and provide taxpayers who will be needed to support an ageing population. The success of this country could well turn on the efforts of these refugees and others, their children and grandchildren.
Besides, we should do more because it is the right thing to do.
My ancestors came to this place in the coffin ships from famine Ireland. Every one of us, except the indigenous first owners of the land, have come from somewhere else, either as refugees or immigrants.
When governments and people ask how this country could realistically bring in thousands of Syrian refugees, the answer is simple.
In airplanes.
In airplanes.
------------------------
When the Purpose of War is to Create Refugees
Refugees of the Yazidi sect fleeing Islamic state terrorists in Syria.
It is commonly thought that people are fleeing because of war and danger.
Syria and Iraq are battlefields. Violence from religious differences is taking place in countries such as Angola, Somali and Nigeria.
Another view is that migration is the outcome of deliberate acts by governments to move unwanted groups out of their country.
Palestinians are a well-known example of political refugees. Experts are finding many more examples.
What is happening in Syria and Iraq is a form of politics called “ethnic cleansing.” It is a phrase made popular during the Balkan Wars in the 1990s. The dictator, Tito, held Yugoslavia together. When he died, the nation split into ethnic factions. Refugees were created not just by violence, but also by efforts to drive them out of their hometowns.
Sunni and Shite forces are fighting to get rid of each other in Syria and Iraq. War is the way they drive out unwanted people. Turkey is another example. The military is driving out the Kurdish population.
Saddam Hussein displaced ethnic communities by force. So has Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Recently, the Egyptian military began evicting Sinai residents to create a buffer zone with the Gaza Strip.
Experts say the violence is the reason people leave an area. They point out that sometimes the purpose of the violence is to make them move.
Source: The Washington Post March 4, 2015
--------
Did u know
In 10 yrs more there
will be more Refugees than Europeans
- Crises Middle East
and Africa lead to fourfold increase in migration to Europe
--------------
CANADA
INTRODUCING
GENERATION SCREWED
Searching for a number young Canadians should care about? How about $1.2 trillion? That is the amount of debt future generations of Canadians have been saddled with by governments across Canada. Governments who have continually spent beyond their means, seemingly unnerved by the prospect of sticking future generations with the bill for benefits they enjoyed.
Introducing Generation Screwed – the new campaign by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation to raise awareness and mobilize young Canadians on issues of government debt, deficits and unfunded liabilities.
As an organization the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has one of the largest and most engaged groups of supporters anywhere in Canada. Together, we have pushed back against higher taxes, reckless spending and irresponsible government.
Together, we have worked to make this country a better place for future generations.
But, we began to ask ourselves, was our message being heard by those very generations we were trying to help? The same generations that will lead us into the future?
This led us to the idea to engage those who have the most at stake, the most to lose. It has spawned a new initiative, a new movement, that we hope, with your help, can make a difference to this country and its future. We call it “Generation Screwed.”
In only the first year of our campaign, we have expanded to over 18 universities across Canada. At each of these schools we identified a coordinator to spearhead efforts on campus and attract students to our cause. We have equipped each coordinator with literature to distribute, and banners to promote events.
We launched a website,www.GenerationScrewed.ca, where students can find out exactly how much they owe and the dangers of government debt. We reached out over social media on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube raising awareness among thousands of students while providing resources to those wanting to get involved.
We earned media, held contests and put on events across the country – but we are just getting started. With your support, we plan to expand to even more campuses and provide an even louder voice for future generations. A voice that politicians can’t ignore.
Please consider supporting our campaign by joining our movement, making a small donation or sharing our campaign with your friends and family. Your support is greatly appreciated.
 |  |  |
--------------------
What assistance can refugees get in Canada?
The Canadian government has several programs to help refugees resettle in Canada.
Refugee claimants, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection have certain rights and may be able to access services, such as health care and education.
There are also several programs to help you get settled in Canada, including:
There are also several programs to help you get settled in Canada, including:
Health Care
Some refugees and refugee claimants are eligible for the Interim Federal Health (IFH) program. The IFH program pays for emergency medical services after you arrive in Canada and until you are covered by a provincial health care plan.
Find out more in What is the Interim Federal Health (IFH) program?
Starting January 1, 2014, refugee claimants who are not eligible for the IFH program may be eligible for the Ontario Temporary Health Program.
Financial Assistance
Under the Resettlement Assistance Program (RAP), some resettled refugees can get:
- Assistance at the airport or port of entry;
- Temporary accommodation and help to find permanent accommodation;
- Money to buy basic household items and clothing; and
- Information and assistance to settle in Canada.
Get a list of RAP service providers in Ontario.
Under the Immigration Loans Program, some refugees can get a loan to pay for:
- The costs of medical examinations abroad;
- Travel documents;
- Transportation to Canada; and
- Housing rental, telephone deposits and work tools.
Loans must be repaid and interest may be charged.
Settlement Assistance
Settlement agencies provide services to refugees and other newcomers. These services are intended to help you adjust to your new life in Canada.
They can help you with translation and interpretation, language training, job-related services and more.
For more information, read What are settlement services?
For more information, read What are settlement services?
Search for settlement services near you in Services Near Me.
For More Information
- Canada's Refugee System - Information from Citizenship and Immigration Canada about how refugees come to Canada and how the system works.
- Ready Tour - A free program that can help you to learn how to navigate the refugee hearing process and answer the first questions you have after you receive the notification for your hearing. From the Coalition of Service Providers for Refugee Claimants
-----------------
Government-Assisted Refugee Resettlement in Canada
-----------
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/backgrounders/2012/2012-06-29g.asp
-------------
Why DOESN'T United Nations ensure that each and EVERY country honours agreements and why are only Christian nations giving more $$$ 4 humanitarian and refugees? still.
---------------
Canada the Failed Protector:
Transfer of Canadian Captured Detainees to Third Parties in
Afghanistan
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
The "Fall" of the Taliban
A New Regime and New Rules of War
Continuing the Policy of Outsourcing Responsibility
The Second Agreement and Canadian Human Rights Abroad
The Issue of Accountability
Backgrounder — Deterring Abuse of the Refugee System
Canada’s generous refugee system delivers protection for vulnerable persons who genuinely need it, and does so in a fair, ordered and compassionate manner. In order to ensure the system continues to serve that function, it is important to protect its integrity from those who would abuse Canada’s generosity. There must be consequences and deterrents for such abuse.
The Government of Canada is taking action to stop such abuse of our laws and generosity by bolstering Canada’s ability to revoke the ‘protected person’ status of individuals who arrive, for example, as part of a designated irregular arrival, through the processes of ‘cessation’ and ‘vacation’.
Is there no longer a need for protection?
Refugee Claimants
If an individual who was granted refugee status can safely, and of their own initiative, return to the country they purport to have fled, it is an indication that the individual does not require Canada’s protection and may no longer qualify to be considered a protected person.
Refugees and Protected Persons
In such cases, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism may apply to the Refugee Protection Division at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada for a determination that an individual’s refugee protection has ceased. The Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act ensures that if an individual is the subject of a ‘cessation’ application, their application for permanent residence will not be processed until a decision is made on the Minister’s application. If the Refugee Protection Division grants the Minister’s application for cessation, the individual will lose refugee protection (or protected person status) and may ultimately be removed from Canada.
Was the protected person status obtained fraudulently?
If an individual has directly or indirectly misrepresented or withheld material facts relevant to their situation, or of the facts surrounding their identity in order to gain protected person status, then that status was gained fraudulently.
In such cases, the Minister of Public Safety may apply to the Refugee Protection Division to vacate the individual’s refugee protection status. If the original decision is vacated, the individual will lose refugee protection (i.e., protected person status) and may ultimately be removed from Canada.
The new legislation also prevents irregular arrivals who are determined to be refugees from applying for permanent residence for five years. During this time, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism can, if appropriate, make an application for cessation or vacation, either of which, if successful, will result in the individual being stripped of refugee protection and ultimately may lead to their removal from Canada.
The new measures also eliminate access to the Refugee Appeal Division for individuals who want to appeal a cessation or vacation decision, as well as those who arrive as part of a designated irregular arrival. These individuals will, however, be able to ask the Federal Court to review a cessation or vacation decision.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/backgrounders/2012/2012-06-29g.asp
-------------
Complaint
filed with federal privacy watchdog over on-camera immigration raid
By Rebekah Funk/News1130.com
Published on March 21, 2013
VANCOUVER – A migrant
worker who unwittingly starred in a reality television show about Canadian
border guards was already back in Mexico on Thursday, when a rights group filed
an official complaint with the federal privacy watchdog over his treatment at
the hands of the Canada Borders Services Agency.
In the complaint, Oscar
Mata Duran said he felt a surge of adrenaline March 13 when about a dozen
immigration officers pulled up at his Vancouver low-rise condo construction
site with a television camera in tow.
Running upstairs to
hide, Mata Duran hoped he’d be overlooked in the raid. Five minutes later,
however, he was discovered and bombarded with questions about his immigration
and work status.
When found to be lacking
the proper documents to work in Canada, the complaint filed by the B.C. Civil
Liberties Association said Mata Duran and several others were taken into
custody at a downtown immigration detention facility — the video camera trained
on them the entire time.
“When he asked why there
was a camera present, the officer told him ‘not to worry, it’s for a reality TV
show,’” said the complaint.
Mata Duran was processed
within the next hour, along with a number of others who had been rounded up in
the raid.
The men were asked to
sign “a piece of paper” and told the footage was for a new series called
“Border Services” airing on Global TV and National Geographic.
“Confused and afraid
about what would happen to him, Mr. Mata Duran signed the consent form without
reading it,” said the complaint.
“At no point was he given
a thorough explanation about the uses to which the footage would be put.”
Mata Duran was put on a
plane home to Mexico on Wednesday.
The civil liberties
association wants the privacy commissioner to recommend that filming in
Vancouver and Toronto be halted, and the show be taken off the air.
While the privacy
commissioner can not force a government agency to comply with the law, the
BCCLA said it hopes its recommendations will publicly address the agency’s
violation of privacy rights. Lawyers anticipate a ruling in a month or two.
Some of the complainants
may also wish to sue the production company or individuals for damages and
privacy violations, the civil liberties group said, but no action has been
filed at this time.
While the high-stakes
border security scenario makes for exciting reality TV — at least in the minds
of the show’s production company at Force Four Productions Ltd. — the BCCLA
said it’s illegal.
“This is not responsible
law enforcement,” Josh Paterson, the association’s executive director, said at
a news conference.
“Law enforcement is not
an action movie and it’s not a reality TV series.”
The agency’s
participation in the show and the collection of sensitive personal information
“are against the law,” he said.
Paterson said filming
violates the workers’ rights under the federal Privacy Act and seeks to profit
from the spectacle of immigration woes.
“The actions of the CBSA
affect real people,” Paterson said. “The federal government must respect the
rights of every person it deals with, regardless of their immigration status.”
The complaint was
launched with the support of a broad range of groups, including the
Agricultural Workers Alliance, Sanctuary Health, and No One Is Illegal
Vancouver.
Paterson called the agency’s
decision to participate in the TV series an attempt “to transform its
operations into a source of commercial entertainment.”
An initial statement
from the agency defended its participation in the show and called it a valuable
opportunity “to communicate Canada’s commitment to border security.”
Twelve immigration
officers arrived at the construction site with a warrant to arrest a single
worker, according to one agency officer’s statement at an immigration detention
hearing for the workers last week.
A camera operator and
sound technician accompanied them on the suspicion there may be others working
without permits, and officers ended up arresting six men of Latin American
descent. A number of the men are still in custody, one was released.
Officials insisted
participation in the TV program was strictly voluntary, and that the agency had
the final say in what material would eventually air.
Federal Public Safety
Minister Vic Toews defended the use of the reality cameras earlier this week,
having signed off on a contract to allow the agency’s “active engagement in, as
well as oversight and control of, all film shoots.”
Toews said illegal
immigrants cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars, as well as jobs.
Posted
in Media Coverage
| Tagged CBSA, Consent, immigration, Media Coverage, National Security, Privacy, Security
------------
Why DOESN'T United Nations ensure that each and EVERY country honours agreements and why are only Christian nations giving more $$$ 4 humanitarian and refugees? still.
Definition of key terms used in the UN Treaty ... - UNTC
https://treaties.un.org/Pages/overview.aspx?path=overview/definition/...
The title may follow habitual uses or may relate to the particular character or ...Instead, their rules apply to all of those instruments as long as they meet certain common ... Although such oral agreements may be rare, they can have the samebinding .... Such protocols ensure a more simplified and accelerated treaty-[PDF]Treaty Handbook - United Nations Treaty Collection
https://treaties.un.org/doc/source/publications/THB/English.pdf
This Handbook is provided for information only and does not constitute ...... The depositary of a treaty is responsible for ensuring the proper execution of all treaty .....ratification, and the same rules apply, unless the treaty provides otherwise ...[PDF]Everything you always wanted to know about the United ...
www.un.org/.../Pub_United%20Nations_Everything%20U%20Always%...
Is there a set of rules or principles that guides the United ... sits does not belong to just the United States, the host country, but to all the Members of the United ... spend approximately the same amount on cut flowers and potted plants each year. ..... ensurethat every pregnancy is wanted, every birth is safe and every girl.---------------
Amnesty International Canada and British Columbia
Civil Liberties Association (Appellants) v. Chief of the Defence Staff for the
Canadian Forces, Minister of National Defence and Attorney General of Canada
(Respondents)
Court
|
Federal
Court of Appeal, Canada
|
Case
number
|
[2009]
4 F.C.R. 149
|
Decision
title
|
Appeal
Judgment
|
Decision
date
|
17
December 2008
|
Parties
|
· Amnesty International Canada
· British
Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA)
· Chief
of the Defence Staff for the Canadian Forces
· Minister
of National Defence
· Attorney
General of Canada
· Canadian
Civil Liberties Association (Intervener)
|
Other
names
|
· Amnesty International Canada
v. Canada
|
Categories
|
Torture
|
Keywords
|
Law
of armed conflict; torture; detention; effective control; extraterritorial
application
|
Links
|
|
Other
countries involved
|
· Afghanistan
|
Summary
At the beginning of
2007, there were allegations that Afghan prisoners who were captured by
Canadian forces and transferred to Afghan custody, were tortured.
On 21 February 2007,
Amnesty International Canada and the British Columbia Civil Liberties
Association (BCCLA) filed a lawsuit against the Canadian Minister of
National Defence, the Chief of the Defence Staff for the Canadian forces and
the Attorney General of Canada in order to halt the transfer of
Afghan prisoners. Plaintiffs specifically asked for a review of the Canadian
prisoner transfer policy, and, in addition, claimed that the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms should provide protection to the Afghan prisoners.
The case was dismissed. In March 2008, a federal judge stated
that the Afghan prisoners have rights under both the Afghan Constitution and
international law, but that they did not have rights under the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms. This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal in
December 2008.
Procedural history
At the beginning of
2007, reports emerged that around 30 Afghan detainees had been tortured whilst
in custody of the Afghan National Directorate of Security (NDS) after being
transferred from Canadian custody. After reports that the Canadian government
was aware of the allegations, followed by an announcement that an investigation
had revealed no evidence of abuse, the claim for judicial review of the
Canadian prisoner transfer policy was filed by Amnesty International Canada and
the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA). Both applicants
wanted to halt the transfer of Afghan detainees by Canadian forces to the
custody of the NDS following the allegations of torture and other prisoner
abuse. The Canadian Minister of Defence and the other respondents filed a motion to strike this claim.
In November 2007, the
Canadian government halted the transfer of detainees to Afghan custody, though
this decision was only made public in January 2008.
On 5 November 2007, the
Federal Court of Canada dismissed the motion to strike the case and
granted standing in the case to Amnesty International Canada and the BCCLA.
Nevertheless, despite
more evidence of prisoner abuse, on 7 February 2008, Federal Court Judge Anne
Mactavish refused a motion for an interlocutory
injunction prohibiting the transfer of detainees captured by Canadian forces to
Afghan custody (see also in French). The Court ruled that since
transfers had been halted since November, the rights groups had failed to
demonstrate that irreparable harm would result without the injunction.
On 29 February 2008, the
Canadian Government announced that transfers had resumed.
On 12 March 2008, Judge
Mactavish ruled that protection under the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter) does not extend to Afghan
detainees and did not apply to the conduct of Canadian forces in
Afghanistan (see also inFrench).
The BCCLA and Amnesty International Canada appealed.
Related developments
On 21 May 2009, the
Supreme Court of Canada denied the application for leave to
appeal and upheld the decision issues by the Federal Court of Appeal on 17
December 2008.
On 17 June 2012, the
Military Police Complaints Commission released its final report following its
inquiry conducted after Amnesty International Canada and the BCCLA
‘alleged a failure on the part of certain Military Police (MP) to
investigate the Canadian Task Force Commanders in Afghanistan for directing the
transfer of detainees to Afghan authorities in the face of a known risk of
torture’. The Commission found the allegations to be unsubstantiated. The
Commission held that the actions of the eight officers ‘under the circumstances
prevailing at the time met the standards of a reasonable police officer’.
Legally
relevant facts
The case concerned an
attempt by Amnesty International and the BCCLA to stop Canadian Forces from
transferring Afghan detainees from their detention facility at Kandahar
Airfield in Afghanistan to the custody of the NDS because there were allegations
of torture and other ill-treatment of prisoners.
It was the first time
that Canadian courts considered whether individuals detained by the Canadian
military on foreign soil can claim protection afforded by the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms.
Core
legal questions
Did the Federal Court
err in holding that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms did not apply,
even if the appellants were able to establish that the transfer of the
detainees would expose them to a substantial risk of torture? (paras. 6-23)
Did the Federal Court
err in holding that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms did not apply
during the armed conflict in Afghanistan to the detention of non-Canadians by
Canadian forces, or to their transfer to Afghan authorities? (paras. 24-35)
Specific
legal rules and provisions
Canada
Evidence Act, 1985:
· Sections 38-38.16 -
International Relations and National Defence and Security
Constitution Act, 1982, Canada:
· Section 6 - Mobility of
citizens
· Section
7 - Life, liberty and security of person
· Section
10 - Arrest or detention
· Section
12 - Treatment or punishment
· Section
24(1) - Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms
Federal Courts Rules, 1998, Canada:
· Rule 107 - Separate
determination of issues
Geneva
Conventions Act, 1985, Canada:
· Schedules
I - IV
Court's holding and analysis
On 17 December 2008, the
Federal Court of Appeal of Canada rejected the appeal against the decision of the Federal Court.
The Court of Appeal
upheld the conclusion of the Federal Court that the Charter did not apply even
if the appellants were able to establish that the transfer of the detainees
would expose them to a substantial risk of torture. In particular, the Court
agreed with the Supreme Court’s holding in Canada (Justice) v.
Khadr ‘that deference and comity end where clear violations of
international law and fundamental human rights begin’. However, according to
the Court, that does not lead to the conclusion that ‘the Charter then applies
as a consequence of these violations’. The Court further held that ‘Even though
section 7 of the Charter applies to “[e]veryone” (compare with the words
“[e]very citizen” in section 6 of the Charter), all the circumstances in a
given situation must be examined before it can be said that the Charter
applies’ (paras. 19-20).
The Court also rejected
the second ground of appeal. The Court held that the Federal Court did not err
in deciding that the Canadian forces did not have “effective control” over
territory in Afghanistan, meaning that the Charter could indeed not be given
territorial application over Afghan territory and over Afghan people. In this
regard, the Court held that although the Canadian forces had command and
control over their detention facility at the Kandahar Airfield, Canada shared
this facility with other countries participating in security and infrastructure
operations in Afghanistan. Therefore, the control exercised by Canadian forces
‘cannot be considered “effective”’ (para. 25).
The appellants’ claim
that the Federal Court did set ‘an unnecessarily high standard for establishing
consent by a foreign state’ was rejected, as well as the claim that the Federal
Court ‘failed to have due regard to whether the conduct of the Government of
Afghanistan amounted to an invitation or “acquiescence” to Charter protection
being afforded to its citizens held in detention by the CF [Canadian forces]’
(para. 31).
Further
analysis
A. Deeks, ‘Detention in Afghanistan: The Need For an Integrated
Plan’, Center for Strategic & International Studies,
13 February 2008.
D. J. Rennie and R.
Rothschild, ‘The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canadian
Officials Abroad’, Supreme Court Law Review, 2009, Vol.
2, pp. 127-146.
M. Gionet, ‘Canada the Failed Protector: Transfer of Canadian
Captured Detainees to Third Parties in Afghanistan’, The
Journal of Conflict Studies, 2009, Vol. 29, pp. 1-14.
D. Vallentgoed, ‘Welcome Back Khadr: Re-Examining Extraterritorial
Applicability of the Charter after the Omar Khadr Decisions and Amnesty
International v. The Canadian Forces’, The Canadian Bar
Association – Military Law Branch, 2011, pp. 1-20.
M. Sassoli and M-L.
Tougas, ‘International Law Issues Raised By The Transfer Of
Detainees By Canadian Forces In Afghanistan’, McGill Law
Journal, June 2011, Vol. 56, pp. 959-1010.
Instruments
cited
· Canada
Evidence Act,1985
· Constitution Act,1982, Canada
· Federal Courts Rules,1998, Canada
· Geneva
Conventions Act,1985, Canada
Related
cases
High Court of
Justice(United Kingdom), The Queen (on the application of Maya Evans) v. Secretary
of State for Defence,Case No. CO/11949/2008, Approved
Judgment, 25 June 2010.
Additional
materials
‘Detainees in Afghanistan must not face torture, say
rights groups in a call for a judicial review’, Amnesty
International, 21 February 2007.
‘B.C. rights group releases documents alleging Afghan
prison abuse’, CBC News, 22 January 2008.
‘Canada ended handover of Afghan detainees months ago’, CBC
News, 23 January 2008.
I. Austen, ‘Canadian Military Has Quit Turning Detainees Over to
Afghans’, The New York Times, 24 January 2008.
A. Woods, ‘Canada halts transfer of Afghan detainees’, The
Star, 24 January 2008.
‘Canadians resume transfer of Afghan detainees’, CTV
News, 29 February 2008.
‘Judge dismisses charter appeal in Afghan detainee
transfers’, CBC News, 12 March 2008.
R. J. Brennan, ‘Rights groups add to call for Afghan torture inquiry’, The
Star, 24 November 2009.
C. Smith, ‘Canada fought giving Afghans charter rights’, Straight,
25 November 2009.
‘Commission hears final submissions on transfers to
torture’, Amnesty International, 1 February 2011.
Social
media links
J. Jansen, ‘Canada secretly halted Afghan detainee transfers over
torture allegations: letter’, Jurist, 24 January 2008.
M. Rosen-Molina, ‘Canada judge rules Afghan detainees have no rights under
Charter’, Jurist, 12 March 2008.
R. Annandale, ‘Afghan detainees subject to Charter: Amnesty, BC CLA’, The
Tyee, 11 December 2008.
‘BCCLA and Amnesty International pull out of Inquiry
hearings’, BCCLA, 6 October 2011.
‘History of the BCCLA’s involvement in Afghan Detainee
issues’, BCCLA, 7 June 2012.
A. Wherry, ‘Afghan detainees: The final report of the MPCC’, Macleans,
27 June 2012.
---------------
A Setback for Human Rights Protection: Federal Court of Appeal Rules in
Afghan Prisoner Case
Posted on December 18,
2008
The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and Amnesty
International today expressed their considerable dismay that the Federal Court
of Appeal has upheld a March 2008 Federal Court ruling that the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms has no application to the actions of Canadian
soldiers who handle prisoners apprehended in the course of fighting in
Afghanistan. The Federal Court of Appeal also held that the Charter cannot
prevent the Canadian Forces from transferring prisoners to a serious risk of
torture. The Court’s judgment was released on December 17, 2008.
The courts of a number of other countries, including the United
States and the United Kingdom, have recognized that the constitutional and
other national human rights protections of those countries do extend to the
actions of their military personnel when operating abroad. “Canada is
increasingly isolated among its allies in maintaining the view that this
country’s preeminent human rights document has no application to military
forces once they leave Canadian soil,” stated Grace Pastine of the British
Columbia Civil Liberties Association.
“The Federal Court of Appeal has missed a valuable opportunity
to ensure that the reach and scope of the human rights protections enshrined in
the Charter is consistent with what is increasingly recognized as necessary and
reasonable by the courts of other nations,” said Alex Neve, Secretary General
of Amnesty International Canada. “Canada has long stood for global leadership
in human rights protection. But with the government’s position on this crucial
human rights issue, endorsed yesterday by the Court of Appeal, Canada is no
longer a champion and increasingly a laggard.”
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that
the Charter of Rights did extend to the actions of Canadian officials who
interrogated Omar Khadr in Guantánamo Bay because of the fact that his
detention did not meet international human rights requirements. The Federal
Court of Appeal concluded that the reasoning in the Khadr decision did not
apply to the handling of prisoners by Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. The
Court ruling implies that the distinction may be because Omar Khadr is a
Canadian citizen and prisoners apprehended in Afghanistan are not. Earlier
Supreme Court of Canada decisions have made it clear that, except for the few
provisions of the Charter that are explicitly tied to citizenship, Charter
protections do extend to both citizens and non-citizens.
The appeal decision comes as part of the court application
launched by the two organizations in February 2007 seeking a court order
prohibiting Canadian Forces personnel from transferring prisoners into the
custody of Afghan officials because of the serious risk they will be tortured.
The earlier Federal Court ruling and yesterday’s Federal Court of Appeal
decision conclude that prisoners do enjoy the protection of international human
rights and humanitarian law standards. “Prisoners at risk of torture are
assured they can avail themselves of the protection of international law,”
noted Paul Champ, lawyer for the two organizations. “That protection is entirely
illusory, however, given that there is no international level court to turn to
enforce those standards and it is not possible to use those international legal
provisions as the basis
of a Canadian court application.”
of a Canadian court application.”
The decision comes just one week after the Court heard the
appeal, on December 10th, a day that marked the 60th anniversary of the UN’s
adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. “On a day when
governments around the world should have demonstrated a determination to deepen
their commitment to human rights protection, it was troubling to see the
Canadian government continue to assert that the Charter of Rights was of no
relevance to the actions of Canadian soldiers outside Canada,” said Alex Neve.
“It is disappointing that the Federal Court of Appeal has
accepted that position, leaving prisoners in Afghanistan with no effective
legal means to be protected from the serious risk of being tortured after being
transferred into Afghan custody.”
Given the serious human rights implications of the judgment,
Amnesty International and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association will
seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
MEDIA CONTACTS:
Grace Pastine, Litigation Director
B.C. Civil Liberties Association
(604)630-9751
(778) 241-7183
B.C. Civil Liberties Association
(604)630-9751
(778) 241-7183
John Tackaberry
Amnesty International Canada
(613)744-7667 #236
Amnesty International Canada
(613)744-7667 #236
-------
Canada the Failed Protector:
Transfer of Canadian Captured Detainees to Third Parties in
Afghanistan
Marc Gionet
Saint Thomas University
Abstract
As a result of its engagement in combat operations in
Afghanistan, the Canadian Forces have detained a number of individuals and
subsequently transferred these detainees to a third party. This article will
discuss the relevance of international humanitarian law and international human
rights law in regards to the responsibility of the Canadian government for the
treatment of these individuals. In order to provide an accurate examination of
this issue, it is necessary to identify the classification of the armed
conflict in Afghanistan during the initial invasion and consequently after the
establishment of the Afghan Transitional Government. It will be noted that this
shift in classification will have a significant effect on the pertinent rules
of international humanitarian law governing the treatment of the detained.
However, the consistent applicability of international human rights law will
demonstrate its omnipresence, coupled with the prospect of Canadian domestic
human rights protections.
INTRODUCTION
1 Following the United States
claim to individual and collective self-defence under Article 5 of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Charter1 and Article 51 under the United Nations
Charter,2 Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) was
launched in Afghanistan. From the operation’s beginning in 2001, the Canadian
Forces (CF) have been actively engaged in combat — initially operating under
OEF command and subsequently with the UN-sanctioned International Security
Assistance Force (ISAF).3 As a result of its engagement in combat
operations, the Canadian Forces have detained a number of individuals under
both OEF and ISAF command, and subsequently transferred these detainees to a
third party. This article will discuss the relevance of international
humanitarian law and international human rights law in regards to the
responsibility of the Canadian Forces and the Canadian government for the treatment
of these individuals.
2 In order to provide an
accurate examination of this issue, it is necessary to identify the
classification of the armed conflict in Afghanistan during the initial invasion
and, consequently, after the establishment of the Afghan Transitional
Government. It will be noted that this shift in classification will have a
significant effect on the pertinent rules of international humanitarian law
governing the treatment of the detained. However, the consistent applicability
of international human rights law will demonstrate its omnipresence, coupled
with the prospect of Canadian domestic human rights protections. Through this
analysis, it will be possible to measure Canada’s adherence to international
humanitarian law and international human rights law regarding the treatment of
those detained during combat missions in Afghanistan and its evolving policy
which has yet to meet the required standards.
The "Fall" of the Taliban
3 The Taliban were
effectively notified of Operation Enduring Freedom on 7 October 2001 when US
planes and UK warships launched missiles against Kandahar, Kabul, and terrorist
training camps in Eastern Afghanistan.4 The toppling of the Taliban de
facto government came quickly, with the US claiming air supremacy in
less than a week, and the Northern Alliance capturing the capital of Kabul a
month later. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) moved just as
quickly to classify the armed conflict between the US-led coalition and the
Taliban as an international armed conflict, issuing a press release on 24
October 2001, which stated that:
Combatants
captured by enemy forces in the international armed conflict between the
Taliban and the US-led coalition must be treated in accordance with the Third
Geneva Convention. Civilians detained by a party of which they are not
nationals must be treated in accordance with the Fourth Geneva Convention. The
ICRC must therefore be allowed to visit them.5
3 Although the classification
of the armed conflict by the ICRC might seem straightforward, it is important
to analyze how it reached its conclusion and when this classification took
effect. At the outset, it is necessary to establish a definition of an
international armed conflict. For the purposes of this article, an
international armed conflict will be defined as:
Any
difference between two States and leading to intervention of armed forces . . .
is an armed conflict within the meaning of Article 2 [common to the Geneva
Conventions], even if one of the parties denies the existence of a state of
war. It makes no difference how long the conflict lasts or how much slaughter
takes place.6
3 Although al-Qaeda’s
leadership planned and trained for their 11 September 2001 attacks against the
US from Afghanistan, their attacks should not be classified as the commencing
of hostilities between the two states. The Talibande facto government
did allow al-Qaeda to act freely within its borders, but al-Qaeda’s
actions were not of the Taliban state apparatus, as they had maintained a
separate identity, ideology, membership, and command structure.7 Resulting from the Taliban’s reluctance
to cooperate with the international community, they became an additional target
of the US-led coalition. Therefore, the commencement of an international armed
conflict began with the landing of the first American and British missiles on
Afghan soil following the Taliban’s refusal to denounce and surrender al-Qaeda,
and not the attacks of 11 September 2001.
