Maher Arar

[Rue]

I do not think Mr. Arar is as crystal clean and innocent as he would have you believe. I do think however there is no doubt his legal rights were violated and he should not have been deported to the US and they Syria. He was sent to Syria because the US wanted him tortured and they can't torture him in the U.S. The U.S. has used Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Panama, Nicaragua, Mexico, Guatemala, and other nations to torture people to get info. Its done all the time and continues to be done. To say Arar was not tortured is silly. You don't go to prison in Syria without having someone give you a prostate exam, repeatedly.

As much as I think Mr. Arar is not as innocent as he would like us to believe, it is a clear absolute fact he had his rights violated and was treated unfairly. He may have been involved in some shady dealings but let's face it because of the post 9-11 atmosphere the RCMP panicked and blew it. CSIS was created precisely because the RCMP blew it in the past and now they have screwed up again.

The RCMP is a joke and needs sand-blasting starting with the clown Commissioner who only made matters worse refusing to issue a statement and hiding in Brazil when he knew this would come out. He's a coward for not being in Canada to face the heat and accept responsibility and resign without being asked to.

Whether we like it or not even with terrorists we can't turn into them as much as we would like to-to defeat them. We still have to adhere to our laws.

[Leafless]

Anti-Canadian, I believe there is no such word.

You must mean un-Canadian.

If I possess un-Canadian ideologies, it is fully owed to political correctness in this country, which allows OTHERS to be labelled Canadian while not possessing national Canadian values and loyalties.

Saying this forms the basis for my screen name 'Leafless', as surely I must be entitled to the same entitlements as dictated by Canadian political correctness.

Of course anti-Canadian is a word. "Anti" is an adjective that can precede pretty much any noun. It just means "in opposition to."

"Un-Canadian", on the other hand, means "not Canadian", like German or Chinese, for example.

Therefore, you possess an anti-Canadian ideology in that you are opposed to what you perceive to be a prevalent Canadian "politically correct" ideology. I don't agree with its prevalence--I think Canada has a healthy convergence of many different viewpoints. But you have a certain vision of what Canada is, you are opposed to that vision, so you are therefore anti-Canadian.

Not to mention, I find it very contrary to the Canadian ideal of freedom (and therefore truly "anti-Canadian") that you would say that a person should not travel because of their ethnic heritage.

If a word is not in a dictionary then technically it is an undefined word and you must utilize proper methods to define it properly.

The word 'anti' standing alone is a preposition and a noun. Canada is a proper noun.

The word 'anti-' with a dash is only a prefix that is used to FORM nouns and adjectives. Examples are anticlimax, antisectionism, antipope all formed into nouns proceeded by 'anti'.

The definiton of 'anti' is what you defined as being 'opposed to' something that Iam not.

The word 'un-' can be added to adjectives and particles, verbs and NOUNS.

What I'am is un-Canadian meaning 'not in general agreement with the absence concerning the definition of what 'Canadian' is suppose to mean. And I use the same liberties granted by political correctness to support my 'bias' against those Canadians who do not support Canadian national values and loyalties.

[BubberMiley]

What I'am is un-Canadian meaning 'not in general agreement with the absence concerning the definition of what 'Canadian' is suppose to mean. And I use the same liberties granted by political correctness to support my 'bias' against those Canadians who do not support Canadian national values and loyalties.

I'm not sure what you mean by "absence." Do you just mean to say you disagree with the overall consensus among Canadians of what it means to be "Canadian?" And I don't understand "liberties granted by political correctness" at all. "Political correctness," whatever the hell that means, doesn't have any authority by anyone's definition. My definition of political correctness is that it is just a vague concept drummed up by people whose feelings were hurt when someone called them racist or bigoted. I'd truly be fascinated to find out yours.

[Leafless]

What I'am is un-Canadian meaning 'not in general agreement with the absence concerning the definition of what 'Canadian' is suppose to mean. And I use the same liberties granted by political correctness to support my 'bias' against those Canadians who do not support Canadian national values and loyalties.

I'm not sure what you mean by "absence." Do you just mean to say you disagree with the overall consensus among Canadians of what it means to be "Canadian?" And I don't understand "liberties granted by political correctness" at all. "Political correctness," whatever the hell that means, doesn't have any authority by anyone's definition. My definition of political correctness is that it is just a vague concept drummed up by people whose feelings were hurt when someone called them racist or bigoted. I'd truly be fascinated to find out yours.

I know of no definition to officially describe a Canadian.

