"We survived ISIS, we were the lucky
ones. … But can we survive the camps?” asks Canadian detainee Kimberly Polman, who marks her 4th birthday under Canadian-funded arbitrary detention in Syria at the end of September.
By Matthew Behrens
In a stinging critique of
the Trudeau government’s complicity in the arbitrary detention in Northeast
Syria of 44 Canadian Muslim men, women and children, a group of United Nations
Special Rapporteurs has called on Ottawa to stop violating international law
and to repatriate all of its citizens.
In addition, the Rapporteurs also
slammed Canadian support for and investment in the very infrastructure of
arbitrary detention which holds these 8 Canadian men, 13 women and 23 children –
among tens of thousands of other foreign nationals who traveled to the region
for a wide variety of reasons in the 2010s – under conditions tantamount
to torture.
Given the apparently intentional
effort to prevent their return, one might very well name the archipelago of Syrian
camps and prisons for what they are: Canada’s Guantanamo Bay, a torturous world
of indefinite detention for a group of Muslim-Canadian citizens who, to serve
the political and state security agenda of Canada’s “intelligence” apparatus, have
been left to die absent a significant intervention.
The UN report, released in late
August 2022, focuses on the case of one of the longest held detainees, 26-year-old
Canadian Jack Letts, who as a teenager went to Syria to contribute as a humanitarian
volunteer during the Arab Spring uprising against the brutal Assad regime.
Despite his very public opposition to the Daesh (aka ISIS) occupiers of a
significant swath of Syria and Iraq, Letts wound up detained, tortured by proxy
via questions from the UK, and libeled in a relentless media campaign built
around Islamophobic tropes and information gleaned from that torture.
The UN’s broadside is the latest
in a lengthy series of studies documenting
serious human rights violations imposed on tens of thousands of people
arbitrarily detained by the Kurdish Autonomous
Administration of North and East Syria (Rojava, or AANES), a Canadian ally in the war against Daesh.
While Canada refuses to lift a
finger for its illegally held citizens, countries from Kazakhstan, Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina to
the Netherlands, Albania, France, the USA, the UK, Germany, Iraq and Russia
have repatriated at least some of their citizens. Ironically, Canada itself is
spending $2.9
million to
repatriate Iraqi citizens at the same time it has forced families of the Canadian
detainees to head to Federal Court later this year seeking an order for their
return.
Canada’s Shocking About
Face
With the US State
Department, United Nations, International Committee of the Red Cross, Human
Rights Watch, Save the Children, an all-party committee of Canadian
Parliamentarians – not to mention the Kurdish captors themselves – all calling
for repatriation, why has Canada chosen to look the other way from this clear
humanitarian crisis?
A stunning affidavit that reveals Canada's about-face on repatriation
An affidavit connected to the upcoming court case reveals that
Canada underwent a serious about-face on repatriation in 2018, described in a sworn statement of British MP Lloyd
Russell-Moyle who, along with high-ranking British Conservative MP Crispin
Blunt, travelled to the camps in 2018.
“I learnt from those officials at the DFNS [Democratic Federation of
Northern Syria, which holds the detainees] that there had been extensive
discussions between Canadians and the DFNS officials,” Russell-Moyle
testified. “The DFNS and the Canadians
together had taken steps towards the
repatriation of all the Canadians ….
They were, the DFNS understood, only about ‘a week from the Canadians
going home’. I was informed there was a ‘Heads of Terms’ document between the
Canadians and the DFNS about how that transfer would be completed. I asked for
copies of this document. To the consternation of the DFNS officials, the
official Canadian interest in repatriating their nationals, including their
children, suddenly went cold without explanation and the DFNS felt they could
not share further documentation with me regarding this case. Whilst I have no
confirmation of this fact from the British government, it was my understanding
that this happened as a result of British intervention with the Canadian government”.
That conclusion appears to dovetail with comments in a landmark report by Human Rights Watch, in which Kurdish
foreign affairs official Abdulkarim Omar shared that Canada was the first
country to be in touch regarding repatriation back in 2018. In a 2020
interview, Omar told the human rights group that Canada “sent us application
forms and travel document papers. Canadians [detained in northeast Syria]
filled out all of it and we sent back scanned versions. We got to the point of
them coming to pick up their citizens, then everything stopped. We don’t know
why. This was two years ago. … We would love a meeting with Canada on this
issue.”
Pawns in the Spy Games?
While it is unclear exactly why Canada would go from being within a week
of repatriation to four subsequent years of refusing to cooperate with families
and loved ones of the detainees, the recent headlines reviving a 2015 story about the role of a Canadian Security Intelligence
Service (CSIS) operative in trafficking young British Muslim girls to the Syrian
war zone could very well be connected to it.
When Justin Trudeau defended the CSIS child trafficking as “creative”
and “flexible”, he declined to comment on the other revelation: that CSIS withheld its role in trafficking the British girls
from UK authorities, and “It was only after [the CSIS operative]
was arrested, and they feared this could become public that the Canadians made
a move and notified the British authorities.”