4 Although the US maintained
that the characteristics of the Taliban did not satisfy any of the groups
enumerated by the Geneva Conventions identifying prisoners of wars, this
article will argue that as the de facto government the Taliban
did meet the criteria established by Geneva Convention III to receive such
treatment. Article 4 A (1) of Geneva Convention III states that "members
of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as militias or volunteer
corps forming part of such forces" are entitled to Prisoner of War (POW)
status.8 Additionally, the Taliban is required
to honor the customary principle of distinction.9 It can be said with a degree of
certainty that the Taliban is a party to the conflict, exercising the use of
its standing army and participating in large-scale hostilities.10 Contributing to this argument is the
manner in which the coalition carried out its initial attacks. These attacks
focused on the Taliban’s command and control centers suggesting that there was
a defined hierarchical leadership and substantive organizational structure,
typical of a conventional armed force.11 It is also plausible, but more
difficult, to situate al-Qaeda under this category as an adjunct
militia or volunteer corps of the Taliban. In order to do so, it would have to
be demonstrated that the Taliban exercised effective control over al-Qaeda in
coordinating its efforts within Afghanistan against the US-led coalition.12
5 The US, on the other hand,
insisted that attempts to categorize the Taliban should fall under Article 4 A
(2), which is designed specifically for militias and volunteer corps who meet
four established conditions (which the US argued they do not satisfy).13 Regardless, as stipulated by Article
5, if there is any doubt as to whether a person belongs to any of the
categories enumerated in Article 4, they will enjoy POW protection until their
status is determined by a competent tribunal.14
6 Although neither the US nor
Afghanistan have ratified the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions,
Canada has and therefore is bound by its provisions. Under Additional Protocol
I, the requirements for obtaining POW status are relaxed. This expanded
definition, found in Article 43, describes an armed force as consisting of:
. . .
all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command
responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that
Party is represented by a government of an authority not recognized by an
adverse Party.15
6 Article 44 states that any
combatant that meets this description is provided POW status. Additionally,
Article 44 notes that, although combatants are obliged to adhere to
international humanitarian law, violations will not result in the loss of POW
status or recognition as a combatant.16 Therefore, with the provisions granted
in Geneva Convention III and Additional Protocol I the Canadian government has
no opportunity to refute the categorization of Taliban fighters as legitimate
combatants entitled to POW status, despite the contentions of the United
States.
7 At issue in this analysis
is the Canadian Forces’ transference of detainees to a third party, for which
the Geneva Conventions also makes provisions. Article 12 of Geneva Convention
III regulates the transfer of POWs to a third party, requiring a number of
conditions be met on behalf of the detaining power and the third party.17 First, the third party must be a
signatory to the Geneva Conventions, and the detaining power must be satisfied
by its willingness to apply the convention.18 Once the POWs are in the care of the
third party, it is that party’s responsibility to apply the convention.19Nevertheless, if the receiving power fails
to carry out the provisions of the convention, the detaining power must rectify
the situation or request the return of the POWs.20 In order to fulfill these provisions,
it would be necessary for CF personnel to positively identify each individual
that comes under its control and monitor their treatment while detained by the
United States. Linked to the treatment of POWs is Article 118 of Geneva
Convention III, which provides guidance on the duration of detention for POWs.
This article states that "Prisoners of war shall be released and
repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities."21 Although the US has labelled the war
in Afghanistan as part of the global "War on Terror," this article
argues that the interpretation of hostilities in Article 118 would be
restricted to the conflict confined to Afghanistan. Additionally, once it
became clear that the US would not be granting the Taliban POW status, which it
did on 7 February 2002, it would be the responsibility of the Canadian
government to request the return of those it took prisoner.22 The Canadian government was fully
aware of its obligations and the shortcomings of the US as noted by a Canadian
Member of Parliament (MP) who stated that, "At some point, Canada will
have to ask the United States to return the three prisoners captured by
Canadian commandos if the federal government fails to persuade the U.S.
administration [to convene proper tribunals]."23 To date, the Canadian government has
not fulfilled these obligations, resulting in Canadian-captured detainees being
subjected to treatment tantamount to torture while in US custody.24
8 In this analysis, it is
imperative to note the chronology of events. As stated above, the US-led
coalition’s initial victory over the Taliban came very quickly with the
campaign beginning on 7 October 2001 and the installation of an Afghan Interim
Government taking office on 22 December 2001.25 During this time, a limited number of
Special Forces ground troops were used by OEF, including Canada’s Joint Task
Force 2 (JTF2) in Operation K-Bar. In 2005, it was reported that
JTF2’s involvement in K-Bar (which extended to March 2002)
contributed to the killing of at least 115 Taliban and al-Qaedafighters
and the capture of 107 senior Taliban leaders.26 The important question at this point
is how many of these 107 Taliban fighters were captured between 7 October and
22 December 2001 by JTF2 soldiers while hostilities were classified as an
international armed conflict? Although JTF2 participated in K-Bar as
part of an integrated, multinational operation that was effectively under the
tactical command or even the operational command of US forces, the Government
of Canada still maintained full command (or national command) over these
troops, thus retaining responsibility for their conduct.27
9 As such, the Minister for
the Department of National Defence, Art Eggleton, must have formulated a policy
regarding JTF2 soldiers taking prisoners. In fact, it could be argued that the
US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, set Canadian policy and Eggleton
conceded to the arrangement with the commitment and role of Canadian troops. In
December 2001, Rumsfeld stated that "Either a country will indicate that
they will turn them [detainees] over to us . . . or they will be positioned in
places where they're unlikely to come in contact with someone that we would
like to have control over."28 Unfortunately, the Canadian government
refused to confirm Canadian Forces’ operations in Afghanistan until a NATO
meeting on 19 December 2001, three days before the Karzai government took
office.29 Once the Canadian government admitted
that the Canadian Forces were operating in Afghanistan, the policy regarding
Canadian captured detainees became quite clear: hold them for the shortest
period possible and then hand them over to the US.30 In fact, as one senior military
official notes, a separate detention facility for prisoners taken by Canadian
Forces personnel had not even been discussed.31 This in itself is clearly a policy
issue that would have been formulated within the Canadian military in
conjunction with its political leaders prior to deployment. Even if the
negative effects of this decision are carried out by a foreign power, the
Canadian government still holds the responsibility for providing the
opportunity for such abuses to take place.
10 Nevertheless, if it ever
comes to light that Canadians captured Taliban fighters during this time (and
they most likely did), they should be held accountable to the procedures of
transference outlined above. As one MP correctly notes in reference to the
policy, "we can’t outsource our moral obligations."32 This notion can be extended, in a more
binding nature, to exclude the possibility of detaining powers outsourcing
their legal obligations for the protection of POWs.33What will become evident in the development
of this analysis is the Canadian government’s reluctance to accept
responsibility for the welfare of those it detains.
A New Regime and New Rules of War
11 22 December 2001 was a day
of significance for a multitude of reasons. Perhaps to the casual observer of
world events it simply marked the instalment of a flimsy, Western-backed
government in Afghanistan that few endowed with longevity.34 Official government quotes peppered
news headlines with promises of Afghanistan as a democratic beacon of hope in
the Middle East and an end to the tyrannical oppression of Afghan women
inflicted by the Taliban regime. What these headlines neglected to capture was
a subtle move in diplomatic matters that would change the characteristics of
the conflict for its remaining years. One of the first orders of business for
the Karzai government was to extend an invitation to the US-led coalition to
continue its campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaeda on the
new government’s behalf.35 As will be illustrated, this
invitation changed the nature of the armed conflict from that of an
international armed conflict to a non-international armed conflict.
12 Karzai’s invitation had
little immediate effect on the US-led coalition. A national army (loyal to the
state and not the Taliban) was nonexistent at this point, therefore Karzai
could not offer troops and the US was already collaborating with the Northern
Alliance.36 Presumably the purpose was twofold: to
allow his government to gain intelligence on the status of foreign troop
operations in Afghanistan and to exercise the sovereign will of the new interim
government. Perhaps the unseen consequence of the invitation was that the
US-led coalition ceased to be an invading force. What replaced this invading
force was the Afghan Interim Government fighting an armed group within its
borders alongside international military assistance forces. This assistance
also came in the form of a UN-sanctioned force, referred to as ISAF, which
began its initial six-month mandate by providing security for Karzai’s
inauguration.37 Although the definition of a
non-international armed conflict is somewhat elusive, the conditions outlined
by the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols are quite characteristic of
the situation in Afghanistan.
13 Although the Geneva
Conventions’ only mention of a non-international armed conflict is within the
context of common Article 3, this provides substantive protections for those
detained by parties to the conflict. Namely, Article 3 prohibits murder,
mutilations, cruel treatment, torture, outrages upon personal dignity, and
degrading treatment, while ensuring all the judicial guarantees recognized as
indispensable before the carrying out of executions or passing of sentences.
Additional Protocol II, Article 1 supplements common Article 3, expanding the
field of application to include:
. . .
armed conflicts which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party
between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed
groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of
its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military
operations . . .38
13 The endurance of the
conflict is evidence of the Taliban’s military sustainability and its
successful maintenance of a southern stronghold, thus fulfilling the
requirements set out in Article 1. Article 4 of Additional Protocol II
enumerates fundamental guarantees that are extended to all persons who have
ceased to take part in hostilities.39 In regards to detention, Article 75(3)
of Additional Protocol I states:
Any
person arrested, detained or interned for actions related to the armed conflict
shall be informed promptly, in a language he understands, of the reasons why
these measures have been taken. Except in cases of arrest or detention for
penal offences, such persons shall be released with the minimum delay possible
and in any event as soon as the circumstances justifying the arrest, detention
or internment have ceased to exist.40
13 Again,
it is important to keep in mind that neither Afghanistan nor the US are
signatories of the Additional Protocols I or II, but Canada is and compliance
with these treaties is not based on reciprocity of additional parties to the
conflict. Therefore, those captured by the Canadian Forces would be entitled to
the protections outlined above in both common Article 3 and Additional Protocol
articles. In keeping with the spirit of the Geneva Conventions, the
transference of detainees to a third party during a non-international armed
conflict would not negate the detaining power’s responsibilities to monitor and
ensure proper treatment is provided for detainees while in the custody of a
third party.
14 On 29 January 2002,
while K-Bar was still ongoing, the Canadian government was
forced to confirm that JTF2 soldiers had, by this point, taken prisoners in
Afghanistan and handed them over to their US counterparts.41 By early February 2002, Canada had
added the 3rd Battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry to
the US coalition forces operating in Afghanistan. With this increase of
approximately 750 soldiers came greater likelihood of Canadians taking
prisoners. Despite this increase in probability, and compounded by the Bush
administration’s internal struggle on how to categorize the detainees being
shipped to Guantanamo Bay under their vague tribunal procedures, the Canadian
government maintained its policy of default handovers.42 Not long after, President Bush
clarified his administration’s stance, stating that neither Taliban nor al-Qaeda fighters
would receive POW status, although they would be treated humanely while
detained in Guantanamo. It must be noted that the US made no distinction in
their decision between those fighters captured before 22 December 2001 and
those afterwards. The ICRC rejected Bush’s position stating that, "The
ICRC stands by its position that people in a situation of international
conflict are considered to be prisoners of war unless a competent tribunal
decides otherwise," and was supported in their statements by the
International Commission of Jurists, which noted, "Only a U.S. court and
not the administration has the legal authority to make such a
determination." Nevertheless, the Canadian government accepted Bush’s
clarification as adhering to their Geneva Convention obligations.43 This article agrees with the ICRC’s
response, so long as the categorization of an international armed conflict is
restricted to the period between the dates of 7 October and 22 December 2001.
With that said, it is in no way implied that subsequent to 22 December the US
had carte blanche for its treatment of detainees and Canada
was no longer responsible for the fate of those it captured. As outlined above,
the Canadian government is still bound by the Geneva Conventions and Additional
Protocols in conjunction with international human rights law.
15 Canada’s policy of default
handovers continued into 2002 as the battalion’s mission operating under the US
came to an end (except for air, sea, and Special Forces) and 1,000 additional
troops were deployed under the British-led ISAF. The change in command had no
effect on Canada’s policy, despite the fact that, on 30 April 2002, Britain
announced that it would not be transferring captured Taliban or al-Qaeda to
the US. Instead, they would be granted POW status and transferred to the Afghan
Interim Government.44 Prior to this, in March 2002, the US
was heavily criticized by the UN Human Rights Commission with the High
Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson demanding that prisoners at
Guantanamo be afforded POW status and that trials take place before a competent
tribunal and not military tribunals.45The Canadian Department of National Defence
still maintained that the reasoning behind the transfers to the US was simply
because Canada did not have the capability or the facilities to keep their own
prisoners. The DND spokesperson also reiterated that the Canadian government
was satisfied with the treatment prisoners were receiving in US custody.46On the international stage, Canada’s support
for the US regarding treatment of detainees increasingly became a voice of
isolation as Pentagon photographs of bound, shackled prisoners, with their
heads and eyes covered, kneeling before American soldiers provoked the British
government to openly criticize the policy and called for reform.47
16 On 24 May 2002, the
Canadian Forces participated in a raid that led to the capture of 55 Taliban
and al-Qaedasuspects. Once again, JTF2 was suspected of being
involved. When asked if any Canadian Forces personnel took prisoners, DND
reaffirmed that anyone captured by Canadian troops would be handed over to US
troops since it was a US-led mission.48 A week after the raid, testimony from
villagers accused coalition troops of throwing stun grenades into houses,
breaking walls, tying villagers up during interrogations, beatings, and
humiliations.49 Of the 55 captives originally taken,
50 were released. As transfers continued and the international spotlight shone
more brightly on the harsh conditions suffered by those in Guantanamo Bay, the
Canadian government began to feel pressured to halt transfers to US
authorities. Over the following years, organizations such as Amnesty
International, Human Rights Watch, the Organization of American States, and the
United Nations took increasing interest in the methods used by the US in
Guantanamo in regards to interrogation, detention, and due process.50 At the end of 2005, this pressure
finally resulted in a slight change in Canadian policy.
Continuing the Policy of Outsourcing Responsibility
17 On 18 December 2005, Canada
signed an agreement with the government of Afghanistan that established the
conditions for transferring Canadian captured detainees into Afghan custody.51 The document, comprised of 13
paragraphs, lacks any sort of preamble or background. It is of interest to note
that the agreement fails to mention if Canada satisfied itself in determining
whether the Afghan authority possessed the capacity to accommodate detainees
according to international, Afghan, or Canadian standards.52 What the agreement does provide is the
possibility for any individual (for any reason) to be transferred to the Afghan
authority and be detained in any detention facility within Afghanistan. As the
solitary source of legal framework for treatment, the agreement calls for
detainees to be treated in accordance with the provisions of Geneva Convention
III, which could be interpreted as providing POW status.53 It requires the Afghan authority to
maintain accurate written records of those transferred into its power, but
makes no mention of Canadian documentation of detainees or the right of
Canadian officials to visit detainees and monitor their conditions of
detention.54 Instead, the agreement identifies the
ICRC and the recently established and under-resourced Afghan Independent Human
Rights Commission as the monitoring bodies for the detainee’s treatment.55 Although the agreement states that no
one transferred to the Afghan authority will receive the death penalty, it
lacks any provisions requiring the Afghan authority to notify Canada prior to
commencing legal processes that may lead to transference to a third party,
sentencing, or release.56
18 Although the agreement is
obviously based on the provisions of Geneva Convention III, with some wording
presented verbatim, the absence of any mention of the other
Conventions and Additional Protocols cannot be a mistake. As noted above,
Canada is a signatory to the Additional Protocols where Afghanistan is not.
This would have been an ideal opportunity for Canada to ensure the rights guaranteed
under the Additional Protocols for the detainees. Instead, it chose not to.
