Gay men may donate blood: health board
http://www.thelocal.se/23590/20091201/
Dictionary tool Double click on a word to get a translation
Gay men in Sweden are to be permitted to donate blood provided they have not had sex with another man for at least a year, according to a new health board ruling.
Stockholm Pride asks: 'how hetero' is your Facebook? (26 Nov 09)
Online sperm donor sows seeds of debate (9 Nov 09)
Sweden's first lesbian bishop consecrated in Uppsala (9 Nov 09)The decision from the Swedish Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen) heralds a relaxation of a total ban on blood-giving for gay and bisexual men, with the new rules set to take effect on March 1st next year. Fredrik Nilsson, 29, of the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights (RFSL), expressed satisfaction that the rules are set to change. "I think it's wrong to discriminate against an entire group. It's good that it's becoming fairer," he said. But he also had reservations as to whether the rule change would make a real difference. "They've included an awful lot of conditions, to the extent that in reality it will be almost impossible to give blood should I wish to do so," he told the TT news agency. In fixing the period during which gay men must steer clear of sexual intercourse at one year, the health board has backtracked on its own proposal for a six-month period of abstinence. The switch from six months to twelve follows criticism from the majority of interested parties involved in the consultation process. The Medical Products Agency (Läkemedelsverket), for example, pointed out that blood from Sweden would no longer be approved for sale under existing EU directives if the country were to allow gay men to donate plasma. "The way things look now it's possible that blood centres will have to have two separate lines, whereby they block plasma from men who have sex with men so that it doesn't go to the industry," said health board spokesperson Monica Axelsson. While it can take some weeks for sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV and hepatitis to appear in test results, the health board is of the opinion that there are no medical grounds for a permanent blood donor ban for homosexual men.Donors have to fill in a detailed form about their health, including their sexual history, before being approved as donors. All donated blood is then tested before being used, said Axelsson. Previous survey results have also shown that many homosexual men have given blood in Sweden despite the ban. "People haven't told the truth," said Monica Axelsson, explaining how some men had skirted the regulations.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Female ski jumpers to appeal to Supreme Court
Female ski jumpers to appeal to Supreme Court
Source: CBC News
Posted: 12/01/09 2:21PM
Filed Under: Canada
Female ski jumpers who want their event included in the 2010 Olympics will appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, hoping a decision can be made before the Vancouver Games in February.
Deedee Corradini, a spokeswoman for the women, said they hope Canada's top court will decide whether to hear the case within the next two weeks and hand down a decision by mid-January.
She said they decided to appeal because they feel the issue of discrimination is bigger than one event at the Games.
The women claim Vancouver's Olympic organizing committee, known as VANOC, is violating their rights by staging ski jumping events for men but not women.
Last month, female ski jumpers from Canada and the U.S. lost their case in a unanimous decision by the B.C. Court of Appeal.
The Appeal Court judges stood by the decision of the B.C. Supreme Court in July. In that ruling, Justice Lauri Ann Fenlon said that while it was discriminatory to exclude the women's event, VANOC could not be held responsible.
The skiers had argued that VANOC should have been compelled to stage a women's ski jump event even though it was not sanctioned by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) because VANOC is subject to Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with its guarantees of gender equality.
The IOC voted in 2006 not to include women's ski jumping at the Games, saying the sport had not met the required technical criteria.
Source: CBC News
Posted: 12/01/09 2:21PM
Filed Under: Canada
Female ski jumpers who want their event included in the 2010 Olympics will appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, hoping a decision can be made before the Vancouver Games in February.
Deedee Corradini, a spokeswoman for the women, said they hope Canada's top court will decide whether to hear the case within the next two weeks and hand down a decision by mid-January.
She said they decided to appeal because they feel the issue of discrimination is bigger than one event at the Games.
The women claim Vancouver's Olympic organizing committee, known as VANOC, is violating their rights by staging ski jumping events for men but not women.
Last month, female ski jumpers from Canada and the U.S. lost their case in a unanimous decision by the B.C. Court of Appeal.
The Appeal Court judges stood by the decision of the B.C. Supreme Court in July. In that ruling, Justice Lauri Ann Fenlon said that while it was discriminatory to exclude the women's event, VANOC could not be held responsible.
