Documents being prepared.

Documents being prepared Nearly three months after Canadian Suaad Hagi Mohamud was falsely detained in Kenya, she's a step closer to returning home. As the Star's Scott Simmie explains, her ordeal has been Kafkaesque. Video by Randy Risling. (August 11, 2009)

TORONTO STAR PHOTO

Suaad Hagi Mohamud is shown in Nairobi as she tries to get travel documents on Aug. 12, 2009.

McGuinty joins growing chorus slamming Ottawa for ignoring Canadian stranded for three months

Aug 13, 2009 04:30 AM

Comments on this story (253)

Allan Woods
in Ottawa
John Goddard
in Toronto

OTTAWA–The federal government continued its foot-dragging yesterday, leaving Suaad Hagi Mohamud to languish yet another day in the Kenyan capital of Nairobi.

Her lawyer said he wants the Toronto woman on a flight home tomorrow and Canada has asked Kenya to clear the way for that return.

But Ottawa was reluctant to book the return flight until the Kenyan court has cleared Mohamud of charges – charges since proven false and resulting from a botched Canadian investigation.

Two ministers with responsibility for the stranded Canadian – Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon and Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan – continued their silence on the matter yesterday. Calls to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office were not returned.

But outrage over Ottawa's handling of the case continued to bubble over. Premier Dalton McGuinty issued a stern rebuke of the Harper government, saying there was "no excuse" for its inaction.

"Something is fundamentally wrong when we can't count on the Canadian government to stand up for Canadians. I'm not sure I can put it any more directly than that," said McGuinty.

"It doesn't matter where we find ourselves, we are citizens of this wonderful country and we have responsibilities and we have certain legitimate expectations.

"One of those (expectations) is when we find ourselves in distress that our government will stand up for us. That didn't happen in this particular circumstance and there's no excuse for that."

A spokesperson for Cannon maintained the government was "doing everything in its power" to facilitate as quickly as possible the return of Mohamud, 31, a single mother of a 12-year-old boy.

She is to see Kenyan immigration officials tomorrow morning, her lawyer said. In court, the Kenyans are to drop all charges against her.

Foreign Affairs confirmed last night Mohamud had been to the Canadian High Commission in Nairobi to begin the process of applying for an emergency travel document.

Mohamud, a Somali-Canadian, was branded an impostor by staff of the Canadian High Commission in Kenya because she did not resemble her passport photograph. Her lips were different from the four-year-old picture, as were her eyeglasses.

In a telephone interview from Nairobi yesterday, Mohamud gave further details of the event that started her ordeal when she tried to board a KLM flight home on May 21 after a three-week visit to Kenya.

A Kenyan KLM employee stopped her. "He told me he could make me miss my flight," she said of the KLM worker, who suggested Mohamud didn't look like her passport photo.

He seemed to be soliciting a bribe, she said, an experience Somali-born Torontonians say is commonplace for them at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport.

When she didn't pay, a Kenyan immigration official arrested her. Canadian consular officials went along, returning Mohamud to the Kenyans, who threw her in jail on charges of entering Kenya illegally on a passport not her own.

On Monday, DNA tests proved Mohamud's identity.

Yesterday at the high commission, officials continued to treat Mohamud with indifference, a friend who drove her there said.

When Mohamud asked if Canada might help her retrieve her luggage, seized when she was unable to pay her room bill while trying to prove her identity, consular officials refused, the friend said.

In Toronto, lawyer Raoul Boulakia said a friend of his has arranged to pay the bill as a donation.

The Kenyans also owe her $2,500 (U.S.) in bail money, posted after she spent eight days in June at Nairobi's Langata Women's Prison.

Mohamud said the high commission advised her yesterday to stay in the country until she collected the money from Kenya, a process that could take weeks. But Boulakia said he told her to get out of the country first and get the high commission to collect it for her later.

The case highlights the often-puzzling approach the Conservative government takes when deciding which citizens imprisoned or stranded in foreign countries are entitled to high-level help.

Trade Minister Stockwell Day, for instance, requested clemency this summer for a 24-year-old Canadian sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia, but the government abandoned a convicted killer from Alberta sitting on death row in Montana.

Last week, Ethiopian diplomats were called on the carpet after the conviction for terrorism of Canadian citizen Bashir Makhtal. But Abousfian Abdelrazik, who was never charged with a crime and was cleared by Sudan and Canada of suspected Al Qaeda links, lived a prisoner's life for six years, the last of which was spent in limbo on the grounds of the Canadian embassy in Khartoum. He needed a judge's order to bring him home.

