My thoughts about Omar Khadr

The story of Omar Khadr is tragic and sad. On a human level, it is the story of a young Muslim boy who has been caught in the so-called “War on Terror” and saw his life totally “hijacked” since. On a political level, Omar Khadr became the tool of legal vengeance and humiliation of American policies aided and supported by some Canadian officials and politicians, to punish the “bad Muslims”, those who found themselves caught in the web of national security. On this video, I briefly speak about the case.

I gave an interview to Mind Bending Politics (MBP), a political blog focusing on Canadian politics and policy. 

 

MBP: There has been a lot of talk about the government awarding Omar Khadr $10.5 million over the past week at various media outlets. Can you provide your initial thoughts on the Khadr settlement? Do you think justice has been served?

Mazigh: For years, as a human rights advocate and as someone who went through injustice with my entire family, I closely followed the case of Omar Khadr. I signed petitions for his return, wrote several articles about him, attended rallies and organized event for his lawyer to speak about the case. So when I recently heard that Omar Khadr reached a settlement with the government, I was very pleased and I felt that finally justice has been served for this citizen who has been imprisoned in the infamous Guantanamo prison when he was 15 years old for almost 10 years, who has been abused by Americans officials and by Canadian officials. Omar Khadr was never given the chance to due process. He was basically dehumanized through false claims, and became the target of legal vendetta by the previous Canadian government. He had to pay for the mistakes of his family and used as “scarecrow” for anyone who dares to criticize the war on terror or issue any doubt about its efficiency.

MBP: This issue regarding the Khadr settlement has been very polarizing for Canadians. Why do you think that is, and also do you think a lack of information regarding what rights are afforded to us under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and how they are upheld could also be contributing to that polarizing debate around the settlement?

Mazigh: Unfortunately, this polarization was influenced by political partisanship, by emotional reactivity and by some media outlet with political and social agenda. In some inflamed discussions, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was rarely considered and the facts were totally and deliberately ignored. Actually, rather than real facts, false claims or distorted facts took over and became the norm. We heard things like “Omar Khadr is a convicted terrorist”, “Omar Khadr was brought to court”, and “Omar Khadr killed a paramedic”. For years, those distorted facts were challenged explained around Khadr left some citizens feel cheated or betrayed by the government. Indeed, it is false to say that Omar Khadr is a convicted terrorist. He was brought in front of a military commission that was considered by many experts as “Kangaroo court”. This presumed “conviction” was nothing than a “sham”. People look at the US and think that it is the country of freedom and constitution so how possibly can we have a “sham” there? It is important to remember that Guantanamo is a military prison. In 2002, 779 prisons were flown from Afghanistan to Guantanamo. By 2011, 600 prisoners were released most of them with no charges. Today there are 41 detainees left and many of them are cleared to go home but still imprisoned.

The successive American administrations had hard time to convict these prisoners. There is a flagrant lack of evidence at the first place and a documented use of torture. Also, some people keep repeating “Omar Khadr killed a paramedic”. The sergeant was not acting as a medic when he was at the battlefild. He was tragically killed in the battle and there is no evidence that Omar Khadr killed him.

MBP: You were instrumental in bringing your husbands case forward to the Canadian government, and to us Canadians. I remember following his situation and eventual resolution for some time. Some Conservatives commentators have raised your husband’s payout when speaking on the Khadr settlement as legitimate because your husband was found innocent of any wrong doing, and are arguing that Khadr’s settlement isn’t legitimate because of a conviction by a US military tribunal. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has come out publicly supporting the Khadr settlement stating that “It’s a legal truism that a right without a remedy is no right at all”. I was just wondering if you would be willing to respond to the way the some are using the settlement your husband has received to delegitimize Khadr’s?

Mazigh: Unfortunately, once again, it is a political partisanship war. My husband, Maher Arar, was compensated under Stephen Harper government and the public announcement about the apology and compensation at that time was also demonized by some groups and individuals. My husband was called “ a terrorist” even after the settlement and up to today some people are resentful to his settlement. When, my husband was in a Syrian dungeon some conservative MPs, rose in the House of Commons and denounced the security laxness of Canada and praised the seriousness of the US administration after arresting a “terrorist”, my husband. People tend to forget and turn a blind eye on the stigma ones go through even after the settlement. People look at the dollar figure and forget that it is impossible to find a job when you were once labelled a terrorist, despite your numerous degrees and skills. Money won’t bring back your life, your name or your reputation.

