Abousfian Abdelrazik: we have work to do

From Project Fly Home:

CALL TO SUPPORT ABOUSFIAN ABDELRAZIK
(16 March 2009)

Count down to 3 April: Less than three weeks to hold government to its promise

Abousfian Abdelrazik is a Montreal man whose name may take its place among a growing list of victims of a Canadian version of 'extraordinary rendition'.

Internal government memos and other documents released under the Privacy Act reveal that, like Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad El Maati and Muayyed Nureddin - all imprisoned and tortured in Syria on the request of the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the RCMP, as confirmed by the federal Iacobucci Inquiry - Mr. Abdelrazik was also jailed on the recommendation of CSIS, while on a visit to Sudan. In prison, he was beaten and tortured. In this horrific context, he was interrogated by CSIS officials complicit in his arrest.

Eventually released and cleared of all suspicion by Sudan, as well as the RCMP and CSIS, his many attempts to return home to Montreal have been blocked rather than aided by Canadian officials. Since the story became public in late April 2008, Mr. Abdelrazik has been living in 'temporary safe haven' in the Canadian Embassy in Khartoum. (More background, including media coverage: www.peoplescommission.org/abdelrazik.php.)

Project Fly Home

In March 2009, in a mass civil disobedience action, over one hundred people joined together to buy a plane ticket home for Abousfian Abdelrazik, even though the Canadian government made it a federal offence to directly or indirectly finance or collect money to support Mr. Abdelrazik.

The group of contributors to the ticket, now almost 150 people, stretches from Vancouver to Iqaluit
to Newfoundland and reflects the groundswell of support for Mr. Abdelrazik and popular outrage and disgust at the treatment of him. Contributors include farmers, law professors, labour union representatives, artists, filmmakers, lawyers, workers, doctors, former Cabinet ministers, grandmothers, students and more. To date, the
government has not decided whether or not it will charge the group.

* See list of contributors at www.peoplescommission.org/files/abousfianMedia/FinalList.pdf.
* Video and audio from press conference announcing that the ticket was bought will be posted shortly at www.peoplescommission.org/abdelrazik.php.
* Open letter from James Loney (one of the contributors) to the MP in his riding: www.peoplescommission.org/files/abousfianMedia/JamesLoneyLetter.pdf

The plane ticket strips away another excuse the government has used to prevent Abousfian Abdelrazik from returning home. In December, the government stated in a letter to Mr. Abdelrazik's lawyer that he must present a fully-paid-for plane ticket before Passport Canada would agree to issue an emergency passport. Mr. Abdelrazik's passport expired while he was in prison in Sudan.

The flight leaves Khartoum on April 3rd. An emergency passport can take less than 24-hours to issue. The government was given three weeks to issue the passport.

How you can help:

1. In order to ensure Mr. Abdelrazik's safe return to Canada, Project Fly Home is seeking public endorsements from organizations across Canada. Please send all endorsements to projectflyhome@gmail.com. Endorsers will be listed as "organizations supporting the public campaign to bring Abousfian Abdelrazik home to Canada".

2. Join the list of people who have contributed to the return flight at the risk of being criminally charged for collecting money to support Mr. Abdelrazik. Although the ticket is already purchased, additional contributions are being accepted and names will be added to the list of contributors: the money raised will pay for other campaign expenses and the remainder will be offered to Mr. Abdelrazik when he returns to Canada, as a tiny, symbolic reparation for the crimes and injustices that have been committed against him. To join, email projectflyhome@gmail.com.

3. Please send brief letters of solidarity to Mr. Abdelrazik at projectflyhome@gmail.com. These letters will be read to him in Khartoum.

Project Fly Home
www.peoplescommission.org/abdelrazik.php
projectflyhome@gmail.com

Meanwhile, the wingnuts have raised their ugly heads at last. They've convicted Abdelrazik in absentia--and his supporters here as well. Another reason why the Conservatives must never, ever, be permitted to gain a majority.

Abdelrazik: stunning setback for the Harper regime

Federal appeal court judge Russel Zinn, in a landmark ruling, has ordered the Harper government to repatriate the exiled Abousfian Abdelrazik within thirty days. And, in an unusual move, he has remained seized of the case. If a ticket has not been arranged for Abdelrazik in fifteen days, said Zinn, he may drag the government before him to explain why.

The judge did not mince words:

“Mr. Abdelrazik's Charter right to enter Canada has been breached by the respondents... Mr. Abdelrazik is entitled to an appropriate remedy which, in the unique circumstances of his situation, requires that the Canadian government take immediate action so that Mr. Abdelrazik is returned to Canada.''

The judge said that keeping Mr. Abdelrazik in forced exiled means he is “as much a victim of international terrorism as the innocent persons whose lives have been taken by recent barbaric acts of terrorists.''

Will the outrageous antics of the Harper government stop here--or will it pursue its vendetta against this dark-skinned Canadian by seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court?

Well, whatever Harper and his ministers eventually decide in their dank little burrows, I--and countless other Canadians, including, I expect, Abdelrazik himself, and his long-suffering family--will be celebrating tonight. This ruling, the no-nonsense clarity of which I did not dare to expect, was a major blow struck for civil liberties, the rule of law, and Canadian values of decency and fairness. Zinn's hard-hitting decision makes me proud beyond measure at this point to be Abdelrazik's fellow citizen.

UPDATE: A clear, uncompromising, straight to the point and frequently witty judgement. Some excerpts:

There is no direct evidence before this Court that Mr. Abdelrazik supports, financially or otherwise, is a member of, or follows the principles of Al-Qaida. There is no evidence before this Court as to the basis on which the United States authorities concluded that Mr. Abdelrazik has provided support to Al-Qaida and poses a threat to the security of the United States of America. There is no evidence before this Court nor, as shall be discussed later, that is currently available to Mr. Abdelrazik as to the basis on which the 1267 Committee listed him as an associate of Al-Qaida. The only direct evidence before this Court is in an affidavit filed by Mr. Abdelrazik in which he swears that he has no connection to Al-Qaida. (11)

Counsel for the applicant met with officials from Foreign Affairs on February 27, 2008, to discuss his client’s situation. In a letter dated April 18, 2008, the Director of Consular Case Management for Foreign Affairs wrote as follows:

With respect to Mr. Abdelrazik’s passport application, I would like
to remind you of our commitment, expressed in our meeting of
February 27, to ensure that he has an emergency travel document to
facilitate his return to Canada. We stand by that commitment.
(emphasis added)

Passport Canada falls under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. (13)

I add my name to those who view the 1267 Committee regime as a denial of basic legal remedies and as untenable under the principles of international human rights. There is nothing in the listing or de-listing procedure that recognizes the principles of natural justice or that provides for basic procedural fairness. Unlike the first Canadian security certificate scheme that was rejected by the Supreme Court in Charkaoui v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 SCC 9; [2007] 1 S.C.R. 350, the 1267 Committee listing and de-listing processes do not even include a limited right to a hearing. It can hardly be said that the 1267 Committee process meets the requirement of independence and impartiality when, as appears may be the case involving Mr. Abdelrazik, the nation requesting the listing is one of the members of the body that decides whether to list or, equally as important, to de-list a person. The accuser is also the judge.(22)