The skiers had argued that VANOC should have been compelled to stage a women's ski jump event even though it was not sanctioned by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) because VANOC is subject to Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with its guarantees of gender equality.
The IOC voted in 2006 not to include women's ski jumping at the Games, saying the sport had not met the required technical criteria.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Statement by Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff on comments by Prime Minister Harper .
[LE FRANÇAIS SUIT L'ANGLAIS]
For Immediate Release November 29, 2009
Statement by Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff on comments by Prime Minister Harper
OTTAWA - Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff made the following statement in response to comments made by Prime Minister Stephen Harper aboard the HMCS Quebec, in Trinidad and Tobago, earlier today:
"Stephen Harper's comments are beneath the office of Canada's prime minister.
"To use an audience of active Canadian service men and women serving abroad as a prop for political attacks is bad enough. To try to hide behind the brave men and women in uniform for his own government's handling of the Afghan detainee scandal is even worse.
"Mr. Harper's performance today only underlines the need for a full public inquiry into his government's handling and apparent cover up of the detainee issue."
-30-
Contact: Press Office Office of the Leader of the Opposition 613-996-6740 ________________________________________
Pour diffusion immédiate 29 novembre 2009
Déclaration du chef libéral Michael Ignatieff au sujet des commentaires du Premier ministre
OTTAWA – Le chef libéral Michael Ignatieff a fait la déclaration suivante suite aux commentaires du Premier ministre alors qu’il se trouvait à bord du HMSC Québec, à Trinité-et-Tobago aujourd’hui.
« Les commentaires de Stephen Harper sont indignes d’un Premier ministre.
« Se servir d’une audience captive de soldats canadiens déployés à l’étranger pour lancer des attaques politiques est déjà douteux. Tenter de cacher derrières nos hommes et femmes en uniforme la gestion du scandale des prisonniers afghans par son propre gouvernement est encore pire.
« Le comportement de M. Harper aujourd’hui ne fait que confirmer la nécessité d’une enquête publique sur la façon dont le gouvernement a géré l’affaire des prisonniers afghans, et apparemment tenté de couvrir les faits. »
-30- Renseignements :
Service de presse Cabinet du chef de l’Opposition 613-996-6740
For Immediate Release November 29, 2009
Statement by Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff on comments by Prime Minister Harper
OTTAWA - Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff made the following statement in response to comments made by Prime Minister Stephen Harper aboard the HMCS Quebec, in Trinidad and Tobago, earlier today:
"Stephen Harper's comments are beneath the office of Canada's prime minister.
"To use an audience of active Canadian service men and women serving abroad as a prop for political attacks is bad enough. To try to hide behind the brave men and women in uniform for his own government's handling of the Afghan detainee scandal is even worse.
"Mr. Harper's performance today only underlines the need for a full public inquiry into his government's handling and apparent cover up of the detainee issue."
-30-
Contact: Press Office Office of the Leader of the Opposition 613-996-6740 ________________________________________
Pour diffusion immédiate 29 novembre 2009
Déclaration du chef libéral Michael Ignatieff au sujet des commentaires du Premier ministre
OTTAWA – Le chef libéral Michael Ignatieff a fait la déclaration suivante suite aux commentaires du Premier ministre alors qu’il se trouvait à bord du HMSC Québec, à Trinité-et-Tobago aujourd’hui.
« Les commentaires de Stephen Harper sont indignes d’un Premier ministre.
« Se servir d’une audience captive de soldats canadiens déployés à l’étranger pour lancer des attaques politiques est déjà douteux. Tenter de cacher derrières nos hommes et femmes en uniforme la gestion du scandale des prisonniers afghans par son propre gouvernement est encore pire.
« Le comportement de M. Harper aujourd’hui ne fait que confirmer la nécessité d’une enquête publique sur la façon dont le gouvernement a géré l’affaire des prisonniers afghans, et apparemment tenté de couvrir les faits. »
-30- Renseignements :
Service de presse Cabinet du chef de l’Opposition 613-996-6740
Airline inspectors warn of safety issues.
Airline inspectors warn of safety issues, say new system leaves big airlines unmonitored
Source: The Canadian Press
Posted: 11/30/09 5:05PM
Filed Under: Business News
.
