Why We Cannot Suspend Due Process

If we take anything from the Maher Arar case, it must be that the right to due process of law is not only mandatory, but essential.

Sections 7 through 14 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly stipulate the following tenets:

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

In Maher Arar's case, it's clear that these basic tenets have been violated. In passing unverified information to a foreign power, the RCMP has acted, in effect, as judge, jury and executioner. They may have done it 'by proxy', merely by enabling a foreign government to do their dirty work, but they did it nontheless.

As a result, the United States effectively arrested an innocent man, and sent him to Syria to be "interrogated".

It strikes me that what this underscores is that when a foreign power demands "information" on someone, that Canada is obliged to do the following:

1) Verify that all information to be provided is correct and substantiated to a degree that would make plausible evidence in court.

2) Demand the immediate extradition of that person to Canada, pending evaluation of the information.

3) Inform the accused of the suspicions raised, and provide a reasonable opportunity to respond to those accusations. If necessary, before a court of law.

Anything less is a direct abuse of the person's rights as guaranteed under Canadian Law.

Of course, a government hell-bent on turning Canada into the 51st state, is unlikely to pay real heed to this gross abuse of government power. Stephen Harper is busy trumpeting how Afghanistan has put Canada's Military back on the world stage. The only people to be truly impressed by Harper's "get tough" approach to things are going to be George Bush and cronies.

The myopia of conserva-think these days is painfully clear, with Harper prattling on as follows about the gun registry:

But Prime Minister Stephen Harper argued that the shooting at Dawson College demonstrated that the current laws don't serve to protect the public.

"This government is determined to have more effective laws that would prevent such a tragedy in the future," he said.

Harper noted that his government has already introduced legislation that would mean greater penalties for violent crime, including mandatory minimum sentences.

As I pointed out here, no matter what the conservative mind-think might be, the numbers are clear - gun control is unquestionably effective. I have no complaint whatsoever with the notion that firearms must be registered. (Hell, I have to register my car every year, and my car isn't intended to be dangerous, and I dare say over the years, we've sunk a lot more than a couple of billion into the various automotive registries in this nation).

Did the registry stop a disaffected youth from going off the deep end? No. The real question that you have to ask is what the impact of the gun registration has been on two things: the gun crime rate in Canada; and the availability of firearms to fall into criminal hands. Of course, the conservative argument is that it is an "infringement" of "their rights", one that constrains law-abiding citizens and does nothing to stop the criminals - which is, of course, completely false. Harper is bound and determined to dismantle the gun registry because that has become standard conservative dogma in this land.

I don't think Harper is a man who has much use for civil rights and due process. His government is among the most secretive in Canada's history, and he has already signalled his willingness to follow in lock-step with the current US government, which has promulgated and abused civil rights to an unprecedented degree in the "PATRIOT Act". I fully expect that whatever Harper comes up with in response the Arar case will be mealy-mouthed and evasive.