It is difficult to see what information any petitioner could provide to prove a negative, i.e. to prove that he or she is not associated with Al-Qaida. One cannot prove that fairies and goblins do not exist any more than Mr. Abdelrazik or any other person can prove that they are not an Al-Qaida associate. It is a fundamental principle of Canadian and international justice that the accused does not have the burden of proving his innocence, the accuser has the burden of proving guilt. In light of these shortcomings, it is disingenuous of the respondents to submit, as they did, that if he is wrongly listed the remedy is for Mr. Abdelrazik to apply to the 1267 Committee for de-listing and not to engage this Court. The 1267 Committee regime is, as I observed at the hearing, a situation for a listed person not unlike that of Josef K. in Kafka’s The Trial, who awakens one morning and, for reasons never revealed to him or the reader, is arrested and prosecuted for an unspecified crime. (23-24)

I pause to comment that it is frightening to learn that a citizen of this or any other country might find himself on the 1267 Committee list, based only on suspicion. (24)

An allegation that Canada was complicit in a foreign nation detaining a Canadian citizen is very serious, particularly when no charges are pending against him and in circumstances where he had previously fled that country as a Convention refugee. However, in my view, the evidence before the Court establishes, on the balance of probabilities, that the recommendation for the detention of Mr. Abdelrazik by Sudan came either directly or indirectly from CSIS. I find, on the balance of probabilities, on the record before the Court, that CSIS was complicit in the initial detention of Mr. Abdelrazik by the Sudanese.(38)

The applicant relies on a statement contained in Case Note 123 dated July 30, 2004, authored by Ms. Gaudet-Fee of Foreign Affairs in Ottawa as evidence of the “attitude” of Foreign Affairs and, he submits, it proves that there was never any real intention to have him returned to Canada. The impugned statement is as follows:

So, should she get a private plane, there is very little we could do to
stop him from entering Canada. He would need an EP [i.e.
Emergency Passport] and I guess this could be refused but on what
ground.
So, stay tuned. (43)

Although no emergency passport was asked for, as the private flight failed to materialize, I find the comment of the official of Foreign Affairs very troubling. I find the respondents’ explanation less than convincing. Admittedly the statement was made shortly after Foreign Affairs found out about the no-fly listing and also learned, for the first time it appears, that Mr. Abdelrazik was alleged to have connections to Al-Qaida. Neither fact explains why a Canadian official of foreign Affairs would be musing about refusing Mr. Abdelrazik an emergency passport. (44)

The applicant submits that he had previously been told by Canadian officials that an emergency passport would issue if he secured an itinerary but that following this potential flight, the respondents changed the goal-posts, requiring him to have a paid itinerary before an emergency passport would issue.

There is support for this submission.The word “paid” is added to the assurances from Canadian officials only after this event. The first such reference is in a letter to applicant’s counsel dated December 23, 2008 from the Director General Security Bureau, Passport Canada....

It was Canada’s view that it was illegal under the 1822 Resolution and the laws of Canada to financially assist Mr. Abdelrazik. Canada was also aware that he was impecunious. It is not unreasonable to suggest, as the applicant did, that in adding the condition that the itinerary be a paid one, Canada was ensuring that it would not be called upon to provide the emergency passport. The applicant submits that this added condition is further evidence that Canada never intended to permit him to return to Canada. The weight of the evidence supports that submission. (49)

[T]he respondents’ interpretation of the 1267 travel ban leads to a nonsensical result. According to their interpretation, the Resolution permits a citizen to enter Canada if and only if he happens to be standing at the Canadian border crossing, but it prevents that same citizen from reaching that border crossing as he cannot transit over land or through air to reach it. On the respondents’ interpretation the exemption that provides that no State is obliged to prevent its citizens from entry becomes meaningless as there is virtually no possibility that a listed person will be located at a border crossing and there is no possibility under current technology that he will be
able to simply transport himself to the border crossing without transiting over land or through the air. Quite simply that could not have been the intention of the drafters of the Resolution. (52)

In my view, the submission that the applicant had not been denied entry into Canada by the Government of Canada was not accurate when made 6 days after the Minister had denied the applicant an emergency passport. Whether or not the Etihad Airways flight scheduled for April 3, 2009 would breach the travel ban set out in the 1822 Resolution, there is no evidence before the Court that had Mr. Abdelrazik been in possession of an emergency passport issued by Canada that he would not have been on that flight and now in Canada. I find that the only reason that Mr. Abdelrazik is not in Canada now is because of the actions of the Minister on April 3, 2009. (62)

In my view, where a citizen is outside Canada, the Government of Canada has a positive obligation to issue an emergency passport to that citizen to permit him or her to enter Canada; otherwise, the right guaranteed by the Government of Canada in subsection 6(1) of the Charter is illusory. Where the Government refuses to issue that emergency passport, it is a prima facie breach of the citizen’s Charter rights unless the Government justifies its
refusal pursuant to section 1 of the Charter. (64)

I find that the applicant’s Charter right as a citizen of Canada to enter Canada has been breached by the respondents in failing to issue him an emergency passport. In my view, it is not necessary to decide whether that breach was done in bad faith; a breach, whether made in bad faith or good faith remains a breach and absent justification under section 1 of the Charter, the aggrieved party is entitled to a remedy. Had it been necessary to determine whether the breach was done in bad faith, I would have had no hesitation making that finding on the basis of the record before me. (64-5)

It is simply not sufficient for the Minister to say that he has reached this opinion and “trust me” – he must show more; he must establish that it was “required”. While it is not the function of the judiciary to second guess or to substitute its opinion for that of the Minister, when no basis is provided for the opinion, the Court cannot find that the refusal was required and justified given the significant breach of the Charter that refusing a passport to a Canadian citizen entails. In this case, the refusal of the emergency passport effectively leaves Mr. Abdelrazik as a prisoner in a foreign land, consigned to live the remainder of his life in the Canadian Embassy or leave and risk detention and torture. (67)

I have found that Canada has engaged in a course of conduct and specific acts that constitute a breach of Mr. Abdelrazik’s right to enter Canada. Specifically, I find:

(i) That CSIS was complicit in the detention of Mr. Abdelrazik by the Sudanese authorities in 2003;
(ii) That by mid 2004 Canadian authorities had determined that they would not take any active steps to assist Mr. Abdelrazik to return to Canada and, in spite of its numerous assurances to the contrary, would consider refusing him an emergency passport if that was required in order to ensure that he could not return to Canada;
(iii) That there is no impediment from the UN Resolution to Mr. Abdelrazik being repatriated to Canada – no permission of a foreign government is required to transit through its airspace – and the respondents’ assertion to the contrary is a part of the conduct engaged in to ensure that Mr. Abdelrazik could not return to Canada; and
(iv) That Canada’s denial of an emergency passport on April 3, 2009, after all of the preconditions for the issuance of an emergency passport previously set by Canada had been met, is a breach of his Charter right to enter Canada, and it has not been shown to be saved under section 1 of the Charter. (68)

I agree with the respondents that a Court should not go further than required when fashioning a remedy for a Charter breach: Doucet-Boudreau v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education), [2003] 3 S.C.R. 3. In this case, the applicant is entitled to be put back to the place he would have been but for the breach – in Montreal. (68)

It is further required, in the Court’s judgment that the Court satisfy itself that Mr. Abdelrazik has in fact returned to Canada. Accordingly, in fulfilment of this judicial process, the Court requires that Mr. Abdelrazik attend before it at the time and date specified in the Judgment. (71) [specified later in the judgement as July 7]

There are mere smackdowns--and then there are judgements like Justice Russel Zinn's. Truly a thing of beauty.

Abousfian Abdelrazik--coming home?

Have ordinary citizens prevailed? From a press release today from Project Fly Home:

Ticket bought for Abdelrazik, flight leaves on 3 April

One hundred people call the government’s bluff on Abousfian Abdelrazik

Montreal, 12 March 2009 – Over one hundred people across the country have joined together to buy a plane ticket home for Abousfian Abdelrazik, even though the Canadian government has made it a federal offence to directly or indirectly finance or collect money to support Mr. Abdelrazik.

“This plane ticket strips away another excuse the government has used to prevent my client from returning home,” said Mr. Yavar Hameed, holding the ticket – purchased by 115 people - at a press conference in Montreal.

In December, the government stated in a letter to Mr. Abdelrazik's lawyer that he must present a fully-paid-for plane ticket before Passport Canada would agree to issue an emergency passport. Mr. Abdelrazik’s passport expired while he was in prison in Sudan.

“He has the ticket. Now he needs the travel document. The flight leaves Khartoum on 3 April. An emergency passport can take less than 24-hours to issue. The government has three weeks,” stated Mr. Yavar Hameed, Mr. Abdelrazik’s lawyer.

“Canada is responsible for Mr. Abdelrazik’s detention and torture in Sudan,” stated Mr. Dominique Peschard, president of the Ligue des droits et libertés. “Rather than admitting its responsibility and correcting the situation, Canada has persisted in violating Mr. Abdelrazik’s rights by denying his inalienable right to return to his country.”

Under federal law, anyone who dares to contribute money to purchase a ticket for Mr. Abdelrazik’s return risks federal prosecution. The group of contributors to the ticket stretches from Vancouver to Halifax and reflects the groundswell of support for Mr. Abdelrazik and popular outrage and disgust at the government’s criminal treatment of him. Contributors include well-known figures and regular people; farmers, law professors, labour union representatives, artists, film-makers, lawyers, workers, former Cabinet ministers, grandmothers, students and more. (See full list at www.peoplescommission.org/abdelrazik.php.)

Internal government memos and other documents released under the Privacy Act reveal that, like Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad El Maati and Muayyed Nureddin – all imprisoned and tortured in Syria on the request of CSIS and the RCMP, as confirmed by the federal Iacobucci Inquiry - Mr. Abdelrazik was also jailed on the recommendation of CSIS, while on a visit to Sudan. In prison, he was beaten and tortured. In this horrific context, he was interrogated by CSIS officials complicit in his arrest. Released and cleared of all suspicion by Sudan, as well as the RCMP and CSIS, his many attempts to return home to Montreal have been blocked rather than aided by Canadian officials.

“Mr. Abdelrazik's ongoing torment, part of an illegal pattern of the Canadian government targetting its own residents for overseas detention, continues to this day, despite disingenuous assurances from officials in Ottawa that things have changed,” said Warren Allmand, former Solicitor-General of Canada and another donor. “Canada must end its extraordinary rendition program and stop putting up roadblocks to Mr. Abdelrazik's return,” added the Montreal-based human rights advocate.

Meanwhile, the independent Facebook group has contributed to this cause as well. I hope any remaining funds will be used to help our fellow-citizen Abousfian Abdelrazik settle back in with his family.

Over to you, Stephen Harper. Will he get his travel documents, or was this just another sadistic little game?

Opposition parties unite on Abdelrazik

A press release today:

“Bring Abdelrazik Home”

Opposition Parties call for Government to End Kafkaesque Spiral for Canadian Stranded in Sudan: “The Charter of Rights and Freedoms Compels It”

Ottawa, March 31, 2009 – Representatives from the three opposition parties joined together to call for the Canadian government to bring home its citizen, Abousfian Abdelrazik.

Mr. Cotler said: “Mr. Abdelrazik has spent nearly six years in Sudan and suffered torture while being wrongfully imprisoned on two occasions by Sudanese officials. Evidence has now come to light that Canada may even have played a role in his illegal detention.

“Both CSIS and the RCMP have cleared Mr. Abdelrazik. The government has disclosed no reason to suspect he constitutes a security threat. In these circumstances, international law expressly allows for Mr. Abdelrazik’s return to Canada, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms compels it. The government needs to bring Mr. Abdelrazik home.”

Abousfian Abdelrazik is a Sudanese Canadian who has not been permitted to leave Sudan since visiting his ailing mother in 2003. He was twice detained and released by Sudanese officials without being charged. He has spent the last 11 months living in the lobby of the Canadian embassy, as the government has denied him a passport to return to home.

The Canadian government recently promised Mr. Abdelrazik his necessary travel documents if he could secure a ticket home. Through the generosity of Canadians, a ticket for Mr. Abdelrazik was indeed bought for April 3. But with his travel date just days away, the government continues to deny Mr. Abdelrazik his passport.

Cotler added: “There is nothing in fact or in law to justify the denial of this citizen’s re-entry into Canada. Mr. Abdelrazik is caught in a Kafkaesque spiral in which the government offers no legitimate reason to deny him a passport, yet continues to do so. Like any Canadian, Mr. Abdelrazik has the right to come back home.”

But are the parties serious? Talk is cheap. I would be amazed if former human rights advocate Michael Ignatieff--who has avoided, you will notice, all comment on the topic--is willing to take the Parliamentary measures required to repatriate Abdelrazik.

April 3--Abdelrazik's departure date--is three days away. He still doesn't have his travel documents. Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, deliberately flouting the law, has made it effectively impossible for him to return to Canada.

Put up or shut up, Liberals. Are you willing to force the government's hand in the House of Commons with the appropriate motion? Or is this just more hot air?

Abdelrazik: fight the persecution!

Abousfian Abdelrazik's life savings--$10,000, a bequest from his late wife--has been effectively seized by the federal government under Canada's infamous United Nations Act. A citizen added to the UN's "1267" list is, under Canadian law, forbidden to work, receive support of any kind, or have a bank account.

Taken literally, this would have been a death sentence. But the caring of family and other ordinary people has kept Abdelrazik clothed, fed and sheltered.

Mr. Justice Russel Zinn, in his judgement ordering the Harper government to repatriate Abdelrazik, exiled in Sudan for more than six years, referred to his situation as Kafkaesque. It remains so to this day: Abdelrazik is a citizen without rights. A second-class citizen. In fact, if one takes our Charter of Rights seriously, which the Harper government plainly does not, an uncitizen. An exile in his own country.

This targeting of a fellow-citizen by a vengeful government cannot stand. Decent citizens must act, and we have the opportunity to do so on April 28.

"Project Fly Home" was the name of the initiative taken by a number of citizens to purchase a ticket back to Canada for Abdelrazik--an illegal act. Organizers have now begun a serious sanctions-busting campaign on his behalf. From the website:

We are calling on you to restate your solidarity or join the long list of people who have defied the 1267 regime by contributing money to Mr. Abdelrazik. Your donations will support Mr. Abdelrazik personally, and the very act of donating will help challenge the oppressive "national security" logic, which creates and feeds on fear, racism and isolation.