Today, the individuals and groups attacking Omar Khadr, don’t think about his future, his career, his family, his children. It is the least of their worries. They are so angry that he received money, period. And by the way, that 10.5 millions settlement isn’t even exclusively for Omar Khadr. His lawyers are sharing it with him.

MBP: There was a recent poll done by Angus Reid, in which 71% of Canadians surveyed believed that the Trudeau Government did the wrong thing by paying Khadr money and that the courts should have decided whether his detention was illegal. Missing from this poll was anything regarding the actual reason why Khadr was paid out, and that’s the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled 3 times that Khadr’s rights were violated. If you were part of a polling agency, what question would you ask to Canadians regarding the Khadr settlement?

Mazigh: The polls are dangerous for our democracy. I am not saying they shouldn’t exist but we can’t govern according to them. The rule of law isn’t a popularity contest. Actually, it can be the total opposite. Courageous governments around the world were always attacked and criticized for controversial decisions. Take issues like: abortion, same-sex marriage…The Supreme Court ruled on these issues and the government had no choice than to accept these decisions. In the case of Omar Khadr, it is the same situation. The Supreme Court ruled three times in his favour and today the Canadian government had no choice than to accept and reach a settlement. This decision will never make everyone happy and comfortable but this is why we live in a democracy. We constantly disagree but the Supreme Court is our ultimate test. Take the example of “banning the Niqab at the citizenship ceremony” in 2015. This political wedge issue was used by politicians to win votes. It literally divided voters across the political spectrum but the court ruled that Ms. Zunera Ishaq, the lady at the centre of the controversy, was allowed to keep her Niqab. Many Canadians disagreed and felt uncomfortable but today it is the past.

MBP: Do you think as a result of the polarized political environment in Canada that our constitutional rights as citizens could be at further risk of being infringed upon in the future? If so, could you explain what can be done to get accurate information regarding our constitutional rights out to Canadians at large, and what you would like to see politicians do to ensure that government respects the rights of all Canadians through successive governments?

Mazigh: I am afraid that this polarization we live through is complex and the result of multiple factors. It is not only a matter of getting the accurate information about our constitutional rights. People are becoming less and less trusting of political elites and more and more ready to accept any information that would reassure them in their beliefs, be it false. This polarized environment is exacerbated by a hard and precarious economic situation for many citizens. The monetary settlement received by Omar Khadr make many Canadians feel uncomfortable because many Canadians are being laid off their jobs, many young people are unemployed or have unpaid internship. So they feel cheated and left out by the government.

When, Canada decided to join the so-called “war on terror”, the politicians narrowed it down to a “national security” issue but in reality it is far beyond that. The so-called “war on terror” eroded our civil liberties and rights. They made us accept things like “it is OK to spy on us”, “it is OK to use torture to gain useful information”, “a terrorist doesn’t deserve due process”. On the other hand, people don’t see the increase in the military budget, the billion of dollars to buy military equipment and join wars and the cuts in the social services and in education. We need to have a public discussion on these issues but unfortunately; we are made to feel that we should join on side or the other. In reality, we will never enjoy security if we don’t accept that we have international obligations and rules to respect and that our population need to see the full picture and not just one citizen receiving 10.5 million dollars as if he won a lottery ticket.

MBP: What do you see as the greatest challenge to civil and human rights, now and in the future and Canada?

Mazigh: The greatest challenge to civil and human rights is fear. We think that this happen elsewhere and not in our backward. But it is a slippery slop. When people are afraid of losing their jobs, losing their identity, losing their comfort, losing their kids, they become irrational and they can accept fake news and they can even welcome totalitarianism. Civil and human rights were instituted after the Second World War after the humanity experienced the worst. After 9/11, some politicians are trying to play the fear card again. Guantanamo was justified through fear and a need for security. Military courts were justified by fear.

In Canada, we shipped citizens to torture and deprived them for their rights because we were afraid of them, of their beliefs and we collectively presumed they were dangerous to our security. Security became an illusion being sold by some politicians to obtain more votes. Meanwhile, our social programs are being cut and defunded, our economy still rely on non-renewable energy, the economical inequalities are increasing and the politicians are not offering any serious plans to tackle them.

