Election 44: Human Rights Op-Ed

Federal election 2021: We need to hear about human rights

by Alex Neve[*]

So, we are now into the second week of the federal election.  Pundits and commentators have been busy offering their assessment and critiques of what the parties appear to be prioritizing in their campaigning.

There is no shortage of pressing contenders, including the health and economic dimensions of COVID-19, the ravages of the climate crisis, accountability for the genocide of residential schools as well as reconciliation with Indigenous peoples more widely, dismantling systemic racism, addressing gender inequality, taking on the challenge of governing the digital world, improving refugee protection, and responding to Afghanistan, Haiti and other humanitarian hotspots and disasters around the world.

Beyond offering up pledges about those crucial concerns, however, what would be refreshing is to hear genuine, full-fledged readiness to uphold human rights from the leaders. That is the key to meaningful progress with respect to all challenges we face, nationally and globally.

Human rights protection is foundational, yet we rarely hear convincing commitments framed from a human rights perspective in elections. Platitudes and posturing, that’s easy. Heartfelt endorsement of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is commonplace, from some parties. And commendable positions on specific human rights cases or situations do certainly arise, unevenly and sporadically.

But a compelling vision for concretely putting human rights at the heart of Canada? Not so much. In fact, not at all.

We need leaders to make it clear that they will assess issues, craft policy, reform laws, set budgets, and make decisions, always, through a human rights framework.

Not only when it is convenient. Not as a secondary afterthought. And certainly not just by putting feel-good human rights language in more press releases.

Taking human rights seriously is about equality, agency, accountability, remedies, transparency, and consistency.  That is essential when it comes to COVID recovery, climate justice, Indigenous rights, dismantling racism, advancing gender equality, governing the internet, and protecting refugees. That is fundamental in responding to crises in Afghanistan, Haiti, Ethiopia, China, Israel/Palestine, Venezuela, Syria, Yemen, Colombia, Myanmar, and elsewhere. 

Above all else, it is how we will ultimately realize an equitable and sustainable world.

We could (and certainly should) ask the parties to provide us with human rights laundry lists. How will they rectify Canada’s various human rights shortcomings? What international human rights treaties will they ratify among the many we have not yet taken on board? Will they reconceive our relationships with the many countries with whom we regularly prioritize politics and economics over human rights? That would of course be welcome.

But more crucially, we need commitments that are transformative, not only reactive.  Commitments that are overarching, not piecemeal.  Commitments that are not just in the moment but will stand the test of time.

Here are three that would make a difference.

First, ensure that Canada’s stance on the world stage is consistently guided by international human rights standards. The Trudeau government adopted a feminist international assistance policy in 2017 and has been consulting with civil society towards a broader feminist foreign policy. The government has also put in place new guidelines for our diplomats to better protect human rights defenders around the world. Those are all steps in the right direction. But there is much further to do. Will parties commit to a legislated requirement to implement an international human rights action plan across the entirety of Canada’s global affairs?

Ensuring equitable vaccine availability worldwide, responding to the downward spiral in Afghanistan, selling armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia, pushing Iran for accountability for shooting down Ukrainian International Airlines flight 752, working to free Canadians imprisoned abroad, acting on concerns about Canadian mining companies in Latin America, setting refugee policy along the US border, calling Israel out on illegal settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territory, or squaring the Beijing Olympics with what is happening to Uyghurs and in Hong Kong? Human rights must reliably be the overriding consideration in setting Canada’s course globally.

Second, shut down the growing inclination to use the Charter of Rights’ problematic notwithstanding clause.  Provincial governments have recently recklessly used this escape hatch three times to avoid human rights obligations: twice in Quebec and once (almost twice) in Ontario.

Ottawa doesn’t write provincial laws. And we aren’t about to amend the Charter, a near-impossible (certainly Herculean) task. It would be helpful, however, for all federal parties to unequivocally promise – backed up by legislation – never to resort to section 33.