Any time in April, send a strong message to the Canadian government:

* Step 1. Make a check or money order to the order of "Abousfian Abdelrazik" and mail it to:

CSCP Charlevoix
PO Box 65053
Montréal QC H3K 0K4

* Step 2. Fill in the blanks in the letter linked here and send it to Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon at Cannon.L@parl.gc.ca, to inform him that you have sent money to Abousfian Abdelrazik in open protest of the 1267 regime, and calling on him to lift the sanctions from Abdelrazik without delay.

On April 28th, between 7pm and 9pm, call in to our Sanctions-Busting Telethon:

Between 7 and 9pm, call us at 877 737 4070 and let us know how much you are pledging. If you wish, you can also pass along a message of solidarity and encouragement for Abdelrazik, which will be broadcast live at the Sanctions-Busting Telethon and Spaghetti Dinner event taking place in Montreal.

Tune in to rabble.ca to watch the telethon broadcast live or listen to live updates on CKUT 90.3 FM.

Surely I do not have to quote the always timely Pastor Niemöller. But at this point it is abundantly clear that we, the ordinary citizens of this country, have a civic duty to stand up, not only for Abousfian Abdelrazik, but for the values that make us all Canadian.

UPDATE: The phone-in is between 7-9pm EDT. [H/t reader theo]

Abousfian Abdelrazik at Federal Court

They should cut a ten million dollar cheque for Abdelrazik now and spare Canadians the additional time and expense of a commission of inquiry.
--Ti-Guy

Today two events took place at about the same time at the Federal Court of Canada: an application by Abousfian Abdelrazik's legal team to force his repatriation, and another one for Mohamed Harkat on the vexed question of security certificates.

I chose the Abdelrazik hearing and was fortunate enough to meet the Globe and Mail's Paul Koring face-to-face: a pleasant man with an encyclopedic knowledge of the case. And Hélène Buzzetti of Le Devoir, whom I encountered just a few days ago at LibCon 2009--the journo who had put me onto last week's Radio-Canada interview with the UN's Richard Barrett--was in attendance as well.

Koring and Buzzetti had matching articles today, each featuring interviews with Barrett, the coordinator of the UN's Al-Quaeda and Taliban Monitoring Team, which oversees such things as the UN no-fly list upon which Abdelrazik was placed by the US in 2006.

Out in the lobby, Koring said that he'd been trying to talk to the UN for thirteen months, with no success. But suddenly a senior UN official has made himself available for several interviews in a single week, with two clear messages: there is nothing in the relevant UN resolutions that prevents Abdelrazik from flying back. And other nations on the route needn't agree to the exemption: "The overflight states don't come into it and they haven't ever come into it," he said. As Champ put it: the current position of the Canadian government suggests that the exemption doesn't apply "unless countries are side-by-side."

In fact, the language in UN resolution 1390* is so clear about exempting citizens returning home that most governments don't even apply for UN permits. "The UN isn't going to let itself be used as a fig leaf for this government," Koring said. "Their officials knew the court dates."

Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon, his back to the wall, snorted and fumed in the House of Commons today. On the devastating comments from Barrett: "This does not change anything." It's a "highly complex" case, he protested, and we have "our international commitments," and anyway the issue is now before the courts, and he will wait for the court's ruling.

Well, yes, so shall we all. It's presently before federal court Justice Russel W. Zinn; and the Department of Justice legal eagles sound as desperate as Cannon. Today the complainant's team made its case, while Abdelrazik watched by videolink. Tomorrow the respondent (the government of Canada) will mount its defence of the indefensible. But it has already offered us a foretaste. Before Abdelrazik co-counsel Paul Champ was a quarter-inch into his submissions, government counsel was rising to object to raising the issue of the refusal to issue a temporary passport to allow Abdelrazik to return home.

This matter is central to the complainant's case, of course. Incredibly, government counsel claimed it was excluded under "settlement privilege," because there had been (apparently) a settlement conference late last year which none of us in the audience had heard of, and about which it would be imprudent to speculate. The conference obviously got nowhere, in any case, but the issuance of a travel document had apparently come up during the course of it. That legal ploy was, to put it mildly, a long shot, and Justice Zinn promptly ruled against it.

There had been other such moves earlier in the day. Government lawyers tried to exclude all mention of torture, which Abdelrazik claims to have suffered at the hands of the Sudanese government. He has the scars to prove it, in fact, but the Justice Department claims his wounds were self-inflicted--tribal scars, said mouthpiece Anne Turley, indicating, at the very least, a profound ignorance of both Africa and of the religion of Islam, which forbids defacing the skin.

Today consisted primarily of a recitation of the facts with which Canadians are now sadly familiar. Yavar Hameed, chief counsel, argued his case on the basis of Section 6.1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: "Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada." The question before the court, he said, came down to Abdelrazik's dependence upon the state to do something to allow him to exercise that right, which, otherwise, remains an abstraction.

Hameed led the court through a dismal list of acts of "procrastination, evasiveness, obfuscation and general bad faith" shown by both the Conservative and predecessor Liberal governments: a litany of broken promises and endlessly moving goalposts, as officials frankly toyed with Abdelrazik, lulling him with false hope while deliberately frustrating him at every turn.

There was the promise of a private charter plane in 2004, then the Sudanese offer to fly him home later that year, the hope of returning later with then-PM Paul Martin who was on an official visit to the Sudan, and 106 Canadian Forces non-stop flights between the two countries while he was marooned there. Somehow these all became "missed opportunities."

More recently, there were the sadistic games played by the Conservative government: first promising him his travel document if he could find an airline willing to fly him; then, when he'd done that, demanding a fully paid up ticket, knowing he was destitute and relying on shadowy anti-terrorist regulations to keep others from buying it for him (a ticket was purchased anyway); and then the execrable Lawrence Cannon invoking "national security" after everything else had blown up in his face.

Abdelrazik's legal representatives are asking for three things:

1) repatriation by any safe means at the government's disposal;
2) that Justice Zinn stay seized of the case until Abdelrazik is on Canadian soil; and
3) solicitor-client costs (which will be discussed after the judge gives his ruling on the application.

The government is up at 9:00am tomorrow. Stay tuned. It won't be pretty.

[H/t "sitsonsix"]

______________________________
*UN resolution 1390, Section 2b: With respect to persons on the list, member states are obligated to "[p]revent the entry into or the transit through their territories of these individuals, provided that nothing in this paragraph shall oblige any State to deny entry into or require the departure from its territories of its own nationals and this paragraph shall not apply where entry or transit is necessary for the fulfilment of a judicial process or the Committee determines on a case by case basis only that entry or transit is justified." [emphasis added]

Abdelrazik: The NDP stands up

Reader "Navvy" recently conveyed his concern to the leader of the NDP about the Conservative government's abominable treatment of Abousfian Abdelrazik . He received this response from Jack Layton:

Thank you for writing in support of Mr. Abdelrazik and his return to Canada I share your concern to have this matter successfully resolved—immediately.

