Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on May 27th, 2008

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I am curious about his belief. Can he tell us what evidence he has for that being the case?

I'm baffled by your statement, without there being any concrete backing to those remarks. If you feel he has been treated properly, tell us how. I have yet to hear it.

[Naresh Raghubeer]

As I noted, Afghanistan, first of all, had a jurisdictional claim to Mr. Khadr. They could have charged him in Afghanistan and tried him there. The Americans have asserted their right to try Mr. Khadr. In doing so he has been afforded the protection of U.S. constitutional law. The U.S. Supreme Court has reviewed this matter, and where there were violations they noted that. That system is now being corrected, and it has been corrected, so he is currently being treated appropriately.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Sorry, I have one question. If the U.S. Supreme Court found he was not afforded the protections under international law, that in fact international treaty obligations were violated, and the Canadian Supreme Court based its decision on that finding of fact and conclusion of law of the American Supreme Court, how is it that you maintain he was treated in accordance with norms of international humanitarian law?

[Naresh Raghubeer]

I believe the question was whether he is being treated appropriately, and I do believe he is currently being treated appropriately. There were violations, which we have acknowledged and the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged. There have been steps to remedy those violations. So at this current point, and from when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on that, actions have been taken to ensure that he is being treated appropriately.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

You still have a bit of time left.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I fail to appreciate how there can be a retroactive legitimization of actions that were clearly unconstitutional and illegal at the time they were taken. For example, how do you legitimate or sanitize prolonged and illegal detention, denial of counsel during the first several years of his detention, coerced interrogation--I could go on. These things cannot be remedied by subsequent later compliance by the U.S. with a prosecution that is already fatally flawed and deemed to have been illegal.

[Naresh Raghubeer]

That is your opinion, and you're welcome to it, but as I've noted, we've not tried to whitewash the fact that violations took place, violations that were acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court. Since those decisions, actions have been taken to remedy those violations, and it is our belief that he is being treated appropriately.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

I'm afraid that uses up the time available for that round of questions.

Madame Barbot, s'il vous plaît.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Raghubeer, we are not talking about opinions but about established facts. In Mr. Khadr's case, not everything has been appropriate and not all international laws have been observed, particularly the Geneva Convention that the United States and Canada have signed. In that light, it seems to me that, as people of good will, we should at least admit that Mr. Khadr has not been treated according to the provisions of the Geneva Convention, to which we are a signatory.

You also bring up the question of family responsibility. His detractors would have us believe that he chose to be with al-Qaeda in 2002. At least one member of his family has said that the father would have killed him if he had done anything against Islam.

In that light, how do we conclude that a boy from a family like that could really have chosen the situation he found himself in in 2002? If his own country is not prepared to help him and make up for the possible inadequacies of his family—I say possible—who is? Is it not the Canadian government's role to do so? Instead of making more accusations, let us get him back to his country to stand trial.

[Naresh Raghubeer]

Thank you.

With regard to your comments about the Geneva convention, in my brief statement I did not go into that convention. I'm not an expert on the Geneva convention, nor did I claim to be. I simply stated that we believe he's being treated appropriately at this point.

As for your question about family responsibility, I think there is ample evidence that this family may have contributed to brainwashing him, to manipulating him, and perhaps to coaxing him into becoming a jihadist. If we acknowledge that, what responsibilities do we have as Canadians, and what responsibility does the government have to ensure that Canadian parents are not treating their children in that way or are not grooming their children to become bomb factories or jihadists? We have a responsibility, I think, after hearing the comments from the Khadr family.

Let me cite Mrs. Elsamnah, who praised al-Qaeda and suicide bombers on camera for CBC. She said Americans got what they deserved on 9/11 and that terror camps in Afghanistan were preferable to the school system here, where they risked exposure to our values. We've had another member of the family, Omar's sister, say they all wish for martyrdom. Her views were no doubt shared by her husband, an al-Qaeda terrorist. So there is family responsibility.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Sir, excuse me. We are not here to put his family on trial. We are here to talk about Omar Khadr.

How responsible is a 15-year-old boy? Should the state be protecting this child even though he might have the worst kind of family? That is what I want to know exactly.