MBP: What do you see as recent steps forward in advancing civil and human rights in Canada? What would you like to see happen, both nationally in Canada and internationally to advance civil and human rights?

Mazigh: Canada must live up to its international reputation. For centuries, Canada has let down its indigenous people. It is time to build new relationships based on respect and equality. We can’t have human rights for some, it is a recipe for social uprising. Last year, Canada announced its intent to finally ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture after ignoring it for years; I hope this matter would be expedited. This way, cases like Omar Khadr would be less likely to happen in the future. In Canada, we need to have more accountability when it comes to issues like policing and national security. There were new announcements by the federal government that are very promising but we have to remain vigilant as abuses are not only committed by individuals but also by institutions. Internationally, we should partner with other countries to advance human rights in other place of the world. We can’t be happy of what we are achieving in Canada, we live in a globalized word and abuses in other part of the world would eventually affect us. So we have to help alleviate oppression overseas and make our global impact as “lighter” as possible.

En politique, il n’y a pas de “Best Friends Forever”

 

Malheureusement, il semble que pour plusieurs groupes musulmans du Québec, le travail de lobbying ou de représentation des droits des musulmans est souvent confondu avec la notion de tisser une amitié avec certains politiciens.

Heureusement que le premier Ministre Philipe Couillard, considéré par plusieurs de ces groupes comme un ami « raisonnable », est venu leur rappeler que dans la vie d’un politicien ce qui compte le plus ce sont les sondages et les caisses du parti et que les gentils mots échangés pendant certains festivals de « couscous » ou de « chameaux » ainsi que les quelques larmes sincères ou non, versées lors des funérailles des six musulmans assassinés à la mosquée de Québec, sont éphémères, rapidement séchées dès la publication du premier sondage qui dirait par exemple que la Coalition pour l’Avenir du Québec (CAQ), deviendrait un concurrent dangereux dans certaines circonscriptions électorales.

Ce n’est pas un secret que la CAQ, depuis des années, fait de la surenchère politique sur le dos des musulmans, des immigrants, en attisant la peur des citoyens et en leur faisait faussement croire que le terrorisme est un phénomène local et que les musulmans ont tous une part de responsabilité dans les actes violents commis par chacun qui s’appellerait « Mohamed », « Abdullah » ou porterait un prénom à connotation arabo-musulmane. Le premier ministre Couillard, dans sa crainte de voir le tapis lui être tiré sous les pieds par ses adversaires politiques, a haussé le ton et a soudainement laissé tomber ces « amis musulmans » qui tels que rapporté par certains médias sont sous encore le choc, comme si cela n’était pas prévisible à quelques mois des élections provinciales.

Mais, sarcasme mis de côté, les propos du premier ministre du Québec sont graves et erronés pour deux raisons principales.

Tout d’abord, le premier ministre s’est inspiré des propos du président français, Emmanuel Macron, alors que la situation en France est plus complexe et certainement distincte de celle du Québec. La France est en crise depuis des décennies avec ses concitoyens français de foi musulmane, dont les parents ou grands-parents sont d’origine maghrébine, issues des anciennes colonies comme le Maroc, l’Algérie ou la Tunisie.

Que vient faire le Québec là-dedans? Certes, il y a une grande communauté musulmane au Québec (environ 300,000 personnes) dont 63% sont originaires de l’Afrique du Nord, toutefois c’est une communauté issue d’une immigration relativement jeune (début des années 90), appartenant à un groupe socioéconomique, qui malgré les défis de chômage (taux aux alentours de 18%), n’est pas concentrée dans des HLM ou des ghettos ethniques comme c’est le cas de la France, et constitue l’une des communautés les plus éduqués au Canada (48% détiennent des diplômes universitaires).

Par ailleurs, la France, a vu les deux dernières années, une vague d’attentats se déferler sur son territoires. Ces actes ont été commis par des français musulmans. En deux ans, le nombre de victimes de ces actes s’est élevé à 239 victimes. De plus, il y a environ 900 français qui sont partis combattre en Syrie et en Iraq.

