If I was Maher Arar
I would tell the Prime Minister to go fuck himself.
Maher Arar doesn't need money. He could release a book tomorrow entitled "How I was tortured by America" and it would sell a ba-gillion copies.
What the system needs is actual change. While none of us were actually privy to the settlement negotiations, I suspect they focused on Arar himself, and not the institutional change that is required. I would have demanded:
1) A Royal Commission on the state of Canadian Muslims and institutional discrimination against them;
2) The establishment of a permanent council for oversight of all law enforcement officials as it relates specifically to minorities;
3) A written guarantee from the Prime Minister that the only issue Foreign Affairs would discuss with America until my case was resolved would be how it treats Canadian citizens, and a guarantee that future border security negotiations would address a 'passage charter' for citizens of both countries that firmly lays out what can and can't be done to people by the agents of the signatories; and
4) Hearings in Parliament for all aggrieved individuals whose civil liberties have been curtailed since 9/11.
Rest assured, we haven't heard the last from Mr. Arar. Like Donald Marshall before him, he will probably become a champion for the rights of his faith as opposed to his people. His wife will run for Parliament again- hell, he might run too.
Also, rest assured, that if he wanted to have his settlement voided, there isn't a judge in the country who wouldn't look at the inequality of the bargaining positions and throw the paltry sum out the window. The Rules of Civil Procedure in every jurisdiction (except maybe Quebec, I just don't know) require the proponent/defender of a settlement agreement to defend its terms if it is challenged by the other signatory.
This requirement exists regardless of 'effective legal representation' of the parties and a signed agreement in contemplation of 'full and final settlement' if, on its face, it appears that there is an unjust result and an inequality of bargaining positions. The public might not understand that, but it is true- settlement agreements are often set aside for significantly less. The proceeding would basically rehash every second in open court what was specifically intended to be private. I am sure the government wouldn't want that.
The current settlement also presupposes full disclosure by the Government- I am sure that wasn't provided to Mr. Arar for the same security concerns that has kept them out of the media. When the other shoe drops, and it will when Senator Leahy gets his wish, Mr. Arar will have a cavernous opening to walk right back into re-settlement negotiations.
Arar's wife and family have their own totally different and distinct action against the Government. Perhaps Arar just wants to move on -but in my view, he has a quasi-public obligation to seek a better deal for the rest of the country and the next victim. And so did the other signatory. This settlement is not resolution, and it is a disservice to the rest of the nation.
This requirement exists regardless of 'effective legal representation' of the parties and a signed agreement in contemplation of 'full and final settlement' if, on its face, it appears that there is an unjust result and an inequality of bargaining positions. The public might not understand that, but it is true- settlement agreements are often set aside for significantly less. The proceeding would basically rehash every second in open court what was specifically intended to be private. I am sure the government wouldn't want that.
The current settlement also presupposes full disclosure by the Government- I am sure that wasn't provided to Mr. Arar for the same security concerns that has kept them out of the media. When the other shoe drops, and it will when Senator Leahy gets his wish, Mr. Arar will have a cavernous opening to walk right back into re-settlement negotiations.
Arar's wife and family have their own totally different and distinct action against the Government. Perhaps Arar just wants to move on -but in my view, he has a quasi-public obligation to seek a better deal for the rest of the country and the next victim. And so did the other signatory. This settlement is not resolution, and it is a disservice to the rest of the nation.
That said, if Canada awards billions of dollars to the descendants of the dis-entitled for the wrongs of the British prior to Confederation, or by Canada in the early 1900s, then the modern day equivalent for people who are actually physically harmed as a direct result of the Government's idiocy should be more than 10 million before taxes. Legally, the tax implications of the amount actually depends on how the deal was structured, and what, specifically, is being compensated.
Of course, there was probably one senior litigator at Justice who said "Settle? Why on earth would we do that? If he took us to trial, our evidence couldn't even be released for 50 years, let alone see the light of an open courtroom." That person would be 100% correct, and is doing their job.