For the few Canadians who do get Ottawa's ear, dozens of pleas go unanswered, say advocates and lawyers for citizens who get into tight situations abroad.

"What I find most disturbing is that Canadians are possibly being judged in absentia by an Orwellian jury comprised of the Canadian cabinet," said Dan McTeague, the Liberal MP for Pickering-Scarborough East who was tasked with handling cases of citizens in need of help abroad under prime minister Paul Martin.

Ottawa lawyer Yavar Hameed argued Abdelrazik's case against the government. He said the most troubling government decisions inevitably involve security questions.

"There is this kind of interpretation that we can't do something that's going to be perceived as soft on the war on terror or showing that we're not holding up our end of things," said Hameed, suggesting Ottawa has an ever-present fear of being cast as a security threat to the United States.

Toronto lawyer Lorne Waldman knows better than most how fickle the government can be. He represents Makhtal, an ethnic Somali sentenced to life in an Ethiopian prison for terrorism.

Makhtal's case got the backing not only of Cannon but Transport Minister John Baird, who took up the mantle after being approached by the large Somali community living in Baird's Ottawa West-Nepean riding. They are pushing the Ethiopian government to accept that Makhtal's only link to terror is hereditary – his grandfather founded a separatist Somali group in eastern Ethiopia.

But Waldman has also done battle with Ottawa. He took the government to Federal Court after the Tories decided Ronald Allen Smith, the death row inmate in Montana, was no longer deserving of Canada's help or official government appeals on his behalf that the death sentence be commuted, help that Canadians on death row have received for decades.

In 2007, the Conservatives cut all ties with Smith's case – he was convicted in the 1982 killing of two aboriginal men – because he had been tried and convicted in a democratic country, the United States.

It was the launch of a controversial new policy that was first announced on Nov. 1, 2007 and repeated several times with subtle changes and conditions over the next five months. But legislation, or amendments to existing laws or policies, never followed.

This March, the court ruled that no clear policy actually existed and making life or death decisions on the fly breached Smith's right as a Canadian citizen to the full protection of the federal government.

The judge ruled that while the government has every right to make foreign policy, it must give fair warning and a detailed explanation of those decisions.

The trend of picking which Canadians get access to help and which don't has put the government on a collision course with courts.

Une question des visas qui ne s'arrêtent pas mordre la PM à l'arrière et un franc de communication en cas de catastrophe.

Lors de sa participation au sommet des Trois Amigo's, le premier ministre Harper de la position du Mexique sur la question des visas a explosé au visage. It was his own fault. Il est de sa faute. To paraphrase the explanation as to why visas are now necessary, he stated it was due to a loophole in Canadian refugee law that allowed people to make bogus refugee claims either inside or outside of Canada. Pour paraphraser l'explication des raisons pour lesquelles les visas sont désormais nécessaires, il a déclaré qu'elle était due à une lacune dans le droit des réfugiés du Canada qui a permis aux gens de faire de fausses demandes du statut de réfugié à l'intérieur ou à l'extérieur du Canada. He then went on to say that it is not the fault of the Mexican government or its people for this situation and then pledged his great friendship with the people of Mexico. Il a ensuite poursuivi en disant que ce n'est pas la faute du gouvernement du Mexique ou de sa population de cette situation et alors promis sa grande amitié avec le peuple du Mexique.

Now, if we translate his statement from Conservative political language into English or French, it would sound like this ... We screwed up because we didn't fix a loophole we didn't like so we have to impose the visas. Maintenant, si nous traduire sa déclaration de politique conservateur de langue en anglais ou en français, il semble ... Nous avons ce foutu parce que nous n'avons pas de résoudre une faille, nous n'avons pas, comme nous avons donc à imposer des visas. It's not your fault, it's our fault, but you have to live with the visas. Ce n'est pas votre faute, c'est de notre faute, mais vous devez vivre avec les visas. We have no idea how to fix the immigration claims system and don't know when we will have a solution available or if it will get past parliament. The non-political problem the Conservative government will have is making changes to the immigration claims criteria. Nous n'avons aucune idée de la façon de résoudre le système d'immigration et de revendications ne savons pas quand nous aurons une solution ou si elle est passé le Parlement. Le non-problème politique, le gouvernement conservateur aura fait des changements à l'immigration revendications critères. Presently, that criteria is based on the 1985 Supreme Court ruling which grants the right to anyone who is in this country without citizenship the right to ask to be recognized as a refugee. Actuellement, ce critère est fondé sur la décision de la Cour suprême de 1985 qui accorde le droit de toute personne qui est dans ce pays sans la citoyenneté le droit de demander à être reconnu comme un réfugié. As Supreme Court rulings are extremely difficult to overturn, Mr. Harper has taken the easy way out of his "imagined" problem of fraudulent refugee claims from Mexico and the Czech Republic by imposing visas to slow the claims process down. Comme la Cour suprême sont extrêmement difficiles à renverser, M. Harper a pris la porte de sortie de son "imaginaire" problème de revendications frauduleuses en provenance du Mexique et la République tchèque, en imposant des visas à ralentir le processus de demande vers le bas. If he ever does manage to change the immigration claims process the way he wants, he is going to have one hell of a problem (the 1985 Supreme Court ruling) which is why he can give no timetable as to when the changes will take place or what those changes will be. Si jamais il n'a réussi à changer le processus de demandes d'immigration de la manière qu'il veut, il va avoir un enfer d'un problème (de 1985 la Cour suprême), qui est la raison pour laquelle il peut donner aucun calendrier pour savoir quand les changements vont avoir lieu ou ce que ces changements seront.

