Justice should win over partisanship

If you must lay blame in Khadr case, then blame the laws of Canada

I want to thank Mr. Maltin for taking the time to research the Khadr case and to respond eloquently to my recent column. I mean that sincerely.

Unfortunately Mr. Maltin falls into the same writer’s trap that I often fall into when I decide to write an column. We begin with a bias and then find evidence to support our foregone conclusions. Mr. Maltin’s foregone conclusion is that Omar Khadr is a treasonous murderer; mine is that it is reasonable to doubt that he had chosen to be there, and, most importantly, to doubt that he actually threw the grenade that killed Sgt. Speer. If ‘reasonable doubt’ exists, then Omar Khadr is not guilty. Much to the chagrin of many conservatives, ‘reasonable doubt’ is the bar which must be crossed in our Canadian legal system.

If it is possible to claim that Omar Khadr is not guilty, then it is also possible to point an indignant and accusing finger at the Harper government for ignoring the pleas of the Supreme Court of Canada and numerous other Canadian judicial bodies, and of Amnesty International, and for coldly and illegally forsaking the rights of a Canadian citizen.

Omar Khadr, a child soldier who was first introduced to the battlefield at age 11, did not belong in Guantanamo, endured unimaginable suffering at the hands of U.S. military torturers, and had an admission of guilt squeezed out of him by torture. That admission of guilt is not admissible in any civilized civilian courtroom. This, again, is much to the chagrin of many conservatives who detest shades of grey in facing moral issues.

One other point, ignored by Mr. Maltin, needs to be reintroduced. There is no question that the Khadr family were militant supporters of Islam, and that Ahmed, the father, was a friend of bin Laden’s. I said this in my column. What also needs to be said (again) is that in the late 1970s and early ’80s, Ahmed’s form of terrorism was seen by the West as disruptive and courageous struggles by Muslim freedom fighters against the invading Russians. The West loved these bearded bandits and poured money and arms at them, cheering as the ragged rebels routed the invaders. So, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Talk about shades of grey.

I should also point out that CSIS, in its present from, came into being through the 1977-81 McDonald Commission which recommended the creation of a modern spy agency, separate from the RCMP, which was proving to be inept. At the time major areas of concern were the activities of Quebec separatists, the Black Panthers in the U.S., the IRA in Northern Ireland, the Red Brigade in Germany, and other radical leftist groups. Muslim extremists were not on anyone’s radar. It is disingenuous, therefore, to blame Pierre Trudeau and CSIS for letting Ahmed Khadr into Canada in 1975.

I agree, however, that the Khadr family, after 1990, should have been marked as a terrorist threat and been monitored. Their activities were clearly a threat to Canada. But they were allowed to roam freely, back and forth to Afghanistan, to attend social functions with bin Laden, to send their sons to terrorist training camps, unhindered by either the Mulroney or the Chretien government. This lack of oversight was not a partisan thing. There is plenty of blame all around. And yes, we could have and should have done better.

The more important point, however, in examining the Khadr case, is the strange leap made by Mr. Maltin and his conservative law and order gang. In Canada, thank goodness, the child is not held accountable for the actions of his parents, nor their religion nor the colour of their skin. In Canada, thank goodness, one is held accountable before the law by one’s personal choices, one’s intentionality, one’s awareness that actions have consequences.

And one last point. Omar Khadr was granted a monetary compensation package of $10.5 million and an apology by the present government. It is clear that Canada was remiss in abandoning one of its citizens to cruel and unusual punishment. This callous inaction by the Harper government was heading towards a settlement of over $40 million in our court system. The present government acted quickly and chose to pay the much smaller amount in admission of wrongs committed by previous governments. Hence the apology.

If you want to blame someone, don’t blame the present government. Blame the laws of Canada, and the Supreme Court of Canada. As for me, I’ll take justice over partisanship anytime. And so should you, Mr. Maltin.

Peter Mueller is a long-time resident of Medicine Hat who, in spite of all the evidence, continues to believe we can build a better world.