OTTAWA - An Air Canada jet refuelled with its engines running and more than 100 passengers aboard, then took off with its wings sheathed in ice, a House of Commons committee heard Monday.
The Airbus had been diverted on a flight to Winnipeg from Toronto and landed in Grand Forks, N.D., without the necessary equipment to restart its engines, the Canadian Federal Pilots Association told the transport committee.
Association officials, who represent licensed pilot aviation inspectors, warned of problems with new federal rules requiring airlines to do their own safety monitoring. They called for a public inquiry into aviation safety.
They came armed with a litany of horror stories, including planes patched together with duct tape and illegal parts as, well as improperly trained pilots and pilots flying without licences.
In the Grand Forks incident, the Airbus landed late at night. The airport was all but closed, including U.S. customs offices, which prevented passengers from leaving the plane, the officials said.
They said the plane left without de-icing, even after a veteran Air Canada captain who was a passenger, repeatedly warned crew that the wings were covered in potentially lethal ice.
"That (Airbus) pilot decided to become a test pilot with 100 passengers and crew aboard," said union spokesman Jim Thompson. "It is very dangerous."
Both Oct. 9 incidents involving the same flight violated Canadian law, the union said, and are part of a body of evidence that the new regime, called Safety Management Systems (SMS), is not working.
Capt. Daniel Slunder, the union's national chair, said the passenger-pilot filed an incident report to Transport Canada, which in turn handed over it to Air Canada. No action has been taken, he said.
"Compare this to the recent destination over-flight incident in the U.S. where the FAA took action against the pilots within five days," Slunder told the committee.
"The difference between the two countries is Transport Canada's version of SMS and the degree to which it has weakened safety oversight in Canada."
In fact, said Slunder, there has not been a single enforcement action against a large commercial air carrier in two years, despite the fact Transport Canada is aware of serious safety violations.
The inspectors back a federal government decision to stall self-monitoring in the industry, but they fear a partially implemented regime has compromised safety at the big airlines.
Delaying the SMS roll-out to aircraft manufacturers, helicopter companies and smaller airlines is a good idea, said the group.
But it added that the federal decision, which aims to give the industry more time to prepare and provide more training to frontline workers, is undermining safety at air carriers such as Air Canada and Westjet.
"This postponement is absolutely the right thing to do," said Slunder. "The problems this decision acknowledges are undermining the safety of the big airlines. ... As a result, we no longer are confident the major carriers are compliant with safety regulations."
Transport Canada imposed the self-inspection and enforcement regime on the big airlines in 2005.
The SMS allows them to self-monitor and self-enforce compliance with safety regulations, with little intervention from the regulator.
Ottawa hoped the regime, with less emphasis on penalties, would encourage the development of a safety culture within the industry and provide authorities with more data to better formulate safety regulations and other measures.
But the association says rather than developing a safety culture, the airlines are cutting corners.
An internal departmental email dated Nov. 13 and obtained by the union cites "common concerns" about SMS among Transport Canada inspection staff.
The memo predicts introduction of SMS in air-taxi and commuter aviation will be delayed until at least January 2011.
Some aviation inspectors have complained that assessment standards are non-existent under the new regime or applied in a patchwork, that reporting systems are dead-ends which produce no remedial action, and that inspectors are inadequately trained and many are assigned SMS duties for which they are not qualified.
Some aviation experts have been critical of the regime because Ottawa has used it as an excuse to cancel key aviation audit and inspection programs.
"I regret to inform you that TC aviation inspectors now spend more time pushing paper than inspecting airplanes," Slunder told the committee. "Without oversight of operations, inspectors cannot say with certainty that airlines are safely in compliance - we just don't know."
The union contends Transport Canada has abandoned both regular and surprise inspections, as well as fines and sanctions, in violation of International Civil Aviation Organization requirements.
It is urging Transport Canada to restore surprise audit and inspection programs immediately and wants the government to ensure "adequate resources to oversee aviation safety."
Source: The Canadian Press
Posted: 11/30/09 5:05PM
Filed Under: Business News
.
OTTAWA - An Air Canada jet refuelled with its engines running and more than 100 passengers aboard, then took off with its wings sheathed in ice, a House of Commons committee heard Monday.
