Loopholes and Libya

Really? Because a mere two weeks ago, Steven Chase was reporting: 
Ottawa rewrites mandate for screening arms exports

"The Canadian government has quietly watered down its own mandate for screening the export of military goods, rewriting parts of the only substantive public statement available on Ottawa’s responsibilities for policing foreign sales."

Previous policy on military exports : Canada’s export controls are meant “to regulate and impose certain restrictions on exports in response to clear policy objectives.” 

New policy :"export controls are intended “to balance the economic and commercial interests of Canadian business with the national interest of Canada.”

So it's jobs, jobs, jobs vs "Canada prohibits the export of arms and related materiel to countries that are under United Nations Security Council arms embargos "

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan's guarded "hints" above yesterday come in response to this item two days ago : 

"Earlier this year, a UN report criticized the Streit Group, which has a plant in Innisfil, Ont., north of Toronto, for the "illicit transfer" of 131 armoured vehicles in 2012...   At least 79 Typhoon and Spartan patrol vehicles were delivered to the effectively lawless nation in 2014

"Streit's sales were brokered through middlemen. At least four separate companies, one American and three from the United Arab Emirates, purchased the vehicles."

This brokering through middlemen to a third country is called diversion, which was prohibited by Global Affairs until it changed the rules this year to allow it.

In 2012 and 2013, the United Arab Emirates was, according to Global Affairs, our second largest destination for military exports after Saudi Arabia. 

From international.gc.ca:

Report on Exports of Military Goods from Canada - 2012
United Arab Emirates     $277,116,557  No armoured cars but $251,134,882 for : 
"Aircraft, lighter-than-air vehicles, unmanned airborne vehicles, aero-engines ...specially designed or modified for military use"

 Report on Exports of Military Goods from Canada  - 2013  ***

Libya            $3,116,000     "Ground vehicles and components" 
United Arab Emirates       $4,038,373  of which $1,659,530 was for "Ground vehicles"

Table 4: Exports of Military Goods and Technology - 2014

Libya            $2,681,000      "Ground vehicles and components"

United Arab Emirates    $10,204,844 - of which $5,205,000 were "Ground vehicles" and another $3,706,563 was for "Imaging or countermeasure equipment, specially designed for military use"

Report on Exports of Military Goods from Canada - 2015

Nothing for Libya

United Arab Emirates   $3,629,728 worth of "Military Goods and Technology" but no mention exactly what was shipped.        

So are these ground vehicle sales part of the Streit Group shipment to Libya and South Sudan, or some other shipment altogether?

Well we're unlikely ever to know who shipped what where because of another change made this year to our government’s policy governing the export of military goods :

"The names of exporting companies are now specifically protected."

Neither will we know how much happens to find its way to "lawless nations" through the US, where Streit happens to have a plant, because :

"The tables do not report exports of military goods to the United States, which are roughly estimated to account for over half of Canada’s exports of military goods and technology each year."

*** Fun fact : Following the $347-million Libya * mission* and a few months after Steve had his very own Mission Accomplished moment, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird signed off on $2.68 million in armoured vehicle export sales to Libya during the UN investigation. 

Baird also announced a $65.3-million deal to sell General Dynamics LAVs to Colombia through the Canadian Commercial Corporation.

Because it's 2016 ... just like it was in 2012.

.

Standing with Israel through fire and water and sunny ways

This is what we look like at the United Nations General Assembly right now - one of a half dozen outliers of little red squares on the big screen voting NO on every single vote to do with Palestine.  It's the same look we've had for over a decade - standing with Israel through fire and water and now sunny ways - in the yearly UN ritual of non-binding resolutions on a humanitarian disaster that inconveniently implicates Israel.

The other NO voters are always Israel, the US and their coalition of the willing islands where the US has military bases, and occasionally Australia. We do not choose to abstain from voting, as some of the other 193 member nations do when they object to some part of the language of a resolution being biased or too critical of Israel; we just vote NO to all of it. 

Last Tuesday we voted against this one, sponsored by South Africa, calling for Palestine's right to sovereignty over her own natural resources :

December 22 2015 - Resolution 70/225 :

“Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources”   (document A/70/480) excerpted :

"Deploring the detrimental impact of the Israeli settlements on Palestinian and other Arab natural resources, especially as a result of the confiscation of land and the forced diversion of water resources, including the destruction of orchards and crops and the seizure of water wells by Israeli settlers.... Further calls upon Israel to cease its destruction of vital infrastructure, including water pipelines, sewage networks and electricity networks" 

• 164 in favour
• 5 against, (Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, United States)
• 10 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Honduras, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, South Sudan, Togo, Tonga, Vanuatu).