A new development to this situation is underway. On April 2nd, New Democrat Foreign Affairs Critic Paul Dewar was successful in having his motion passed at the Foreign Affairs and International Development Committee that summons Abousfian Abdelrazik to appear as a Committee witness. Now, we want the Harper government to do the right thing and bring Mr. Abdelrazik home.

We have consistently called upon the Harper government to live up to its international obligations and immediately repatriate Abousfian Abdelrazik. "It’s time to end six years of misery for this Canadian citizen and bring him home," said Mr. Dewar. “The only obstacle standing between Mr. Abdelrazik and his flight home to Canada is this Conservative government.”

For more information on our position, please visit: http://www.ndp.ca/press/new-democrats-demand-repatriation-canadian-citizen-abdelrazik.

Again, I appreciate knowing of your interest to help Mr. Abdelrazik. I invite you to visit our website at www.ndp.ca to learn more about the work being done by our team of New Democrats. All the best.

Sincerely,

Jack Layton, MP (Toronto-Danforth)
Leader, Canada’s New Democrats

Meanwhile, blogger Darryl Raymaker reminds us that Abdelrazik is not the only victim of the government's brutal assault on his Charter rights.

The extraordinary rendition of Abousfian Abdelrazik

The journalistic pitbull Paul Koring is chewing again this morning, in a devastating report that implicates the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) in a collaboration with the genocidal Sudanese regime to imprison and torture a Canadian citizen.

Abousfian Abdelrazik, of whom I have written many times, is a Canadian presently marooned in our embassy in Sudan. The Harper government and the Foreign Affairs department have been playing a sadistic game of cat and mouse with Abdelrazik in recent months, but the events outlined in today's Globe and Mail report took place under the Liberal governments of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin.

Abdelrazik was arrested on September 10, 2003, while he was visiting his ailing mother in Sudan. According to a document reproduced in Koring's account--a smoking gun, as NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar points out--this was done on the direct request of CSIS, which had every reason to believe that he would be tortured, as indeed he was over a lengthy period in a Sudanese jail before even the Sudanese government concluded that he was innocent of any wrong-doing and set him free.

Ministry of Justice officials, clearly embarrassed by the case, actually tried to persuade Abdelrazik to say that the torture-scars on his body were self-inflicted. Canadian diplomats were ordered to refuse him assistance while he was interrogated in a Khartoum prison by US agents. And CSIS operatives participated in the interrogations while Abdelrazik was being held.

We should be proud. Canada is all grown up now. We can do extraordinary renditions just like Uncle Sam.

After release, Abdelrazik was refused travel documents to return home. He was then promised them if he obtained an airplane reservation. He did, and the Harper government moved the goalposts, insisting that the destitute Abdelrazik produce a fully paid-up ticket to return home. At the same time, it has threatened to prosecute anyone who tries to help him pay for one.

Well, I sent him some money a few days ago, c/o The Embassy of Canada, PO Box 10503, Khartoum, Sudan. I dare the authorities to come after me. Others have stepped up as well, but not nearly enough.

Send a message to our government, Foreign Affairs officials and our very own secret police. Join the "Help Abousfian Abdelrazik get a ticket home" Facebook group, mail him a contribution, and stand up as citizens for our shared values of fairness and common decency. This disgraceful saga must be brought to an end. Let's do our part to make it happen.

UPDATE: CSIS literally out of control?

A Montreal man stranded in Sudan after being cleared of terrorist links has lodged a formal complaint against the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

But the watchdog over the spy agency says it may not have authority to fully investigate the case.

Anyone remember Abousfian Abdelrazik?

Exiled for six years, Abousfian Abdelrazik returned to Canada last June after his case became a cause célèbre and a federal court ruled that the Harper government, and in particular Foreign Affairs minister Lawrence Cannon, were in clear violation of Abdelrazik's Charter rights.

All OK? Everything fixed? Not by a long shot.

Abdelrazik was in federal court today to watch the first of what may be many federal government motions intended to hack away at his pending lawsuit against his disgraceful treatment at the hands of the government and Cannon. So egregious was the latter's conduct that Mr. Justice Russel Zinn, who forced Abdelrazik's return, observed:

I find that the applicant’s Charter right as a citizen of Canada to enter Canada has been breached by the respondents in failing to issue him an emergency passport. In my view, it is not necessary to decide whether that breach was done in bad faith; a breach, whether made in bad faith or good faith remains a breach and absent justification under section 1 of the Charter, the aggrieved party is entitled to a remedy. Had it been necessary to determine whether the breach was done in bad faith, I would have had no hesitation making that finding on the basis of the record before me. [emphasis added]

Federal government lawyers were arguing this morning that the part of his lawsuit directed against Cannon himself for malfeasance in office should be struck because the court lacked jurisdiction. They will be spending the next day or so attempting to cut the rest of his suit down to size, but, contrary to earlier newspaper reports, they claim that it is not their intention to quash the action--at least, not entirely.

Meanwhile, as Gerald Caplan noted on Friday, Citizen Abdelrazik lives in a prison without walls. Because he remains on the UN "no-fly" list, under Canadian law (specifically the United Nations Act) Abdelrazik is barred from employment or material support of any kind. In fact it is illegal to do so much as buy the man a cup of coffee.

The very fact that he walked into the courtroom today rather than arriving in a coffin indicates that the law is being broken. And it's time for more people to do so.

The continued victimization of Abdelrazik is indefensible in a free and democratic society. On April 28, there is to be a "sanctions-busting telethon" to challenge this odious law by soliciting pledges of support. Later on, I am informed, Abdelrazik may be offered short-term employment by various organizations, again in defiance of the law. This is righteous, old-fashioned civil disobedience at its finest, and here's hoping for wide and determined participation on behalf of our fellow-citizen.

Abdelrazik: "It's like Kafka, isn't it?"

Today the government presented its case, and counsel Anne "didn't you really torture yourself?" Turley began with a procedural bombshell.

In her opening remarks, she stated that once Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon invoked "national security" under S.10.1 of the Canadian Passport Order, as he did on April 3, the presiding judge has no jurisdiction to determine if an emergency passport was denied improperly or not. The correct procedure, she stated, is to seek judicial review of the Minister's decision in a separate proceeding, and the deadline for that expired this past Monday. The Minister's exercise of discretion, she said, was therefore not properly before the court.

Sn. 10.1, she argued, in effect, gives the Minister virtually unfettered discretion to refuse to issue passports or revoke them at will. And the Minister's action, she said with a straight face, wasn't "part of a pattern." Justice Russel Zinn, of course, will have to determine whether this latest move, after a string of broken promises, is something entirely new that wipes the previous slate clean.

Turley then outlined a number of measures allegedly taken on Abdelrazik's behalf during his long exile in the Sudan. She argued that all kinds of consular assistance was offered, especially when he was in a Sudanese jail, but made the claim--to be echoed later by her sidekick Elizabeth Richards--that in any case no Canadian citizen has a legal right to consular assistance.

Before the UN placed Abdelrazik on its "no-fly" list in 2006, she claimed, Embassy staff were indeed trying to help him get repatriated. But somehow all of those plans fell through, including an offer, then repeated, by the Sudanese authorities to fly him to Canada themselves. What happened to those latter opportunities remains shrouded in mystery--or, as some might argue, in obfuscation.