Moving on to Jason Kenny, the other side of this dog and pony show, paraphrasing from Mr. Kenny ... Mr. Passant à Jason Kenny, de l'autre côté du cirque, la paraphrase de M. Kenny, M. ... Kenny believed it was right of Mr. Harper to point out the problems with the current refugee system. Kenny estime qu'il est droit de M. Harper à signaler les problèmes avec le système actuel des réfugiés. He also believes that Mr. Harper should not be criticized by the media for bringing the problem to light. He also went on to say that it was basically the Supreme Court of Canada's fault for too many refugee claims. Il estime également que M. Harper ne doit pas être critiqué par les médias pour porter le problème à la lumière. Il a ajouté qu'il était essentiel de la Cour suprême du Canada pour la faute de trop nombreuses revendications du statut de réfugié. As he was saying this, he appeared to laugh. Comme il disait cela, il semblait rire. I don't know if this was because he realized how absurd his statement was as he said it or whether he gets nervous in from of the camera crew from the CBC. Je ne sais pas si c'était parce qu'il a réalisé l'absurdité de sa déclaration a été comme il l'a dit ou si il est nerveux à partir de l'équipe de la CBC. Either way, because of the laugh, it could be implied he was making fun of the Supreme Court of Canada or the fair immigration policy the court set up. Quoi qu'il en soit, en raison de la rire, elle peut être tacite, il a été à se moquer de la Cour suprême du Canada ou de la politique d'immigration juste le tribunal mis en place. Either way, he looks like a complete idiot. Quoi qu'il en soit, il ressemble à un idiot. now I understand why the press secretary left a couple weeks ago and last week the head of strategic communications for the PMO, whose job it is to be the chief spin doctor, resigned. maintenant, je comprends pourquoi le secrétaire de presse de gauche, il ya quelques semaines et la semaine dernière, le chef de la communication stratégique pour le cabinet du premier ministre, dont le rôle est d'être le médecin chef de spin, a démissionné. They got tired of dealing with the clowns. Ils ont eu assez de traiter avec les clowns.

Note to politicians: See what happens when you have no communications staff left? Note aux politiciens: Voir ce qui se passe lorsque vous n'avez pas le personnel des communications à gauche?

A visa issue that will not stop biting the PM in the rear end and an unmitigated communications disaster

While attending the summit of the Three Amigo's, Prime Minister Harper's position on the Mexican visa issue blew up in his face. It was his own fault. To paraphrase the explanation as to why visas are now necessary, he stated it was due to a loophole in Canadian refugee law that allowed people to make bogus refugee claims either inside or outside of Canada. He then went on to say that it is not the fault of the Mexican government or its people for this situation and then pledged his great friendship with the people of Mexico.

Now, if we translate his statement from Conservative political language into English or French, it would sound like this ... We screwed up because we didn't fix a loophole we didn't like so we have to impose the visas. It's not your fault, it's our fault, but you have to live with the visas. We have no idea how to fix the immigration claims system and don't know when we will have a solution available or if it will get past parliament. The non-political problem the Conservative government will have is making changes to the immigration claims criteria. Presently, that criteria is based on the 1985 Supreme Court ruling which grants the right to anyone who is in this country without citizenship the right to ask to be recognized as a refugee. As Supreme Court rulings are extremely difficult to overturn, Mr. Harper has taken the easy way out of his "imagined" problem of fraudulent refugee claims from Mexico and the Czech Republic by imposing visas to slow the claims process down. If he ever does manage to change the immigration claims process the way he wants, he is going to have one hell of a problem (the 1985 Supreme Court ruling) which is why he can give no timetable as to when the changes will take place or what those changes will be.