This could be seen as a violation of Additional Protocol I Article 80 (2).57 A possible motivation for this could
be the expanded definition of a combatant and Afghanistan’s desire not to
afford fighters such protections, leaving open the possibility for criminal
prosecution for their participation in the conflict.58 Additionally, the agreement fails to
mention any international human rights law. International jurisprudence has
established that states who are party to a conflict maintain their
responsibility for observing international human rights law as well as
international humanitarian law.59 In relation to the treatment of
detainees, all parties to the conflict — the US, Afghanistan, and Canada — have
ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and
are legally bound by its obligations.60 They include non-derogable rights such
as the right to life,61 freedom from torture,62 due process,63 and for those denied their liberty in
conformity with the law to be treated humanely and with dignity.64 General Comment no. 31 establishes the
jurisdiction of the ICCPR and Canada’s obligations in extraterritorial
circumstances, stating that:
. . . a
State party must respect and ensure the rights laid down in the Covenant to
anyone within the power or effective control of that State Party, even if not
situated within the territory of the State Party. As indicated in General
Comment 15 adopted at the twenty-seventh session (1986), the enjoyment of
Covenant rights is not limited to citizens of States Parties but must also be
available to all individuals, regardless of nationality or statelessness, such
as asylum seekers, refugees, migrant workers and other persons, who may find
themselves in the territory or subject to the jurisdiction of the State Party.65
18 In regards to effective
control, there is an increasing body of jurisprudence developing that
establishes the parameters of application.66 This article argues that the act of
state agents (the Canadian Forces) detaining an individual in Afghanistan would
constitute exercising effective control over those individuals. Despite the
existence of the transfer agreement and its skeletal protections, Canada must
have been aware of Afghanistan’s less-than-stellar human rights record and
patterns of treatment for incarcerated individuals. As Canada became acutely
aware, due to Kindler v Canada, a government holds the
responsibility not to extradite an individual to a third party if there exists
a foreseeable danger that the third party will not adhere to the convention.67 As stated by the UN Human Rights
Committee:
. . . a
State party clearly is not required to guarantee the rights of persons within
another jurisdiction. However, if a State party takes a decision relating to a
person within its jurisdiction, and the necessary and foreseeable consequence
is that that person's rights under the Covenant will be violated in another
jurisdiction, the State party itself may be in violation of the Covenant. That
follows from the fact that a State party's duty under article 2 of the Covenant
would be negated by the handing over of a person to another State (whether a
State party to the Covenant or not) where treatment contrary to the Covenant is
certain or is the very purpose of the handing over.68
18 Additionally, all three
states have signed and ratified the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.69 Of particular relevance, is Article 2
that requires states to prevent torture on any territory under its
jurisdiction. Article 3 ensures that "no State Party shall expel, return
("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are
substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected
to torture."70 The Special Rapporteur on Torture has
followed up on the comments made by the Human Rights Committee by stating that:
It is the
responsibility of States . . . to prevent such acts by not bringing persons
under the control of other States if there are substantial grounds for
believing that they would be in danger of being subject to torture.71
18 As the name of the
convention suggests, it also prohibits "other acts of cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture."72 Additionally, the convention
guarantees that states maintain a systematic review of rules regulating methods
of interrogation73 and that statements made under
conditions of torture are not used as evidence in criminal proceedings.74
19 For the next two years,
with condemning reports of jail conditions and Afghanistan’s haphazard judicial
system being published by the US State Department, the UN High Commissioner for
Human Rights, and secretly by the Canadian Embassy in Afghanistan until
forcefully disclosed, transfers continued under the impotent protections of the
agreement.75 Increasingly negative attention was
brought when Canada’s then- Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor responded to a
question in the House of Commons by stating that the ICRC would report abuse
allegations of detainees handed over to the Afghan authorities to Canada. The
ICRC was quick to respond, clarifying that "The ICRC is under no
obligation to share information with Canada on treatment of detainees handed
over to the Afghan authorities. The ICRC provides this information to
Afghanistan."76 On 23 April 2007, The Globe
and Mail published an exclusive investigation that documented
firsthand accounts of multiple Canadian captured detainees, 30 in all, who
faced severe abuse and torture at the hands of Afghan authorities.77 O’Connor attempted to shift the blame
and responsibility for the abuse by stating that "The [Afghan Independent]
Human Rights Commission promised to advise us if any of our detainees are
abused."78 Following The Globe and Mail report,
two leading human rights academics (Michael Byers and William Schabas) sent a
letter to the International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor requesting an
inquiry into the possibility of war crimes.79 The Canadian government was put under
increasing pressure when Amnesty International and the British Columbia Civil
Liberties Association filed for an injunction in Canada’s federal court system
to stop future transfers to Afghan authorities on 3 May 2007. The hearing was
suspended on that same day when the court was informed Canada and Afghanistan
had signed an additional agreement regulating the transfer of detainees.80 The timing should be noted as
peculiar.
The Second Agreement and Canadian Human Rights Abroad
20 It must be said that the
second agreement does make an effort to address the core criticisms of the
initial agreement. It provides full and unrestricted access to detainees by
Canadian government or military officials along with the Afghan Independent
Human Rights Commission (AIHRC), the ICRC, and relevant human rights
institutions within the UN.81 It obligates Afghan authorities to
notify Canadian officials before commencing any proceedings that would result
in a change of status for the detainee or release and requires written consent
from Canadian officials before transferring a detainee to a third party.82 The second agreement also calls on
Afghanistan to respect its international human rights obligations in regards to
detainee treatment and prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment.83The number of detention facilities is also
limited and requires unrestricted access for the Afghan Independent Human
Rights Commission and Canadian officials where they may hold private interviews
upon request.84 Finally, the second agreement requires
Afghan authorities to investigate and prosecute anyone involved in the
mistreatment of detainees while notifying Canada, the Afghan Independent Human
Rights Commission, and the ICRC of measures taken in redress.85
21 Nevertheless, the notion
that such an agreement would put a halt to the widespread abuse that is all too
common in Afghan jails is foolhardy without measures enabling direct Canadian
oversight. Subsequent to the second agreement, no arrangements were made by
Canada to ensure Afghan correctional workers, police officers, or interrogators
received proper training on treating detainees in accordance with recognized
national and international obligations. Six months after this agreement was
signed, the Afghan Human Rights Commissioner was quoted as saying that one
third of Afghan prisoners were tortured.86 In a subsequent report published by
the AIHRC in 2009, it was found that "torture and other cruel, inhuman,
and degrading treatment are a commonplace practice in the majority of law
enforcement institutions and that at least 98.5% of interviewees believed they
had been tortured by these institutions."87
22 In November 2007, a
Canadian Federal Court judge ruled that a court challenge filed by Amnesty
International and the BC Civil Liberties Association alleging the
Canadian-Afghan detainee policy violated the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms had grounds to continue.88 It was the first case in which a court
was asked whether the Charter applies to Canadian troops while serving abroad.
On 22 January 2008, a secret communiqué between a Canadian diplomat in Kandahar
and senior military officials and politicians in Canada, said to have been
written in November 2007 (after the second agreement was signed), was revealed
in court.89 The communiqué described a Canadian
human rights officer’s inspection of a detention facility and interviews with
detainees. During the inspection the officer reported discovering a detainee
without toenails, a beaten detainee who was able to show where the cable used in
his assault was hidden in his cell, and a number of other detainees who had
similar experiences of torture by electrocution. The report also revealed poor
upkeep of written records on Afghanistan’s behalf leading to difficulties
locating and identifying the Canadian captured detainees. On 25 January 2008,
the court heard that the Canadian Forces had stopped transfers to the Afghan
authorities on 6 November 2007, after receiving the communiqué, but failed to
make the policy public. This allowed the federal lawyers to argue that an
injunction was a moot point, since the transfers had stopped months ago. The
lawyer for the rights groups contested that, since the government failed to
notify the public of the decision to halt transfers, there existed a likelihood
of the government restarting the transfers without notifying the public.90 On 7 February 2008, Justice Anne
MacTavish gave her ruling that denied the injunction but left the door open for
review if the transfers continued.91In her reasoning, she concluded that,
"Given the current uncertainty surrounding the future resumption of
transfers, and the lack of clarity with respect to the conditions under which
those transfers may take place, the applicants have not satisfied this aspect
of the injunctive test."92 Justice MacTavish did, however,
provide space in her ruling to address the evidence presented by Amnesty
International and the BC Civil Liberties Association, stating that:
The
evidence adduced by the applicants clearly establishes the existence of very
real concerns as to the effectiveness of the steps that have been taken thus
far to ensure that detainees transferred by the Canadian Forces to the custody
of Afghan authorities are not mistreated.93
22 No less than 22 days after
Justice MacTavish gave her ruling, the Canadian Forces announced they had
resumed transfers to the Afghan authorities but refused to divulge the date
this resumption took place.94 Both Canadian government and military
officials claimed they were satisfied with improvements made to Afghan prisons
since torturous treatment was exposed in November 2007, which had caused
transfers to stop. Improvements included photographing detainees during
registration with the Afghan authority, the suspension of one Afghan
interrogator, and Canadian training on acceptable interrogation techniques.
Once again, Canadian officials took the opportunity to place responsibility
with the Afghans for the treatment of detainees,
It
should be emphasized that while Canada is contributing to the above activities
[training Afghan interrogators], it is not in the business of building or
managing corrections facilities in Afghanistan. That is the responsibility of
the Afghan government.95
22 In March 2008, Justice
MacTavish gave her ruling on the extraterritorial application of the Charter.
Her judgement was primarily derived from a Supreme Court of Canada
ruling, R v Hape, which established a three-point test for
extraterritorial Charter application on state agents.96 In her conclusion, it was ruled that
Afghanistan did not actively concede to the application of Canadian laws or its
human rights regime within its borders and for the court to provide
jurisdiction to enforce such laws would result in a breach of Afghan
sovereignty. The applicants argued that consent, in regards to military
activities, was misguided, naming a number of past circumstances where Canada
Forces were not able to obtain consent of the state where operations were
taking place.97 Justice MacTavish also dismissed the
argument of the "effective military control" test advocated by the
applicants as a basis for extending the extraterritorial reach of the Charter,
stating it has "not been generally accepted in international law."98 In reaching this conclusion, Justice
MacTavish noted the difference in rulings between Banković and Issa adding
that she believed Banković was "better law" in
relation to jurisdictional issues.99 As a consultative gesture in her
conclusion, Justice MacTavish reminded the applicants that:
. . . it
must be noted that the finding that the Charter does not apply does not leave
detainees in a legal "no-man’s land", with no legal rights or
protections. The detainees have the rights conferred on them by the Afghan
Constitution. In addition, whatever their limitations may be, the detainees
also have the rights conferred on them by international law, and, in
particular, by international humanitarian law.100
22 Of
course, this ruling was disheartening for those who wanted to see increased
jurisdiction of the Charter in an effort to obtain accountability for Canadian
Forces’ conduct abroad. Although an appeal was made to the Supreme Court of
Canada, it refused to hear the argument in May 2009, marking the end of the
domestic legal road.
23 On 12 March 2008, the same
day as Judge MacTavish’s ruling, Peter A. Tinsley, Chairperson of the Canadian
Military Police Complaints Commission, announced that the investigation into
the transfer of detainees by military police in Afghanistan, launched following
a complaint submitted by Amnesty International and the BC Civil Liberties
Association, was moving to a public hearing process.101 This move was provoked by the
government’s refusal to cooperate with the investigation and make available
pertinent uncensored documents and witnesses. The power of a public hearing is rooted
in its ability to subpoena. Unfortunately, the government’s hindrances of the
MPCC inquiry continued, climaxing with the refusal to allow diplomat Richard
Colvin to testify despite being subpoenaed. On 18 November 2009, Mr. Colvin
delivered his testimony in front of the House of Commons Special Committee on
the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan after being summoned by the joint
opposition. In his opening statement, Mr. Colvin characterized Canada’s
approach to detainee transference as a cumbersome process which violated
international law and resulted in "the likelihood that all the Afghans we
handed over were tortured."102
The Issue of Accountability
24 Clearly,
this issue has not been resolved, with the policy continuing and failure to
locate or account for the treatment of previously transferred detainees. What
this article has endeavored to demonstrate is that, although the classification
of the conflict is important, Canada’s obligations under both non-international
and international armed conflicts prevents it from deflecting responsibility
for those that come under its effective control to a third party. This
indifference to third-party treatment was maintained by the Liberal government
while Canadian-captured detainees were being denied POW status during an
international armed conflict and shipped to Guantanamo Bay to face torturous
conditions. When the opposition questioned the policy, Liberal Prime Minister
Jean Chrétien accused them of supporting terrorists and shrugged off the
country’s Geneva Convention obligations. Once evidence of such conditions in US
hands became overwhelming, the government simply changed the third-party
recipient. This time Canada elected Afghanistan, with a notoriously dismal
human rights record, to bear the responsibility. After signing two impotent
agreements governing transfers within the context of a non-international armed
conflict and the wide publication of abuses in Afghan hands, the Conservative
government dismissed such claims as "Taliban propaganda," refusing to
investigate or confirm allegations. Such blatant disregard (over the course of
eight years and two governments) for Canada’s international human rights
obligations under the ICCPR and CAT in addition to the continued obligations
under humanitarian law has led to unimaginable suffering for torture victims
and the undermining of Canada’s objectives in Afghanistan, and has done
irreparable harm to Canada’s reputation as a human-rights vanguard.
25 Accountability
seems elusive with the Harper government taking proactive measures to ensure
the issue is marginalized. By proroguing Parliament from late December 2009
until 3 March 2010, the government shut down the joint House of Commons
committee investigating the detainee matter. In addition, the unprecedented
step of not extending Chairman Tinsley’s mandate until the conclusion of the
MPCC’s investigation placed that oversight body on hold until the government
announced a new appointment. This decision should be viewed as the equivalent
of changing a judge midway through a trial. On the side of the Official
Opposition, calls for a public inquiry were made but to limit that
investigation to post-2006 when the Conservatives came into power, shielding
the probe from the Liberal’s involvement in establishing the policy.
26 While
a positive ruling by Justice MacTavish would have stopped the transfers, it is
a comfort to know it is not the only avenue for a resolution. Once all domestic
remedies have been exhausted, the UN Human Rights Committee and CAT could play
a principled role in establishing state responsibility. Additionally, as
mentioned above, the International Criminal Court has been notified of the
potential violations of the Rome Statute, which could amount to war crimes,
although indictments are not expected. Nevertheless, if nothing else, this case
exemplifies civil society’s keen engagement and desire for Canada to adhere to
its international and domestic obligations. Unfortunately, to date these
efforts have not borne fruit, reinforcing the reality that government holds the
ultimate power to decide policy as well as the ultimate responsibility for its
actions.
27 Marc
Gionet is the Director of the Atlantic Human Rights Centre at Saint
Thomas University in Fredericton, New Brunswick.
Endnotes
1 The North Atlantic Treaty signed in
Washington DC, 4 April 1949.
2 The United Nations Security Council
issued Security Council Resolutions 1368 and 1373, which "recognized"
and "reaffirmed" the inherent right of individual and collective self
defense under article 51 of the UN Charter.
3 United Nations Security Council
Resolution 1386.
4 Robert Cryer, "The Fine Art of
Friendship: Jus in Bello in Afghanistan," Journal of Conflict and
Security Law 7 (2002), pp. 37, and 40.
5 ICRC Press Release 01/47
"Afghanistan: ICRC Calls on all Parties to Respect International
Humanitarian Law," 24 October 2001, found at: http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jrdn.htm.
6 Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise
Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law, Volume 1: Rules(Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2005).
7 Mark Weisburd, "Al-Qaeda and the
Law of War," Lewis & Clark Law Review 11 (2007), pp.
1072-73.
8 Geneva Convention Relative to the
Treatment of Prisoners of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 75 United Nations Treaty Series
135, Article 4 A(1), found at: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/y3gctpw.htm.
9 Hencraerts and Doswald-Beck, Customary
International Humanitarian Law, p. 384.
10 Cryer, "The Fine Art of
Friendship," p. 42.
11 Ray Murphy, "Prisoner of War
Status and the Question of Guantanamo Bay Detainees," Human Rights
Law Review 3, no. 2 (2003), pp. 257 and 266.
12 See Case Concerning Military and
Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v The United
States) International Court of Justice, October 1984, found at: http://www.icjcij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&code=nus&case=70&k=66.