The Airbus had been diverted on a flight to Winnipeg from Toronto and landed in Grand Forks, N.D., without the necessary equipment to restart its engines, the Canadian Federal Pilots Association told the transport committee.
Association officials, who represent licensed pilot aviation inspectors, warned of problems with new federal rules requiring airlines to do their own safety monitoring. They called for a public inquiry into aviation safety.
They came armed with a litany of horror stories, including planes patched together with duct tape and illegal parts as, well as improperly trained pilots and pilots flying without licences.
In the Grand Forks incident, the Airbus landed late at night. The airport was all but closed, including U.S. customs offices, which prevented passengers from leaving the plane, the officials said.
They said the plane left without de-icing, even after a veteran Air Canada captain who was a passenger, repeatedly warned crew that the wings were covered in potentially lethal ice.
"That (Airbus) pilot decided to become a test pilot with 100 passengers and crew aboard," said union spokesman Jim Thompson. "It is very dangerous."
Both Oct. 9 incidents involving the same flight violated Canadian law, the union said, and are part of a body of evidence that the new regime, called Safety Management Systems (SMS), is not working.
Capt. Daniel Slunder, the union's national chair, said the passenger-pilot filed an incident report to Transport Canada, which in turn handed over it to Air Canada. No action has been taken, he said.
"Compare this to the recent destination over-flight incident in the U.S. where the FAA took action against the pilots within five days," Slunder told the committee.
"The difference between the two countries is Transport Canada's version of SMS and the degree to which it has weakened safety oversight in Canada."
In fact, said Slunder, there has not been a single enforcement action against a large commercial air carrier in two years, despite the fact Transport Canada is aware of serious safety violations.
The inspectors back a federal government decision to stall self-monitoring in the industry, but they fear a partially implemented regime has compromised safety at the big airlines.
Delaying the SMS roll-out to aircraft manufacturers, helicopter companies and smaller airlines is a good idea, said the group.
But it added that the federal decision, which aims to give the industry more time to prepare and provide more training to frontline workers, is undermining safety at air carriers such as Air Canada and Westjet.
"This postponement is absolutely the right thing to do," said Slunder. "The problems this decision acknowledges are undermining the safety of the big airlines. ... As a result, we no longer are confident the major carriers are compliant with safety regulations."
Transport Canada imposed the self-inspection and enforcement regime on the big airlines in 2005.
The SMS allows them to self-monitor and self-enforce compliance with safety regulations, with little intervention from the regulator.
Ottawa hoped the regime, with less emphasis on penalties, would encourage the development of a safety culture within the industry and provide authorities with more data to better formulate safety regulations and other measures.
But the association says rather than developing a safety culture, the airlines are cutting corners.
An internal departmental email dated Nov. 13 and obtained by the union cites "common concerns" about SMS among Transport Canada inspection staff.
The memo predicts introduction of SMS in air-taxi and commuter aviation will be delayed until at least January 2011.
Some aviation inspectors have complained that assessment standards are non-existent under the new regime or applied in a patchwork, that reporting systems are dead-ends which produce no remedial action, and that inspectors are inadequately trained and many are assigned SMS duties for which they are not qualified.
Some aviation experts have been critical of the regime because Ottawa has used it as an excuse to cancel key aviation audit and inspection programs.
"I regret to inform you that TC aviation inspectors now spend more time pushing paper than inspecting airplanes," Slunder told the committee. "Without oversight of operations, inspectors cannot say with certainty that airlines are safely in compliance - we just don't know."
The union contends Transport Canada has abandoned both regular and surprise inspections, as well as fines and sanctions, in violation of International Civil Aviation Organization requirements.
It is urging Transport Canada to restore surprise audit and inspection programs immediately and wants the government to ensure "adequate resources to oversee aviation safety."
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Full, public Commission of Inquiry needed without delay!.
Full, public Commission of Inquiry needed without delay on Canadian policy and practices regarding handling of detainees in Afghanistan - Open Letter to the Prime MinisterIn the wake of the revelations of Richard Colvin’s testimony at the House of Commons special committee on the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, Amnesty International Canada and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association iterate their call for a full, public Commission of Inquiry in an Open Letter to the Prime Minister.