Nor do I know of a general consensus agreed by all Canadians concerning the definition of a Canadian.

Do you know what the universal agreed upon definition is to describe a Canadian?

Political correctness grants rights including:

Identity politics, including gay rights, feminism, multiculturalism and the disability rights movement.

In this country it is basically an imposed Liberal language dictating rights.

[Leafless]

I do not think Mr. Arar is as crystal clean and innocent as he would have you believe. I do think however

As much as I think Mr. Arar is not as innocent as he would like us to believe, it is a clear absolute fact he had his rights violated and was treated unfairly. He may have been involved in some shady dealings but let's face it because of the post 9-11 atmosphere the RCMP panicked and blew it. CSIS was created precisely because the RCMP blew it in the past and now they have screwed up again.

The RCMP is a joke and needs sand-blasting starting with the clown Commissioner who only made matters worse refusing to issue a statement and hiding in Brazil when he knew this would come out. He's a coward for not being in Canada to face the heat and accept responsibility and resign without being asked to.

Whether we like it or not even with terrorists we can't turn into them as much as we would like to-to defeat them. We still have to adhere to our laws.

There is a general consensus generally accepted among the intelligent concerning Mr. Arar.

If Canada employed the proper immigration laws restricting citizenship to Canada only, there would be no Mr. Arar controversy, no $1M dollar tax payer funded inquiry, no in camera meetings, no potential sue job, NO NOTHING.

The fact is if Mr. Arar was Canadian only, U.S. border security would have no place other than CANADA to deport him.

Mr. Arar's desire to retain his Syrian citizenship contributes greatly to the ROOT of the problem, HIS problem in many respects.

[BubberMiley]

I know of no definition to officially describe a Canadian.

Then what are you opposed to when you say you are unCanadian?

Do you know what the universal agreed upon definition is to describe a Canadian?

I would agree there isn't one, other than a person with citizenship papers. That, therefore, includes Arar.

Political correctness grants rights including:

Identity politics, including gay rights, feminism, multiculturalism and the disability rights movement.

Oh, you mean the Charter. I didn't know they renamed it, nor did I know it was by definition "correct."

[Durgan]

Mr. Arar's desire to retain his Syrian citizenship contributes greatly to the ROOT of the problem, HIS problem in many respects.

The US deportation of Arar to Syria was for the torture aspect in my opinion, and a little bit of throwing their weight around.

BUT:

Arar was travelling with a Canadian Passport. I am going to assume he did not have two pasports, but if he did them the depotation to Syria was justified. There has been no mention about two passports in the media.

Durgan.

[August1991]

I do not think Mr. Arar is as crystal clean and innocent as he would have you believe. I do think however there is no doubt his legal rights were violated and he should not have been deported to the US and they Syria. He was sent to Syria because the US wanted him tortured and they can't torture him in the U.S.

WTF? The US sends a suspected terrorist to a regime suspected of supporting terrorism so that the regime can torture him and extract information? That's like deporting a nuclear physicist back to Iran.

This is bureaucracy gone Jospeh-Heller, Catch-22 mad.

The fact is that an independent judge looked at all the evidence and found Arar absolutely innocent.

We should be more concerned that hundreds of RCMP, CSIS and DFAIT agents and God knows who else wasted all their time chasing a goose. Arar is understandably concerned about the injustice. I'm more concerned about the incompetence. While these fools chased Arar, who did they miss?

If someone ran a business this way, it would soon be bankrupt. But none of these bureaucrats will be fired or even lose a promotion. They'll get their salary deposited every Thursday as usual in their account. The golden rice bowl.

In the last 50 years, we have seen a growing government bureaucracy like this. People who exercice the authority of the State without proper incentives or consequences. The only historical comparison is the courts of European monarchs before 1800.

And these people supposedly protect us.

[Leafless]

I know of no definition to officially describe a Canadian.

Then what are you opposed to when you say you are unCanadian?

Do you know what the universal agreed upon definition is to describe a Canadian?

I would agree there isn't one, other than a person with citizenship papers. That, therefore, includes Arar.

Political correctness grants rights including:

Identity politics, including gay rights, feminism, multiculturalism and the disability rights movement.

Oh, you mean the Charter. I didn't know they renamed it, nor did I know it was by definition "correct."

Un-Canadian means like I said previously " I'am not in general agreement with the absence concerning of what Canadian is suppose to mean."