Here's another dozen Canadian NO votes on Palestinian issues from the last month :

December 17 2015 

Resolution 70/441 : The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination 

• 177 in favour
• 7 against (Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States)
• 4 abstentions (Cameroon, Honduras, Tonga, South Sudan).

December 10 2015
Resolution 70/108 : Assistance to the Palestinian people -introduced by Luxembourg on behalf of the EU and yet to be voted on.

A representative of the Permanent Observer for the State of Palestine noted the World Bank had recently assessed the economy of Gaza to be “on the verge of collapse” and more than 100,000 Palestinian civilians remained displaced after 2014"

Israel responded that it "made continuous efforts to improve the well-being of the Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip" and blamed the Palestinian Authority for "evading its responsibilities regarding governance in Gaza".

December 9 2015

Resolution 70/90 : Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem 

• 158 in favour
• 8 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States) 
• 10 abstentions (Cameroon, Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Honduras, Liberia, Malawi, Paraguay, Togo, Vanuatu)

Resolution 70/89 : Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan

"by which it condemned Israel’s continuing settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, as violations of international humanitarian law" 

• 161 in favour
• 7 against (Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States)
• 8 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, Honduras, Paraguay, Togo, Vanuatu) 

Resolution 70/88 : Applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the other occupied Arab territories

"The Assembly reaffirmed the Geneva Convention’s applicability, and further demanded that Israel accept the Convention’s de jure applicability in those territories"

• 163 votes in favour
• 6 against (Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, United States)
• 8 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, Liberia, Paraguay, Togo, Vanuatu)

Resolution 70/87 : Work of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories 

• 158 in favour
• 8 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States) 
• 10 abstentions (Cameroon, Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Honduras, Liberia, Malawi, Paraguay, Togo, Vanuatu)

Resolution 70/86 : Palestine refugees' properties and their revenues

"By its terms, the Assembly reaffirmed that Palestine refugees were entitled to their property and to the income derived therefrom"  

• 167 in favour
• 7 against (Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States)
• 4 abstentions (Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Paraguay, Vanuatu)

Resolution 70/85 : Operations of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East 

• 169 votes in favour 
• 6 against (Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, United States)
• 5 abstentions (Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Nauru, Paraguay, Vanuatu)

Persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities

• 164 in favour 
• 7 against (Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States) 
• 7 abstentions (Cameroon, Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Honduras, Liberia, Paraguay)

Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories

"the continuing detrimental impact of ongoing unlawful Israeli practices and measures in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, such as excessive use of force by Israeli occupying troops against Palestinian civilians" 

• 92 in favour
• 9 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Panama, United States)
• 75 abstentions

November 24 2015 

Resolution 70/15 : Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine excerpted :

"The Assembly reaffirmed the need to achieve a peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine. It called for the intensification of efforts by the parties, including through negotiations, with the support of the international community, towards the conclusion of a final peace settlement, as well as urging renewed international efforts to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace, based on the relevant United Nations resolutions; the terms of reference of the Madrid Conference, including the principle of land for peace; the Arab Peace Initiative adopted by the Council of the League of Arab States at its fourteenth session; the Quartet road map to a permanent two-State solution to the conflict; and existing agreements between the Israeli and Palestinian sides."

• 155 in favour 
• 7 against (Australia, Canada, Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States) 
• 7 abstentions (Cameroon, Honduras, Nauru, Paraguay, South Sudan, Togo, Tonga).

Resolution 70/14 : Special information programme on the question of Palestine 

• 155 in favour 
• 7 against (Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, United States)
• 7 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Honduras, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, South Sudan, Tonga)

Resolution 70/13 : Division for Palestinian Rights 

• 99 in favour 
• 8 against (Australia, Canada, Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, United States)
• 59 abstentions

Resolution 70/12 : Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People 

• 102 in favour
• 8 against (Australia, Canada, Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, United States)
• 57 abstentions

General Assembly of the UN Resolutions for November and December 2015

Sunny ways.


.

Harper "whips out" his ISIL lawyer joke

The Con bench seals laugh and clap at Steve's joke blowing off the UN and international law because grade six. 