Third, it is time for a truly national embrace of human rights across Canada. For decades we have been hobbled by an ineffective and secretive approach among federal, provincial, and territorial governments when it comes to complying with our vital international human rights obligations. Our governments must collaborate to uphold those obligations equally and meaningfully across the country, and do so openly and transparently. They do not. Not even close.

Last year, in a meeting of federal, provincial, and territorial ministers responsible for human rights cohosted by the federal and Nova Scotia governments, which was only the third such gathering in 32 years, an important decision was taken, largely unnoticed at the time or since, to set up a Forum of Ministers on Human Rights.

That’s all we know. It so very much needs to be a gamechanger when it comes to delivering human rights protection across the country. But it could so easily end up being yet another wasted opportunity. We need to hear from federal parties about their vision for this Forum, and what concrete action they will take to make that happen.

We do face immense challenges that understandably feel daunting. Taking human rights seriously, like never before, will put us on the right path.

---

[*] Alex Neve is a Senior Fellow with the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa. He was Secretary General of Amnesty International Canada from 2000-2020.  An edited and shortened version of this blog appeared as an opinion piece in the Ottawa Citizen on August 18, 2021.

Amnesty International: 58 years on, collective action for human rights matters more than ever

On May 28, 1961 a British barrister, feeling outrage at the injustice in our world, was inspired to act. Peter Benenson had heard of the cases of two university students – arrested, tried and sentenced during what was at that time a cruel military dictatorship in Portugal – locked up simply because they had dared to raise their glasses of wine in a toast to freedom.

Peter knew that what had befallen those two students was by no means exceptional, and that there were people in every corner of the world, jailed because of their political beliefs, their religious faith or the colour of their skin; prisoners of conscience as they came to be known.  Vitally, he also knew that he would not be alone in his sense of outrage. 

So Peter Benenson set out to harness that collective concern and turn it into a force for change; a force for justice. In 1961 he did not set out to found a global human rights movement.  Less ambitiously, but with a force of determination that soon involved countless others, he launched a year-long campaign for “amnesty” for those he called the forgotten prisoners, encouraging people to write polite letters to political leaders around the world, calling for freedom for women, men and young people who never should have been detained in the first place.

Critics and naysayers thought that Peter Benenson was delusional. Why would people want to take time to write letters on behalf of people they had never met and never would, who lived in countries they would never visit?  And why would cruel despots care what a plumber in Manchester, office worker in Helsinki, grandmother in Melbourne or college student in Vancouver had to say?

But Peter Benenson was not delusional; he and every activist who flocked to his campaign were in fact visionary.  People do care enough about the rights of others to write a letter; care deeply in fact.  And even tyrants worry about world opinion; not always, but frequently enough that we know that global pressure can and does make a difference in the face of grave human rights violations.

Peter’s modest ambition of sustaining a year long campaign did grow into Amnesty International, which has grown to become the world’s largest human rights movement, has been honoured with the Nobel Peace Prize, and is present on the ground today in all corners of our globe. 

Here in Canada Amnesty International has 400,000 supporters who actively take up cases close to home, notably the pervasive human rights violations experienced by Indigenous peoples in the country; and campaign for an end to atrocities in countries such as Yemen and Myanmar and protection for courageous human rights defenders in countries like Colombia and Honduras.

And 58 years later, sadly, Amnesty International has, in many respects, never been more important. 

Far too many countries continue to be devasted by the ravages of war and armed conflict, with an agonizing list in 2019 that includes Yemen, South Sudan, Syria, Myanmar, Afghanistan and Libya.

Far too many politicians – including in the United States, Brazil, the Philippines and a growing number of European countries – win elections by promoting policies of hate, fear and division; with the most marginalized in our societies being targeted for threats and violence.

Additionally, we know that the rapidly spiraling impacts of climate change pose what is fast becoming the most urgent human rights challenge of our time; yet continues to be met by denial and resistance by far too many governments and powerful economic interests.

It may seem overwhelming.  It may very understandably lead to the question, what difference could I possibly make? Just as it did in 1961.