This means rather than the federal government leading the country projecting a strong sense of national values and loyalties common to everyone , they have resorted to allow Canadians choose that definition for whatever they think, concerning the political correct Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Charter of rights and Freedoms stems mostly from the previous federal human rights code with the addition of other controversial imposed rights.

Under the old version of federal human rights, the federal government protected human rights and not (Liberally) DICTATED them as LAW , as with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is the new politically correct version.

The federal government has a primary obligation to protect the majority.

[BubberMiley]

I'm getting a clearer idea of what you mean.

But don't you think the majority can protect itself?

[Leafless]

I'm getting a clearer idea of what you mean.

But don't you think the majority can protect itself?

No, not with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms being part of our constitution with the federal government able to control existing legislation and able to modify or expand or interpret rights and freedoms whenever it chooses.

This actually puts the federal government in the drivers seat and able to manipulate and override democratic concerns.

The federal government is a democratically elected political body and not chosen by a specific group.

Therefore it has a democratic related responsibility to drive the country in a democratic related manner. It has created a federal 'bias' which is not compatible with normal democratic concerns.

This in turn has corrupted our constitution.

[Figleaf]

Q. What kind of forum bans someone with no warning?

A. A crappy one.

Edited July 22, 2007 by Figleaf

[Durgan]

Peter Worthington Article

Oh yeh great supporters of justice, Peter Worthington has a nice piece in that rag the Toronto Sun.

Durgan.

What I don't get -- and have never gotten from the start of this weird miscarriage of justice and accountability -- is why the Syrians would imprison and torture Arar if the Americans (and RCMP) thought he was an al-Qaida or any other sort of terrorist?

Since when have the Syrians -- big supporters of Hezbollah and a sanctuary for anti-American fighters from Iraq -- been torturing people suspected of seeking to undermine Americans?

Heck, if he were what the RCMP thought he was, you'd think the Syrians would roll out the red carpet for him and honour him with a state dinner or something, not jail and torture him for a year.

Something seems out of kilter in this case.

[BubberMiley]

Or maybe you just have a very Foxnews take on how all Syrians think.

[jdobbin]

I wonder if the Conservatives will hold the RCMP commisioner to account.

They probably feel they owe him for his work during the election.

[bradco]

What I'am is un-Canadian meaning 'not in general agreement with the absence concerning the definition of what 'Canadian' is suppose to mean. And I use the same liberties granted by political correctness to support my 'bias' against those Canadians who do not support Canadian national values and loyalties.

I'm not sure what you mean by "absence." Do you just mean to say you disagree with the overall consensus among Canadians of what it means to be "Canadian?" And I don't understand "liberties granted by political correctness" at all. "Political correctness," whatever the hell that means, doesn't have any authority by anyone's definition. My definition of political correctness is that it is just a vague concept drummed up by people whose feelings were hurt when someone called them racist or bigoted. I'd truly be fascinated to find out yours.

I know of no definition to officially describe a Canadian.

Nor do I know of a general consensus agreed by all Canadians concerning the definition of a Canadian.

Do you know what the universal agreed upon definition is to describe a Canadian?

Political correctness grants rights including:

Identity politics, including gay rights, feminism, multiculturalism and the disability rights movement.

In this country it is basically an imposed Liberal language dictating rights.

I took a course a couple of years ago on the geography of Canada. In one tutorial we discussed what the meaning of Canadian is.... the overwhelming majority of people agreed that being Canadian means being able to describe yourself however you wish on any grounds of race, religion, ethinicity. While other nations have relatively clearly defined definitions of what is necessary to be considered part of that nation Canada does not. The absence of a definition is in fact the definition (that was the general concensus)

[bradco]

So the story is now out and it has been ruled that the RCMP provided false information to the CIA. Arar has been completely cleared. Whoever it was that said Arar contributed 100% to his own predicament is wrong. The reason that Arar was fingered by CSIS and the RCMP was because he met with a guy in a coffee shop to talk about buying some sort of second hand item. Something people do all the time. Apparently the other guy was part of an investigation.

Pretty flimsy evidence for extradition and torture. At the very least it would put the onus on every Canadian citizen to know whether anyone they deal with, even in the most casual manner, is a suspected terrorist. Hardly a reasonable test.

Are you naive or what.

Anyone who hangs around with any dangerous suspect who is under surveillance could or might be implicated as part of the suspects group.

The fact remains Arar was in the U.S. at the time of his detainment an extremely dangerous place for a Syrian citizen/Canadian citizen to be in a time of terrorist activity.