Moving on to Jason Kenny, the other side of this dog and pony show, paraphrasing from Mr. Kenny ... Mr. Kenny believed it was right of Mr. Harper to point out the problems with the current refugee system. He also believes that Mr. Harper should not be criticized by the media for bringing the problem to light. He also went on to say that it was basically the Supreme Court of Canada's fault for too many refugee claims. As he was saying this, he appeared to laugh. I don't know if this was because he realized how absurd his statement was as he said it or whether he gets nervous in from of the camera crew from the CBC. Either way, because of the laugh, it could be implied he was making fun of the Supreme Court of Canada or the fair immigration policy the court set up. Either way, he looks like a complete idiot. now I understand why the press secretary left a couple weeks ago and last week the head of strategic communications for the PMO, whose job it is to be the chief spin doctor, resigned. They got tired of dealing with the clowns.

Note to politicians: See what happens when you have no communications staff left?

Female ski jumpers seek speedy resolution in B.C. Court of Appeal.

VANCOUVER — Female ski jumpers, who are trying to force the Vancouver Olympic Organizing Committee (Vanoc) to include a women's event at the 2010 Winter Games, will be at the B.C. Court of Appeal Friday asking that their case be expedited.

Last month, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Lauri Ann Fenlon turned down their request. Even though Fenlon agreed with the jumpers that it is contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to have an event exclusively for men, she ruled that the decision was not up to Vanoc. Rather, Fenlon concluded, that was the sole jurisdiction of the International Olympic Committee and it is not bound by the Charter.

Fenlon's decision is being appealed by the jumpers, who will ask the appellate court to set a trial date in September or October so that if they win on appeal, there is still time to organize an Olympic event.

Games contract binds Vancouver

Games contract binds Vancouver to play by IOC rules, or not play at all

It's easy to understand why the International Olympic Committee would want any disputes with host cities decided by its own "court," so that it is beyond the grasp of courts in countries whose judicial systems are dodgy.

But why on earth did Vancouver's former mayor Larry Campbell sign the host city contract governed by Swiss law and agree that "any dispute concerning [the contract's] validity, interpretation or performance shall be determined conclusively by arbitration, to the exclusion of the ordinary courts of Switzerland or of the host country?"

The sports court — the IOC's arbitration process — deals with issues of athletes' disqualifications due to doping or other infractions. It has rarely, if ever, dealt with the myriad other issues from sponsorship agreements to taxes to financial disbursements that are covered in the Vancouver agreement.

Signing off Vancouver's right to access Canadian courts in the event of a dispute with the IOC is just one of the troubling pieces of the 61-page contract signed in 2003 and obtained by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association under B.C.'s Access to Information Act.

The contract's preamble declares that the IOC is "the supreme authority of and leads the Olympic movement." And the Olympic ayatollahs required that the city stage the Games in full compliance with the Olympic Charter and that it agrees to "conduct all activities in a manner which promotes and enhances the integrity, ideals and long-term interests of the IOC and the Olympic Movement."

I've added the emphasis because in a pen stroke, Campbell signed away the real responsibility of democratically elected mayors and councillors to promote, enhance and represent the long-term interests of their citizens.

There is no mention in the contract of human rights or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Instead, it stipulates that the city must abide by the Olympic Charter and be in "full compliance with universal fundamental ethical principles, including those contained in the IOC Code of Ethics."

In effect, the city and the IOC have attempted to contract their way out of Canadian legal jurisdiction and beyond the reach of constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms.

It's something that the civil liberties association is considering challenging in court. Another group, Impact on Communities Coalition, filed two complaints with the United Nations High Commissioners of Human Rights last week. One deals with civil liberties and the city's omnibus bylaw, while the other is about inadequate tenancy protection.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Lauri Ann Fenlon has already ruled that as a government agency, the Vancouver organizing committee is subject to the Charter. However, she also decided that despite Vanoc having to be Charter-compliant, there was nothing Vanoc could do to force the IOC to include a women's ski jumping event.

It's the Olympic Charter that now-Senator Campbell signed on to obey in 2003. He bound the city (and his Vision party successor Gregor Robertson) to its provisions limiting propaganda free speech and agreed to even stronger restrictions in the contract.

Contrary to the Canadian Charter's guarantee of free speech and peaceful protest, the Olympic Charter says: "No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any of the Olympic sites, venues or other areas."

(Despite the word's negative connotations, propaganda's dictionary definition is a statement of principles or beliefs.) Under the Vancouver contract, no propaganda or advertising material can be within view of spectators at the venues or television cameras covering the sports or "in the airspace over the city and other cities and venues hosting Olympic events during the period of the Games."