The Right Honourable Stephen Harper Prime Minister of Canada 80 Wellington Street Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A2 by fax: 613-941-6900 November 24, 2009 Dear Prime Minister, As you know, Amnesty International and the BC Civil Liberties Association have both been long concerned about the approach Canada has taken to the handling of prisoners apprehended by Canadian forces in Afghanistan during the course of military operations in that country. Our concerns about this issue and the very serious human rights consequences and implications involved lead us to call on you to immediately establish a Commission of Inquiry into the matter. We first raised concerns about this issue in 2002. At that time, prisoners were being handed over to US forces in Afghanistan, despite the likelihood of further transfers on to Guantánamo Bay as well as a strong risk of torture and ill-treatment at US detention facilities in Afghanistan. We called for the transfers to be halted and a new approach adopted which would conform to Canada’s international human rights obligations. When a new approach was put in place in late 2005, under which prisoners were now to be transferred into the custody of Afghan officials, we again raised concerns. We highlighted that given the prevalence and systematic nature of torture in Afghan prisons, such transfers were prohibited under international law. We urged instead that Canadian forces work closely with Afghan officials and NATO allies to collaboratively take responsibility for the detention of battlefield prisoners, doing so in ways that would protect those prisoners from torture, play a role in helping to eradicate torture more widely, and make a valuable contribution to sorely-needed reforms of Afghanistan’s notorious prison system. Those suggestions were rejected. We turned to the courts and tribunals for recourse, launching a Federal Court application for an order halting the transfers and lodging a complaint with the Military Police Complaints Commission. Rather than agreeing that accountability and transparency regarding such a crucial issue was of utmost importance the government vigorously contested both proceedings, seeking at every turn to have them dismissed or restricted. The Federal Court application was ultimately dismissed, when the courts ruled that it could not go ahead because the Charter of Rights did not apply to Canadian forces in Afghanistan. The MPCC process has become stalled and faced innumerable roadblocks and is unlikely to make much progress. We realize that the government asserts that the concerns about torture have been adequately resolved through the 2005 and 2007 agreements Canada reached with the Afghan government, wherein Afghan officials promise not to violate the rights of transferred prisoners and give assurances that Canadian representatives, the ICRC and the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission will all be allowed to visit prisoners after they have been transferred. We have consistently maintained that in the face of widespread and systematic torture, such promises and monitoring assurances do not alleviate the risk faced by prisoners. At best, it may mean that torture is occasionally detected after the fact. Prime Minister, our two organizations – like countless Canadians – were deeply disturbed to hear the testimony of Richard Colvin last week. Mr. Colvin’s reports from 2006 and 2007, detailing his findings as to the risk and incidence of torture for transferred prisoners do not come as a surprise to us but are nonetheless very troubling. We are, however, shocked, that at least 12 of his reports were not disclosed by the government during the course of Federal Court proceedings in 2007 and 2008, despite the fact that they were obviously of direct relevance to the issues before the Court and were certainly covered by requests for disclosure of documents that had been made by our legal team. Equally troubling has been Richard Colvin’s testimony as to the ways in which he indicates his reports were dismissed and ignored by senior officials. That your government has responded primarily by seeking to discredit and impugn Mr. Colvin’s credibility has been, frankly, wholly unacceptable. We are left perplexed as to what it will take to ensure there is proper accountability for this very serious human rights concern. It is certainly not going to come through the courts or the MPCC process; that is clear. It is also not going to come through the political process, where partisan interests have taken precedence. In our view, therefore, there is no other option open other than to immediately convene a full, public Commission of Inquiry into all aspects of the laws, policy and practice that has governed Canada’s approach to handling prisoners in Afghanistan. We call on you to do so without delay. Sincerely, Alex Neve Secretary General Amnesty International Canada (English branch) Grace Pastine Litigation Director BC Civil Liberties Association Béatrice Vaugrante Directrice Générale Amnistie internationale Canada francophone