Harper went on to explain that Canada will be bombing Syria as part of an international coalition, although the US is the only NATO member currently bombing Syria. The other coalition countries bombing Syria are Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan, Morocco, Qatar, and the UAE. 

This same coalition of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan, Morocco, and the UAE minus Qatar also began bombing Yemen today. Egypt and Kuwait will be joining the offensive while Pakistan is still considering it. Nobel Peace Prize recipient President Obama has authorized the provision of US logistical and intelligence support to help bomb the Houthi rebels in Yemen who are fighting Al Qaeda and IS.
The Saudi-led air campaign against the Houthis in Yemen is dubbed “Decisive Storm”.

Harper says IS is a threat to Canada and will extend the mission for another year. 
DefMin Jason Kenney says they have no particular exit strategy..

h/t Maclean's for vid.

Update : Kenney whips out his "smart bombs", claiming Canada and the US are the only *coalition* bombing members that have them. David Pugliese shoots it down - both Saudi Arabia and UAE have 'em - in Saudi Arabia's case since 2008.

Harper and Kenney are leaning very heavily on the word 'coalition' in their bomb bomb bomb statements but as to who those coalition members actually are - not so much. 

Update2 : Aaron Wherry weighs in tonight on Harper joking about international law :
 Stephen Harper on the legality of bombing Syria: LOL

Shorter bonus grade six from Wherry : The government's position yesterday was that under UN Article 51, they 1) would be bombing Syria and 2) would not be informing the UN about it because it wasn't required. 
Turns out right in Article 51 it specifies that "Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council" so the government has now *clarified* its earlier stance and will be sending notification after all. 
World stage.

Update 3 : David Pugliese : 
Gen. Tom Lawson tries to dig Jason Kenney out of a bomb crater of his own making

Gwynne Dyer : Yemen: Unintended consequences   and 

Gwynne Dyer explains why terrorism is overblown and why Islamists want western countries to attack the Islamic State

.

Israel's Weapons of Mass Deception

Three days ago, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs replaced their usual map of the Gaza Strip with one featuring a Christo-like pink skirt inside Gaza.

The printing inside the accompanying tiny info box reads :

"The Israeli military has declared an area 3 kms from the fence separating Israel and Gaza as a "no go" zone, sending evacuation warnings to many communities located there.

This area covers 162 km sq. (44% of the Gaza Strip)

Around 250,000 people were residing in this area prior to its declaration."

44% of the Gaza Strip and a quarter million people

The IDF's ostensible purpose for annexing and occupying and bombing an additional 44% of the Gaza Strip is to destroy rocket sites and underground tunnels. 

On the map inside the pink "no go" pink zone near the top is the village of Beit Hanoun, where as you can see here, the IDF searched for rockets and tunnels and human shields by shelling the second floor pediatric ward of Beit Hanoun hospital :

“It’s now chaos, the military is shelling directly at us. There are two patients on the second floor and we think they’re okay, but we can’t move them easily as they’re bed-bound. I’m bleeding from a head wound and there’s another person injured. People are very frightened.”

IDF shells also searched inside an ambulance and a paramedic; neither survived.

This same approach didn't really work out well for the entire border town of Shejaiya either, as people return today during the ceasefire to collect what they can and bodies are pulled from the rubble  :

So what kicked off this collective punishment again, as the number of Palestinian dead reaches 1,000?

On June 12, three Israeli teens were kidnapped from an Israeli settlement.

That same day Israeli authorities received a 911 phone call from one of the boys that ended with gunfire and Palestinian security forces reported to Israel that two suspects had disappeared from Hebron within 24 hours of the abduction.

Mondoweiss  [italics mine]:

The supposition that the boys were dead was advanced when Israeli authorities found the car in which the abduction had taken place, with DNA evidence they’d been shot.

The information about the gunshots on that desperate last phone call was widely known in the media, but as we reported, the Israeli government issued a gag order against these facts being published. And over the last two-and-a-half weeks of June, the Israelis launched extensive raids across the West Bank, locking down Hebron, supposedly to find the boys. But the major focus of the raids was rooting out Hamas affiliates and arresting them. In fact, the purpose of the raids seemed to be to break up the recent unity government between Hamas and Fatah, which Israel has vigorously opposed. 