And that is why the Amnesty International vision still holds true.  The problems are immense and may seem insurmountable.  But there is always one thing you can do right now to make a difference for one person, or for one community, or for one country.  And there is a friend, co-worker, neighbour, relative or fellow student who you can urge to join you in that effort; and another and another… 

That is where change comes from; it always has and always will. That is also the vision of the Sisters of St. Joseph community, a spirit of solidarity and collective responsibility that has been of such immense support to Amnesty International’s human rights efforts over the years.

Today, we cherish that close connection; and together we renew our commitment.  Together, tomorrow and all the tomorrows to come: we will press on and we will not relent until the glorious promise of universal human rights protection is a reality for everyone, everywhere.

Alex Neve, Secretary General,

Amnesty International Canada

At long last: Canada makes amends to Omar Khadr

There has been intense and divisive debate in Canada over the past two weeks following news that the Canadian government has reached a settlement with Omar Khadr. The settlement resolves the lawsuit he had brought for compensation related to Canada’s role in the abuses he experienced during a decade in US ‘war on terror’ detention.

It is worth going back in time and recapping what brought Omar and the Canadian government to this moment.

Fifteen years ago, almost to the day, 15 year-old Canadian citizen Omar Khadr found himself in the midst of a firefight and airstrike in a compound in Afghanistan.  He was, in fact, a child solider, and should never have been there in the first place.  But his father, now well known for his extremist views and links to Osama Bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda leaders, had willingly propelled his teenage son out onto the battlefield.

By the time the fighting was over, the militants with whom Omar had been partnered were dead.  Omar was so badly injured as to be near death.  One US soldier had been killed and another badly wounded.

Omar was, however, rescued by US forces. He had life-saving surgery and did not die on the battlefield that day.

And thus began an unimaginable journey through injustice for young Omar Khadr. A journey he will likely never be able to completely put behind him.

No one would have anticipated on that day, however, that Canada would become complicit in the injustice and abuse he endured.

Omar Khadr was eventually accused with having thrown a grenade during that firefight that killed the US soldier who had died.

It was a full eight years – April 2010 – before a trial against him on those charges finally got underway at Guantánamo Bay. 

Omar had been transferred to Guantánamo 3 months after he was captured.  He had first been held at the notorious US detention facility at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, where torture and ill-treatment was rampant.  15 year-old Omar was threatened, terrorized and abused while he was held there.

At Guantánamo Bay, Omar Khadr experienced the range of human rights violations for which the off-shore US detention camp quickly become globally infamous.  He was held first for years without charge or trial.  He continued to experience torture and ill-treatment, including the cruel ‘frequent flyer program’, which subjected prisoners to sleep deprivation over days at a time, a form of treatment widely recognized to be a particularly debilitating form of physical and mental torture.  His young age was never taken into account: not by acknowledging that he was a child soldier and as such a victim of human rights abuse for that reason alone; and not by treating him as a juvenile detainee and ensuring he was given access to educational and other programming.

And finally, in 2010, when his ‘trial’ began, he experienced another dimension of Guantánamo’s many layers of injustice: the deeply unfair military commission hearings process, which fell far short of international fair trial standards.

And where was Canada?

Certainly not standing up for Omar Khadr’s rights.

Instead, Canadian intelligence officials showed up at Guantánamo Bay two times in 2003 to interview Omar Khadr and did so knowing that he had been through the ‘frequent flyer’ treatment just before their arrival.  The Supreme Court of Canada, in rulings in 2008 and 2010, slammed Canadian officials for that conduct and unanimously found that Omar Khadr’s Charter rights had been violated.

Canada certainly did not come to Omar Khadr’s rescue.

While the government of other Western nationals held at Guantánamo Bay did advocate on behalf of their citizens and, one after another, gained their transfer back home, Stephen Harper’s government defiantly refused to lift a finger.

Canada made things worse for Omar Khadr.