13 Geneva Convention Relative to the
Treatment of Prisoners of War, Article 4 A (2). Conditions include: (a) that of
being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of
having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of
carrying arms openly; and (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance
with the laws and customs of war.
14 Geneva Convention Relative to the
Treatment of Prisoners of War, Article 5.
15 Protocol Additional I to the Geneva
Conventions, 8 June 1977, found at: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/470?opendocument.
16 Protocol Additional I, Article 44 (2).
17 Geneva Convention Relative to the
Treatment of Prisoners of War, Article 12.
18 Ibid.
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid.
21 Geneva Convention Relative to the
Treatment of Prisoners of War, Article 118.
22 "Bush’s PoW stance falls short
ICRC," The Globe and Mail, 8 February 2002.
23 Dave LeBlanc and Jeff Sallot, "PM
says critics are defending terrorist," The Globe and Mail, 7
February 2002.
24 UN Commission on Human Rights,
"Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention and Others," (2006) UN Doc. E/CN.4/2006/120, found at: http://www.universalhumanrightsindex.org/documents/844/815/document/en/pdf/text.pdf.
25 "Interim government takes
power," CBC News, 22 December 2001, found at: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2001/12/21/afghanistan011221.html.
26 "JFT2: Canada’s Super Secret
Commandos," CBC News, 15 July 2005, found at: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/jtf2.html.
27 Ray Murphy, UN Peacekeeping in
Lebanon, Somalia, and Kosovo (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2007), p. 117.
28 Dave LeBlanc, "Canada Defies US
over POWs," The Globe and Mail, 17 January 2002.
29 "Canada’s JTF2 in Afghanistan:
Eggleton," CBC News, 19 December 2001, found at: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2001/12/19/jtf2_kandahar011219.html.
30 "Canadians Have Nowhere to Keep
Captives," CBC News, 30 January 2002, found at: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2002/01/30/canada_captives020130.html.
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid.
33 Geneva Convention Relative to the
Treatment of Prisoners of War, Article 12.
34 "Karzai promises peace in
post-Taliban Afghanistan," CBC News, 24 December 2001, found
at: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2001/12/22/afghan_inaug011222.html.
35 This agreement was later reflected in
documents such as: Technical Arrangements between the Government of
Canada and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan signed
on 18 December 2005, found at: http://www.afghanistan.gc.ca/canada-afghanistan/assets/pdfs/Dec2005.pdf
and The Afghan Compact signed 1 February 2006, found at: http://www.afghanembassy-brussels.org/uploads/3/0/2/3/3023882/afghanistan_compact.pdf.
Canada has also signed a Status of Forces Agreement with Afghanistan.
36 Cryer, "The Fine Art of
Friendship," p. 39.
37 "UN authorizes peacekeeping force
for Afghanistan," CBC News, 20 December 2001, found at: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2001/12/20/kabul_peace011220.html.
38 Protocol Additional II to the Geneva
Conventions, 8 June 1977, Article 1.
39 Protocol Additional II, Article 4.
40 Protocol Additional I, Article 75(3).
41 "Eggleton Confirms that JTF2 is
Taking Prisoners in Afghanistan," CBC News, 29
January 2002, found at: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2002/01/29/jtf2020129.html.
42 Shawn McCarthy and Jeff Sallot,
"Liberal fears fail to change orders on troops’ captives," The
Globe and Mail, 6 February 2002.
43 "Bush’s POW stance falls short
ICRC," The Globe and Mail, 8 February 2002.
44 Jeff Sallot, "Britain will give
Afghans PoW status: Canada won’t," The Globe and Mail, 30
April 2002.
45 E. Olson, "UN to open rights
review with US on sideline," The New York Times, 17 March
2002.
46 Ibid.
47 Katharine Seelye and Steven Erlanger,
"US Suspends the transfer of terror suspects to Cuba," The
New York Times, 24 January 2002.
48 Brian Laghi and Allison Dunfield,
"Coalition captures 55 Al Qaeda suspects," The Globe and Mail,
25 May 2002.
49 "Afghani villagers say Canadians
part of force that abused them," CBC News, 31 May 2002.
50 See "United States of America,
Memorandum to the US Government on the Right of People under US Custody in
Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay," Amnesty International, 12
October 2003, found at: http://web.amnesty.org/library/print/ENGAMR510532002;
"United States: Guantanamo Two Years On," Human Rights
Watch, 9 January 2004, found at: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/01/09/usdom6917.htm;
UN Commission on Human Rights, "Report of the Special Rapporteur of the
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and Others" (2006).
51 "Arrangement for the Transfer of
Detainees between the Canadian Forces and the Ministry of Defence of the
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan," signed in Kabul, Afghanistan on 18
December 2005, found at: http://www.afghanistan.gc.ca/canada-afghanistan/assets/pdfs/Dec2005.pdf.
52 Stuart Hendin, "Do as We Say Not
as We Do: A Critical Examination of the Agreement for the Transfer of Detainees
between the Canadian Forces and the Ministry of Defense of Afghanistan," 7
(2007); New Zealand Armed Forces Law Review, p 32.
53 "Arrangement for the Transfer of
Detainees," paragraph 3.
54 Ibid., paragraph 7.
55 Ibid., paragraph 11.
56 Hendin, "Do as We Say Not as We
Do," p. 32.
57 Additional Protocol I, Article 80 (2)
states: "The High Contracting Parties and the Parties to the conflict
shall give orders and instructions to ensure the observance of the Conventions
and this Protocol, and shall supervise their execution."
58 Ibid., p. 34.
59 See International Court of Justice:
"Request for an Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Use by a State of
a Nuclear Weapon in Armed Conflicts 1993," found at: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/93/7648.pdf.
60 International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976)
999 UNTS 171, found at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm.
61 International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, Article 6.
62 International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, Article 7.
63 International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, Article 9.
64 International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, Article 10.
65 United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights, "General Comment No. 31: Nature of the General Legal
Obligation Imposed on States Pursuant to the Covenant," (2004) Article 10,
found at: http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/58f5d4646e861359c1256ff600533f5f?Opendocument.
66 See Al-Skeini and Others v
Secretary of State for Defence UKHL 26 (June 2007), found at: http://www.unhcr.org/cgibin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain?docid=4672880a2;
The inter-American Commission for Human Rights Case no. 11.589, 29 September
1999, Alejandro and Others v Cuba; Loizidou v Turkey (Preliminary
Objections); European Court of Human Rights 40/1993/435/514; Rasul v.
Bush, 542 US 466 (2004); Omar et al. v. Secretary of the United
States Army et al.; 479 F. 3d 1 (DC Cir. 2007); Banković v. Belgium,
(2001) 11 BHRC 435, 2001–XII Eur. Ct. H.R. 333 (GC); and Issa v.
Turkey (2004) 41 EHRR 567.
67 Kindler v Canada (Comm No
470/1991), UN Doc CCPR/C48/D/470/1991 (1993), found at: http://www.worldcourts.com/hrc/eng/decisions/1993.07.30_Kindler_v_Canada.htm.
68 Ibid., paragraph 6.2.
69 "Convention against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment," adopted 10
December 1984, entered into force 26 June 1987, 1465 UNTS 85, found at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm.
70 Convention against Torture, Article 3.
71 UN General Assembly, "Interim
report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the
question of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment," UN Doc A/59/324, (2004), found at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4267be1b4.html.
72 Convention against Torture, Article
16.
73 Convention against Torture, Article
11.
74 Convention against Torture, Article
15.
75 Paul Koring, "What Ottawa doesn’t
want you to know," The Globe and Mail, 25 April
2007.
76 "O’Connor sorry for misinforming
house on Afghan detainees," CBC News, 17 March 2007, found at:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/03/19/afghanaplogy.html.
77 G. Smith, "From Canadian Custody
to Cruel Hands," The Globe and Mail, 23 April
2007, found at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070423.wdetainee23/BNStory/Afghanistan/?pageRequested=1
.
78 "Latest Afghan abuse claims spark
cries for O’Connor to resign," CBC News, 23 April 2007.
79 "World Court asked to look into
Afghan detainee controversy," CBC News, 26 April 2007.
80 "Canada has new Afghan deal Court
told," CBC News, 3 May 2007, found at: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/05/03/detainees-court.html.
81 "Arrangement for the Transfer of
Detainees between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan," signed May 3, 2007, paragraph 2, found at: http://www.afghanistan.gc.ca/canada-afghanistan/documents/arrangement_detainee.aspx?lang=eng.
82 Ibid., paragraphs 3 and 5.
83 Ibid., paragraph 4.
84 Ibid., paragraphs 7 and 8.
85 Ibid., paragraph 10.
86 "Ottawa dismisses report that
Afghan prisoners are still beaten," CBC News, 29 October 2007,
found at: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/10/29/qc-afghanreport1029.html.
87 "Causes of Torture in Law
Enforcement Institutions," Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission
Report (April 2009), found at: http://www.aihrc.org.af/english/Eng_pages/Researches_eng/Research_cause_of_Torture_2009_April.pdf.
88 "Challenge on handling of Afghan
prisoners can continue: court," CBC News, 5 November 2007),
found at: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/11/05/detainee-challenge.html.
89 Paul Koring, "Detainee torture
remains a reality, report shows," The Globe and Mail, 22
January 2008.
90 "Acting Commander ended
Afghanistan detainee transfers, court hears," CBC News, 25
January 2008, found at: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/01/24/afghan-detainees.html.
91 "Judge rejects injunction to ban
transfers of Afghan prisoners," CBC News, 7 February 2008,
found at: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/02/07/detainees-judge.html.
92 Amnesty International Canada v Canada
(Minister of National Defense) (2008 FC 162), 7 February 2008, paragraph 5.
93 Ibid., paragraph 2.
94 "Canadian military resumes
transfer of detainees," CBC News, 29 February
2008, found at: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/02/29/detainees-afghanistan.html.
95 Ibid.
96 R. v. Hape, (2007), SCC
26, found at: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2007/2007scc26/2007scc26.pdf.
97 Amnesty International Canada v
Chief of the Defense Staff [2008 FC 336] 12 March 2008, paragraph 194,
found at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,CAN_FC,,AFG,4562d8cf2,49cb8cff2,0.html.
98 Ibid., paragraph 332.
99 Ibid., paragraph 335.
100 Ibid., paragraph 343.
101 "Commission Forced to Hold
Public Interest Hearing into Allegations Concerning Detainee Transfers in
Afghanistan," 12 March 2008, found at: http://www.mpcc-cppm.gc.ca/300/Afghan2/index_e.aspx.
102 House of Commons Committee AFGH
(40-02) Edited Evidence Number 015 (official version), found at: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4236267&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=2#I
nt-2955390.
---------------
Canada
military news postings from myspace-
some news 2005-2012
RETRIBUTION THE
CANADIAN WAY
Bill C-10's first test
may involve Americans kidnapped 30 years ago
The Tory crime bill
will allow lawsuits to be brought against countries that engage in and support
terrorism, like Hezbollah in Lebanon
by Michael Petrou on
Monday, March 12, 2012 11:54am - 3 Comments
Corbis
Americans David
Jacobsen and Alann Steen spent years blindfolded and in chains, never knowing
if they would one day walk free, or be shot and dumped in a roadside ditch.
The two were among
more than 90 foreigners in Lebanon kidnapped and held hostage by Hezbollah, an
Iranian-backed militia, during the 1980s and '90s. Jacobsen, who was director
of the American University of Beirut's medical centre, was captive for 532
days, before he was released as part of a deal that saw the U.S. facilitate the
secret sale of weapons to Iran. Steen, who was teaching at Beirut University
College, was locked up for almost five years. Both were threatened and abused.
Guards beat Steen so badly they knocked fillings out of his teeth. He still
suffers seizures as a result.
Jacobsen and Steen
never lost the will to defy their captors. Once, when a guard held his gun to
the back of Jacobsen's head and told him he would die, Jacobsen said he was
very busy and asked the man to come back and shoot him after lunch the
following day. Steen, a former Marine, punched a guard who was beating him. He
called another by the name "Asshole," telling him it meant "Big
Boss." A third guard was "S-thead," which Steen assured him
meant "Little Boss."
Today, neither is
consumed by their time as hostages, though they say their memories of captivity
are strong. Both Jacobsen and Steen, along with their families, have sought to
extract financial retribution from their kidnappers' patrons-the government of
Iran-and new proposed legislation by the Harper government could make that
pursuit easier. "I want to punish them and let them know that they can
never do that again to another human being. That is my goal," Jacobsen
told Maclean's.
Jacobsen has already
successfully punished Iran. He sued the Islamic Republic in a U.S. court and
was awarded a judgment of US$9 million, which he was able to collect from
Iranian assets in America.
Alann Steen and his
wife, as well as Jacobsen's children and sister, also sued Iran and were
similarly awarded multi-million-dollar judgments. But by then there were no
Iranian assets in America they could collect on.
When a defendant
doesn't have accessible assets in one locale, successful plaintiffs can try to
collect in another where the defendant does, even if that locale is in a
different country. Last year, the plaintiffs sought to have the American
judgments enforced in Canada. They took their case to the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice, where it was dismissed because of past jurisprudence related
to the State Immunity Act, which protects sovereign states from the
jurisdiction of Canadian courts.
An appeal on that
decision will be heard in May. The act contains an exception that says a
foreign state is not immune from a Canadian court's jurisdiction if the
proceedings relate to "any commercial activity of the foreign state."
The plaintiff's lawyer, Mark Arnold, argues Iran directed Hezbollah to kidnap
foreigners in exchange for money and weapons, and the kidnappings were
therefore commercial in nature.
In the meantime,
legislation is making its way through Parliament that will almost certainly
provide the American hostages and their families with new legal tools.
Bill C-10, the omnibus
crime bill expected to become law this year, will amend the State Immunity Act
to allow lawsuits to be brought against countries that engage in or support
terrorism. The amendments will also permit Canadian courts to consider
enforcing the judgments of foreign courts against states that do the same,
provided those countries are named on a government list. It is a reasonable
assumption that Iran will be listed as a state sponsor of terrorism, as it is
under similar American legislation.
"If C-10 is
passed before we get to the Court of Appeal, it's going to be very interesting,"
says Arnold. "Does it render this appeal moot? It may. I would then
relaunch the case the next day, and I would claim the State Immunity Act no
longer stands in our way."
If so, the first test
of a much-debated Canadian bill may involve Americans kidnapped by Iranian
proxies in Lebanon decades ago. It will be an unlikely twist in a long search
for justice by the hostages and their families.
"I don't even
think about the money. If it happens, that'd be fine," said David's son
Eric, who didn't know whether his father was alive or dead for much of David's
time in captivity. "But that's really not what's behind it at this point.
As a family member you do want some sense of justice. You don't want it left
out there, completely unfinished. You don't want to be left as a victim,
knowing that the perpetrators were able to get away with it, without any
punishment. We won a judgment. It's been clearly proven that Iran was fully
responsible for my father's captivity, for the physical and emotional torture
he went through, and for the indirect but very real torture that his family and
friends went through."
-------------
Dear Lord... we said
that so many years ago....Mr. Jean Chretien.... darn... remember that.... so
love Jean Chretien - who supported 1st Nations when very few liberals would
even visit...
Used subs a 'daft'
deal for Canada, U.K. MP says
A British MP says
Canada got a bad deal on the second-hand submarines it bought from the U.K. in
1998 and should consider asking for a refund.
---------
Canada and the War of
1812
by Tony Brown
Introduction
Considering its
historical significance to Canada it is surprising that so few stamps have been
issued to commemorate the War of 1812. A by-product of the Napoleonic Wars that
preoccupied most of Europe at the beginning of the 19th century, the War of 1812,
declared by the United States on Great Britain under President James Madison on
18 June 1812, is a source of pride to Canadians as many inhabitants,
principally of Upper Canada, fought alongside the Regular British Army and
Indian allies to thwart American plans to capture what were then the British colonies on their
northern flank.