The boys’ bodies were found on June 30, in a shallow grave in the West Bank; and again the deaths were exploited to punish Hamas. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said : “Hamas is responsible… Hamas will pay.”

There were a lot of holes in the story. 

Sheera Frenkel was never convinced it was Hamas; neither was Max Blumenthal; and in response to the question a month ago as to whether Hamas leadership or some rogue cell was to blame, an IDF source responded : "I don't think that we know enough to say anything conclusively as of yet." 

And that was because their main suspects were from the Qawasmeh clan, a family with a history of blowing up Hamas' attempts to come to terms with Israel.

Schlomi Eldar, Israel Pulse, June 26, 2014 : Accused kidnappers are rogue Hamas branch

"Each time Hamas had reached an understanding with Israel about a cease-fire, at least one member of the family has been responsible for planning or initiating a suicide attack, and any understandings with Israel, achieved after considerable effort, were suddenly laid waste. If there is a single family throughout the PA territories whose actions can be blamed for Israel’s assassination of the political leadership of Hamas, it is the Qawasmeh family of Hebron.

On Aug. 19, 2003, after a tahadiyeh was reached between Israel and all of the Palestinian factions, with the support of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, two suicide bombers blew themselves up on the No. 2 bus in Jerusalem. Some 23 Israelis were killed in the attack, including seven children. All of the passengers on the bus were on their way back from prayers at the Western Wall to mark the end of the Sabbath. Most of them were yeshiva students. The attack put an abrupt end to the tahadiyeh just 52 days after it was announced ... The Qawasmeh family planned and implemented the attack during a cease-fire, which was supposed to have ended the second intifada, a cease-fire that had the support of Yasser Arafat, then-PA chairman, his Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and, of course, Yassin, the leader of Hamas.

Possible that while both Hamas and Netanyahu have been driven to this most recent carnage by their more extreme and unhinged "affiliates", both are now hoping to gain an edge thereby.

So today we are all looking at this man : Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld and his 

tweets yesterday with BBC reporter Jon Donnison :

"Israeli police Mickey Rosenfeld tells me men who killed 3 Israeli teens definitely lone cell, Hamas affiliated but not operating under leadership."

Too late! Everyone has already eaten the yellowcake.

Operation Protective Edge Yellowcake has levelled cities and murdered over a thousand people to date over what they at least suspected as far back as June 12 had little to do with a PR campaign about Hamas kidnapping and killing the Israeli teens. 

.

h/t Canadian Cynic for a better photo of Beit Hanoun hospital

.

Poodling up on the world stage

I rather take exception to Glenn Greenwald's characterization of Canada in yesterday's Guardian as the US's "new rightwing poodle to the north".

Sure, we joined the U.S., Israel, and 7 other nations  to oppose upgrading the UN observer status of the Palestinian Authority from "entity" to "non-member state".

And yes, we stood on an even smaller world stage this week with the US, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau in voting against UN inspection of Israel's nuclear program - 174 to 6. 

But hey, when Israel announced it would "punish" the Palestinians for the UN vote by approving 3,000 more settlements, Canada made a point of declining to join the US in making a frowny face about it. 

So there. 


h/t West End Bob
.

John Baird struts and frets his hour upon the world stage

G&M today : Boycotting N. Korean term, John Baird vows to seek reform of UN arms panel

"The Harper government has decided to boycott the United Nations Conference on Disarmament for a month because it’s North Korea’s turn to take the helm."

WSJ, June 30, 2011 : NK Leads UN Conference

"For his part, the North Korean delegate assigned to lead the conference, So Se Pyong, said he would do his best to revitalize the conference. Then he announced a one-month vacation and said work would resume in early August."

Pogge : The adventures of Angry McPointy on the world stage
.

"Canada's back on the world stage"

It would seem that such international policies as

1) unstinting support for everything Israel
2) actively undermining the Copenhagen summit climate talks
3) delaying debt relief to Africa to advance the interests of a Canadian mining company
4) flip flopping hostility to China
5) snubbing an International Aids Conference held in Canada
6) cutting funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency
7) refusal to sign the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and
8) blowing off UN talks on nuclear proliferation, global peace and climate change in favour of a photo op at a Tim Hortons

do not ultimately translate into votes for a seat on the Security Council at the UN after all.
Who knew?

In his UN defeat speech, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon graciously blamed the failure on Michael Ignatieff - three separate times. Wanker.
.