She went on to argue that the mobility rights section of the Charter (Sn. 6) doesn't guarantee a right to travel though other countries. And a country's airspace is part of that nation, she said, invoking various international conventions. Hence Abdelrazik can't come home without transiting through the sovereign territory of other nations. A UN exemption for a national returning home, she said, only allows entry to a state, not transit through other states. In fact the UN, she went on, expressly forbids other nations to permit entry to those on the UN list. All this, she said, "makes perfect sense."

She then attempted to distinguish the Abdelrazik case from a recent similar one in which the UN had granted an exemption to a person on the list to travel from the UK to Somalia, with a stop in Nairobi, Kenya. The person involved has received an exemption to land in Kenya on the way back. What she failed to mention (but Paul Koring of the Globe and Mail noted to me in conversation) was that no overflight states in that case were covered in the exemption. Nevertheless, his repatriation duly took place. And in that case, an exemption was actually sought: whereas (and government counsel was vague on this point) the Canadian government, for all of the "help" they allegedly offered Abdelrazik, never sought such an exemption.

In the afternoon, Elizabeth Richards took over. She stated that under UN rules, Abdelrazik can make an application for an exemption all by himself, and bring evidence to support his request.

The response from Justice Zinn was swift:

"It's like Kafka, isn't it?"

He pointed out that Abdelrazik has no idea of either the evidence that put him on the list in the first place, or what evidence he should bring to overturn the decision.

Plowing along, Richardson, like Turley, argued that everything the government has or hasn't done to or for Abdelrazik is within its executive discretion. Consular assistance is discretionary. The Minister's decisions are discretionary. Asking the UN for an exemption for one of its citizens is discretionary. So I learned from government representatives today what a Canadian passport is worth if you get stuck overseas--whatever the government wants it to be worth. There is no legal obligation, said Richardson, for the government to come to the aid of its citizens.

(Imagine, whispered Koring to me, a lawyer standing up in an American court to argue that the US has no obligation to free its citizens from Somali pirates.)

In any case, the government argued, Canada isn't the problem here. It's a third party--the UN--that stands in Abdelrazik's way. Surely, asked the judge, issuing an emergency passport would be sufficient to get him home, so that not doing so is a violation of his mobility rights under the Charter?

Not so fast, was the response. The Charter doesn't even apply here, but if it does, the most you can do is ask the Minister to take a second look at his original decision. It would be most improper, they argued, for the judge to order that an emergency passport be issued--that's treading on executive authority and power.

What we had here, in a nutshell, was an argument for nearly unfettered discretion by Ministers to make decisions, and never mind the Charter of Rights and Freedoms--they have a kind of sovereign immunity, virtually shielded from judicial action.

So now we wait for the judge's verdict, while the government busies itself trying to keep another beige citizen out of Canada, Omar Khadr. It is appealing a lower court order to make every attempt to bring him home. Too bad, as I've said before (but it bears repeating) that neither of the people in question are lightskinned Canadians surnamed "Martin."

Our shameful, dangerous government

The Conservative government has refused Abousfian Abdelrazik the travel documents that he requires to come home to his family after being exiled for six years.

Abdelrazik is a Canadian citizen, and a victim of Canada's program of extraordinary rendition that landed him in a Sudanese jail in 2003 while he was visiting his ailing mother. He was tortured, although Foreign Affairs apparatchiks tried to claim that his scars were self-inflicted. But he was eventually released by Sudanese officials, who stated that he had done nothing wrong.

CSIS, which appears to have gotten him into trouble in the first place, is now loudly protesting that it did nothing of the kind, and has given him a clean bill of health. Ditto the RCMP.

He is presently living in the Canadian Embassy in Khartoum. He was told last year that he would be issued travel documents if he could find an airline to fly him home. He did. The government then demanded a fully-paid-up ticket from the destitute Abdelrazik. Anyone who helped him pay for it, however, would face up to ten years in jail. We bought him his ticket anyway.

Then our Minister of Foreign Affairs, the "Honourable" Lawrence Cannon, announced a few days ago that Abdelrazik would have to get himself off a UN "no-fly" list upon which some unaccountable, paranoid American official had requested that he be placed. Asking this of a destitute man in Khartoum was an act of pure sadism. It is legally unnecessary for him to be removed from the list anyway, since UN regulations explicitly permit a person on it to return to his country of origin.

The rule of law in Canada is now officially dead. If any citizen--and I don't give a damn whether his name is Abousfian Abdelrazik or Bob Smith--can be summarily deprived of his rights by the fiat of a government minister, we're all in serious trouble.

Abdelrazik, supposedly innocent until proven guilty, has never faced charges, let alone been tried for anything. But the Harper government has sentenced him to exile, a penalty that doesn't even exist in Canadian law. This government is flagrantly in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees any citizen the right to enter and move freely within Canada.

"Canada's New Government" doesn't care. It considers itself above the law and beyond the law, as it breaks the law. It is counting, I believe, on the acquiescence of Canadians in its on-going illegal vendetta against our fellow-citizen. After all, Abdelrazik is the wrong colour, and he worships the wrong God. And his name...well, it just doesn't sound "Canadian," does it?

But make no mistake. If the government can bypass due process to deprive Abousfian Abdelrazik of his civil rights today, it can go after Bob Smith tomorrow. And unless we nip this in the bud right now, there will be nobody left to stand up for him. Or you. Or me.

Let Stephen Harper, Lawrence Cannon and your own MP know how you feel. And get involved. Because they only do what we let them do.

Abdelrazik: an American visitor [updated]

Details are sketchy at the moment, but it appears that Abousfian Abdelrazik, scheduled to return to Canada on Saturday afternoon, was questioned by a US official at the Canadian Embassy today.

Abdelrazik's lawyer, Yavar Hameed, was only able to confirm that his client had been asked about his condition. How odd: the Embassy inviting an American official into the building to ask after Abdelrazik's health.

Hameed is understandably nervous that no assurances have been given by Foreign Affairs with respect to prevention measures in case of an attempt to intercept his client on the way to the Khartoum airport or during the course of the trip, whose details are being kept secret.

I don't know whether he's overblowing this or not. But I, for one, won't breathe easily until Abdelrazik steps off the plane in Toronto. I understand he feels the same way. Slip. Cup. Lip.

UPDATED: (June 26) Looks like Hameed's fears are not entirely unfounded. Wheels within wheels--is Foreign Affairs going to make good, or is it going to renege because of (American) "reticence," or is it actively complicit in some attempt to intercept Abdelrazik--another case of "extraordinary rendition?"

Stay tuned. My eyes are glued to the set at this point. Try to imagine how Abdelrazik feels at the moment.

[H/t Frank Frink]

UPPERDATE: (June 26, 10:57) Abdelrazik has cleared the first hurdle.

Abousfian Abdelrazik update

Last week's successful Abdelrazik telethon netted several thousand dollars--and a list of more than a hundred Canadians willing to break the law.

As I have noted previously, Canadian legislation prohibits any material support to a person on the infamous UN "1267 list." It is illegal to do so much as buy our fellow-citizen a cup of coffee. The fact that he is alive today means that the law has been continually broken since his return.