Au Québec, il n’y a pas eu de vague d’attentats terroristes. En 2014, il y a le militaire de Saint-Jean sur Richelieu qui a été tué par Martin Rouleau, un jeune qui s’est converti à l’islam et qui faut-il le rappeler souffre de plusieurs troubles mentaux. Et bien sûr, l’histoire des jeunes québécois qui ont quitté le Québec pour aller renflouer les rangs de certains groupes combattants en Syrie. D’après ce que rapportent certains médias, entre 2012 et 2015, il y aurait eu six jeunes qui sont partis et dix autres qui ont été arrêtés par les autorités policières pour avoir essayé de joindre les rangs de certaines organisations terroristes en Syrie. Et malgré ces chiffres statistiquement non significatif, un centre pour la prévention contre la radicalisation menant à la violence a été mis en place à Montréal en grande pompe avec l’aval du maire Denis Coderre et de toute la classe politique. Aujourd’hui, la question qui se pose: « pourquoi, il n’y a pas eu un centre pour la lutte contre l’islamophobie après que six pères de famille soient tués dans leur lieux de prière, le mois de janvier passé? »

Deuxièmement, le premier ministre Couillard, a utilisé dans ses propos une rhétorique dangereuse souvent utilisée par certaines personnes en position de pouvoir et de privilège pour critiquer les demandes de certaines victimes. Ce qu’il a dit serait semblable à critiquer une femme qui a subit une violence sexuelle en lui rétorquant que c’est la façon dont elle s’habille qui est la cause de son malheur.

Et pourtant le premier ministre n’est pas fait une sortie le jour où les chiffres de Statistiques Canada ont révélé que ce sont les musulmans qui sont ceux qui ont subi l’augmentation la plus considérable d’actes haineux.

Non seulement les musulmans ont vu le nombre de crimes haineux contre eux augmenter d’une manière fulgurante mais que cette violence est généralement l’œuvre d’hommes âgés entre 18 à 24 ans.

Pourquoi, alors le premier ministre Couillard ne s’est-il pas adressé à ce groupe démographique et lui faire la leçon de morale, comme il l’a fait avec les musulmans, et lui demander de se distancer de ces crimes haineux et de reformer leur idéologie violente?

Les représentants de la communauté musulmane ont cru qu’en étant gentils et dociles avec le gouvernement, les choses s’amélioreraient d’elle même.

Malheureusement, en politique et quand il s’agit de revendiquer ses droits, il faut crier haut et faire, il faut faire beaucoup de bruit, il ne faut pas mâcher ses mots, il faut des demandes claires et il faut du courage pour poursuivre la lutte.

Après la mort de six hommes tué par un terroriste québécois dont on ignore presque tout sur sa religion et ses croyances religieuses et ses opinions politiques, aucune action concrète n’a été mise en place par le gouvernement Couillard pour éduquer la population et prévenir les actes de haine et d’islamophobie.

Il est temps que les musulmans du Québec, et du Canada aussi, sachent qui ni les Couillard, ni les Lisée, ni les Legault, ni les Nadeau- Dubois, ni même les Trudeau, ne sont des amis pour la vie. Ce sont des hommes politiques qui cherchent à se faire élire et gagner des élections. Le droit à la dignité, le respect et la liberté ne seraient jamais obtenus par des poignées de main, des sourires laconiques ou des « égo portraits » pris avec des politiciens opportunistes, mais plutôt par des luttes sociales, de l’éducation et surtout du travail militant intelligent et courageux, sur le terrain et de longue haleine.

 

 

 

 

 

There’s No Justifying Canada’s Flawed Counter-Radicalization Plan

In his mandate letter to Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau included the creation of an Office of the Community Outreach and Counter-Radicalization Coordinator.

In the 2016 federal budget, the Liberal government pledged to spend $35 million over five years to set up such an office. So far, the Liberal government hasn’t made any official announcement about the office, although Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale hinted to some news outlets that the so-called office would focus on “radicalization to violence of all kinds,” as opposed to the previous Conservative government’s strategy of exclusively targeting Muslim Canadians.

According to some media reports, it seems that the Canadian government’s counter-radicalization model gets its inspiration from what the British government has already implemented in recent years: the Prevent strategy, a program that proved to be a failure at many levels and by all standards.