[Naresh Raghubeer]

Should the father protect the young children, you ask? Should the mother protect the young children, I ask? Mothers have traditionally been the guardians of children. The father is now deceased; we can't hold him accountable. But should the mother protect the children?

Should the siblings protect those under the age of 15? I would argue yes, and I think it's incumbent upon parliamentarians to ensure that he's protected.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

We are not putting the parents on trial: we are discussing Omar Khadr. Could you get back to Omar Khadr and tell me if, at the age of 15, he has to be accountable for everything that his family has said or done?

[Naresh Raghubeer]

As you've said, if he's 15 he's a minor. In Canadian law, minors are the wards of their parents. There are two parents involved here, a mother and a father. The mother is partially responsible for him. I don't know why you wish to ignore her role and responsibility in acting to protect her son from jihadist incitement, the quest for martyrdom, and wanting to get engaged with al-Qaeda, a known terrorist entity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

You still have two minutes.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

No, I will let it go. That is all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Okay.

Mr. Marston, it's your turn.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you.

I want to take you back to the comment you just made that at 15 years of age it's the family's responsibility to ensure that a young man grows up appropriately. Is that basically what you were saying when you were talking about the Khadr family?

[Naresh Raghubeer]

Yes, it's partially the family's responsibility.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I don't disagree with you, and I don't think there's a person around this table who would agree in any fashion with the quotes and things that have been attributed to the Khadr family.

You said earlier in your testimony it was clear that the family had taken Omar Khadr to the level of wanting to be a martyr--or words to that effect. Is that basically what your testimony was in the first part of your presentation?

[Naresh Raghubeer]

I said we should be investigating whether the provincial government should be looking into the role played by the family in contributing to that.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

But in your testimony you referred to the fact that your belief, or your organization's belief, was that the family had either instilled in Omar Khadr or brought him to the point where he wanted to be a martyr. Is that pretty much what you were saying or inferring?

[Naresh Raghubeer]

We said in our statement:

Such statements call on us to ask why this Subcommittee on Human Rights, the Minister of Justice, and even the Ontario Ministry of Children and Youth Services, are not investigating the Khadr Family's possible role in leading Omar Khadr down the path to martyrdom?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

But even prior to that in your testimony you were basically saying that. We have plenty of evidence of the feelings and views of the Khadr family, but what hard evidence do you have that the family instilled that in their son?

Are you aware that Omar Khadr was probably around 14 years of age when he left Canada? Coming back to what we were discussing a moment ago about the family's responsibility to protect him at that age, we've had testimony before this committee from Mr. Crane, who was a Sierra Leone prosecutor who refused to prosecute 8,000 child soldiers. The UN calls for rehabilitation and then reintegration for young people who are involved as child soldiers.

He was 15 years old. If he wasn't protected by his family, he sure as hell should have been protected by his country once he was in Guantanamo and in the middle of the system. In Bagram he was interrogated 42 times in 10 weeks before he went to Guantanamo. When he was in Guantanamo he didn't have the option the other young people had of being put in Camp Iguana; he went into Delta where the adults were.

That was not somebody looking out for the interests of this young man, this boy. I think it's incumbent on Canada to take up his case and bring the young man home for rehabilitation. It should be done in a manner where he's not brought into the bosom of his family; the way they view Canada and the rest of the world is not acceptable to us. We want him brought to Canada to come before our judicial system, be rehabilitated, and be put back into society once that's done.

[Naresh Raghubeer]

Let me try to address the three points you brought up.

First you asked about evidence I may have. You can list Mr. Khadr's own defence counsel, Lieutenant-Commander William Kuebler, who expressed in front of this very committee that “it would be appropriate for the U.S. government not to want to repatriate him in such a way that he would fall in line with them and other influences in his immediate family”.

We know that this family has contributed to raising this child as a young jihadist. They have certainly contributed to his current situation. You asked whether he should have been protected, and I would argue he should have been protected here in Canada first before he became a jihadist. It's not just the role of families to protect their children. In our country, if the parents are failing to perform their very duties, the state has a responsibility to intervene. We have seen situations around the world where tens of thousands of kids are being taught today, through programs on television or from books, to aspire to be shahids or martyrs. That may even be happening in Canada, and it's incumbent on us to review those situations and ensure it never happens here.