by unsigned editorial
Source: The Globe and Mail
URL: [link]
Date: November 18, 2008


There is something about the story of secret agents following suspected terrorist Mohamed Harkat into an Ottawa washroom and sitting behind him and his wife in a movie - Bon Cop, Bad Cop - that nicely illustrates the way Canadian democracy bends over backward to ensure that due process and liberty survive in the age of terror.

Mr. Harkat's supporters say he is subject to severe conditions of house arrest: He may leave his home on preauthorized trips for only four hours at a time, and only 12 hours a week, and only if he is accompanied by his wife. He contends that these conditions are unnecessary and are ruining his life, and is challenging them in court. Canadian taxpayers may also wish to challenge them; it turns out that up to six officers for the Canadian Border Services Agency worked full-time tracking Mr. Harkat on foot, by car and electronically. The cost in 2006-07 was at least $576,886 ($868,700 was budgeted), plus $31,000 for a new car. Imagine all the displaced persons in refugee camps who could be brought to Canada for that amount.

There are no perfect alternatives. One option is to leave him in jail, but the Federal Court says, No, his risk can probably be managed in the community. Another is to drop the extra security and cross our fingers.Much better would be to borrow from an idea from Britain, which sent a senior emissary to Jordan and other countries known to use torture. Britain obtained promises that these countries would not torture the people Britain deports. That British policy, now facing a court challenge, holds potential for Canada.

Mr. Harkat, a non-citizen, is free to leave this country. Canada wants to deport him to his homeland, Algeria, but he argues he would be tortured there. Torture happens in the shadows, so is it realistic to expect that Britain's approach can work, with a method for verifying that the promise has been kept? Maher Arar of Canada was tortured in Syria, and yet the United States, which deported him, claims it sought Syria's assurance he wouldn't be tortured. (There is no evidence the U.S. followed up when Mr. Arar reported that he had been tortured, a report confirmed in a Canadian judicial inquiry.) Canada has signed a pact in Afghanistan to allow for monitoring of prisoners it transfers. No one would say no torture goes on. On the other hand, Canada extradites suspects to death-penalty countries such as the U.S. and China on promises that they will not be executed. Those promises have stood up.

To deport to torture is repugnant, but must Canada bear that risk to Mr. Harkat and the cost in perpetuity? It is deeply frustrating to learn of the financial and human resources devoted to a single, possibly "undeportable" suspect. It makes sense, on balance, to question whether he truly is undeportable. Middle Eastern countries with poor human-rights records already co-operate with the West in fighting terrorism. It should be explained to them that true co-operation means taking back suspects without torturing them.

© Copyright 2008 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved