Nation ignores U.N. criticism
Moral victories may have the sweet taste of success, but they don’t provide much lasting sustenance. Right now, human rights campaigners, anti-poverty activists, feminists and groups representing racial minorities and native women are savouring a rare triumph. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has just issued a stinging report, endorsing all of their complaints about the way Canada treats vulnerable minorities.
It chastises the federal and provincial governments for: ‰ Using security certificates to arrest, detain and expel immigrants, without disclosing the evidence against them or giving them a chance to refute it. ‰ Allowing native land claims negotiations to drag on for years, while band members languish in poverty. ‰ Failing to prevent — or even document — the high rate of violence against aboriginal women. ‰ Assigning male correctional officers to guard female prisoners. ‰ Locking up people with mental illnesses because supportive housing is not available. ‰ Brushing off allegations that Canadian officials were complicit in the torture of three Canadian citizens — Abdullah Almalki, Ahmed Elmaati and Muayyed Nureddin — in Syria. ‰ Enacting anti- terrorism legislation that is too broad and imprecise.
Everything civil libertarians had been saying for years was echoed by the global panel.
There was just one problem. And it was spelled out clearly on page 2 of the report: “The committee notes with concern that many of the recommendations it addressed to the State party ( the federal Liberals) in 1999 remain unimplemented. It also regrets that the committee’s previous concluding observations have not been distributed to Members of Parliament and that no parliamentary committee has held hearings on the issues arising from the committee’s observations.”
In short, the government paid no attention to the committee’s last report and, by all appearances, intends to do the same thing again.
There has been no official response from Ottawa. Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan has repeatedly dismissed demands for a public inquiry into Canada’s treatment of suspected terrorists. Queries to the Department of Foreign Affairs about the report went unanswered.
Shelagh Day of the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action, one of the activists who testified before the committee in Geneva, admits that policy- makers seem unconcerned by the committee’s censure. Nevertheless, she insists, it was useful to get such a strongly worded report.
“I think international embarrassment increases the pressure to live up to our obligations,” Day says.
Alex Neve of Amnesty International concurs. “ The U. N. recommendations are clear,” he says. “ Now the government must close the human rights gap and really fulfill its responsibilities.”
It would be churlish to begrudge these dedicated crusaders their moment of validation. But the evidence suggests that it will not translate into tangible progress.
This raises an important question: What will it take to get Canada’s political leaders to treat human rights lapses seriously? Improved media coverage would help. The U. N. committee’s report received only passing mention in the press. The few of stories that did appear highlighted the panel’s criticism of Canada’s anti- terrorism practices and largely ignored its other concerns. A willingness among opinion leaders to speak out would make a difference. If a handful of corporate executives, university presidents or well- known public figures said they were ashamed of Canada’s human rights record, the government would shake off its torpor. A bubbling up of interest at the community level might get the Liberals moving. MPs seeking re- election would be foolish to turn a deaf ear to citizens’ groups, church organizations, high school classes and articulate voters asking why Canada’s Charter of Rights doesn’t apply to everybody.
Finally, groups fighting for the disadvantaged could use a new strategy. Every few years, they troop off to Geneva, Vienna or New York to urge one of the U.N.’s various committees to blast Canada for failing to reduce poverty, combat discrimination or rectify its human rights shortcomings. Most Canadians have never heard of these agencies. Most journalists don’t learn anything new from their findings, which are based on information from government officials and interest group representatives. The effort and money human rights activists pour into these hearings would be better spent helping the victims of mistreatment speak out; supporting local activists such as the teacher in Kashechewan who sounded the alarm about living conditions on native reserves; and reaching out to community groups, churches, chambers of commerce, professional organizations and people of conscience.
It is embarrassing that 18 adjudicators in Geneva think Canada is falling short of international human rights standards. But it’s what Canadians think and do that matters. Carol Goar’s column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday.