Manning case seen as test of Canada’s morals
Tribunal to rule on CBSA’s decision to bar whistleblower from entry
A hearing to determine whether “one of the most well-known whistleblowers in modern history” should be allowed into Canada is a test of this country’s moral compass, one observer is arguing, as the case unfolds.
Chelsea Manning appeared via video conference Friday for the second day of a tribunal hearing that will decide whether the Canada Border Services Agency’s decision to bar the former U.S. soldier from entering this country should stand.
Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison in 2013 by courtmartial under the U.S. Espionage Act for revealing thousands of U.S. government documents, including an infamous video depicting brutality by U.S. military against Iraqi civilians.
Her revelation of the documents to WikiLeaks prompted some to brand her a traitor. Others lauded her for an act of conscience that exposed the conduct of U.S. forces on the ground, which contributed to changing the public discourse about the U.S.-led wars and counterterrorism measures.
Then-U.S. president Barack Obama commuted her sentence “in the interests of justice.” She was released in 2017.
In September of that same year, Manning, who is now a network security consultant and advocate, tried to enter Canada at the St-Bernard-deLacolle port of entry to visit friends in Montreal and organize a series of speaking engagements here. She was turned away for her record of “serious criminality.”
In declaring her inadmissible, Canada Border Services Agency argued the offence Manning was convicted of, if committed in Canada, would equate to treason under the Canadian Criminal Code, for which a 14year imprisonment would be imposed.
Toronto lawyer Hadayt Nazami says much is at stake in what unfolds in the appeal now underway.
“This is not about whether she can come to Canada or not. It’s about the moral standards by which Canada holds itself,” said Nazami, who practises national security, constitutional and human rights law but is not involved in the Manning admissibility case.
“It’s entirely possible that could happen to our own Canadian army and the police. Depending on the consequences, if people see horrible things and events that are morally reprehensible and shock our conscience, they would be afraid to say anything about it.”
After pushing border officials for four years to complete their inadmissibility report and refer the case to the independent tribunal, Manning’s lawyers, Joshua Blum and Lex Gill, argued those offences were not equivalent and that Canadian statutes have provisions for whistleblower protection their client is entitled to. In addition, her lawyers said, Manning’s disclosure of U.S. government documents was justified due to public interest.
On Friday, Osgoode Hall law professor Heidi Matthews testified before the tribunal as an expert witness to the role Manning’s disclosure played in the U.S. and its allies’ military activity from the perspective of international law and public discourse.
In a report she submitted to the tribunal, Matthews said the information Manning disclosed details evidence of violations of international human rights law, as well as domestic military and civilian law, that “put truth to the lie about the humanitarian commitments of counter-insurgency doctrine.”
“Ms. Manning’s leaks unveil the fundamental inhumanity of the War on Terror. In revealing the actual extent of the civilian cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Ms. Manning’s leaks upended the humanitarian story told,” Matthews said.
Among the documentation Manning revealed was a video dubbed “Collateral Murder” by WikiLeaks, which shows an Apache attack helicopter firing on a group of men in Baghdad, killing 11, including two Reuters journalists, Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh.
This incident, according to Matthews, occurred during the troop “surge” that was supposed to give effect to the heavy resource demands of the “kinder, gentler” counterinsurgent approach to the Iraq War.
For years, said the report, Reuters had tried to obtain video footage of the incident through Freedom of Information Act requests, which had been denied by the U.S. government in an effort to ensure secrecy around the concrete operational details of the Iraq War.
“The Collateral Murder video was a key moment in unmasking the ‘brutal reality’” of counter insurgency doctrine deployed in Iraq, Matthews said in her report.
Calling their client “one of the most well-known whistleblowers in modern history,” Manning’s lawyers did not dispute the act of her disclosure but argued the records disclosed by the former U.S. intelligence analyst was key in transforming the public’s understanding of the so-called “War on Terror.”
Her actions, they argued in their submission, are part of a long tradition of public interest whistle-blowing, without which many crimes and abuses carried out by states and other authorities would never see the light of day.
Watching Manning’s case from the sideline, Nazami said the admissibility provision of Canada’s immigration law does allow room for exemption if the inadmissible person can show the conviction was the result of “political prosecution.”
“Someone convicted in Turkey for insulting the president can argue that the conviction outside of Canada was not a real crime in this country,” explained Nazami. “In other words, they went after her because of politics, because of her freedom of expression.”
The Canadian border agency, he said, is obliged to demonstrate Manning’s intent to commit a crime.
“She intended to actually do something that she thought in her conscience is noble,” added Nazami. “She didn’t believe it was a crime. According to her, the U.S. army was committing crimes and she opposed that based on her conscience.”
Nazami believes the action taken by Ottawa against Manning is to send a signal that Canada would take the same harsh position like the U.S. did on anyone who does what Manning did.
“So the message is even in our own country, we wouldn’t allow this,” he said.
The tribunal hearing was adjourned. Lawyers for the government have until Nov. 8 to file their final written submission. Counsel for Manning will have 30 days to respond.