The settlement was about politics, and avoiding a statement of claim that reads "on or about X day, the defendant had electrodes attached to his testicular region."
One more thing Canada's new government can take credit for. This arrogant Prime Minister had the stones to allude to the fact that this happened under Canada's old government - as if it wouldn't have been worse under his watch. Be it defending the RCMP or just by "being Steve," I am sure that Mr. Arar's humiliation would have been just as disgusting if Stockwell Day signed off on it. If you don't believe me, go read:
DAY-O, DAAAAAAAY-O.
This is the second settlement that directly involved America - softwood lumber being the other - that his government has totally fucked up. He should have taken the billion Emerson left on the table in Washington and applied it to the goals above. For Shame.
One more thing Canada's new government can take credit for. This arrogant Prime Minister had the stones to allude to the fact that this happened under Canada's old government - as if it wouldn't have been worse under his watch. Be it defending the RCMP or just by "being Steve," I am sure that Mr. Arar's humiliation would have been just as disgusting if Stockwell Day signed off on it. If you don't believe me, go read:
DAY-O, DAAAAAAAY-O.
This is the second settlement that directly involved America - softwood lumber being the other - that his government has totally fucked up. He should have taken the billion Emerson left on the table in Washington and applied it to the goals above. For Shame.
posted by Atlas Hugged at
8:09 a.m.
3 Comments:
OK, I am with you. But let's be clear, Liberal or Conservative, the evidence suggests there would have been materially no difference in the handling of this horrible affair. In fact everything that unraveled did so in our "professional" foreign service and security bureaucracies. What is it we have to learn about ourselves when rights that take the entire history of civilization to achieve are so fragile in the two countries where they should instead be so sacrosanct?
10:17 a.m.
I think you missed the point. The PM alluded to the fact that it would have been different had they been in charge and had the huztpah to suggest that it was in some way the previous government's fault when he has himself villified Mr. Arar when he was in opposition.
During discussion about Mr. Arar in the House of Commons on November 18, 2002, Stephen Harper, then leader of the Canadian Alliance Party, accused then Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham of participating "in high-level consultations to defend a suspected terrorist" when Mr. Graham demanded the release of Mr. Arar.
Mr. Harper was later quoted as saying that the Liberal government "has been hitting the snooze button on security matters," implying that the Liberal government should have arrested Mr. Arar instead of the U.S. government.
During the same Question Period, Diane Ablonczy, Member of Parliament for Calgary--Nose Hill, stated: "Arar was given dual Syrian and Canadian citizenship by the government. It did not pick up on his terrorist links and the U.S. had to clue it in. How is it that the U.S. could uncover this man's background so quickly when the government's screening system failed to find his al-Qaeda links?"
Further, on November 19, 2002, Stockwell Day, also then member of the Canadian Alliance, said in reference to the detention of Mr. Arar: "There is a lack of vigilance in the country on terrorism." He also called for a Parliamentary inquiry to determine why the Liberals were defending a man suspected of links to al-Qaeda when U.S. officials were accusing him of terrorism charges. ("PM Demands release of Ottawa man," Ottawa Citizen, July 29, 2003.)
6:29 a.m.
Actually I believe I fully got your original point as well as your citations above. We both agree that if Harper was at the controls in 2002 and 2003, Maher would have been through at least as much horror if not more. I shudder the thought.
My first point was that pointing political fingers is only a minor part of the picture. Bad things would clearly have happened if the Conservatives were in power and they most certainly happened under the Liberal watch.
My second point was, if at least our corner of civilization is going to mature, then, on balance, the government, the political system, the police & security services, the media and the public will need to develop much more nuanced and critical judgment. Otherwise, we are simply a collective knee-jerk away from politically sanctioned horrors we thought were consigned to history or lesser states.
We don't have to look very far to see where that kind of base instinctive behaviour leads. How long will it take for the US to recover the integrity it has lost since 2002?
6:22 p.m.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home