To meet its contractual obligations, Vancouver's council recently passed an omnibus bylaw amending dozens of existing laws. Among the changes are the creation of so-called free-speech zones and blocks of the city (including David Lam Park, the main library's precinct and the Vancouver Art Gallery) where no political pamphlets, leaflets, graffiti or "non-celebratory posters" will be allowed.

Despite that, Robertson insists all of Vancouver remains a free-speech zone. He defends the bylaw as a balance between safety and security and respecting citizens' rights. But asked whether he would have signed the contract in 2003, Robertson hedged.

"I would like to know if the city could have negotiated something different," he replied.

Meanwhile, Vanoc has asked other municipalities along the 44,000-kilometre torch relay route to pass bylaws ensuring that no political messages be distributed or visible. It's not clear how many have agreed, nor is it clear whether the IOC will ask that the torch route be altered if they refuse.

That's the sword of Damocles that the secretive elites of the international Olympic movement hang over the heads of enthusiastic sports bodies, organizing committees and politicians.

Play by our rules or not at all.

Carleton University V Ontario Human Rights Tribunal .... back off Carleton University! .

Rights panel to hear Carleton students' case

Last Updated: Friday, August 7, 2009 | 5:14 PM ET Comments32Recommend28

CBC News

Carleton University students who say their school has denied them the freedom to express their political views will have their case heard, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal says.

The group Students Against Israeli Apartheid says its members have been threatened with expulsion for engaging in what it believes are legitimate political activities.

Last year, the group put up posters around campus to promote "Israel Apartheid Week," which opened at universities in 10 countries on March 1.

The posters showed an Israeli helicopter firing a missile at a Palestinian child labelled "Gaza."

Both Carleton and the University of Ottawa removed the posters from their respective campuses but did not cancel the events, the first of which was launched in Toronto in 2005.

Palestinian supporters said banning the posters was proof that universities were biased against them and pointed out that both U of O president Allan Rock and Carleton president Roseann Runte had accepted trips to Israel paid for by Israeli advocacy groups.

Protesters rally

A week and a half after the posters were banned at Carleton, about 100 protesters rallied outside Runte's office to have the posters approved.

The poster ban and subsequent threats of expulsion that some students in the group reported are the key issues in the human rights complaint.

Ben Saifer, a member of Students Against Israeli Apartheid, said students worried that the school would impose even further restrictions on their expression.

"They basically put a chill on our activism, on our activities," he said.

Saifer said students fretted that "if we crossed a line — and we were unaware where this line was — then we could be expelled."

At the time of the ban, pro-Israel groups were calling for tough action against the March 1 events at the school and commended Carleton for taking action against the ads.

Frank Dimant, the executive vice-president of B'nai Brith Canada, which was among the groups that approved of the ban, said the Jewish advocacy organization is now dismayed that the tribunal is examining the university's decision.

"The university did the right thing. I am confident that if the tribunal will be fair, it will throw the case out," Dimant said. "I'm just shocked that they would even entertain looking at it."

In a written statement, Carleton University representatives said the charges against the school were "false and completely unfounded."

Carleton, officials said, would "vigorously defend itself."

A mediation date has been set for Sept. 1.

Critical medical cases treated promptly in Canada Re: Letter from William R. Eghert entitled "Many must wait for health care in Canada Re: Letter

Critical medical cases treated promptly in Canada

(UNEDITED)Re: Letter from William R. Eghert entitled "Many must wait for health care in Canada".

It infuriates me to read this kind of dribble from American doctors who are more interested in the money they make rather than the service they can provide for their fellow man. He talks of one case and projects that case to the whole Canadian Health System. I lived in the United States for 5 years and found a great number of people I knew that could not access health service because they had no insurance. To me it is a disgrace for a country as rich and prosperous as the United States that has millions of people without health care services.

Yes in Canada when you go to the hospital or doctor they ask for you health care number and you receive what assistance is needed, down here they ask for your insurance and if you do not have it then you're sent someplace else or they require your Visa card. This doctor talks the about waiting times in Canada to receive service, emergency and critical cases are helped immediately and yes others may have to wait a short period of time, but unlike the United States they do receive service. I am 77 years old and the service I receive is just the same as those who are much younger, service is not determined by your age. The service provided for my wife and I include no premium payment, the most we pay for our prescription drugs is $25.00. We also have dental care and eye care (every three years money is provided to buy glasses). Whereas I find those friends I have here who are on Medi-Cad or Medi-Care have to top it up from $300.00 to $600.00 a month to receive the service they require.