It was not that the Harper government remained silent; instead they deliberately and consistently fueled an inflammatory and bigoted campaign of untruths and half-truths about Omar Khadr.  It was clearly all about politics. It guaranteed that Omar would stay at Guantánamo for a very long time. 

Omar Khadr eventually entered into a plea deal with his US jailors.  He pled guilty in return for an 8 year sentence.  He served 2 further years at Guantánamo Bay before he was finally transferred back to a Canadian prison in September 2012 to serve the balance of his sentence.

And then in May 2015, on the basis of positive reports from corrections officials and an appeal of his conviction in the US courts considered to have a likely prospect of success, Omar was released on bail.

During the past two years Omar has lived openly in Edmonton.  He has pursued studies.  He has made a strong and positive impression on everyone who has crossed his path.  It has truly been remarkable to see the resilient and hopeful young man who has emerged from these many years of abuse, torment and suffering.

The announcement of compensation and an apology should have marked a celebratory moment of justice.  And it was and is; most certainly.  And we should indeed celebrate.

But it has also been truly disheartening to once again see an eruption of hate and vitriol unleashed against Omar backed, very sadly, by the Conservative Party, now in Opposition.  That has been a sobering and cautionary reminder that we have more to do in working against intolerance and racism, shoring up a commitment to human rights in our national security practices, and standing firm for fundamental concepts of equality and fairness.

The Sisters of Saint Joseph have been valiant partners in Omar Khadr’s long struggle for justice.  From very early stages, long before there was wide sympathy and support for his plight, the Sisters clearly understood what was at stake.  I was always struck by how much interest and concern there was to have an Omar Khadr update every time I came to visit.  I was so bolstered myself, feeling tremendous support and solidarity every time I headed down to Guantánamo for trial observations.  And I know that many letters, petitions and cards made their way from London, Ontario to Washington, Ottawa, Guantánamo and to Omar personally, demanding justice and sending best wishes.       

Tempting as it would be to close the Omar Khadr file, we aren’t there yet.  The Conservative Party has said they intend to bring the issue of the settlement to Parliament in the fall.  A legal case by the widow of the US soldier who was killed and the other soldier who was injured, seeking to enforce a default court judgement they won against Omar in a Utah Court several years ago, is also going ahead.

All of that aside, however, justice has been done.  That truly is tremendous and so very much long overdue.

In reaching this settlement the Canadian government has acknowledged and recognized that Omar Khadr was wronged by his own government and that for that we must make amends.  And that matters, very much.

Guest Blogger:
Alex Neve, Secretary General,
Amnesty International Canada

A Different Kind of Human Rights Day

December 10, 2015 certainly was a different kind of Human Rights Day for those of us working to advance human rights protection in and from Canada. Political change has truly opened up some real possibilities and opportunities for reversing troubling setbacks and advancing long-needed reforms with respect to Canada’s foreign policy and domestic record on the human rights front. First time we’ve been able to say that in quite some time.

As such, the annual review (the 14^th edition) we always publish on Human Rights Day, our Human Rights Agenda for Canada, is the most ambitious and comprehensive yet.  We’ve endeavoured to put a wide-ranging vision and set of recommendations in front of the new government.

#Rights4All  #pourtous There is much for us to do together over the coming year to hold the government to encouraging commitments already made, highlight areas where we need to hear and see more, and watch carefully to ensure that the promise of new tone and new approaches becomes reality.  We look forward to continuing to work with you in those shared efforts.

Guest blogger, Alex Neve, Secretary General of Amnesty International Canada   www.amnesty.ca/

Links to the press release and full report:

http://www.amnesty.ca/news/defending-rights-all-amnesty-international%E2%80%99s-human-rights-agenda-new-canadian-government-0

Bringing human rights into the divisive niqab debate

From a human rights perspective a particularly troubling side of the recent federal election was the heated discussion that arose about the niqab.  Now that the election is over it is time to put the ugliness of that divisive and toxic debate behind us and ensure that we move forward with messages and an approach that are inclusive, respectful and grounded in rights.