Harper packs 'em in at the UN

Correction : Apparently Steve's speech was scheduled during quiet time at the UN.

The trolls over at Susan Delacourt's are claiming the photos reveal liberal media bias.

.

Newspeak comes to Foreign Affairs

Embassy Mag : "Gender Equality", "Child Soldiers" and "Humanitarian Law" are Axed from Foreign Policy Language

With subtle strokes of the pen, it appears the Conservative government has been systematically changing the language employed by the foreign service and, as a result, bringing subtle but sweeping changes to traditional Canadian foreign policy.

In an email communication obtained by Embassy, staff at the Department of Foreign Affairs express concern about frequent changes being made to commonly used terms, particularly where such changes are not consistent with accepted Canadian policy.

Rewriting Canadian foreign policy without going through parliament.

"International humanitarian law" has been replaced by "international law"

WTF?

IHL is about Geneva Conventions : war, casualties, the limiting thereof.

Take out "humanitarian" and we're talking the laws of the sea, trade law, border stuff.

No humans rights or massacred civilians here. Take that, International Criminal Court! You too, UN.

Doubtless our partners in the Canada-Israel Homeland Security pact will be gratified to learn of our new position on human rights in occupied territoriesopen air prisons.

In fact, a source close to Foreign Affairs told Embassy that the Prime Minister's Office had once tried to change Canada's official position on the ICC to essentially state that Canada does not support the ICC, it tolerates it.

"Gender equality" is now "equality of men and women"

What are we talking here - height? Number of arms and legs?

Back in the 90s we figured out that sex is biological; gender is both political and socially constructed and gender-based violence is not just about your junk.

"References to gender-based violence are removed," the Foreign Affairs email states, muttering darkly about the influence of certain conservative women's groups. Hi, Gwen!

Canada, previously a pioneer in the fight to bring gender equality into the human rights agenda, is apparently back to cocks and cunts.

"Child soldiers" is now "children in armed conflict."

We're obviously talking toddlers in swaddlin' clothes here and we are most definitely not talking child soldier Omar Khadr. Again, Canada pioneered protection for child soldiers in international humanitarian law at the UN, but that was before we became the last government on planet Earth to offer our passive support to what goes on in Gitmo.

Go read.

Foreign Affairs is pushing back. Good for them.

.

h/t Waterbaby

.

Federal Court orders Ottawa to bring Abdelrazik home

Federal Court Judge Russell Zinn found that Abdelrazik is "as much a victim of international terrorism as the innocent persons whose lives have been taken by recent barbaric acts of terrorists" and has ordered the government to facilitate Abdelrazik's return within 30 days.
He also found CSIS "complicit" in Abdelrazik's detention by Sudanese authorities six years ago.

Some quotes from Justice Zinn's decision in Federal Court June 4, 2009

ABOUSFIAN ABDELRAZIK v THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

"Mr. Abdelrazik lives in the Canadian Embassy in Khartoum, Sudan, his country of citizenship by birth, fearing possible detention and torture should he leave this sanctuary, all the while wanting but being unable to return to Canada, his country of citizenship by choice. He lives by himself with strangers while his immediate family, his young children, are in Montreal.
He is as much a victim of international terrorism as the innocent persons whose lives have been taken by recent barbaric acts of terrorists.

I find that Mr. Abdelrazik’s Charter right to enter Canada has been breached by the respondents.

I find that Mr. Abdelrazik 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.
Furthermore, as a consequence of the facts found establishing the breach and the unique circumstances of Mr. Abdelrazik’s circumstances, the remedy requires that this Court retain jurisdiction to ensure that Mr. Abdelrazik is returned to Canada.

One cannot prove that fairies and goblins do not exist any more than Mr. Abdelrazik or any other person can prove that they are not an Al-Qaida associate. It is a fundamental principle of Canadian and international justice that the accused does not have the burden of proving his innocence, the accuser has the burden of proving guilt. In light of these shortcomings, it is disingenuous of the respondents to submit, as they did, that if he is wrongly listed the remedy is for Mr. Abdelrazik to apply to the 1267 [U.N.]Committee for de-listing and not to engage this Court. The 1267 Committee regime is, as I observed at the hearing, a situation for a listed person not unlike that of Josef K. in Kafka’s The Trial, who awakens one morning and, for reasons never revealed to him or the reader, is arrested and prosecuted for an unspecified crime..