The war was primarily
caused by the British Navy's boarding of American ships to forcibly enlist any
sailors of British origin and its attempts to prevent the United States from
trading with France. In addition, the Americans, who were encountering strong
resistance from Indians in their push westward, believed that Great Britain was
encouraging Indian opposition.
The United States
planned to take over Upper Canada (the basis of modern-day Ontario) and Lower
Canada (the basis of modern-day Québec) in a single mass attack. The invasion
was to occur at four strategic locations: across from Detroit, in the Niagara
area, at Kingston, and south of Montréal. If they succeeded, they would isolate
and then capture the stronghold of Québec City, thereby cutting off any further
British troop movement up the St Lawrence River and into the Great Lakes.
There were wins and
losses on both sides during the two years that the war lasted, with no clear
victory for either of the warring parties (the Treaty of Ghent signed on 24
December 1814 maintained the status quo). The British colonies, however,
remained independent of the United States and their inhabitants would continue
to forge what would become some fifty years later the new Canadian nation.
Only three Canadian
stamps featuring themes related to the War of 1812 have been issued: one
commemorating the birth of Sir Isaac Brock, "the Hero of Upper
Canada," one commemorating Laura Secord, and one in honour of
Lieutenant-Colonel Charles-Michel de Saleberry. Tecumseh, who was an important
ally, has never been portrayed on a Canadian stamp. He has, however, been
honoured by Guernsey in a 1996 souvenir sheet that was produced for CAPEX 96.
Isaac Brock
Sir Isaac Brock was the commander of the
British forces at the time of the American
invasion. Born in 1769 to a military family in Guernsey (an island in
the English Channel, then known as Sarnia), he joined the army at the age of
16. He was sent to Canada with the 49th Regiment in 1802 where he rose in rank
to become in 1811 a major-general and Commander-in-Chief of the forces of Upper
Canada. In truth, he was not entirely happy with his assignment and would have
preferred the battlefields of Europe. Nevertheless, he planned the territory's
defence brilliantly and became a legendary hero when he was felled by a
sharpshooter at the Battle of Queenston Heights on 13 October 1812.
The stamp, which was
issued in 1969, commemorates the 200th anniversary of the birth of Isaac Brock.
In addition to his portrait, the stamp features Brock's Monument, which marks
his grave and is located near Queenston, Ontario. The statue of Major-General
Brock stands atop a 56-metre column overlooking the territory that his troops
successfully defended. The monument was completed in 1856.
Laura Secord
Laura Secord, nee
Ingersoll, was born in Massachusetts. She moved to Queenston, which is situated
at the mouth of the Niagara River, with her family following the US War of
Independence and then married James Secord, a Queenston merchant and volunteer "citizen
soldier." James was seriously wounded in the battle of Queenston Heights
and was still disabled a year later in 1813 when American forces occupied his
farmhouse. Overhearing the soldiers' careless chatter about their mission to
occupy the village of Beaver Dam, Laura slipped away to warn the British who
were in that location. It was one of the compelling stories of the war; how she
lost her shoes and walked in darkness, barefoot, through the woods, finally
running into a British patrol under a Lieutenant Fitzgibbon to warn them of the
American plans. In the meantime, Indians had learned of the American movements
also and ambushed them on their way to Beaver Dam. A small band of Canadian
militia also fired upon the rear of the American force. Fearing total
annihilation, the American force, which comprised some 570 men, immediately surrendered to Lieutenant
Fitzgibbon when he arrived on the scene.
The stamp is one of a
1992 se-tenant issue commemorating four legendary heroes. It depicts Laura
courageously travelling through the woods to warn the British of an impending
American attack on their position. The figures of Indians, who were preparing
to ambush the Americans and whom she met along the way, are visible in the
background.
Lieutenant-Colonel
Charles-Michel de Salaberry
Charles de Salaberry
(1778-1829) was commanding officer of the Provincial Corps of Light Infantry in
Lower Canada (Canadian Voltigeurs), 60th Regiment of Foot. He received the rare
Field Officers Gold Medal for his exceptional service in turning back a
superior force of American regulars at the Battle of Châteauguay on 26 October
1813, thus saving Montréal from attack.
This stamp is from a
se-tenant pair issued in 1979.
Tecumseh
Tecumseh was a
charismatic Shawnee native leader who was brought up with a hatred of
Americans, known as "Long Knives" to the Indians, following the death
of his father in a bloody clash with Virginian militia. Concerned about the
American westward expansion and encroachment onto Indian territory, Tecumseh
supported the British in the War of 1812 in the hope that a British victory
would assure the Indians of possession of their lands. Indian support to the
British side of the war was a key factor in many of the British successes.
Although no Canadian
stamp has been issued commemorating Tecumseh, he has been honoured by Guernsey
in a souvenir sheet that was produced
for CAPEX '96.
This sheet features a
map showing Lake Erie, the cities of Detroit, Sarnia (named after Guernsey),
York (Toronto) and Queenston Heights. On the £1 stamp Sir Isaac Brock is shown
on his horse Alfred. The 24p stamp depicts Brock shaking hands with Tecumseh
before their joint attack on Detroit. At this meeting, Brock gave Tecumseh the
red sash from his uniform, and Tecumseh in turn gave Brock his elaborately
beaded belt. Brock was wearing Tecumseh's belt when he was killed in the battle
of Queenston Heights.
Conclusion
The War of 1812 was of
enormous significance to Canada. Had the United States been successful in their
endeavour it is likely that Canada would not have evolved as a separate
country. In light of this, it would perhaps be fitting for a special issue to be
produced featuring the major events of the two-year war or participants in
addition to the two who have already been portrayed on Canadian issues.
Updated: 4 October
1998
AND...
CANADA WAR 1812- NOVA SCOTIA- Memorial Site- Deadman's Island
Photographs of
Deadman's Island
(actually a peninsula,
not an island)
War of 1812
1812 - 1814
Deadmans Island is the
burial site of some 450 people from
around the
world...prisoners of war...quarantine patients...
refugees...brought to
Melville Island to be housed by
the Royal Navy...a
considerable number died...
- Debate, Nova Scotia
Legislature, 29 April 2004
Links to Relevant
Websites
Deadman's Island
Old war's victims
forgotten no longer:
Privateers of War of
1812 buried in Halifax
by Colin Nickerson,
Boston Globe page A01 (front page), 12 May 2000
What started as a very
local controversy over this land became a
history lesson that
reverberated on both sides of the border...
US veterans groups and
historical societies got wind of the island's
past, and they were
soon pressing Congress, Canada's ambassador, and
the US State Department
to protect Deadman's Island. The Sons of the
American Revolution
passed a resolution that "any desecration of
this sacred place
would dishonor the memory of these patriots"...
The Wayback Machine
has archived copies of this news story:
Old war's victims
forgotten no longer
Privateers of War of
1812 buried in Halifax
Boston Globe, 12 May
2000
Old war's victims
forgotten no longer: Privateers of War of 1812 buried in Halifax
by Colin Nickerson,
Boston Globe Staff, 12 May 2000
[another copy of the
above item]
---------------
BLACK HISTORY CANADA-
War of 1812
Image: Death of
General Brock at the battle of Queenston Heights, October 13th, 1812 (artwork
by John Walker, courtesy Library and Archives Canada/C-006487)
On June 18, 1812, the
United States declared war on Great Britain, which was at that time in a life
and death struggle with Napoleon and France. Much of the war was fought at sea
and on the Great Lakes but the American army also tried to invade Canada, then
part of the British Empire.
Blacks fought on both
sides of the war, many with the US Navy. (Blacks made up somewhere between 10
and 20 percent of sailors manning the American ships on the Great Lakes.)
In Canada thousands of
Black volunteers fought for the British. Fearing that the invading Americans
would return them to slavery, many Blacks in Upper Canada served heroically in
Black and regular regiments. The British promise of freedom and land united
many escaped slaves under the British flag. Despite many restrictions barring
them from service in the army, exceptions were always made for Black musicians.
For example, it is thought that Black musicians filled out the ranks of the
mostly Gaelic-speaking Glengarry Light Infantry Regiment of Upper Canada.
Another notable
exception was the Coloured Corps, an Upper Canadian regiment made up of Blacks
from the Niagara region. In 1812 Richard Pierpoint, a former slave who had won
his freedom by fighting for the British in the American Revolution, petitioned
the government to form a Black regiment. His request was granted with the
condition that the commanding officer would be a White man. Pierpoint himself
joined on as a private. The unit consisted of about 30 men from the Niagara
region, many of whom had escaped slavery in the United States. The men fought
bravely at the critical Battle of Queenston Heights.
The British Royal Navy
did not have the same racial restrictions imposed by the British army.
(Canadian hero William Hall had served with the Royal Navy earlier.) In 1814,
Black regiments from the West Indies were employed during the naval campaign
against New Orleans. After the war, the British settled a significant number of
these sailors and their families in Canada, particularly Nova Scotia.
To Stand and Fight
Together: Richard Pierpoint and the Coloured Corps of Upper Canada
A review of a book
that chronicles the participation of Black men who fought for the British
during the War of 1812. From the Manitoba Library Association website.
To Stand and Fight
Together: Richard Pierpoint and the Coloured Corps of Upper Canada
Click on "Preview
this Book" and then scroll down to page 73 for an account of the formation
of the "Coloured Corps" in Upper Canada during the War of 1812. From
From the Google Books website.
Admiral Cochrane's
proclamation
Read a digitized copy
of Admiral Cochrane's proclamation which invited Americans to desert to the
British side during the War of 1812. A Government of Nova Scotia website.
The Black loyalists:
the search for a promised land in Nova Scotia
Scroll down to page
389 for information about the Cochrane Proclamation. From Google Books.
Richard Pierpoint
A biography of Richard
Pierpoint, soldier, militiaman, labourer, and farmer. From the Dictionary of
Canadian Biography Online.
Richard Pierpoint
Read the text of
"The Petition of Richard Pierpoint" submitted by Richard Pierpoint to
Lieutenant Governor Sir Peregrine Maitland following his service to the British
during the War of 1812. From the website for Parks Canada.
African Americans at
war: War of 1812
Click on "Preview
this Book" and then scroll down to page 151 for an overview of the role of
Blacks in various military services on the British side in the War of 1812.
From Google Books.
Edith Clayton
Scroll down to page 24
to read a profile of renowned basket weaver Edith Clayton, a descendent of
"refuge Blacks" who arrived in Nova Scotia aboard British ships
during the War of 1812. From the book The Haligonians: 100 Fascinating Lives
from the Halifax Region. From Google Books.
We Are Rooted Here and
They Can't Pull Us Up: Essays in African Canadian Women's History
Scroll down to page 32
to "The Women Among Them" for a brief note about actions leading to
the War of 1812 and the subsequent plight of Africans who migrated to Nova
Scotia from the US. By Sylvia Hamilton. From the Our Roots website.
----------
We Remember- UN Human
Rights Commission adopts report that praises Gadhafi
A United Nations panel
has adopted a report praising Qaddafi-era Libya for its human rights record, a
year after the report was sidelined amid international objection.
(Mytheos Holt) -- When
it comes to human rights, critics often charge the United Nations with being
selective at best. Especially with regards to Israel. And a recent bit of news
coming out of the U.N. Human Rights Council will do nothing to assuage that
sentiment, given its choice of human rights role models. In this instance, the
late despot Moammar Gadhafi.
Fox News brings the
story:
A United Nations panel
has adopted a report praising Qaddafi-era Libya for its human rights record, a
year after the report was sidelined amid international objection.
The report initially
came before the U.N. Human Rights Council in the middle of the uprising against
the Muammar Qaddafi regime. At the time, the U.N. had just voted to suspend
Libya from the rights council - under pressure to maintain a consistent message
toward Libya, the council later postponed consideration of the report.
But the Human Rights
Council on Wednesday returned to the document - and approved it.
So, Gadhafi is a human
rights star, according to the U.N. Cynics might think that means the U.N. has
low standards. Consider the following from a report in The Guardian from 2009:
The United Nations'
most senior human rights official said last night that the Israeli military may
have committed war crimes in Gaza. The warning came as Israeli troops pressed
on with the deadly offensive in defiance of a UN security council resolution
calling for a ceasefire.
Navi Pillay, the UN
high commissioner for human rights, has called for "credible, independent
and transparent" investigations into possible violations of humanitarian
law, and singled out an incident this week in Zeitoun, south-east of Gaza City,
where up to 30 Palestinians in one house were killed by Israeli shelling.
Pillay, a former
international criminal court judge from South Africa, told the BBC the incident
"appears to have all the elements of war crimes".
So what's behind
giving star treatment to a country whose dictator was recently overthrown
because of human rights abuses, but a democratic government backed by the U.S.
is being condemned? The fact that Israel isn't on the Human Rights
Commission, whereas Saudi Arabia and the People's Republic of China are, may
have something to do with it.
Read more: The Blaze
--------------
UK
When choosing a
location for the main operating base in Helmand, military planners picked a
strategic location that was in the middle of a large plain, miles from the
nearest settlement. However after six years of growth Camp Bastion now has
several local settlements neighbouring its ever-growing perimeter. British
Forces News has been on patrol with members of the Bastion Force Protection
Wing to see how their role now includes local engagement.
Engaging with
communities around Bastion | British Forces News
British Forces News
provides 24 hour News updates on Army, RAF, Navy & Ministry of Defence News
relevant to British Forces personnel and their families
----------
Welcome home...
Oklahoma Soldiers
Enjoy Happy Homecoming
Dozens of Oklahoma
families now have their loved ones home as another group of soldiers with
Oklahoma's 45th infantry has returned.
-------
Border cops nab most wanted fugitive in
Alberta
Thursday March 15,
04:24 PM
The nation's Public
Safety czar is lauding the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) after another
one of Canada's most wanted fugitives was nabbed.
---------------------
Shift focus to
rehabilitating victims
Adler:
Every bone in my body
was chilled when I read Theo Fleury's impact statement.
It was horrifying to
read what predator Graham James did to him over and over again, knowing full
well it wasn't just Theo Fleury who suffered. There were others who suffered, too.
There are "on the
record" statements from those offering character references for Graham
James, praising the man who has ruined so many lives.
And the way our
so-called justice works, I wonder sometimes whether these kinds of character
references are seriously weighted against the victim impact statements.
There's something
fundamentally backward in how we treat crime and punishment in this country.
Canada's justice
system is far too offender-centric.It's time to shift the conversation to
ensure the victims get the attention they deserve.
We hear so many
victims and families of victims telling us the system sees them as a nuisance
more than anything else. Victims are constantly told their idea of justice is
more about revenge seeking than justice.
Can you imagine a
bigger, harsher boot to the head than being told your desire to see the
perpetrator punished represents some sort of character defect on your part?
Can you imagine a
bigger boot to the head than being someone who has been at the wrong end of a
violator like Graham James and being told that perhaps there is no need for him
to do jail time because he's older now, more frail and not as much a threat as
he used to be.
Nobody's been
complaining lately about his behaviour, and besides, what debt could he
possibly serve to society by being locked up in a box? Better to have him serve in the community by
doing lectures at schools on the subject of child sexual abuse.
Are you kidding me?
I want you to ask
yourself the question: Should the people who have hurt and killed the victims
in tonight's news stories be treated like heroes or villains by a justice
system that has been corrupted and compromised by politically correct ideology,
a system which offers hugs to the predators and insults and further injuries
the victims?
Sue O'Sullivan,
Canada's new ombudsman for victims of crime, was on my program on the Sun News
Network. She wants to shift the balance of law towards victim rights, calling
for an "omnibus victims' bill."
Her initiatives would
give victims more access to offender information, letting victims know where
their tormentors are, what they're doing and how close they are to being put
back on the street.
Giving victims
meaningful participation at parole hearings and improving financial support and
programs.
I hope she's
successful. Our criminal justice system spends way too much time on the
offender side of the spectrum.