The debate arose because one woman who has chosen to wear the niqab challenged a policy brought in by former Minister of Immigration Jason Kenney which would have required her to remove her niqab face covering during her citizenship ceremony.  Zunera Ishaq did not object to being required to reveal her face privately to female officials in advance of the ceremony, to verify her identity.  But she felt that being required to remove the veil in public during the subsequent ceremony ran contrary to her religious beliefs.

In February 2015 the Federal Court ruled in Ms. Ishaq’s favour, overturning the government’s policy.  The government appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal.  The appeal was heard and judgement rendered on the spot on September 15^th in the midst of the election campaign. The three judge appeal  panel unanimously and immediately sided with Ms. Ishaq; that is how clear the legal issues are in the case. 

The government announced a further appeal attempt, on to the Supreme Court of Canada.  Recognizing that the appeal would not be heard before Election Day government lawyers were instructed to ask the Federal Court of Appeal to puts its ruling on hold until the matter was dealt with by the Supreme Court.  The Federal Court of Appeal refused to do so, recognizing that Ms. Ishaq’s need to obtain citizenship in time to vote was of fundamental importance and there was no countervailing and compelling government interest in delay.

What was so deeply troubling was the extent to which Ms. Ishaq’s case was then used for poisonous political advantage.  Politicians, particularly in Quebec, used it directly and indirectly to fan flames of xenophobia, including in the leaders debate.  And with that move, a group that already faces considerable marginalization and disenfranchisement suddenly faced even greater stigmatisation and derision.

The niqab is a form of dress adopted by some Muslim women which includes a face veil which only leaves an opening for a woman’s eyes.  In some parts of the world governments and religious authorities force women to wear the niqab and refusal to comply can be met with severe penalties.

The human rights response to the niqab is clear.  No government anywhere is allowed to impose laws or poliicies requiring women and girls to wear it (or any other mandated dress code that has no legitimate basis in health or safety).  But similarly no government is allowed to prohibit women and girls from wearing the niqab (or ban other forms of dress, again absent security or safety concerns).  The human rights side of this debate is so clear it is no surprise that court rulings have been quick, unanimous and always in Ms. Ishaq’s favour.  Important rights to free expression, freedom of religion and women’s equality are on the line.

Clearly many Canadians are troubled by and feel uncomfortable with the niqab. Many see it as a symbol of women’s oppression.  But that discomfort or personal perceptions about the niqab do not change the fundamental human rights equation:  governments are not allowed to force or prohibit any particular form of dress.   

What also came out during the recent debate is the degree to which misunderstandings and stereotypes about the women who wear the niqab prevail, largely on the basis of assumptions.  Ms. Ishaq herself made it clear that wearing it was her own personal choice and that both her father and her husband had in fact discouraged or questioned her decision.  What that reminds us is that clearly the motivation and personal experiences of the women behind the veil differ considerably. Some feel forced and with no choice.  Others compelled to follow a sense of duty.  Some see it as tradition.  Others may feel more comfortable and at ease when they wear it.

A remarkable group of over 500 Canadian women leaders from such fields as law, politics, business, the arts, civil society and religious life came forward during the final days of the recent election and released a statement calling for respect and rights to prevail in the niqab debate. That statement noted with concern that the discussion to date has been marked by talking about the women most directly implicated and that it was time, instead, to talk with them.   How true that is.  It is quite astounding that the majority of the loudest voices in recent weeks, on both sides of the debate, have been men.  Women, let alone women who wear or who have made the decision not to wear the niqab, have been relegated to the sidelines.

This debate is not over.  For instance, there is proposed provincial legislation pending in Quebec which might prohibit women wearing the niqab from working as public servants.

We cannot and should not shut down that debate. But we can work to ensure that it takes on a tone of inclusion, not exclusion; builds understanding, not misconceptions; and is focused on rights, not punishment.

Guest Blogger:

Alex Neve
Secretary General
Amnesty International Canada