Then following a review of correspondence between officials in DFAIT and consular officials in Khartoum :

I find, on the balance of probabilities, on the record before the Court, that CSIS was complicit in the initial detention of Mr. Abdelrazik by the Sudanese.
This finding is based on the record before the Court on this application. The role of CSIS may subsequently be shown to be otherwise if and when full and complete information is provided by that service as to its role.

CSIS has already denied this and asked for a review by SIRC, Security Intelligence Review Committee, the CSIS oversight body with which it has an alarmingly cosy relationship.

Justice Zinn also had a few choice words for DFAIT, with regards to this July 2004 DFAIT email in response to Abdelrazik's wife raising the possibility of chartering a private plane to return her husband to Montreal. Ms. Gaudet-Fee of Foreign Affairs :

"So, should she get a private plane, there is very little we could do to stop him from entering Canada. He would need an EP [i.e. Emergency Passport] and I guess this could be refused but on what ground.
So, stay tuned."

Justice Zinn :

I find the comment of the official of Foreign Affairs very troubling.
In my view, it is reasonable to conclude from the July 30, 2004 musings of the foreign Affairs official that Canadian authorities did not want Mr. Abdelrazik to return to Canada and they were prepared to examine avenues that would prevent his return, such as the denial of an emergency passport. That conclusion is further supported by the extraordinary circumstances in which the Minister made the decision on April 3, 2009 to refuse the applicant an emergency passport.

At no time however in the last five years did DFAIT admit to Abdelrazik that they had no intention of allowing him to return to Canada; in fact they repeatedly assured him that they would grant him an emergency passport.

The flight scheduled for April 3, 2009

[130] In March 2009, Mr. Abdelrazik managed to obtain and pay for a flight from Khartoum to Montreal with a stop over in Abu Dhabi. He had been repeatedly assured for years that an emergency passport would be provided in that eventuality. Notwithstanding the numerous assurances given by Canada over a period of almost 5 years, and repeated as recently as December 23, 2008, on April 3, 2009 just two hours before the flight was to leave, the Minister of Foreign Affairs [Lawrence Cannon] refused to issue that emergency passport on the basis that he was of the opinion, pursuant to Section 10.1 of the Canadian Passport Order, "that such action is necessary for the national security of Canada or another country."

I find that the only reason that Mr. Abdelrazik is not in Canada now is because of the actions of the Minister on April 3, 2009. ... the Minister waited until the very last minute before the flight was to depart to deny the emergency passport.

Had it been necessary to determine whether the breach was done in bad faith, I would have had no hesitation making that finding on the basis of the record before me.

[156] I have found that Canada has engaged in a course of conduct and specific acts that constitute a breach of Mr. Abdelrazik’s right to enter Canada. Specifically, I find:
(i) That CSIS was complicit in the detention of Mr. Abdelrazik by the Sudanese authorities in 2003;
(ii) That by mid 2004 Canadian authorities had determined that they would not take any active steps to assist Mr. Abdelrazik to return to Canada and, in spite of its numerous assurances to the contrary, would consider refusing him an emergency passport if that was required in order to ensure that he could not return to Canada;
(iii) That there is no impediment from the UN Resolution to Mr. Abdelrazik being repatriated to Canada – no permission of a foreign government is required to transit through its airspace – and the respondents’ assertion to the contrary is a part of the conduct engaged in to ensure that Mr. Abdelrazik could not return to Canada; and
(iv) That Canada’s denial of an emergency passport on April 3, 2009, after all of the preconditions for the issuance of an emergency passport previously set by Canada had been met, is a breach of his Charter right to enter Canada

[160] Accordingly, at a minimum, the respondents are to be ordered to provide Mr. Abdelrazik with an emergency passport that will permit him to travel to and enter Canada. There is any number of ways available to him to return to Canada. He once secured an airline ticket and may be able to do so again. In the Court’s view that would cure the breach and be the least intrusive on the role of the executive. If such travel is possible, and if funds or sufficient funds to pay for an air ticket are not available to the applicant from his April 3, 2009 unused ticket, then the respondents are to provide the airfare or additional airfare required because, but for the breach, he would not have to incur this expense.

In fulfilment of this judicial process, the applicant [Abdelrazik] is ordered to appear before me at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon on Tuesday, July 7, 2009, at the Federal Court ...