The Right Honourable Stephen Harper Prime Minister of Canada 80 Wellington Street Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A2 by fax: 613-941-6900 November 24, 2009 Dear Prime Minister, As you know, Amnesty International and the BC Civil Liberties Association have both been long concerned about the approach Canada has taken to the handling of prisoners apprehended by Canadian forces in Afghanistan during the course of military operations in that country. Our concerns about this issue and the very serious human rights consequences and implications involved lead us to call on you to immediately establish a Commission of Inquiry into the matter. We first raised concerns about this issue in 2002. At that time, prisoners were being handed over to US forces in Afghanistan, despite the likelihood of further transfers on to Guantánamo Bay as well as a strong risk of torture and ill-treatment at US detention facilities in Afghanistan. We called for the transfers to be halted and a new approach adopted which would conform to Canada’s international human rights obligations. When a new approach was put in place in late 2005, under which prisoners were now to be transferred into the custody of Afghan officials, we again raised concerns. We highlighted that given the prevalence and systematic nature of torture in Afghan prisons, such transfers were prohibited under international law. We urged instead that Canadian forces work closely with Afghan officials and NATO allies to collaboratively take responsibility for the detention of battlefield prisoners, doing so in ways that would protect those prisoners from torture, play a role in helping to eradicate torture more widely, and make a valuable contribution to sorely-needed reforms of Afghanistan’s notorious prison system. Those suggestions were rejected. We turned to the courts and tribunals for recourse, launching a Federal Court application for an order halting the transfers and lodging a complaint with the Military Police Complaints Commission. Rather than agreeing that accountability and transparency regarding such a crucial issue was of utmost importance the government vigorously contested both proceedings, seeking at every turn to have them dismissed or restricted. The Federal Court application was ultimately dismissed, when the courts ruled that it could not go ahead because the Charter of Rights did not apply to Canadian forces in Afghanistan. The MPCC process has become stalled and faced innumerable roadblocks and is unlikely to make much progress. We realize that the government asserts that the concerns about torture have been adequately resolved through the 2005 and 2007 agreements Canada reached with the Afghan government, wherein Afghan officials promise not to violate the rights of transferred prisoners and give assurances that Canadian representatives, the ICRC and the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission will all be allowed to visit prisoners after they have been transferred. We have consistently maintained that in the face of widespread and systematic torture, such promises and monitoring assurances do not alleviate the risk faced by prisoners. At best, it may mean that torture is occasionally detected after the fact. Prime Minister, our two organizations – like countless Canadians – were deeply disturbed to hear the testimony of Richard Colvin last week. Mr. Colvin’s reports from 2006 and 2007, detailing his findings as to the risk and incidence of torture for transferred prisoners do not come as a surprise to us but are nonetheless very troubling. We are, however, shocked, that at least 12 of his reports were not disclosed by the government during the course of Federal Court proceedings in 2007 and 2008, despite the fact that they were obviously of direct relevance to the issues before the Court and were certainly covered by requests for disclosure of documents that had been made by our legal team. Equally troubling has been Richard Colvin’s testimony as to the ways in which he indicates his reports were dismissed and ignored by senior officials. That your government has responded primarily by seeking to discredit and impugn Mr. Colvin’s credibility has been, frankly, wholly unacceptable. We are left perplexed as to what it will take to ensure there is proper accountability for this very serious human rights concern. It is certainly not going to come through the courts or the MPCC process; that is clear. It is also not going to come through the political process, where partisan interests have taken precedence. In our view, therefore, there is no other option open other than to immediately convene a full, public Commission of Inquiry into all aspects of the laws, policy and practice that has governed Canada’s approach to handling prisoners in Afghanistan. We call on you to do so without delay. Sincerely, Alex Neve Secretary General Amnesty International Canada (English branch) Grace Pastine Litigation Director BC Civil Liberties Association Béatrice Vaugrante Directrice Générale Amnistie internationale Canada francophone
Friday, November 27, 2009
So he did know!! not good.
Afghan prison concerns known in 2006: MacKay
The Conservative government was aware of concerns about the state of prisons in Afghanistan in early 2006, prompting it to negotiate a new prisoner transfer agreement, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Friday.
A 2005 agreement covering the handover of prisoners captured by Canadian troops to Afghan authorities was eventually renegotiated in May 2007 following media reports about torture in Afghan prisons.