And not enough on
victims' rights.
Too much emotional
capital is spent on the offender's sentence, their rehabilitation, whether
they're getting enough perk programs to live a comfortable life in lock-up.
There simply isn't
enough time and energy spent on victim rehabilitation.
It's time to change
the equation.
And that's Canadian
common sense.
COMMENT:
Well said Charles.
We have had too many
years of bleeding heart judges that give the criminals a pat on the bum and say
'it was not your fault, you were abused as a child'... Your parents are to
blame.
OR
'It was the bad drugs
that you did that made you into a maniac. I think that you need counseling more
than prison...'
THE PUBLIC IS FED UP
WITH THIS BS APPROACH.
-It costs major $$$ to
put someone in jail. it's time to start charging the criminals for their stay.
If they cannot afford the lodging, make them work for it. When they are
released, they should be required to pay any outstanding $$$ owing the same way
that we force our students to pay their loans. Bankruptcy should not absolve
them of this responsibility.
-Prison should not
have better TV's and cable than many of the working poor families.
-Prisoners should not
be given free university educations. It is totally unfair to force a hard
working honest student to go into debt for tens of thousands of dollars while
we reward bad behavior. Basic high school education should be the only thing
covered.
-Prisoners should
receive the same access and COVERAGE to medical and dental services as regular
folks. I have 2 friends who had to borrow $$$ to pay for dental work for their
kids - why do prisoners get it for free?
-Automatic parole
after serving a minimum part of a sentence needs to be scrapped altogether.
When a criminal is sentenced to 10 years in jail, it should mean 10 years in
jail. parole should still be an option -- BUT -- only if it is earned through
good behavior. Mandatory release is a slap in the face to the victims.
-The 'hardcore'
inmates serving life sentences for murder & other nasty behavior should
have no access to the outside world, other than family. All forms of external
access (letters, telephone calls, internet, etc.) need to be severely
restricted to ensure that the inmate is not using them to harass or intimidate
their victims.
-Failure to comply
with the rules should result in solitary confinement.
-Voting rights needs
to be eliminated. the Supreme Court Justices who allowed this aberration to
pass should be removed from the bench as I firmly believe that a criminal who
infringed on the rights of another person should not have access to vote.
Especially in the case of murders as their victims have permanently lost this
privileged.
Prison needs to as
uncomfortable as allowed to make it a less than desirable destination.
COMMENT:
Predator Graham James
can do both.
1. His address will be
the jail.
2. He gets occasional
escorted day passes to speak to kids and organizations about his predator ways.
3. Then he goes back
to jail for Kraft dinner and a sleep.
4. Repeat steps 1, 2,
and 3 until he has no vital signs (Dead).
(Edited by author 3
hours ago)
AND...
8-year-old Tori
initially deemed too old for rape, murder, jury told ...
Metro · Nova Scotia ·
Canada · World · News Columns ... 8-year-old Tori initially deemed too old for
rape, murder, jury told. March 15, 2012 - 4:26am By ALLISON JONES The Canadian
Press ... Tori was killed on April 8, 2009, but her remains would not be found
for another 103 days in a field more than 100 kilometres north ...
thechronicleherald.ca
thechronicleherald.ca/canada/73806-8-year-old-tori-initially-deemed-too-old
-rape-murder-jury-told
and....
IT'S ABOUT THE
VICTIMS..... Uganda's victims..... and follow the money and make sure it goes
to Uganda or what's the point....
on the Uganda proud nation- make sure all the money gets to Uganda and
the victims....... realistically with Quality standards and measurable
timelines and books open for audits by one and all..... imo- if this helps get children hijacked for war
machines- it's a positive step.
Backlash Aside,
Lessons Found in 'Kony 2012' Web Video by Charities
nyt_africa (Yesterday) - For some in the
nonprofit world, the reaction to the success of an advocacy video...
Anti-Kony activists gear up for next phase of
action
--------------
Canada is NOT europe
with their $$$$BILLIONS FOR PAYING FOR CLEANUP MESSES....... and Canadians
won't tolerate this bullshit and beans.... u never touch our police....
never.... all the business... vehicles... and pure unmitigated rage and
destruction of Canada's property- WHO IS PAYING FOR THIS?????? not Canada and
Canadians surely!!!!
More than 150 arrested
after anti-brutality protesters clash with police in Montreal
Postmedia News Mar 15, 2012 - 9:48
MONTREAL - Police in
Montreal made more than 150 arrests Thursday when an annual anti-police
brutality march turned violent.
A police car was
flipped over and smashed and numerous store-front windows destroyed when 2,000
protesters - a mix of students demonstrating against tuition hikes and citizens
against police brutality - gathered for a rush hour march.
When some police
officers appeared along the route, a few protesters started throwing rocks at
them. At Aylmer and Sherbrooke streets, police fired off two loud sound
grenades, sending a panic through the crowd. Protesters ran in all directions,
but riot police formed a line, and banging on their shields with their batons,
marched forward, shoving demonstrators north.
One man, trying to
stop some young men from throwing rocks, was hit in the forehead with a
tear-gas canister and it exploded.
Scott Weinstein, a
nurse in the crowd who was providing first aid when needed, poured water over
the man's eyes, as he screamed in anger.
If he hadn't been
wearing ski goggles, he could have been blinded," Mr. Weinstein said.
"His hair was singed and his goggles covered in chemicals. On Ste.
Catherine St., Tina Tsimiklis, in town from Halifax for her children's March
break, was taking photos of her sons in front of a smashed store window.
"This is pretty
fricking awesome," said 16-year-old Dimitri Tsimiklis. "Nothing ever
happens like this in Halifax." Tina Tsimiklis said they saw protesters and
police in riot gear coming along the street and, not knowing what was going on,
they convinced a reluctant security guard at the Eaton's Centre to let them in.
Postmedia News with
files from National Post staff
-----------
IWK cuts mental health
waiting list by deleting names- NOW 22 YOUTH WORKERS LET GO.... a wonderful
homeless house for youth is going to have NS funding cut (because of it's huge
success on getting our youth back on track and back to school etc??? come on Nova Scotia...
March 16, 2012 - 4:26am By SELENA ROSS 39
Jocelyn Vine, vice-president of patient
care at the IWK Health Centre, responded Thursday to concerns about how
patients were cut from the hospital's waiting list for mental health services.
(TIM KROCHAK / Staff / File)
What does it take to
get off a waiting list?
Of the 1,030 children
removed since November from the IWK Health Centre's waiting list for mental
health services - an astonishing statistic the Halifax children's hospital
released widely on Monday - about half weren't treated, and the hospital removed
many of those without directly contacting them.
That's because the IWK
sent a letter to all families on the waiting list in September or October
asking them to call back if they still wanted service.
Many didn't call back.
The list was instantly cut back by about half, the vice-president of patient
care, Jocelyn Vine, said Thursday.
Since then, the
hospital has screened hundreds of children for the first time, leaving 70 on
the waiting list. But on Tuesday, Vine described that overall 94 per cent reduction
as a "really very profound improvement in access to care" without
explaining that hundreds of names had simply been deleted.
The hospital used the
numbers this week to show its success under a reorganization that included the
layoff of 22 youth-care workers.
Parents and mental
health advocates challenged the math after reading about the hospital's
announcement this week.
"I had a feeling
. . . I just wondered what had happened to that 1,030 people," said John
Roswell of the Digby Clare Mental Health Volunteers Association.
"If they could
see 1,100 people in three months, we could clean up the mental health waiting
lists throughout the province in a big hurry."
Roswell said he called
Vine on Wednesday to ask how the hospital came up with the numbers, and she
explained the mass mail-out.
"I couldn't
believe what she said," he said. "I just thought it was a terrible
misrepresentation of the facts.
"I understand
their point about improving patient care and decreasing wait times. I mean,
that's all very applaudable, but I think we need to be upfront about it."
The mother of a
10-year-old Dartmouth boy who waited 14 months for a first appointment said she
responded to several surveys the hospital mailed out during that time to
reaffirm that the family still wanted care.
Last fall, the letter
contained a deadline, said Carol Mack, whose son suffers from anxiety-related
problems.
"It was something
about how they were reorganizing their wait times . . . then you had to call
this phone number, which is the Dartmouth clinic, I believe. (It said) if you
are still requiring services, you have to call it by this certain date.
Otherwise you'll be removed from the wait list."
As Mack remembers it,
she had about a month to call.
"But if they
didn't have the current phone number or address for someone, you were out of
luck. Or, say, someone just missed it, you'd be totally kicked off the list."
Vine said Thursday
that the hospital made extra efforts to get in touch with families who didn't
respond. Some also phoned to say they no longer needed care, she said.
Those who didn't speak
to the hospital were taken off the list, but they're free to call and re-add
their names any time they want, she said.
"Some chose to
call in. Some didn't," she said. "It's totally up to them."
The numbers on the
waiting list are not misleading, Vine said. Services were offered to all 1,100
families.
"We can only go
by the data that we have. It's a completely accurate number, based on the
information that we had. We went back and re-engaged with people. . . . Based
on their answer, we're moving forward accordingly."
The hospital's overall
progress in the mental health unit is not in doubt, Vine said. Since November,
the unit has sped up the rate at which it handles new patients and is seeing
more children per week than previously.
She said she had no
statistics showing that change.
( sross@herald.ca)
Dear God...... over
300 suicides in Canada and our teens and youngbloods are so vunerable.......
tears and prayers... tears and prayers... and fear for our youth ...tomorrow...
COMMENT:
This is the future for
Nova Scotia
Sadly this paints the
picture for the future of Nova Scotia.
When salaries and
expenses of government run programs constantly outstrip the resources required
to pay for them this is the type of thing that happens. It is inevitable.
What should not be
inevitable is the distortion of reality that comes with explaining away the
problem. While Dexter and his NDP government throw away millions of dollars to
industries that have no hope of success our health care system continues to
dismantle.
Meanwhile the
invisable Premier and his minions like Graham Steele paint an ever glowing
picture of the state of the provinces finances and health of the economy. (We
lost how many jobs last year)
Why not just tell the
truth. During the last round of negotiations our friend Joan Jessome and her
union members in health related jobs received huge pay increases relative to
the rest of society. Nova Scotia doesn't have the money so we had to take it
from somewhere. Why not those with mental disabilities.
Perhaps Charles
Cirtwell could write another article about "Fiddling with the
Numbers." Only this time it could be about the management of the IWK and
the provincial government lack of honesty with the people of this province.
PS. I see the province
is collecting more tax revenues today at the pumps due to another increase.
Perhaps they'll be able to afford a few more "emergency" untendered
contracts to former campaign contributers. Better that than helping struggling
kids.
comment:
Once again, the most
Once again, the most
vulnerable in our community are being further marginalized. You may be able to
delete a file but you cannot delete a child...or so I thought. When we stand by
and do nothing in these situations, we participate in the travesty. Coupling
this with the firing of 22 mental health workers who specialize in treating
young people, we are beginning to see where our health industry is taking us.
This is akin to bragging about the waiting list for cancer treatment shortening
due to people dying while in the queue.
-----------------
What is wrong with
America????? How can u treat your
troops like that???? This American
soldier..... OMG........What happened to America.....
... now we see
surrounding nations of Afghanistan starting to panic... because they see NATO
troops have had enough bullshit and beans there.... over 10 years and
$$$$trillions and all the blood, sweat, tears and our troops dying, wounded,
their very souls stolen.... and 4 tours???? God.... Iraq has been given all the tools.... let's
face it.... Canada didn't even start forming until the war of 1812 when USA
attacked Canada....... it takes a long time.... And Iraq and Afghanistan has
been given so much........ seriously... and our Nato kids have been awesome...
just awesome..... OMG...... if you
don't honour and protect your military... what does that say about u as a
nation? and the bottom line- shut up-
War is Hell
Soldier in Afghan
killings 'saw friend's leg blown off'
March 16, 2012
SEATTLE: The U.S. soldier accused of
slaughtering 16 Afghan villagers last weekend saw his friend's leg blown off
the day before the rampage, his lawyer said on Thursday night.
Seattle attorney John
Henry Browne told The Associated Press that his client's family provided him
with details of the injury to another U.S. soldier. The details have not been
independently verified.
"His leg was
blown off, and my client was standing next to him," he said.
Browne said the
incident affected all of the soldiers at the base. It isn't clear whether the
incident might have helped prompt the horrific middle-of-the-night attack on
civilians in two villages last Sunday.
The suspect had been
injured twice during his three previous deployments to Iraq, and he was loath
to go to Afghanistan to begin with, Browne said.
Browne declined to
release his client's name, citing concerns for the man's family, which is under
protection on Joint Base Lewis-McChord, near Tacoma. But he said the soldier
has two young children, ages 3 and 4.
The soldier, a
38-year-old father of two who is originally from the Midwest, deployed last
December with the 3rd Stryker Brigade, and on Feb.1 was attached to a
"village stability operation." Browne described him as highly
decorated and said he had once been nominated for a Bronze Star, which he did
not receive.
But he did say that
the soldier and his family thought he was done fighting. During tours in Iraq,
the soldier suffered a concussive head injury in a car accident caused by a roadside
bomb, Browne said, and he suffered a battle-related injury that resulted in
surgery to remove part of his foot.
He was screened by
health officials after the head injury before he redeployed, Browne said. He
did not know if his client had been suffering from post-traumatic stress
disorder, but said it could be an issue at trial if experts believe it's
relevant.
He and the rest of his
brigade had initially been told they wouldn't have to go to Afghanistan, Browne
said.
Browne and his
co-counsel, Emma Scanlan, said they had met with the soldier's wife and other
family members, and Browne said he spoke briefly by phone with the soldier,
whom he described as stunned and distant.
His family was
"totally shocked," he said. "He's never said anything
antagonistic about Muslims. He's in general very mild-mannered."
Browne said he knew
little of the facts of the shooting, but disputed reports that a combination of
alcohol, stress and domestic issues caused him to snap. He said the family said
they were unaware of any drinking problem, and described the couple's marriage
as "fabulous."
The soldier is accused
of going on a shooting rampage in villages near his base in southern
Afghanistan early Sunday, killing nine children and seven other civilians and
then burning some of their bodies.
The suspect was flown
out of Afghanistan on Wednesday evening to what officials describe as a
pretrial confinement facility in Kuwait. Officials have anonymously described
him as a father of two who has been in the military for 11 years.
He has served three
tours in Iraq and began his first deployment to Afghanistan in December.
The soldier asked to
be represented by Browne, a well-known Seattle defense attorney, when he was
taken into custody, the lawyer said.
Browne said he's
spoken with the soldier, but did not discuss the substance of the allegations.
He said the soldier had no prior events in his Army dossier indicating
misbehavior.
Browne once defended
serial killer Ted Bundy and recently represented Colton Harris-Moore, a
youthful thief known as the "Barefoot Bandit."
Browne said he has
only handled three or four military cases before. The soldier will also have at
least one military lawyer.
Military lawyers say
once attorneys involved in the initial investigation of an alleged crime
involving a service member have what they believe to be a solid understanding
of what happened and are satisfied with the evidence collected, they draft
charges and present them to a commander.
That person then makes
a judgment on whether there is probable cause to believe that an offense was
committed and that the accused committed it.
That commander then
"prefers" the charges to a convening authority, who typically is the
commander of the brigade to which the accused is assigned but could be of
higher rank.
Associated Press
--------------------
Nova Scotia
Archives....
Acadians • African Nova Scotians •
Bluenose • Built Heritage • Communities • Gaelic • Genealogy • Halifax •
Halifax Explosion • Historical Vital Statistics • Maps of Nova Scotia • Mi'kmaq
• Mining • People of Nova Scotia • Research Resources and Databases • RMS
Titanic • Ships and Vessels • The Sea Around Us • Women of Nova Scotia •
------------
Wish we cld get this....... how can we
stream this- it has all the news on r troops...daily
Battle Scars TV Commercial v3 1080p
on Mar 2, 2012
This is version 3 of the new commercial
spot for Battle Scars only on Shaw TV here in Edmonton, Alberta. This TV series
was inspired by Canada's Veterans and Soldiers.
