Today a federal judge ruled that the Canadian government had violated the constitutional rights of Abousfian Abdelrazik, a Canadian who has been held in Sudan for the last couple of years as the government has refused to let him return.
In the landmark decision,
Russel Zinn noted that "Mr. Abdelrazik's Charter right to enter Canada has been breached by the respondents," and he is "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."
Abdelrazik’s story reads like a cruel joke – something out of a warped comedy that completely misses the mark and leaves us introspective more concerned about the state in which we live. In 2003, Abdelrazik was arrested in Sudan under suspicion of being linked to al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Despite the suspicions, no charges were ever placed on Abdelrazik by any nation while CSIS and the RCMP cleared him of any wrongdoing. Yet he remained in prison in Khartoum until 2006. He was also put on a number of no-fly lists and on the UN’s list of considered al-Qaeda suspects.
But consider some of the facts in Abdelrazik’s story.
After initially being put in prison, the FBI ordered Canadian diplomats not to join Abdelrazik in the interrogations of the FBI and Sudanese intelligence agents. Later on, and after Abdelrazik was out of prison, Canadian officials were instructed not to monitor interrogations by Canadian officials.
While the Canadian government has the right, if not duty, to issue temporary travel papers, using them would require him to fly straight home. Yet because he has been on international “no-fly” lists which prevent him from taking conventional commercial flights, this hasn’t happened. However, the Sudanese government offered to fly him to Canada on a private Sudanese plane. Canada refused the offer.
Fearing for his safety, Abdelrazik took refuge in the Canadian embassy in Sudan in April 2008. The Canadian government has called his situation “temporary”. It has been over a year.
In April 2008, the director of consular affairs in the Department of Foreign Affairs declared that Mr. Abdelrazik was entitled to emergency travel documents that would allow him to get back home. Yet Abdelrazik was not able to leave Sudan because the government refused to issue him travel documents.
This past March, 115 supporters of Abdelrazik presented a ticket for his flight to the Canadian government after the government withdrew its previous reservations. The act appeared to open the door for his return since he would have a pre-paid flight ticket. They then added that anyone who helped to purchase a ticket for Abdelrazik could be charged under anti-Terrorism legislation.
In early April, the Canadian government added an unprecedented barrier to Abdelrazik’s return in saying that they would have to receive approval from every country his plane would fly over in order to get him home. This came despite the recent return by a Somali citizen to his home, arranged by the British government, after spending 5 years in an Italian prison for his associations to terrorist groups. The British did not ask every country his flight would pass over.
Meanwhile,
a UN official noted that "whether it is Abdelrazik or anybody else, it is up to the state in question whether they want to allow the person to come back or not."
This is, of course, not the whole story. But it does tell the tale of a certain level of petty travesty. After the shock subsides, the inevitable question is why on earth this is happening?
This is not to defend Mr. Abdelrazik's. Many observers do not know the details of his case or his past. What we do know is that he has been cleared by the institutions – the RCMP and CSIS – that we, as Canadians citizens, are supposed to believe when they say “Okay, you’re clear. You are innocent.” But every rational effort to get a Canadian back to his country has been thwarted with this or that trying and tiring excuse.
Many still wonder what it is that the government is so afraid of in Abdelrazik’s return. It is possible that Abdelrazik could, in some ways, represent a repeat of the Maher Arar case. Under the suspicion of terrorism, Arar, a Canadian citizen, was deported to Syria where he was tortured, leading to an eventual $10.5 million settlement between the Canadian government and Arar.
While the specifics are not clear, it is rather perplexing, not to mention inexcusable, that Canadian officials wouldn’t be allowed to attend or monitor the interrogation of a Canadian citizen. There is also a legal suit against the government initiated by Abdelrazik in 2007. If there was foul-play, of which the possibilities seem rife, the consequences for the government could be politically damaging.
But if the reason is political expediency, it is as petty as it is unprincipled. In times of uncertain international security we need a government that takes responsibility in protecting our citizens and ensures their fair treatment, not one that hides behind a wall of fallacies chucking legal excuses to prorogue any act of decency on a thorny issue.
Hopefully Judge Zinn's ruling resolves this embarrassment once and for all.