MacKay's comments came a day after David Mulroney, Canada's current ambassador to China who headed the Privy Council's Afghanistan task force, told a Commons committee that Canadian officials were aware of allegations of mistreatment of prisoners and that "there was no doubt in anyone's mind that the Afghan system was riddled with problems."
However, Mulroney said there was no evidence that detainees being handed over by Canadian soldiers to Afghan officials were being tortured.
"Obviously there were concerns about the state of prisons," MacKay said outside the Commons. "There were concerns about allegations. There were concerns about information found in reports. There were concerns."
"The decision to change the transfer arrangement would have been as a result of a lot of sources of information including those from Mr. Mulroney, those from other individuals on the ground … those who went to Afghan prisons to observe the situation," MacKay said. "We acted on those concerns over two and a half years ago."
While the government had previously stated that a specific abuse allegation in the spring of 2007 prompted it to act, MacKay now suggests it was an evolution in thinking.
"I can't say that there was a specific moment in time that the decision to change the transfer arrangement crystallized in my mind," he said. "It was obviously made as a result of recommendations from within the department."
MacKay admitted that his office did receive two emails from diplomat Richard Colvin in May and June 2006 containing warnings from the International Committee of the Red Cross of prisoner abuse, but insisted again that he never saw them.
"All ministers receive thousands and thousands of emails," he said. "They are then vetted by officials within departments and officials within political staff. So if you're asking me if I saw two specific emails with Mr. Colvin's name attached — no."
Last week, Colvin was accused by Conservative MPs of being a Taliban "dupe" for believing and broadcasting claims of prisoner abuse — and testifying he'd relayed those concerns to an unreceptive government.
Former chief of defence staff Rick Hillier, retired general Michel Gauthier and Maj.-Gen. David Fraser appeared before the same Commons committee this week and emphatically refuted Colvin's testimony.
Hillier said Colvin's reports, which he subsequently reviewed, "said nothing about abuse, nothing about torture or anything else that would have caught my attention or indeed the attention of others."
The Conservative government was aware of concerns about the state of prisons in Afghanistan in early 2006, prompting it to negotiate a new prisoner transfer agreement, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Friday.
A 2005 agreement covering the handover of prisoners captured by Canadian troops to Afghan authorities was eventually renegotiated in May 2007 following media reports about torture in Afghan prisons.
MacKay's comments came a day after David Mulroney, Canada's current ambassador to China who headed the Privy Council's Afghanistan task force, told a Commons committee that Canadian officials were aware of allegations of mistreatment of prisoners and that "there was no doubt in anyone's mind that the Afghan system was riddled with problems."
However, Mulroney said there was no evidence that detainees being handed over by Canadian soldiers to Afghan officials were being tortured.
"Obviously there were concerns about the state of prisons," MacKay said outside the Commons. "There were concerns about allegations. There were concerns about information found in reports. There were concerns."
"The decision to change the transfer arrangement would have been as a result of a lot of sources of information including those from Mr. Mulroney, those from other individuals on the ground … those who went to Afghan prisons to observe the situation," MacKay said. "We acted on those concerns over two and a half years ago."
While the government had previously stated that a specific abuse allegation in the spring of 2007 prompted it to act, MacKay now suggests it was an evolution in thinking.
"I can't say that there was a specific moment in time that the decision to change the transfer arrangement crystallized in my mind," he said. "It was obviously made as a result of recommendations from within the department."
MacKay admitted that his office did receive two emails from diplomat Richard Colvin in May and June 2006 containing warnings from the International Committee of the Red Cross of prisoner abuse, but insisted again that he never saw them.
"All ministers receive thousands and thousands of emails," he said. "They are then vetted by officials within departments and officials within political staff. So if you're asking me if I saw two specific emails with Mr. Colvin's name attached — no."
Last week, Colvin was accused by Conservative MPs of being a Taliban "dupe" for believing and broadcasting claims of prisoner abuse — and testifying he'd relayed those concerns to an unreceptive government.
Former chief of defence staff Rick Hillier, retired general Michel Gauthier and Maj.-Gen. David Fraser appeared before the same Commons committee this week and emphatically refuted Colvin's testimony.
Hillier said Colvin's reports, which he subsequently reviewed, "said nothing about abuse, nothing about torture or anything else that would have caught my attention or indeed the attention of others."
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)