--------------
House condemns Syrian
violence
By Jessica Murphy
,Parliamentary Bureau
First posted:
Thursday, March 15, 2012 04:10 PM EDT
OTTAWA - The year of
bloodshed in Syria is "tragic and abhorrent," Foreign Affairs
Minister John Baird says.
"One year after
the Syrian people began their peaceful protests seeking reforms by the Assad
regime, we remember sadly the thousands of Syrians who have been detained,
tortured and killed by this reckless regime," he told the House of Commons
Thursday.
"The lives of
those who have stood up against this savage repression cannot be lost in
vain."
The House also
unanimously passed a motion condemning the ongoing use of violence against the
Syrian people by President Bashar al-Assad's regime and critical of the failure
of the United Nations Security Council to effectively deal with the crisis in
Syria.
Attempts to push for
action at the security council have been blocked by Russia and China.
A year ago, a few
dozen pro-democracy protesters took to the street in the capital city of
Damascus. Days later, riots broke out in southern Syria over the torture of
boys caught spray painting anti-government graffiti.
The UN estimates more
than 7,500 people have since been killed in the violence and a further 750,000
have been displaced.
Refugees are also
flowing into neighbouring Turkey and Jordan.
Getting humanitarian
aid - food, sanitation services and medical supplies - to effected populations
is a growing concern.
Canada recently
committed $7.5 million in humanitarian aid to Syria.
-- with files from
Reuters
----------
Indonesia sends
illegal waste back to Britain AFP - 24 minutes ago
Indonesia has asked
Britain to take back 1,800 tonnes of waste after inspectors found liquid and
illegal mixed waste in containers marked as "scrap metal," the
Environment … More »Indonesia sends illegal waste back to Britain
-------------------
Cheering for ya Paul
Dewar..... you walked the talk for Rock N Roll Jack.... (and I (along with
millions) walk from liberal to tories- supporting our troops and Canada
financial and everyday life means the world to so many)... when ya could hardly
find a soul...... and it's obvious that NDP base knows Mulcair is the
strongest.... just like Romney is for Republicans (mind ya with Dr. Condoleezza
Rice as his VP- they will kick arse).....of Canadians you r the most
familiar... good luck to u...
Dewar says Mulcair
risks alienating NDP's `ordinary' Canadian base
NDP leadership
contender Paul Dewar says the front-runner in the race, Thomas Mulcair, risks
alienating Canadians by suggesting the party should move away from its
traditional role of representing ``ordinary Canadians.''
-----------
Feds to table elder
abuse bill
The Conservatives are
making good on an election promise to crack down on elder abuse.
-----------------
AND...
Nearly two years ago, the
federal government made significant cuts to its Interim
Federal Health Program, which allows refugees
to access essential health services, such as medical testing and
treatment.
As a result, many refugees have lost access to health care, medication coverage, vision and dental care. Furthermore, persecuted individuals from designated countries of origin, such as Hungary and Mexico, referred to by Immigration Minister Chris Alexander as “safe” countries, are only eligible for treatment of conditions deemed to be a public health or safety concern. The rationale for the cuts was that it would save taxpayers money and deter refugees from exploiting Canada’s health care system. Despite opposition from refugee patients, health care professionals and medical journals, the cuts have remained unchanged.
Since the cuts have been implemented, an emerging body of evidence confirms what was predicted: they are harmful and costly to the Canadian public. Early reports highlighted their negative consequences, including children who were unable to access tests for infectious diseases and pregnant women who were denied prenatal care. Some refugees are unable to receive basic primary care and treatment for chronic diseases, such as diabetes. Many of these incidents continue to be tracked by health care professionals through the Refugee Health Outcome Monitoring and Evaluation System. Interviews with service providers to refugees have also uncovered administrative barriers related to the cuts and confusion about eligibility for health care coverage. It’s alarming that some refugees are turned away from health care facilities or asked to pay an initial appointment fee.
A recent study conducted at The Hospital for Sick Children found that after the cuts were implemented, the proportion of emergency department visits from child refugees decreased, while the hospital admission rate of child refugees increased from 6.4% to 12%. Following the cuts, emergency department bills that were covered by the Interim Federal Health Program dropped from 46% to 7%. The proportion of SickKids’ emergency department bills for refugees that were unpaid increased from 54% to 93%. These early findings suggest that since the cuts have come into effect, child refugee admission rates have doubled and health care costs are being downloaded from federal levels to provincial bodies and hospitals.
Initially, the federal government projected $20 million in annual savings from cuts. However, the provincial governments have had to step up to cover refugee health care costs. Since January 1, Ontario has begun providing healthcare coverage for refugees. It’s been estimated that in Ontario, which is home to 55% of Canadian refugees, it will cost the province $20 million annually with their new plan to provide refugee health care. Quebec has instituted a similar plan, and Alberta is also considering one, at an estimated annual cost of $5 million and $2.3 million respectively. Notably, these estimates do not include other significant and relevant costs, such as transportation and lost work hours for refugees seeking health care or the numerous pro bono hours many health care professionals contribute. The costs may be above what the federal government projected as savings partly because many refugees have lost access to primary care services and are more acutely ill when they present at hospitals.
The past two years have shown the cuts are hurting some of Canada’s most vulnerable people, including child refugees. Moreover, they create unnecessary barriers for health care professionals. And they will not save taxpayers money in the long term, as health care costs are merely being shifted from one group to another. The 3rd National Day of Action took place on June 16, and the message remains the same: everyone deserves high-quality health care, regardless of where they’re from. Reversing the cuts is good for all of us.
Matthew To is a medical student and research student at @CRICH_StMikes, who tweets @matthewjto. Rebecca Jeffery is a medical student at Dalhousie University. Naheed Dosani (@NaheedD) is a palliative care resident physician at the University of Toronto, and Joshua To is a life sciences student at the University of Waterloo.
AND...
OPINION: What the refugee
health cuts really cost
by
June 25, 2014
As a result, many refugees have lost access to health care, medication coverage, vision and dental care. Furthermore, persecuted individuals from designated countries of origin, such as Hungary and Mexico, referred to by Immigration Minister Chris Alexander as “safe” countries, are only eligible for treatment of conditions deemed to be a public health or safety concern. The rationale for the cuts was that it would save taxpayers money and deter refugees from exploiting Canada’s health care system. Despite opposition from refugee patients, health care professionals and medical journals, the cuts have remained unchanged.
Since the cuts have been implemented, an emerging body of evidence confirms what was predicted: they are harmful and costly to the Canadian public. Early reports highlighted their negative consequences, including children who were unable to access tests for infectious diseases and pregnant women who were denied prenatal care. Some refugees are unable to receive basic primary care and treatment for chronic diseases, such as diabetes. Many of these incidents continue to be tracked by health care professionals through the Refugee Health Outcome Monitoring and Evaluation System. Interviews with service providers to refugees have also uncovered administrative barriers related to the cuts and confusion about eligibility for health care coverage. It’s alarming that some refugees are turned away from health care facilities or asked to pay an initial appointment fee.
A recent study conducted at The Hospital for Sick Children found that after the cuts were implemented, the proportion of emergency department visits from child refugees decreased, while the hospital admission rate of child refugees increased from 6.4% to 12%. Following the cuts, emergency department bills that were covered by the Interim Federal Health Program dropped from 46% to 7%. The proportion of SickKids’ emergency department bills for refugees that were unpaid increased from 54% to 93%. These early findings suggest that since the cuts have come into effect, child refugee admission rates have doubled and health care costs are being downloaded from federal levels to provincial bodies and hospitals.
Initially, the federal government projected $20 million in annual savings from cuts. However, the provincial governments have had to step up to cover refugee health care costs. Since January 1, Ontario has begun providing healthcare coverage for refugees. It’s been estimated that in Ontario, which is home to 55% of Canadian refugees, it will cost the province $20 million annually with their new plan to provide refugee health care. Quebec has instituted a similar plan, and Alberta is also considering one, at an estimated annual cost of $5 million and $2.3 million respectively. Notably, these estimates do not include other significant and relevant costs, such as transportation and lost work hours for refugees seeking health care or the numerous pro bono hours many health care professionals contribute. The costs may be above what the federal government projected as savings partly because many refugees have lost access to primary care services and are more acutely ill when they present at hospitals.
The past two years have shown the cuts are hurting some of Canada’s most vulnerable people, including child refugees. Moreover, they create unnecessary barriers for health care professionals. And they will not save taxpayers money in the long term, as health care costs are merely being shifted from one group to another. The 3rd National Day of Action took place on June 16, and the message remains the same: everyone deserves high-quality health care, regardless of where they’re from. Reversing the cuts is good for all of us.
Matthew To is a medical student and research student at @CRICH_StMikes, who tweets @matthewjto. Rebecca Jeffery is a medical student at Dalhousie University. Naheed Dosani (@NaheedD) is a palliative care resident physician at the University of Toronto, and Joshua To is a life sciences student at the University of Waterloo.
----------
Taxpayers
Still on the Hook for Oil Spill on B.C. ... - DeSmog Canada
www.desmog.ca/2013/12/04/taxpayers-hook-bc-oil-spill-despite-federal-claims-polluter-pays-regime
Dec
4, 2013 ... The federal government is hoping to establish
what it called a “world-class tanker ... Wristen points to an ongoing class
action lawsuit against BP for its use of ... spray this stuff
and say 'all gone' rather than actually work at cleaning it up. ... of
quarters, I would think, that industry really does have to ...
Canadian taxpayers
could be on hook for Quebec fracking decision ...
business.financialpost.com/news/energy/canadian-taxpayers-could-be-on-hook-for-quebec-fracking-decision
Nov
23, 2012 ... MONTREAL — When the Canadian government agreed
to pay ... The claim is against the federal government
even if the matter concerns ... There have been 33 cases filed by
companies against the Canadian government since ... 2015
National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc. All rights
reserved.
Canada
Holding
|
There are three
requirements to decide when there is public interest to grant a party status
to file an application to strike down legislation as unconstitutional: (1) Is
there a serious issues raised as to the invalidity of the legislation in
question? (2) Is the party directly affected by the legislation or, if not,
does the plaintiff have a genuine interest in its validity? (3) Is there
another reasonable and effective way to bring the issue to the court? If a
potential private litigant has the ability to make the applicantion, then the
third criteria is not met.
|
-------------
Why is the African continent poor?
The desolate, dusty town of Pibor on South Sudan's border with Ethiopia has no running water, no electricity and little but mud huts for the population to live in.
You would be hard put to find a poorer place anywhere on earth.
I went there as part of a journey across Africa to ask the question "Why is Africa poor?" for a BBC radio documentary series.
 |  We have oil and many other minerals - go name it 
Barnaba Benjamin, South Sudan regional co-operation minister
|
I was asked to investigate why it is that the vast majority of African countries are clustered at or near the bottom of the United Nations Human Development Index - in other words they have a pretty appalling standard of living.
In Pibor, the answer to why the place is poor seems fairly obvious.
The people - most of whom are from the Murle ethnic group - are crippled by tribal conflicts related to disputes over cattle, the traditional store of wealth in South Sudan.
The Murle have recently had fights with the Lol Nuer group to the north of Pibor and with ethnic Bor Dinkas to the west.
In a spate of fighting with the Lol Nuer earlier this year several hundred people, many of them women and children, were killed in deliberate attacks on villages.
There has been a rash of similar clashes across South Sudan in the past year (although most were on a smaller scale than the fights between the Lol Nuer and the Murle).
And so the answer to why South Sudan is poor is surely a no-brainer: War makes you destitute.
Why is there so much war?
And yet South Sudan is potentially rich.
"It's bigger than Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi combined," the South Sudan Regional Co-operation Minister Barnaba Benjamin, enthused.
"Tremendous land! Very fertile, enormous rainfall, tremendous agricultural resources. Minerals! We have oil and many other minerals - go name it!"
| Our leaders, they just want to keep on being rich. And they don't want to pay taxes
Fisherman on Lake Victoria
 |
The paradox of rich resources and poor people hints at another layer of explanation about why Africa is poor.
It is not just that there is war. The question should, perhaps be: "Why is there so much war?"
And the headline question is in fact misleading; Africans as a people may be poor, but Africa as a place is fantastically rich - in minerals, land, labour and sunshine.
That is why outsiders have been coming here for hundreds of years - to invade, occupy, convert, plunder and trade.
The spectres of slavery and colonialism hover in the background of almost every serious conversation with Africans about why most of them are poor.
It almost goes without saying that, of course, slavery impoverished parts of Africa and that colonialism set up trading patterns which were aimed at benefitting the coloniser, not the colonised.
But there is a psychological impact too.
Hajia Amina Az-Zubair, the Nigerian president's senior adviser on poverty issues, told me that colonialism "was all about take, not build", and that this attitude "transferred itself into a lot of mindsets".
Even today, Ms Zubair said it was sometimes difficult to design poverty-reduction programmes that were inclusive:
"You sit round a table and ask 'What are your needs?' and you get an absolute blank. Because for years, they've been told what they're going to have. So even the ability to engage has been difficult for us."
The resources of South Sudan have never been properly developed.
During colonial rule South Sudan was used as little more than a reservoir of labour and raw materials.
Then independence was followed by 50 years of on-off war between the south and north - with northerners in Khartoum continuing the British tactic of divide and rule among the southern groups.
Some southerners believe this is still happening today.
Corruption
On my journey across the poorest, sub-Saharan swathe of the continent - that took in Liberia and Nigeria in the west, Sudan in the centre, and Kenya in the east - people explored the impact that both non-Africans and Africans had had on why Africa is poor.
Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf says she underestimated the problem of graft
|
Almost every African I met, who was not actually in government, blamed corrupt African leaders for their plight.
"The gap between the rich and the poor in Africa is still growing," said a fisherman on the shores of Lake Victoria.
"Our leaders, they just want to keep on being rich. And they don't want to pay taxes."
Even President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf of Liberia came close to this when she told me she had underestimated the level of corruption in her country when she took office.
"Maybe I should have sacked the whole government when I came to power," she said.
"Africa is not poor," President Johnson-Sirleaf added, "it is poorly managed."
This theme was echoed by an architect in Kenya and a senior government official in Nigeria.
Both pointed out that the informal sector of most African economies is huge and almost completely unharnessed.
Eastleigh has the most expensive real estate in Nairobi
Marketplaces, and a million little lean-to repair shops and small-scale factories are what most urban Africans rely upon for a living.
But such is their distrust of government officials that most businesspeople in the informal sector avoid all contact with the authorities.
Kenyan architect and town planner Mumo Museva took me to the bustling Eastleigh area of Nairobi, where traders have created a booming economy despite the place being almost completely abandoned by the government.
Eastleigh is a filthy part of the city where rubbish lies uncollected, the potholes in the roads are the size of swimming pools, and the drains have collapsed.
|  Africa is not poor. Africa is just poorly managed
Architect Mumo Museva
|
But one indication of the success of the traders, Mr Museva said, was the high per-square-foot rents there.
"You'll be surprised to note that Eastleigh is the most expensive real estate in Nairobi."
He added that if Eastleigh traders trusted the government they might pay some taxes in return for decent services, so creating a "virtuous circle".
"It would lift people out of poverty," he said.
"Remember, poverty is related to quality of life, and the quality of life here is appalling, despite the huge amount of wealth flowing through these areas."
Then the young Kenyan architect echoed the Liberian president, some 5,000km (3,000 miles) away on the other side of the continent.
"Africa is not poor," he also said.
"Africa is just poorly managed."
You can hear the first of Mark Doyle's programmes Why is Africa poor? on the BBC World Service on Monday 24 August 2009 at 0906 GMT, 1406 GMT and 1906 GMT. It will also be available on the website.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.