“Russel W. Zinn”
Judge

Thank you, Justice Zinn.
.

UN : Canada free to bring Abdelrazik home

Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon in the House of Commons on Monday :

"Mr. Abdelrazik is on the list established by the United Nations Security Council as an individual with ties to al-Qaeda. Therefore, he is subject to a travel ban and an asset freeze. Our government is taking its obligations seriously and that is why we are not going to issue him a travel document to return home."

G&M : Richard Barrett, co-ordinator of the UN's Al-Qaeda and Taliban Monitoring Team, which oversees the various United Nations resolutions establishing the blacklist on which Mr. Abdelrazik was placed at the request of Washington in 2006 :

"Canada is free to bring Abousfian Abdelrazik home and doesn't need to ask for permission"

Addressing the Justice Department's argument that "it is geographically impossible for [Mr. Abdelrazik] to travel from Sudan to Canada by air, land or sea without transiting through the sovereign territories (land, airspace or territorial waters) of numerous UN member states which are bound at international law to prevent such transit, " Mr. Barrett stated :

"The overflight states don't come into it and they haven't ever come into it."

Well there goes legal bullshit argument#1 of the Government of Canada vs Abdelrazik, being argued today in the Supreme Court of Canada.

This just leaves Justice Department bullshit legal argument #2 : that Abdelrazik is :

"close to Abu Zubaydah, a former lieutenant of Osama bin Laden, involved in al-Qaeda training and recruitment."

That would be Abu Zubaydah, the half-wit waterboarded 83 times to coerce a false confession linking Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda in order to justify the invasion of Iraq.

.

For those able to attend, the hearing today is at Supreme Court, West courtroom, 301 Wellington Street, Ottawa at 9:30am.

Wear a suit, bring pitchforks.

Harper's quest to turn Canada into an outpost of apology for the worst crimes of the Bush era shames us all.

.

And thank you, Paul Koring at the G&M, for your ongoing excellent coverage of Abdelrazik's plight.

Update : Dr. Dawg attended Thursday and will update again when he returns from Friday's hearing.

.

Once again Ahmadinejad does not call for the eradication of Israel

The Star : News correction

"An April 21 article about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech at the United Nations World Conference against Racism in Geneva on Monday included incorrect information that resulted from an erroneous early translation of the speech. In fact, Ahmadinejad did not call for the eradication of Israel. Nor did he brand Israel as illegitimate.

According to the translation given in the United Nations' webcast of the speech, the Iranian president did say "Efforts must be made to put an end to the abuse by Zionists and their supporters of political and international means and in respect of the will and aspirations of nations.
"Governments must be encouraged and supported in their fights aimed at eradicating this barbaric racism and to move towards reforming the current international mechanisms."

From The Star's article yesterday :

"As Ahmadinejad began to talk, delegates from many of the 192 states at the conference walked out of the room in protest. Although Canada was the first to decline attendance at this year's conference, Israel, Australia, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand and the United States were also conspicuous by their absence.

"Our government is leading the world, not following it," Prime Minister Stephen Harper said yesterday. "We observed clear, unmistakable signs this conference will again scapegoat the Jewish people."

Go on - listen to Ahmadinejad's speech. After two minutes of salutations in a couple of languages, he says that after WWII, the UN Security Council awarded itself veto powers and used them, "under a pretext of Jewish suffering", to "install a cruel and oppressive racist government in occupied Palestine in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe. The UN security Council has supported this."

Then he calls for a reform of the UN.

And this is the speech that is supposed to be too terrible to hear?

H/t Divining the News

Update from Paulitics :

"The Canadian, Australian, American and New Zealand governments were the only governments in the entire world to reject the UN declaration on the rights of Aboriginal and Indigenous peoples and thus did not want to be a part of Durban’s discussions on Aboriginal peoples. And the Israel government doesn’t want to talk about a whole host of issues on which it has long been in violation of UN declarations and Geneva Convention rights (notably the injunctions against acquiring land through military conquest, the right of refugees to return to their homes, nuclear weapons, the slaughter of refugees and engaging in illegal warfare).

So, in this context, the West was poised to find any excuse to discredit the UN’s attempts to eradicate racism and they believe they found it with Ahmadinejad’s speech. Indeed, if the public didn’t read or listen to Ahmadinejad’s speech, there wouldn’t be a problem."

