Candians travelling abroad can't depend on our government

[earth_as_one]

Canadian citizen Suaad Hagi Mohamud finally returns home:

Finally released from Kenya, woman already planning return trip

After 12 gruelling weeks in which she stood accused of posing as the owner of her own passport and was barred from leaving Kenya to return home to her 12-year-old son in Toronto, Suaad Hagi Mohamud finally flew out of Africa Friday night. But she hasn’t left her troubles behind.

In a matter of months she hopes to return to care for her ailing mother and to launch lawsuits that will almost certainly keep the memories of her ordeal alive for years.

Even as she waited outside a Nairobi courtroom to learn whether a Kenyan judge would dismiss the charges against her, she planned her return.

Within hours she hoped to be soaring above Nairobi, away from an ordeal that left her mentally exhausted and racked by a case of pneumonia that set in months ago, while she was sleeping on the dank concrete floor of an overcrowded Nairobi prison...

...Hamida Ahmed Muhidin, who said she was the first person Ms. Mohamud called when she was detained at the airport on May 21, “I don’t think I could go to Canada, the way they treat their people. If it could have happened to me, I would find another country.” ...

Finally released from Kenya, woman already planning return trip - The Globe and Mail

Ouch, that comment hurts.

Ms. Mohamud's case is hardly isolated:

Maher Arar. Omar Khadr. Abousfian Abdelrazik. Huseyin Celil. And now Suaad Hagi Mohamud. These are all Canadian citizens who have been left in the lurch by Canada's consular services around the world.

We're not convinced there's a pattern to this, but we can see why some might detect one: All of these people are non-white, Muslim, first- or second-generation immigrants.


We would prefer to believe, dismaying though these conclusions are, one of these two theories: that the level of competence in Canada's consular offices overseas is at a terrifying low, or that security paranoia has gripped our government so hard that it chooses to brush aside citizens' rights.



Consider what happened to Suaad Hagi Mohamud. After visiting her mother in Kenya, Mohamud, 31, was stopped by a Kenyan airport official who thought she did not look enough like her 4-year-old Canadian passport picture. Fair enough: Mohamud apparently had lost weight recently.


To prove her Canadian citizenship, Mohamud then provided the following: an Ontario driver's licence, a health-care card, a citizenship certificate, a social-insurance card, a credit card, bank cards, a hospital card, a drugstore card, a note from her Toronto employer, and a recently-dated Toronto dry-cleaning receipt.

And yet officials at the Canadian high commission in Kenya chose to reject all her documents, voided her passport, and sent it to local authorities so they could prosecute her for using false travel documents.


Even as Mohamud offered to provide a DNA sample, Canadian officials insisted that it had carried out "conclusive investigations" showing that Mohamud was an imposter. But when the DNA results came in, they showed a 99.99 match between Mohamud and her 12-year-old son in Toronto.


What "conclusive investigations" did Ottawa carry out? What wasn't good enough about the long list of documents Mohamud provided? Even now, Ottawa is making things difficult for her. After leaving her to raise money among the local Somali community to get out of jail, Ottawa won't give her time to collect the bail money and settle her debts, insisting she leave the country immediately...



Canada lets down another citizen abroad

In each of the above cases, the government only acted when they were forced to act by family members or news stories. Sort of makes one wonder how many other Canadians languish in prisons and torture chambers abroad who didn't make the news or had a determined family member fighting on their behalf. As a Canadian who travels abroad frequently, I don't have a lot of confidence that the Canadian government will assist me if I find myself in trouble. I'm also embarassed by our government.


Consider how Americans react when their citizens find themselves in trouble abroad:

President hails 'extraordinary humanitarian effort' by Clinton

Euna Lee is greeted by her husband Michael Saldate and daughter Hana at Bob Hope Airport in California.

Two American journalists freed by North Korea were reunited with their families yesterday after flying home to the US. There were emotional scenes at Bob Hope Airport in Burbank, California, as Euna Lee and Laura Ling were embraced by relatives.


The pair were allowed to leave North Korea after former US President Bill Clinton helped secure their release following months of detention....

President hails 'extraordinary humanitarian effort' by Clinton - Yorkshire Post

 

[Machjo]

Yes, there've been a few incidents already in the last year. The pattern is shameful.

 

[Machjo]

What's a Canadian passport worth these days under Harper, eh?

Imagine, here we are fighting abroad for our freedoms, but freedom to do what? Sit in jail, falsely accused by our own government?

 

[Unforgiven]

It's an absolute disgrace! The Conservatives under Harper has besmirched the good name of Canada on the International level by both yapping away when they shouldn't and sitting on their hands when they should be digging in to help a Canadian citizen in trouble outside the country.

What other political parties have done or would do means nothing at this point. We should be able to expect our government to help bring us home if we run afoul of a foreign government regardless of skin colour or religious orientation.

Citizenship demands that a citizen must live in Canada two out of every five years. So that shouldn't be used as a excuse to pick and choose which Canadians get help and which don't. What's more foreign governments shouldn't be used as a proxy for punishment or aggressive interrogation of Canadian citizens abroad by our own government. That this happened in the past and happens now should prompt a load and unequivocal outcry and demand by all Canadian citizens to put a stop to it by all parties when acting as the government.

 

[earth_as_one]

I'm not sure where you got the idea that living outside Canada could cause a Canadian to lose their citizenship.

See section D "Loss and Resumption of Citizenship":
Canadian Citizenship Act and current issues(BP-445E)

You must be thinking of government health insurance:
Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care - Public Information - Ontario Health Insurance Plan - Travelling Outside Canada

Many Canadians live abroad for work, missionary work, vacation, education... They can remain outside Canada for years or decades and they don't have to fear they will loose their Canadian citizenship. While they are subject to the laws of their host country, they also should be able to rely on the Canadian government to assist them, if they find themselves in trouble, not seize their passports or assist in their abuse.

 

[CDNBear]

While they are subject to the laws of their host country, they also should be able to rely on the Canadian government to assist them, if they find themselves in trouble, not seize their passports or assist in their abuse.

Why?

They've chosen to live somewhere else. Thus in principal, give up there rights as a Canadian citizen.

In the cases you sighted, there were mitigating circumstances. Given the fact that hundreds of thousands of Canadians travel abroad annually, three cases, of which certain criteria establish cause, does not an issue make.

Especially with regards to Ohmar Khadr and Mahar Arar. Both of which have proven Al Quada ties.

 

[earth_as_one]

What's a Canadian passport worth these days under Harper, eh?

Imagine, here we are fighting abroad for our freedoms, but freedom to do what? Sit in jail, falsely accused by our own government?

I guess it depends on your skin color...

 

[CDNBear]

I guess it depends on your skin color...

:roll:

Following Stockwell Day's efforts to remove Arar from the watch list, U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Wilkins chided Canada for questioning whom the United States can and cannot allow into their country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar#cite_note-53Notwithstanding, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has vowed to continue to press the United States on this matter. On January 26, 2007, Harper rebuked Wilkins with respect to the Canadian government's efforts to remove him from the U.S. watch list, stating, "Canada has every right to go to bat for one of its citizens when the government believes a Canadian is being unfairly treated"

 

[CDNBear]

EAO, your silence is deafening.

 

[TenPenny]

Why?

They've chosen to live somewhere else. Thus in principal, give up there rights as a Canadian citizen.

That's utter bull****.

A Canadian Citizen is a Canadian Citizen.

Even you should understand that.

 

[CDNBear]

That's utter bull****.

A Canadian Citizen is a Canadian Citizen.

That's your opinion, I have my own thanx.

If you chose to reside outside Canada, you in fact are not a citizen of Canada.

I'm not talking about people who work or whatnot abroad. I'm referring to those that chose to posses a Canadian Passport for reasons of convenience and nothing more. They are not Canadian citizens.

 

[taxslave]

That's utter bull****.

A Canadian Citizen is a Canadian Citizen.

Even you should understand that.

Not quite. If you are born here yes but there are thousands of people from around the world that are Canadians of convenience. I see no reason for my tax dollars to be used to extract them from various hot spots around the world.

 

[earth_as_one]

Why?

They've chosen to live somewhere else. Thus in principal, give up there rights as a Canadian citizen. Where did you get this principle? Read the link to Canadian law. I'll post it again:
D. Loss and Resumption of Citizenship
Canadian Citizenship Act and current issues(BP-445E)

In the cases you sighted, there were mitigating circumstances. Given the fact that hundreds of thousands of Canadians travel abroad annually, three cases, of which certain criteria establish cause, does not an issue make.

Especially with regards to Ohmar Khadr and Mahar Arar. Both of which have proven Al Quada ties.

Either Canada's laws and citizenship rights apply to all Canadians or they apply to none. What Khadr and Arar are alleged to have done is beside the point.

Khadr:

I agree with UNICEF regarding Omar Khadr's case:

On 4 February 2008, a military commission at Guantanamo Bay will review the case of Omar Khadr and decide whether his prosecution for war crimes should proceed. Omar Khadr was arrested in Afghanistan in 2002 for crimes he allegedly committed when he was 15 years old.

UNICEF believes that children alleged to have committed crimes while they were child soldiers should be considered primarily as victims of adults who have broken international law by recruiting and using children in the first place, and that these individuals must be provided with assistance for their social reintegration.

If in contact with a justice system, persons under 18 at the time of the alleged offense must be treated in accordance with international juvenile justice standards which provide them with special protection.

As an organization that works actively to prevent unlawful recruitment, to facilitate reintegration of child soldiers, and to promote due process, UNICEF is concerned that such a prosecution, in particular in front of a military commission not equipped to meet the required standards, would set a dangerous precedent for the protection of hundreds of thousands of children who find themselves unwittingly involved in conflict around the world.

Statement by UNICEF concerning the case of Omar Khadr

Under 18 and involved in a conflict, you are either a juvenile offender or a child soldier according to both Canadian and international law.

When a foreign military power invades and occupies another country, citizens have a legal right to resist by force. Soldiers (and resistance fighter) do not have to wear uniforms. Simpy possessing weapons openly during an attack makes them soldiers. If soldiers or resistence fighters are captured, they are entitled to the same protection under international law as POWs.

Reference: Part 2 "Resistance to Occupation"
http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/5P8EX4/$File/LAW9_final.pdf

BTW, the ICRC is the final authority regarding legal issues related to war and international conflict.

Khadr meets the definition of a child soldier and Canada should have insisted Khadr be treated as such. Instead:

...Evans and Sharlow agreed with O'Reilly's conclusion that Khadr's right to "fundamental justice" under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was violated when officials from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Department of Foreign Affairs interviewed him at Guantanamo in 2003 and 2004.

At the time, Canadian officials knew that Khadr was being subjected to torture techniques such as sleep deprivation. In a separate ruling related to the Khadr case, a Federal Court judge said last year that the techniques violated international anti-torture conventions...

Court upholds order for Omar Khadr repatriation

The Canadian government has, with knowledge of the facts and law, failed or refused to:

# provide consular assistance to Khadr; or,

# exercise diplomatic means to secure his release and repatriation; or,

# attempt to prevent violations of his internationally protected rights; or,

# investigate violations against Khadr, prosecute suspects and punish perpetrators; or,

# accurately disclose Canadian involvement in Khadr’s detention and treatment.

If Omar Khadr were afforded the full protection of established international rights to which everyone is entitled, the law would prevent both further prosecution and continued detention. Further prosecutions before a properly constituted court, in the U.S. or in Canada, would end in a stay of proceedings or a dismissal of charges because of the irremediable harm caused to Khadr by prolonged violation of his internationally protected rights.

Omar Khadr: Release, repatriation, and remedies | Human Rights Tribune - www.humanrights-geneva.info

The Bush adminstration violated international law regarding their treatment of POWs and child soldiers. In the case of Khadr, Canada became a willing accomplice.

Regarding Arar:

To Canadians, Maher Arar is the most well-known example. Germans know about Khaled al-Masri and in Italy, it's Osama Mustfafa Hasan, also known as Abu Omar, who gets the headlines.

What all three have in common, aside from being Muslims, is extraordinary rendition. Each has been taken forcibly to another country, allegedly by U.S. intelligence, to be interrogated or tortured about allegations of involvement in international terrorism. Arar and al-Masri have been released and declared innocent. Abu Omar remains in prison in his native Egypt.

More than 150 men, almost all of Muslim or of Middle Eastern origin, have been subjected to extraordinary rendition since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to U.S. media reports.

But these three cases are provoking public outrage and official action by the home governments of the countries where the men live: Arar got an apology and compensation from Canada; German prosecutors have issued arrest warrants for 13 Americans suspected of involvement in the al-Masri case; judges in Milan are demanding that 26 alleged CIA agents testify in a preliminary hearing about Abu Omar's forced deportation.

Civil and legal rights campaigners say it's time for Washington to take a long, hard look at extraordinary rendition. Does it work? Is it worth the cost? Is information obtained from torture in third-country jails even accurate, let alone legally permissible?

There's even a new name for the controversial practise if it turns out that the victim is innocent: erroneous rendition.

CBC News In Depth: Maher Arar

Arar's problems began when Khadr identified Arar as a member of al Qaeda. Arar has since been cleared of any links to al Qaeda, declared innocent and awarded $10.5 million in compensation:
Khadr identified Arar as visitor: Witness

 

[Polygong]

Funny thing about the right, in their view, immigrants to Canada care more for their previous country than they do for Canada, meanwhile, Canadian emmigrants care more for the country they moved to.

Such inconsistency.

 

[CDNBear]

Where did you get this principle? Read the link to Canadian law. I'll post it again:
D. Loss and Resumption of Citizenship
Canadian Citizenship Act and current issues(BP-445E)

Did I say in law? No I said in principal.

Either Canada's laws and citizenship rights apply to all Canadians or they apply to none.

BS, the law is manipulated by lawyers to suit agendas constantly.

What Khadr and Arar are alleged to have done is beside the point.

Of course they are besides the point to you. It suits your agenda and ideology. You haven't the ability to formulate thought without filtering through those flawed processes first.

Under 18 and involved in a conflict, you are either a juvenile offender or a child soldier according to both Canadian and international law.

Not at all. Canadian Law is not relevant and International law does not recognize foreign fighters. Nice try though.

When a foreign military power invades and occupies another country, citizens have a legal right to resist by force.

That's all well and good, but Khadr is not a citizen of Afghanistan. Hence the confusion on how to deal with his case.

Soldiers (and resistance fighter) do not have to wear uniforms. Simpy possessing weapons openly during an attack makes them soldiers. If soldiers or resistence fighters are captured, they are entitled to the same protection under international law as POWs.

Nope, nice try though, they are not afforded the same principal protections under military statute.

You use of contrived international law is humourous at best.

Reference: Part 2 "Resistance to Occupation"
http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0...LAW9_final.pdf

BTW, the ICRC is the final authority regarding legal issues related to war and international conflict.

:lol:

No they aren't, they are the self proclaimed final authority.

From the ICRC's own site...

The Geneva Conventions are binding instruments of international law, applicable worldwide. The Statutes of the Movement are adopted at the International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, which takes place every four years, and at which States that are party to the Geneva Conventions take part, thereby conferring a quasi-legal or “soft law” status on the Statutes.

Khadr meets the definition of a child soldier and Canada should have insisted Khadr be treated as such. Instead:

And again, he didn't meet the standard at time of capture. He was in effect a person of no nation.

Arar's problems began when Khadr identified Arar as a member of al Qaeda. Arar has since been cleared of any links to al Qaeda, declared innocent and awarded $10.5 million in compensation:
Khadr identified Arar as visitor: Witness

An inquiry of such flawed and inconcievable legal practice, that had it been the basis of the declaration of innocence of an Isreali you deemed guilty, you would use them as your proof of injustice.

Western Standard -- What really happened to Maher Arar?

 

[earth_as_one]

Not quite. If you are born here yes but there are thousands of people from around the world that are Canadians of convenience. I see no reason for my tax dollars to be used to extract them from various hot spots around the world.

You either are a Canadian citizen or you aren't. "Canadians of convenience" is a propaganda term which has no legal meaning.

The term "Canadians of convenience" became prominent in 2006 in conjunction with the evacuation of Canadian citizens from Lebanon during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. It is a pejorative term intended to refer to people with multiple citizenship who immigrated to Canada, met the residency requirement to obtain citizenship, moved back to their original home country, but continue to hold onto their Canadian citizenship, with those who support the term claiming they do so as a safety net.

Canadians of convenience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As a result, most Canadians felt little empathy for this Canadian family:

Religious leaders and relatives of a Montreal family killed during Israel's bombardment of Lebanon are pleading for support from Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Seven members of the Al-Akhrass family, including four young children, were on vacation when they were killed Sunday as Israel bombed the southern Lebanese village of Aitaroun.

Hussein Al-Akhrass, the children's uncle, told a Montreal news conference Monday his family were begging the Canadian government to "put pressure on Israel to stop this barbaric behaviour."

"Israel is bombing civilian people and we should not accept that," he told reporters.