Readers will recall that Abdelrazik's life savings--$10,000 from his late wife--was recently seized:

The Royal Bank refused to open a bank account for him on the grounds that this would violate the Canadian 1267 regulations. The Caisse populaire subsequently agreed to open an account, only to freeze it, with Abdelrazik's entire savings, shortly afterwards.

In the midst of the telethon, it was announced that an "exemption" had been obtained by Abdelrazik's lawyers, whereby he could draw what amounts to an allowance from that bank account to cover his basic needs. But as one commentator put it, this is simply a window in his prison. And for those interested in sovereignty issues, permission for this had to be obtained from UN Security Council drones in New York.

In any case,

[T]he exemption is not enough. Addressing Stephen Harper and Foreign Affairs minister Lawrence Cannon directly, Abdelrazik pleaded, through an Arabic-speaking interpreter: "I'm asking you at least for once to give priority to the human side. My kids, my family, have suffered for seven years. Please address the United Nations and ask that my name by taken off this inhuman list. I want to live like any other Canadian. I want a normal life."

That he should have to beg like this is indicative of how low Canada has sunk under the current government.

Those who wish to make Abdelrazik feel at home in his own country can join the sanctions-busting movement by getting in touch with Project Fly Home, and by donating directly. Cheques or money-orders should be made out to Abousfian Abdelrazik, and mailed to CSCP Charlevoix, P.O. Box 65053, Montréal, Q.C., H3K 0K4.

Stay tuned: more developments in the campaign are in the offing.

"I just want to live my life like a normal Canadian"

Abousfian Abdelrazik held his first press conference this morning, on Parliament Hill, appropriately enough. The story he told is a chilling one, with CSIS, Foreign Affairs officials and the Conservative government front and centre.

Calling CSIS "Canada's Mukhābarāt," he described what life was like for him in Montreal immediately following 9/11. CSIS agents began to hound him and his family, going so far as to pester his wife in hospital, where she was dying of cancer. They offered her "better cancer treatment in the US" if she would cooperate in their investigation of Abdelrazik. She told them that if they had any evidence that he'd done anything wrong, they should charge him.

When he received news that his mother was ill in Sudan, he decided to visit her, partly, he said, to get away from relentless CSIS persecution. Two CSIS agents came to his apartment for one last visit, asking him where he was off to, and then answering their own question--Sudan.

The exasperated Abdelrazik called the police to remove the agents from his premises. One told him, "You will see."

He arrived in Sudan on March 4, 2003. He visited his family and everything seemed normal, he said. Then he was kidnapped by Sudanese military intelligence, and kept in a tiny cell for 12 days, during which time no one asked him anything at all. Then he was brought out for interrogation.

He was asked questions by the Sudanese, not about Sudan, but about people in Montreal. He spent the next few months in prison. In October, 2003, he was brought into a room with two CSIS agents, one of whom had visited his apartment in Montreal, who said, "Remember I told you in Montreal you will see, and now you will see."

He underwent two days of interrogation, during which time the same questions were asked as the ones put to him earlier by the Sudanese. He said he wanted to rejoin his family in Canada. "You're Sudanese, not Canadian," one of the agents said. "My country doesn't need you." He told the agents he was willing to face any charges they might wish to bring. The response: "Sudan will be your Guantanamo."

He was returned to prison, and the real torture started: beatings, being tied to the door-frame of his cell, months of isolation. By the end of March, 2004, he had reached his limit, as he put it, pleading to have a lawyer and be brought to trial. There will be no lawyer and no trial, he was told, and if he didn't shut his mouth there would be "difficulties." He was released from this first period of detention in July, 2004.

At that point he was desperate to get back to Canada, but a consular official told him, "Why? Sudan is your country."

In November 2005, he was contacted by Sudanese military intelligence, who said they had received some documents from Canada and would appreciate having a chat with him. Abdelrazik stopped by the Canadian Embassy and spoke with the Ambassador, saying he didn't want to be re-arrested and sent to jail again. The Ambassador said he had been given assurances that this would not happen, but of course it did. He was able to call the Ambassador to let him know, before his cellphone was taken away

Nine more months of confinement followed, in a prison notorious even in Sudan as a place where people are simply forgotten about. He was beaten with a hose, tied up, and contracted both malaria and typhoid: in a marvellous bit of understatement, he said that at this point he was suffering "depression."

In July, 2006, he was released from prison for the second time. The Sudanese, who had, it seems, been holding him on CSIS' say-so, were no longer convinced he was guilty of anything.

He spent the next three years trying to return to Canada.

In March, 2008, he met Conservative MP Deepak Obhrai in the Canadian Embassy, who proceeded to interrogate him about links with Osama bin Laden, and what he thought about 9/11, and his opinions of Israel and Hamas. He was told that he wouldn't get any assistance if he didn't cooperate. He showed Obhrai scars from his torture, and was amazed: Obhrai showed absolutely no reaction and walked away.

A month later, Abdelrazik decided to go public. Given that his mistreatment at the hands of the Sudanese would be a significant part of his story, his lawyers in Canada advised him to seek refuge at the Canadian Embassy, which he did. "It felt like another prison," he said.

Answering questions after his statement, Abdelrazik said that "physically, I am here, but I'm still on the list: I can't get a job, receive medical care, can't even receive a small gift from my own family."

"I just want to live my life like a normal person, a normal human being, a normal Canadian."

There's some way to go yet, I think. Some long way to go.

UPDATE: Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon demonstrates his usual class:

Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon, in a letter delivered Thursday, told Mr. Abdelrazik to check out a UN website that explains delisting procedures for individuals. “I regret to inform you that I must decline your invitation to meet,” the minister wrote. [emphasis added]

It was Mr. Cannon who labelled Mr. Abdelrazik a threat to national security, in spite of the fact that he had been cleared by CSIS and the RCMP. Mr. Cannon made no mention of the fact that the Harper government had already sought – in December of 2007 – to have Mr. Abdelrazik delisted after the security agencies said they had knew of no reason not to back the request.

That delisting application was vetoed, apparently by the United States, which originally put him on the blacklist.

Although individuals can apply for “delisting,” only governments can add people to the terrorist blacklist, and unless all 15 members of the Security Council agree to a delisting, it is denied. UN sources confirm that no one has ever been delisted without the backing of their government.

Let the Black man twist in the wind a little longer, eh, Minister? This song is dedicated to you--and to your type.

UPPERDATE: (July 25) Peter Van Loan, Minister of Public Safety, joins the lynch mob. [H/t Alison at Creekside]

Abdelrazik: dirty work at the crossroads

A "narrative" implicating Abousfian Abdelrazik in terrorism has surfaced on a United Nations website--just as he is about to return home to Canada after a six-year battle.

Paul Koring has it all this morning in the Globe & Mail. The issue is not whether the unsourced allegations have any merit--I have no idea, I don't know Abdelrazik personally. But the suspicious timing of the "narrative" should arouse our concerns.

At this point he's got a clean bill of health from both the RCMP and CSIS. The Sudanese tortured him for a while and then pronounced him innocent of any terrorist involvement. And we know, from the disgraceful tale of Maher Arar, that many fingers were pointed at many innocent people in the paranoia that boiled up after 9/11.