.

CSIS just fine with tips "extracted" via torture

I'm not sure what is the most alarming aspect of CSIS testimony today that they will still use information that may have been obtained by torture in other countries "if lives are at stake" :

"Geoffrey O’Brian, a CSIS lawyer and advisor on operations and legislation, under questioning by the public safety committee, admitted there is no absolute ban on using intelligence that may have been obtained from countries with questionable human rights records on torture."

~ That CSIS continues to reward other countries for torture - when exactly are lives not "at stake"?
~ That they condone a practice which, in addition to being barbaric, is not even effective
~ That oversight of CSIS operations remains negligible
~ That recommendations from both the O'Connor and Iacobucci inquiries are being ignored
~ That we are now in open contravention of UN Convention Against Torture
~ That CSIS is comfortable being open about this, presumably based on the assumption there is sufficient public support
~ That about half of the 250+ public comments under a similar article at the G&M do indeed support the CSIS position, citing the necessity of preserving "republican" or "christian" or "North American" values, backed up with examples gleaned from the US TV drama 24 Hours.

Apparently in addition to condoning actions that prove we have lost the war on terrorism, we have also become a nation too stupid to safely operate a television.


.
Update : When I blogged this afternoon about this, I hadn't yet watched the actual proceedings.
Well now I have.
Apparently, according to O'Brian who is very keen on quoting the British House of Lords 2005 "torture decision", "the Executive is bound to make use of all information, both coerced statements and whatever fruits they bear, to safeguard the security of the state."
And if mistakes are made? Well there's always SIRC, the Security Intelligence Review Committee and source of glowing reports about CSIS, to complain to afterwords.
And further, we should be grateful and proud of that.
.
Also, just because a country has an "abysmal" human rights record, it doesn't necessarily follow that information we receive from them is extracted by torture. In fact, usually we have no idea how information is obtained, so - not our fault.
Do we continue to share info with Egypt and Syria? Yes, we share info with 247 agencies, with caveats of course. See SIRC above.
Does the Con chair of the committee plus the five Cons on it continually interrupt with points of order and run interference for the intelligence agencies phrased as questions? You betcha.
.
Also on this one : Skdadl and Dave
.

UN report on torture and rendition cites Canada

Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism,
Martin Scheinin*

The Guardian : "While the practice of extraordinary rendition was put in place by the US, it was only possible through collaboration from other countries, the report says. It identifies the UK, with ­Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, ­Georgia, Indonesia, Kenya, Macedonia and Pakistan, as countries that provided "intelligence or have conducted the initial seizure of an individual before he was transferred to (mostly unacknowledged) detention centres in Afghanistan, Egypt, Ethiopia, Jordan, Pakistan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Thailand, Uzbekistan … or to one of the CIA covert detention centres, often referred to as 'black sites' ".

The Independent :
"Grave human rights violations by states such as torture, enforced disappearances or arbitrary detention should place serious constraints on policies of co-operation by states, including by their intelligence agencies, with states that are known to violate human rights," he said. "The prohibition against torture is an absolute and peremptory norm of international law. States must not aid or assist in the commission of acts of torture ... including by relying on intelligence information obtained through torture."

In his Nov 2007 ruling on the Safe Third Country Agreement, Justice Michael Phelan of the Canadian Federal Court ruled that "The U.S. does not meet the [UN] Convention Against Torture prohibition." That ruling was subsequently overturned.
.
The report notes that "lack of oversight and political and legal accountability has facilitated illegal activities by intelligence agencies", and is exacerbated by "increased cooperation between intelligence agencies" when "condoned or even secretly directed by government officials".

The phrase "sentiment analysis" was new to me on the issue of racial/ethnic profiling.

"While data mining is not prohibited as such, it should not be allowed to include variables that result in compromising the right to non-discrimination.
Data-mining software that performs “sentiment analysis”, which extracts and summarizes opinions from unstructured human-authored documents on the Internet in order to create a terrorist profile - and which is apparently used by intelligence agencies in the United States, Canada, China, Germany, Israel, Singapore and Taiwan - must not be used as the basis for deprivation of liberty or inclusion on "watch lists".

And I was surprised, although I probably should not have been, by this statistic :

"On the introduction of a profit motive into situations which are prone to human rights violations ... 70% of intelligence activities of the U.S. are being outsourced to private actors."

.