Human Rights in Canada

Introduction

After the events of September 11, 2001, the governments of countries all over the world took measures to improve their security systems. The United States was one of those nations whose security measures were targeted not only on the improvement of the security system within the country but also on foreign factors. Soon the U.S. government started the war on terror to protect the population of the United States and prevent similar incidents. Canada as a political and economic partner of the United States supported this idea and created the new Canadian National Security Organization, which had more powers. These changes included visible protection measures, such as meticulous screening of air travelers, as well as less visible ones, such as surveillance over financial transactions of some Canadians. These innovations caused concerns in the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Lawyers, academics, and human rights observers were worried about the influence of these security measures on human rights. The Commission expressed its concerns in the following statement, “It’s not security or rights, one or the other; it’s how we organize our security systems…”(Wilson, 2005).

After the incident of September 11, 2001, the Canadian officials started working on establishing a balance between the protection of human rights and safeguarding of the national security. This decision was taken when the court acknowledged that the security officials failed to consider the effect of their actions on the rights of Canadians. The security officials used unreliable data and improper information to receive the additional powers. Moreover, it was found that the national security organizations received intrusive powers, and the authority of the security agencies was disproportionate to the norms that these powers brought into people’s lives. The consequences of the new rules that Canadians faced led to extreme results for some individuals. Some academics, communities, and researchers outlined that the national security organizations targeted people according to their ethnicity, religion, race, and national origin. However, the Canadian authorities argued that such statements were groundless. To understand the changes as well as rapid shifts in the Canadian society, the commission that had to make research on national security was appointed. This research included the analysis of Canadian national security and human rights. The issue of national security and its impact on human rights in Canada became one of the most important in the country, and there appeared a necessity to find the connection between the shifts in these two aspects and an appropriate solution.

Human Rights Protection

An essential part of Canadian society upholds such values as protection of the right to equality and the right to be protected from any kind of discrimination. Moreover, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as the provincial and territorial governments prohibit discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, color, age, sex, disability, and origin. Protection of human rights in Canada is supported not only by Canada’s authorities but also by the international conventions that ensure the protection of equality rights and the prohibition of discrimination.

According to the International Human Rights Obligation, the authority of the country should protect human rights. However, the national government has a right to limit some rights but only by justified national security measures. According to Article 4 of ICCPR, “the government is allowed the decorations of some civil and political rights, but only in the circumstance of the extreme emergency” (Moeckli, 2008). Nevertheless, it does not mean that the authorities have the right to discriminate against people based on race, gender, religion, or color even in extreme situations. When people are to be protected from terrorism, the counter-terrorism measures taken by the authorities should not contradict the human rights law and must fully conform to the principles of necessity and non-discrimination (Steiner, Alston & Goodman, 2008).

After the events in 2001, the United States took rough actions against terrorism; there were cases when people of Arabic origin were detained in the streets. The national security of the USA did all possible to protect their people from possible terrorist attacks in the future. Moreover, the U.S. government decided to start a campaign and bring the troops to Afghanistan. Canada followed the same example, though many of its citizens were against the bringing of the Canadian peacemakers to Afghanistan. Nevertheless, Canada could not ignore the events of September 11, and the government had no other choice because there are tight economic and social relations between these countries.

Both Canadian and American leaders legitimized the attack on Afghanistan, and the trigger was the war against terrorism and the protection of the U.S. and Canadian citizens from terrorists. The authorities claimed that it was a self-defensive measure necessary in the current situation, even though nineteen of those people who were charged with the crime were not Afghans.

The policy of the American government to bring the troops to Afghanistan did not receive support from Canada and other neighboring countries. However, Canada’s economy was dependent on its relations with the United States. Canada’s refusal to support the U.S. in its campaign against terrorism would have negative consequences for its economy. Both countries realized that Canada had no other choice because these nations share the same standards of living and their relations affect the well-being of the Canadian people. In Afghanistan, Canada also supported the actions of the U.S. government when it started colonization (Cox & Charbonneau, 2010).

The Reasons for Human Rights Violation

The fact that Canadian authorities supported the USA was essentially caused by tight economic relations between the two countries. However, this support was not limited only by the situation in Afghanistan and the anti-terrorism war. Canada followed the American example and pursued the policy that contradicted human rights principles. The example of such violation could be illustrated by many cases; among them is the situation that happened with Omar Khadr, an Egyptian-born Canadian citizen. Khadr was detained by the American authorities for seven years at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. As a citizen of Canada, Khadr asked the Canadian authorities for his repatriation from the USA. However, the Prime Minister of Canada denied Khadr’s request, considering it to be a threat to the national security of Canada. On the other hand, the defense counsel stated that according to s. 8 of the Charter, the refusal to repatriate Mr. Khadr to Canada violated his human rights because there was no evidence to prove that he posed any threat. Nevertheless, the Canadian authorities did not help Khadr. This refusal was a direct violation of human rights because it was based on the arguments provided by the government of another country. The authority of the United States was the first who overstep the principles of human rights protection. Nevertheless, from the point of view of the American nation, these actions could be considered as necessary ones even though they were not rightful. Thus, if one analyzes the situation in the United States, one could understand the necessity of these measures. However, the situation in Canada was not threatening; what is more, there were no cases of terrorism attacks and the citizens of Canada did not experience any emergency actions from the national security organization. Thus, the Canadian authorities had no reason to apply such strict measures. The original reason was the tight economic relations with the United States. “Canada acted the same way as the American government to demonstrate its support of the actions that the United States took to win the war against terrorism”(Cox & Charbonneau, 2010).

Another example of human rights violation by the Canadian national security organization could be illustrated by Maher Arar’s case. Mr. Maher is a resident of Canada who has both Canadian and Syrian citizenship. In 2002, he experienced a rendition from the USA to Syria. However, it was a known fact that Mr. Arar was on his way to Canada, but the American authorities handed him over to the Syrian government, who tortured him. Canada did not help its citizen when they needed it, though Canadian authorities must guarantee safety to its people. Thus, Canada violated the human rights principles again, and this case is even more dramatic because it led to the consequences which endangered the health of its citizen. The Canadian authorities ignored the protection of its citizens. This proves again that the policy of Canadian authorities contradicted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that predetermines the protection of a person’s safety (Miron, 2009).

The third example of a violation of human rights by Canada does not concern the particular case, but it refers to the American invasion of Iraq. The justification of this intervention was the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Canada as a reliable ally was supposed to help the United States and bring its troops to Iraq as well. However, former Prime Minister Jean Chretien announced that the statement concerning the weapon of mass destruction on the territory of Iraq is faulty, and he voted against the participation of Canada in this conflict. Nevertheless, the Canadian government decided to bring the troops to fight in Iraq. The examples provided above demonstrate that Canada violates human rights systematically, which is inadmissible in the modern world. The country explains this policy as the reaction to the events of September 11 in the USA and claims it has to take the necessary measures to protect Canadian citizens from the terrorist threat. However, if one analyzes the real reasons for the Canadian policy, he or she may conclude that all decisions that “Canada made are based more on the American policy rather than on the willingness to protect its citizens” (Moeckli, 2008). The cases of Mr. Maher Arar and Mr. Omar Khadr proved the fact that the Canadian authorities did not adhere to the international convention of human rights, and they are more interested in reliable relations with the United States (Lui, 2012). The statement that the economy of Canada is dependent on the relations with the United States of America reflects the impact of the latter not only on the economy but also on the political and social life of the Canadian citizens. To save the good economic relations that guarantee stability in the country, the Canadian authority is ready to overstep some principles of human rights protection. Thus, when one talks about the Canadian violation of human rights, he or she should realize that the Canadian authorities do it on purpose. The government of this country realizes that this policy is not correct.

Discrimination of Arabs

Canada did not experience terrorism aggression, and there were no arguments that could prove that the threat of terrorist attack is possible. The Canadian authorities provided strict security measures that contradicted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. According to Canada’s international human rights policy, “…all Canadian citizens without distinction of their race, religion, gender or age have equal rights...” (Cox & Charbonneau, 2010). The situation was different when Canada supported the war on terrorism. The authorities of the United States as well as the authorities of Canada started paying special attention to people of Arabic origin. The authorities believed that they are those who made terrorist attacks on the citizens of the United States. According to this fact, they started oppressing people who had no connections with the Arabic culture. Society created the stereotype that all Arabs are potential terrorists and the government’s goal is to protect from the terrorist and, as a result, from Arabs (Moeckli, 2008).

Arabs were an ethnic group that experienced the greatest injustice which in many cases was unproved. A person who corresponded to a general description of an Islamic radical could be viewed as a terrorist. This belief led to human rights discrimination towards the people who were of Arabic origin. According to Canadian law, there could be no discrimination based on race, gender, age, religion, or sex. In the case of the war against terrorism, one can identify the significant violation of this right. The Canadian national security organization took measures towards Arabic individuals because they look like terrorists. They did not have any valid pieces of evidence that could somehow prove or disprove this claim. Nevertheless, such measures were not rare, and the representatives of the Arabic culture felt the constant pressure. “The most offending for the Canadian citizens of the Arabic origin was the fact that they were in the top list of the potential threats” (Cox & Charbonneau, 2010). These citizens were viewed as politically unreliable; thus, they were discriminated against and deprived of some rights like national protection. The example of Mr. Khadr demonstrates that the Canadian authorities refused to help their citizens. Their refusal was based on the race principle; if other Canadian citizens were in a similar situation, the government would probably try to do everything possible to protect their rights. However, in the case of the Arabic representatives, even though they had Canadian citizenship, the Canadian authorities ignored their requests.

The war on terror was a starting point for human rights discrimination in Canada. However, it is difficult to identify any other valid reasons for such discrimination. “The actions of the American and Canadian troops in Iraq and Afghanistan did not have negative consequences only on the Canadian and the American Arabs” (Eliadis, 2011). The civilians in Afghanistan experienced rough times even more than the citizens of Canada and the United States did. The military intervention of the western countries led to armed attacks which targeted not only the terrorists but also the civilians. The more troops stayed in Afghanistan, the more weapons they used. A U.S. officer told The New York Times “ …two years later after we came to Afghanistan we started to use twice more bombs than it was in the beginning…”(Lui, 2012). The usage of weapons led to numerous victims among the civilians; their number even exceeded the number of the dead after the terrorist attack on September 11. Nevertheless, the authorities of the United States and Canada stated that their actions were targeted at the war against terror and they protected the rights of their citizens. However, the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq led to new victims, and it also can be viewed as a violation of human rights. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the actions of the United States and Canada can be considered as those that contradict primary human rights such as freedom and a right to life. According to this fact, the actions of Canada violated not only the rights of its citizens but also the rights of other citizens and endangered their lives. The measures adopted by the national security organization did not respond to human rights, though Canada accepted them as the necessary ones (Eliadis, 2011).

Perhaps, in the situation when there was a threat to human life, other rights violations, such as discrimination, could be accepted as a norm but only for a certain period. There is no doubt that this cannot be considered as justification for Canada’s actions. However, in some situations, the government has to make a difficult decision, and in both cases, the consequences of such a decision can be negative. The only thing that the government can do is to choose a less harmful variant that would better correspond to the principles of human rights in particular conditions. In the case of Canada, the authorities believed that the measures they adopted were the most correct in that situation. Probably, this variant was the most acceptable because the safety of the citizens is the primary goal for any country. The war on terror was a measure that the Canadian authorities took, regardless of the challenges that the country faced with the policymakers. The fact that the Canadian economy depends on the American one also cannot be left without attention. Probably, these two factors and many other less significant ones played a crucial role in the shifting of the national security norms and were viewed as the actions that violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Conclusion

Studying the history of the world, it is rather easy to see that a lot of countries violate the human rights of other countries’ citizens on the ground of the war on terror and their best and purest motives. However, they do it only for their benefit. Considering all the above-mentioned information, one can conclude that Canada is not an exception to this rule. All the actions made by Canada towards its Arabian inhabitants were caused by the strong desire to keep its economic position but not because of the impetus to defend the citizens of Canada and the United States of America. The fact is that in the aftermath of the horrible September 11 events, 2001, “Arab and Muslim people were attacked not only in the US but also in Canada, Western Europe and even some parts of Asia and Africa” (Moeckli, 2008). The most ridiculous and at the same time unfair fact was that those people were attacked not because they committed some crime or did something illegal, but because they were members of a certain ethnic or religious community or group. Besides, there was no proof that they belonged to those groups; it could be a mere supposition. It is a well-known fact that the events of September 11, 2001, became the main cause of the hate crimes thriving, including physical attacks, bomb alerts in mosques, harassment, arsons, and so on towards Muslim citizens of the country.

The terrorism of 2001 led to stereotyping, which, in its turn, resulted in racism and discrimination due to people’s religion, gender, and color. In addition to the war on terror in the territory of Canada, the country also infused its forces to the territory of Afghanistan to fight terrorists there as well. The question is if the main aim of Canada’s intervention in Afghanistan was to help Afghans or to protect Canadians. However, the actions towards Muslims by the Canadian government were dictated by its close economic and military arrangement with and dependence on the United States. Therefore, if the USA needs support and help from its ally, such as Canada, the country has no other choice but to respond to the request. Of course, Canada interfered in Afghanistan at the will of the US. The justification for the actions taken was the so-called true belief that Canada was able to help citizens of Afghanistan by defending vulnerable populations, promoting development and serenity in the country, and providing safety measures. Of course, domestic political deliberations play a great role in the form of response that can be offered. “Taking the extremely charged environment after the events of September 11 into account, bringing Canadian troops to the territory of Afghanistan was politically feasible” (Wilson, 2005). On the other hand, when the United States made the same appeal for a “partnership of the willing” two years later when it entered Iraq by force, the Canadian community’s attitude was devastatingly different. As a result, Prime Minister Christien had to deny the involvement of Canada. From history, it is well-known that foreign interference has hardly ever brought peace to other nations. Moreover, usually, they only exacerbate the existing problematic situation.