Amira Al-Akhrass and her four Canadian-born children Salaan, 1, Ahamed, 3, Zeinab, 5, and Saja, 7, perished in their ancestral home near the Israeli border, around 50 kilometres south of Beirut.

Two other relatives of the Al-Akhrass family were also killed and another three, including the children's father, Ali Al-Akhrass, were injured in the attack.

CTV.ca | Montreal relatives of slain family beg for support=

The widespread use of the term also allowed our government to continue supporting Israel's "measured response" against civilians (including Canadians) living in areas bombed by Israel and justify their initial inaction regarding Canadian citizens caught in the war zone.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper offered brief condolences yesterday to the families of Canadians killed in Lebanon, but has not asked Israel for an explanation for their deaths.

And while he offered more details, Harper did not back down from his comment that Israel's bombing of Lebanon was a "measured" response to Hezbollah's abduction of two Israeli soldiers...

Harper stands by his comment on Israel's 'measured' response

 

[earth_as_one]

Any nation which recognizes and is protected by Geneva conventions also recognizes the ICRC's authority in this area.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is a private humanitarian institution based in Geneva, Switzerland. States parties (signatories) to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977 and 2005, have given the ICRC a mandate to protect the victims of international and internal armed conflicts. Such victims include war wounded, prisoners, refugees, civilians, and other non-combatants.[3]

The ICRC is part of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement along with the International Federation and 186 National Societies. It is the oldest and most honoured organization within the Movement and one of the most widely recognized organizations in the world, having won three Nobel Peace Prizes in 1917, 1944, and 1963.

International Committee of the Red Cross - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Signatory states like Canada, must recognize the ICRC's authority or unsign themselves from the related treaties. But doing that would allow other entities to torture and abuse captured Canadian soldiers and Canada would have no recourse.

 

[CDNBear]

You either are a Canadian citizen or you aren't. "Canadians of convenience" is a propaganda term which has no legal meaning.

So what? It has a very real meaning in practice.

The term "Canadians of convenience" became prominent in 2006 in conjunction with the evacuation of Canadian citizens from Lebanon during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. It is a pejorative term intended to refer to people with multiple citizenship who immigrated to Canada, met the residency requirement to obtain citizenship, moved back to their original home country, but continue to hold onto their Canadian citizenship, with those who support the term claiming they do so as a safety net.

Canadians of convenience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Funny how you missed this part of that wikiality...

Although the term was used by others (such as Peter Worthington of the Toronto Sun) earlier during the conflict in Lebanon, it was made most prominent by posts by Garth Turner, a then Conservative MP for Halton, on his blog, and the subsequent reactions. Turner questioned the fairness of paying CAD$75,000 for each evacuee, saying, among other things, "that’s a hell of a lot of money to donate to people who do not live here, don’t pay taxes here, and may never come here again in their lives."[1] The actual cost was about $6,300 for each evacuee ($94 million for 15,000 people)[2].
The National Post has asserted, that of the 15,000 evacuated, about 7,000 may have returned to Lebanon within a month of being evacuated.

That's over half, that's bad optics EAO.

As a result, most Canadians felt little empathy for this Canadian family:

The widespread use of the term also allowed our government to continue supporting Israel's "measured response" against civilians (including Canadians) living in areas bombed by Israel and justify their initial inaction regarding Canadian citizens caught in the war zone.

:roll:

 

[CDNBear]

Any nation which recognizes and is protected by Geneva conventions also recognizes the ICRC's authority in this area.

States parties (signatories) to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977 and 2005, have given the ICRC a mandate to protect the victims of international and internal armed conflicts. Such victims include war wounded, prisoners, refugees, civilians, and other non-combatants.

Is a far cry from...

BTW, the ICRC is the final authority regarding legal issues related to war and international conflict.

Which of course is compounded by...

The Geneva Conventions are binding instruments of international law, applicable worldwide. The Statutes of the Movement are adopted at the International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, which takes place every four years, and at which States that are party to the Geneva Conventions take part, thereby conferring a quasi-legal or “soft law” status on the Statutes.

Which of course means that it has no legally binding mandate. It is not the "final word" on international law as it pertains to conflict. Their mandate is to attempt to protect, not enforce, establish or try legal statute.

I have no doubt that all this is completely lost on you EAO.

 

[CDNBear]

Hey, EAO, you should check out Article 37 a of the Optional Protocol on child Soldiers.

It kind of punches a hole in yours and the ICRC's BS, as well as defends Omar' rights to be treated better.