Will PM act honourably on Khadr?

The Khadr stew still simmers. “The measure of a just society is not whether we stand up for people’s rights when it’ s easy or popular to do so, it’s whether we recognize rights when it’s difficult, when it’s unpopular.” That was Justin Trudeau’s initial public response last week in Ireland. The settlement was primarily a matter of national honour.

Well, if the settlement — amount and apology — is really a case of doing the honourable and virtuous thing, regardless of public sentiment, why has the Prime Minister not highlighted the decision, boldly stood up and clearly stated the thinking behind the government’s actions?

Instead, the Khadr settlement reached Canadian ears, as I wrote earlier, by a leak between our Canada Day celebrations and Trudeau’s trip out of the country. A time chosen for least impact and greatest distraction.

Honour doesn’t hide or speak from behind a curtain. If our “just society” is proud of doing the right thing when “it’s difficult,” why hasn’t the Prime Minister, on so central a subject, dedicated one specific appearance to explaining it?

This week, back on Canadian soil, the rationale has shifted. Trudeau, again:

“If we had continued to fight this, not only would we have inevitably lost, but estimates range from $ 30- 40 million that it would have ended up costing the government.”

Last week, it was national honour at stake. This week, it’s expediency. We settled not for virtue’s sake but for the money. Honour and expediency are not twins, however much the latter likes to dress as the former.

This week, the decision is presented as an inevitability. “Had we continued to fight” we would have “inevitably lost.” A very strange statement for a civil action, any court action.

No court case has an inevitable outcome. Inevitable outcomes would obviate the need for courts in the first place. God forbid, and let the heavens fall, we wouldn’t need lawyers either.

That which is “inevitable” invites no considerations of either the Charter or honour. Fate rules all. This week’s comments explode last week’s rationale.

Trudeau’s performance to date suggests a politician auditioning his responses, trying to find the one to match the country’s mood, rather more than a person con- vinced of his own choices.

It also suggests he doesn’t know why t he public is angry. There are three “actors” in the Khadr story. In order of influence and importance, they are: ( a) his family, ( b) the Americans, and (c) the Canadian government.

By far the main reason Khadr was in Afghanistan, in the firefight, and for that matter in Guantanamo, was ( a) his own family, father, mother and sister. It was his father, Osama bin Laden’s friend, who made him the child soldier. He wasn’t kidnapped in some civil war as are the majority of these unfortunates. He was designed by his own parent to be such. That’s a distinguishing feature of this case.

The Americans, our allies, had him in Guantanamo, and by their l i ghts very rightly. He killed one of their soldiers, a medic; they saved him and fixed his eyes. And, however long he was there, they consented to his repatriation.

Then there’s us, the Canadians, last on the scale. So people are wondering, of this trinity of causes, why is the Canadian government, the least responsible of the three, the one making the huge cash settlement and public apologies? They are further enflamed when they ask, very legitimately: was release from Guantanamo, repatriation, full return of citizenship and escape from all penalty, and a cleansing apology, not “reparation” enough?

And finally, not to avoid a matter that should not be avoided, Canadian soldiers, especially those wounded in Afghanistan from IEDs, must be asking which of them has been so distinguished with a cash bonanza for doing the right thing by their country? Why someone, who at the very least, regardless of his “child soldier” status, killed an allied soldier, and possibly was complicit in the wounding of Canadian soldiers, receives prime ministerial absolution and a vast cash reward.

They sense a drastic incompatibility between the treatment many of them have received and Khadr’s situation. This is the greatest gap in the government’s explanation so far.

These are some of the reasons why people are angry. The Prime Minister has not addressed these questions. If it’s all about honour and how a just society acts, he will.

LAST WEEK, IT WAS NATIONAL HONOUR. THIS WEEK IT’S EXPEDIENCY.