He is the author of his own misfortune.

It really amazes me concerning the fact some members on this site hold the view that authorities are suppose have 100% accurate information on the hundreds or thousands of possible suspects being monitored regarding terrorist activity at a time of high alert.

"Anyone who hangs around with any dangerous suspect who is under surveillance could or might be implicated as part of the suspects group."

-fair enough...he deserved to be implicated as a SUSPECT but not automatically guilty of anything and certainly not deserving of torture

"The fact remains Arar was in the U.S. at the time of his detainment an extremely dangerous place for a Syrian citizen/Canadian citizen to be in a time of terrorist activity."

-if he is travelling on a Canadian passport then if any deportion occurs it should be to Canada. If it is not someone has done something wrong and heads need to roll. My bet is he purposely travelled on his Canadian passport not his Syrian one specifically to be cautious.

"He is the author of his own misfortune."

-people who live in the states and are killed by terrorists are the authors of their own misfortune, people mugged after dark are the authors of their own misfortune, people killed in car accidents are the authors of their own misfortune...all ridiculous comments much like your own

[Higgly]

Another aspect of this which I find particularly disturbing is that, once Arar was able to get himself back to Canada and seek justice for what was done to him, the RCMP started a smear campaign against him. This is an ugly little secret in Canadian police work, and it has gotten much worse with the widespread use of the internet.

[Leafless]

I took a course a couple of years ago on the geography of Canada. In one tutorial we discussed what the meaning of Canadian is.... the overwhelming majority of people agreed that being Canadian means being able to describe yourself however you wish on any grounds of race, religion, ethinicity. While other nations have relatively clearly defined definitions of what is necessary to be considered part of that nation Canada does not. The absence of a definition is in fact the definition (that was the general concensus)

Doesn't say much for being a Canadian then, does it?

No one really cares what the derogatory general consensus was in your politically correct geography class was.

Well, the fact is Canada does have a history and does have values and now does have a government intent on resurrecting what Canadianism is all about after years of Liberal abuse and misdirection.

[Higgly]

Well, the fact is Canada does have ... values ...

This is a terrific point. What are those values?

[BubberMiley]

I wouldn't consider it derogatory. I think that's what makes Canada the greatest nation in the world, and a model for all others. We recognize that beyond the ancient tribal customs, ultimately humanity is more alike than it is different. So we can get past the differences and treat everybody relatively equally. That's why we can have so many ethnic groups living together in peace.

[Charles Anthony]

What I don't get -- and have never gotten from the start of this weird miscarriage of justice and accountability -- is why the Syrians would imprison and torture Arar if the Americans (and RCMP) thought he was an al-Qaida or any other sort of terrorist?

Good point. [bad font.] He could have been anywhere. He may not have left North America.

Before crooks drive you to their "meeting place", they usually put a hood over your head. You may be driven around the block endlessly to create the illusion that you are going far away.

While other nations have relatively clearly defined definitions of what is necessary to be considered part of that nation

I wonder about that premise. Can anybody think of other countries that have more than a bureaucratic qualification of citizenship?

It could be that Canadians inherently are more in tuned with the triviality of citizenship in the modern world.

ultimately humanity is more alike than it is different.

I agree wholeheartedly.

[Leafless]

Well, the fact is Canada does have ... values ...

This is a terrific point. What are those values?

And you call yourself a Canadian!

I've already listed and posted important the most important Canadian values previously on this board.

If you are a real Canadian you should already know what Canadian values are.

[Leafless]

I wouldn't consider it derogatory. I think that's what makes Canada the greatest nation in the world, and a model for all others. We recognize that beyond the ancient tribal customs, ultimately humanity is more alike than it is different. So we can get past the differences and treat everybody relatively equally. That's why we can have so many ethnic groups living together in peace.

I don't know how you can call Canada the greatest nation in the world especially when Canada does have severe problems with multiculturalism.

The only reason they are presently dormant is the federal government keeps throwing away huge amounts of tax payers dollars, federal powers and constitutional rights to keep it that way.

The multicultural bubble could burst before the feds run out of financial ammo, federal powers and constitutional rights to give away.

It's simply a matter of time either way.

Pacifying the uncontrollable nature of human desires for power and control can only be conquered with strong government leadership and not simply buying time.

[Charles Anthony]

Pacifying the uncontrollable nature of human desires for power and control can only be conquered with strong government leadership and not simply buying time.

Government IS the uncontrollable nature of human desires for power and control.