Two NGOs, the U.S.-based Open Society Justice Initiative and Rights Watch U.K., studied Prevent and its sister program, named Channel, and found in 2016 major flaws with them both. One of the main criticisms is that these programs are based onprofiling and targeting Muslims, particularly in schools, in kindergartens and in health institutions. But most importantly, there is a lack of consensus among academic experts that these counter-radicalization programs are scientifically reliable.

The notion of certain “indicators” identified as risk factors that would draw individuals to terrorism has been discredited by many scholars: “Indeed, the claim that non-violent extremism — including ‘radical’ or religious ideology — is the precursor to terrorism has been widely discredited by the British government itself, as well as numerous reputable scholars.”

The creation of such a program relies on several false premises. It wrongly assumes that Muslim youth are prone to espouse violent ideologies or perpetrate violent crimes more than their peers. Recently, Statistics Canada released the disturbing figuresabout hate crimes in Canada that happened in 2015. In summary, the new figures convey to us two main points:

  • That Muslims communities are among the groups that saw the highest increase of hate crimes perpetrated against them.
  • That the perpetrators of these heinous acts are young men between the age of 18 and 24.

These figures are not surprising to say the least. Many grassroots groups have in the last couple of years shown and documented the rise of Islamophobic acts. Simultaneously, academics brought attention to the rise of violent right-wing extremist and racist groups in Canada.

Neither the provincial or federal governments took these indicators or studies seriously and never acted upon them to present new legislation to fight this phenomenon. The narrative that “Muslim youth are attracted to violence and Jihad” remains very widespread. Meanwhile, groups like Pegida, La Meute, Soldiers of Odin and the Jewish Defense League, to name only a few, are thriving and gaining in popularity and seeing their membership increase. Their protests are also becomingmore public and more provocative. Up until today, an investigative piece reported about a new violent anti-Muslim group — III%, or the “three per cent,” — which claims that they are heavily armed and ready to wage a war on Canadian soil.

After the attack on the Quebec City Mosque, last January 2017 and the assassination of six Muslim men, federal, provincial and local politicians denounced the attacks and said some comforting words to the Muslim communities across the country. Nevertheless, no concrete action was taken to tackle Islamophobia. No extra funding (of very little) was given to schools to fight Islamophobia through education programs. No new measures were adopted by local police to make arrests and ensure that prosecutions of hate crimes are successful.

The only concrete initiative that was undertaken was the introduction of motion,M-103 in the Parliament by Liberal Member of Parliament Iqra Khalid. One of thepurposes of the motion was to “study how the government could develop a government-wide approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination, including Islamophobia, and collect data to provide context for hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities.” The motion was never intended to be a piece of legislation, but simply a proposal to draw attention about an increasing phenomenon.

The media and political backlash that ensued after this initiative couldn’t be justified by the real impact this motion proposed to have. Indeed, it created a huge controversy among politicians; some of them hid behind the classic pretext that the use of the word “Islamophobia” would mean the end of freedom of expression and free speech, and the destruction of our democracy and liberal values.

In 2014, when two Muslim individuals attacked and killed two Canadians Forces members, one in Saint-Jean in Quebec and the other near the Parliament Hill in Ottawa, then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper introduced Bill C-51, which became the Anti Terrorism Act 2015 — one of the most intrusive pieces of legislation threatening the civil liberties of all Canadians. It was widely denounced by several law professors, former judges and human rights activists. Some of the politicians who last February vehemently opposed M-103 voted in 2015 for Bill C-51 and weren’t that concerned about the real impact the legislation had on the freedom of expression and civil liberties.

Moreover, there has never been a public debate about the root causes of terrorism in Canada. Citing Canada’s successive military missions in the Middle East — Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria — as one of the reasons that push some young Canadians to join violent groups is practically taboo. Linking these attacks to mental-health issues, drug addictions or social and economical marginalization are brushed off as legitimization of violence. Rather, the general public is made to believe that these violent acts are solely explained by the faith and religious beliefs of the perpetrators, which happened to be Islam.

This reductionist approach to define, tackle and explain terrorism continues to justify the creation of a $35-million public office. Rather, the money could have been spent on development of education programs in schools to fight hate, on special training for law enforcement forces to understand racial profiling and on NGOs that offer mental and economic support to marginalized youth.

This article was published on the Huffington Post