It gets worse. The name of Abu Zubaydah has been raised in the UN gossip-column as well. His adventures at the hands of American authorities--going all the way up to then-President George W. Bush, where the buck stops--is an ugly story in itself. Believed to be a top-ranking al-Qaeda operative, it turns out he was a low-level munchkin who had done little and seen less. But they broke him, with beatings, suspension from a ceiling, sleep deprivation, and 83 waterboardings.

A tiny fraction of that and I would be prepared to swear that I was bin Laden's golf partner.

Zubaydah apparently implicated Abdelrazik in something. Omar Khadr, under torture in Guantanamo, implicated Maher Arar, too. But that story soon fell apart. Torture induces narratives, but they tend, in reality, to be the narratives of the torturer.

Koring notes that the UN posting is unprecedented: such announcements usually appear in groups, but this was the first time a solo posting has been made. Here's Abdelrazik's lawyer, Yavar Hameed:

It's highly irregular and I don't believe it is coincidental that the UN posted this one on the eve of Mr. Abdelrazik's return. It smacks of smear by association; if there was anything criminal or substantive in terms of terrorist activity then I think our security services or those of the United States would have launched a prosecution.

We know, of course, that the US wanted information from Canada to help prosecute Abdelrazik under the lower standards employed by the Americans in such cases. But there is no evidence that the Canadian authorities had any such information to provide--it appears not, since no prosecution was ever launched.

Again, however, the timing and the presentation of this unsourced rag-bag of allegations are suspicious in the extreme. Is the Harper government trying to recover from months of damaging publicity, and build an alibi for its shameful conduct, by means of the United Nations Security Council 1267 committee?

Abousfian Abdelrazik: "You want we should take care of him, Boss?"

Abousfian Abdelrazik is back in Canada. But new revelations about the government's dubious handling of his case have been unearthed by the Globe & Mail's indefatigable Paul Koring. Briefly, the Sudanese government was considering "disappearing" Abdelrazik in 2006--and Canadian diplomats in Khartoum were ordered to take no action.

The Sudanese, having apprehended Abdelrazik on the say-so of Canadian intelligence, wanted closure. If Canada was not going to repatriate him, it informed Canadian officials in early 2006, it would carry out its own "permanent solution."

But as Koring reports:

Instead of protesting the threat or warning Sudan – a regime notorious for its human rights abuses – that Ottawa would hold it responsible if harm came to a Canadian citizen held in one of its prisons, diplomats in Khartoum were ordered by a senior Canadian intelligence official to deliver a non-committal response "notwithstanding the expected displeasure of the Sudanese."

The warning of Abdelrazik's imminent "disappearance," from Canada's top diplomat in Khartoum (presumably the Ambassador at the time, Yves Boulanger), was met with a "take no action" memo from John Di Gangi, then DFAIT's director of foreign intelligence. "You should restate our position and make no further comment," he said.

If this wasn't green-lighting, it was the next thing to it. And this was before Abdelrazik's name had been placed on the UN "no-fly" list at the behest of the Bush administration.

It is unclear, Koring says, whether then-Minister of Foreign Affairs Peter McKay was apprised of this threat: he declined to answer written questions from the Globe and Mail. According to Amnesty International's Alex Neve, however, "One of the key recommendations from the Arar inquiry was that the minister of foreign affairs should become involved in decision-making when there are credible reasons to believe a Canadian is being or has been tortured abroad."

Paul Champ, a lawyer working pro bono on the Abdelrazik case, sums up the attitude of the government:

Canada's tepid reaction can only be described as shocking. This case exemplifies how morally confused Canadian authorities have become in the wake of 9/11. Somehow, human rights have become viewed as an inconvenience, not a legal obligation.

And in this instance, Canada was prepared to resolve the "inconvenience" by permitting, without protest, one of its own citizens to be murdered.

Another marooned Canadian

Meet Abousfian Abdelrazik, yet another beige victim of the Canadian government's subservience to US interests. He joined the ranks of Maher Arar and Omar Khadr as an unwilling exile nearly five years ago, but only this year has his story been told, thanks to the Globe and Mail's Paul Koring, who's been all over this case like a tiger for months now.

Abdelrazik's story began in August 2003, a few weeks after he had arrived in Sudan to visit his ailing mother. On Canada's request (as classified documents bear out) he was snatched off the streets of Khartoum and imprisoned by the kindly folks who brought us the Darfur genocide. He was tortured, and he was interrogated by CSIS operatives who suspected him of having links to al-Qaeda.

Abdelrazik, now in poor health, is presently living in the Canadian Embassy in Khartoum, Sudan, having been granted "temporary safe haven" by the Harper government on April 22. He is unable to return home, although he desperately wants to. Why? Because he found himself on a UN "no-fly" list, placed there at the request of an unidentified country:

He remains on international and Canadian “no-fly” lists because some unidentified country – likely the United States or France – blocked Canada's effort to have him removed from the UN Security Council al-Qaeda blacklist.

Getting blacklisted on the so-called 1267 list, named for the UN Security Council Resolution originally co-sponsored by Canada, is easy. Any UN-member country can finger a suspect. Getting off is almost impossible and once listed all UN countries are required to seize the assets of any individual and enforce a travel ban, although returning home is explicitly permitted. [Emphasis mine--DD]

Canada claims officially that he's welcome to come home, but the government has used every means to keep him from doing so, invoking the "no-fly" list (despite the exemption noted above), refusing to issue him a new passport--even preventing the Sudanese authorities from flying him back, and then lying about it.

Abdelrazik has never been charged with anything, but that doesn't matter to the folks wielding power in the post-9/11 panic era. Even the Sudanese government finally exonerated him of terrorist involvement, on July 20, 2007--and the US government helpfully picked up the slack by labeling him a terrorist threat on the very same day and putting him on a "no-fly" list of its own.

(As an aside, a "no-fly" list makes very little sense as a concept. Do we not have the technology and other resources to search an individual thoroughly before he boards a plane?)

A Canadian federal judge was recently asked to rule on the matter of Abdelrazik's considerable legal expenses to date. In a frankly disgraceful comment from the bench, Madam Justice Anne Mactavish told him to hit up his Muslim supporters, his family or Amnesty International if he needed money to pay the bills.

Recall that these expenses were not of his making. He would be home this moment if it hadn't been for the complicity of the Canadian government, both in his original jailing and torture, and now in its refusal to get him back to Canada.

As revealed in a new Koring story today, Canada will not fly him back because it might offend the Americans. Isabelle Desmartis, director of security policy for Transport Canada, and Debra Normoyle, director-general of security and emergency preparedness at Transport Canada, stated in a classified memo on April 30, 2008, that:

Transport Canada and other senior Government of Canada officials should be mindful of the potential reaction of our U.S. counterparts to Abdelrazik's return to Canada as he is on the U.S. No-Fly List and the Department of Treasury's Specially Designated Nationals and blocked Persons.

Odette Gaudet-Fee, a senior Foreign Affairs official in Ottawa, fussed back in May, 2005 that Abdelrazik "has reached the end of his rope, he has no money, no future, very little freedom and no hope. Should this case break wide open in the media, we may have a lot to explaining to do."

You betcha. Keep chewing, Mr. Koring.