Returning to the Abousfian Abdelrazik story briefly because of this from the latest CTV story on today's development:
Deepak Obhari, [Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence] Cannon's parliamentary secretary, said Abdelrazik can't fly home until he is removed from a United Nations no-fly list.
"So that creates a very serious problem for us (in) a legal aspect," said Obhari.
Now don't just take my word for it. This is from Paul Koring's Globe and Mail story earlier today and is in reference to the UN list that Obhrai claims is causing a legal problem.
Although the blacklist imposes a travel ban, it includes a specific exemption for citizens to return home.
Abousfian Abdelrazik has been a Canadian citizen for almost 15 years and his home is in Montreal. Deepak Obhrai's pants are in flames.
Aside: CTV News badly needs a copy editor. It's Deepak Obhrai, not Deepak Obhari.
G&M March 2008 :
"Last month, Mr. Bernier was in Khartoum.
An official in his ministry and Deepak Obhrai, the junior foreign affairs minister, met Mr. Abdelrazik at the embassy. But they didn't offer him either a passport or a route home. Instead, Mr. Abdelrazik said, they quizzed him about why he came to Canada in the first place and asked about his views on Israel."
But you don't understand - these aren't REAL citizens. They're just 'citizens of convenience', right? Unless you're some celebrity who went to grade school here before moving to Hollywood, making it big, and forgetting the name of the town he was born in. Now that's a REAL Canadian!
Speaking of citizenship, where is Jason Kenney in all this? Surely he should be first in line questioning the validity of Abdelrazik's citizenship.
I agree, the Conservatives are full of liars.
http://www.abandonedstuff.com/2009/04/03/how-did-they-know-there-was-to-be-an-election
Obhrai doesn't dare admit the truth, which is that Abdelrazik is on the (a?) U.S. list as well, which admits of no such exemption (and the UN exemption has been well known for some time).
I believe that even the airlines are afraid to resist the U.S. list, however capricious it is (and clearly, it is).
But the Cons know that this is not a fact that makes Canadians happy.
I believe that even the airlines are afraid to resist the U.S. list, however capricious it is (and clearly, it is).
Well, yes, except that Abdelrazik had a ticket for a flight on an airline that was willing to fly him home. Also, if I'm not mistaken, the government of Sudan offered to fly him home on a government plane (not subjet to commercial no-fly lists at all) but the government of Canada refused that accommodation as well.
It's a sad day when the government of SUDAN apparently feels worse about how a Canadian citizen has been treated than the government of Canada does.
Here's the UN reference. Koring was right.
UN resolution 1390, Section 2b: With respect to persons on the list, member states are obligated to "[p]revent the entry into or the transit through their territories of these individuals, provided that nothing in this paragraph shall oblige any State to deny entry into or require the departure from its territories of its own nationals and this paragraph shall not apply where entry or transit is necessary for the fulfilment of a judicial process or the Committee determines on a case by case basis only that entry or transit is justified." [emphasis added]
Sorry--left out the link:
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/216/02/PDF/N0221602.pdf?OpenElement
Actually, the right to retuirn to one's own country is far more deeply embedded in international law than a mere resolution.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights itself, one of the foundational documents of international law, contains Article 13(2), which states:
"Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."
The violation of Abdelrazik's core human right to return to Canada really does shame Canada. Canada often brags internationally that the most important of the drafters of the Universal Declaration was a Canadian, John Humphrey. That looks more and more hypocritical.
According to this in today's Globe and Mail, Cannon has invoked:
This is apparently the first time it's ever been used and it doesn't sound like it would survive a Charter challenge but that doesn't help Abdelrazik for the moment.
The Charter of Rights says:
"6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada."
It is hilarious to think that a Charter right could be denied "where the Minister is of the opinion", etc.
Imagine if freedom of speech, thought, the right to vote, and other Charter freedoms could be removed at the Minister's whim!
And note, too, that this particular provision allows denial of a passport when the Esteemed Minister opines that it is necessary to the national security of ANOTHER country.
Not democratic countries, not allied countries, just wherever it's convenient.