A new book highlighting the scandal notes CSIS also made representations to the Turkish
regime, apologizing for running a trafficking operation on Turkish soil without
their knowledge and permission. The CSIS operative, who was arrested and
detained for several years, has apparently been released and may well already
be in Canada, a repatriation whose irony is not lost on the families of the detainees.
All of this begs a question. Was the price
for British forgiveness of and assistance in the cover-up over CSIS trafficking
girls to Syria without informing their UK intelligence partners (the cardinal
sin not being the trafficking so much as the failure to let their spy brethren
know about it) a quid pro quo to keep the Canadian detainees in Syria? Would a
Canadian release have undermined the British demonization of UK citizens also held
in Syrian camps, a process used to justify stripping of citizenship and the
UK’s refusal to repatriate? One of the trafficked girls, Shamima Begum (two of the other girls were subsequently killed), was unjustifiably built
up as a monster in the UK press, had her citizenship stripped, and became the
public face of a moral panic around a relatively small group of young individuals
who either chose (or were lured) to travel to Syria.
Indeed, if Canada’s Prime Minister defends
the crime of child trafficking in the name of state security, it’s not too far
fetched to believe that his government would be willing to sacrifice the lives
of 44 Canadian Muslims to satisfy the Islamophobic imperatives of its spy
apparatus and that of its British counterparts.
As Begum’s lawyer Tasnime Akunjee pointed out,
“at the very same time we have been cooperating with a Western ally, trading
sensitive intelligence with them whilst they have effectively been nabbing
British children and trafficking them across the Syrian border for delivery to
ISIS, all in the name of intelligence gathering. The calculation here is that the
lives of British children, and the risk of their death, is part of the
algorithm of acceptable risk our Western allies have taken.”
While much of the press coverage of this
scandal has focused on the propriety of such spy activity (legalized under the
Trudeau government with Bill C-59 (“An Act respecting national security matters”), but certainly illegal at the time it was committed), there’s been
precious little coverage of the camps where so many internationals remain
abandoned by their governments.
Urgent Repatriation Call
It is in this context that the UN Rapporteurs
declared in their Jack Letts appeal that “the urgent, voluntary and human rights compliant
repatriation of all the [Canadian] citizens…is the only international
law-compliant response to the complex and precarious human rights,
humanitarian, and security situation” of the detainees.
The Rapporteurs expressed “serious concern regarding Mr. Letts’ continued
detention since 2017 in North-East Syria and his rights to life, security, and
physical and mental health due to the dire conditions of detention…[there is] no
legal basis, no judicial authorisation, review control, or oversight of his
detention which entirely lacks predictability and due process of law.”
They add that they are “extremely concerned”
by the fact that “it appears that none of the conditions to prevent arbitrary
detention – a right so fundamental that it remains applicable even in the most
extreme situations – are respected, and that no steps towards terminating or
reviewing the legality of the detention have been taken, despite Mr. Letts
having been detained for five years, which in practice amounts to the
possibility of indefinite detention.”
The report stands in stark contrast to Ottawa’s self-congratulatory rhetoric
on arbitrary detention, including its role in organizing a 2021 Declaration Against Arbitrary
Detention in State-to-State Relations as a means of upholding “universal
values, firmly grounded in international law.” That declaration arose from
Canadian government outrage that two white, non-Muslim men were being illegally
detained by China, but has not been invoked to condemn the holding of 44
Canadian Muslim men, women and children by Canada’s Kurdish allies.
The UN Letts report arrives almost
a year after the UN Rapporteurs issued a similarly stark document
calling for the repatriation of Canadian Kimberly Polman, who had traveled to
Syria in 2015 at the behest of her future husband on the understanding that she
would be providing healthcare for women and children. According to
Human Rights Watch, shortly after she arrived in Syria, Polman wanted to get
out, but was trapped in an abusive relationship: her husband put her in jail
for 10 months for being a “disobedient wife.”
Held arbitrarily without charge
since January, 2019, Polman’s physical and mental health have undergone a
serious decline, with untreated hepatitis, kidney inflammation/enlargement,
untreated Hashimoto’s disease, bone/muscle challenges, suicide attempts, and post-traumatic
stress disorder. A report from Doctors Without Borders found her conditions
“life-threatening,” and recommended testing and medical care not available to
her in Northeast Syria. During a months-long hunger strike, Polman lost more
than half her body weight.
Vulnerable to Trafficking
While Polman’s family “has
requested on numerous occasions that the Canadian government facilitate the transfer of money for medical
supplies, food, and water, [Ottawa] has not facilitated these requests.”
(Kimberly Polman before she went overseas)
The Rapporteurs expressed concerns
that in addition to the denial of Polman’s rights to security and health and
not to be subjected to arbitrary detention, “she may be vulnerable to all sorts
of abuses and trafficking.” In conclusion, the Rapporteurs reiterated that all
countries, including Canada, “have a positive obligation under international
law to protect the right of, and repatriate, their nationals.” They added that
in Polman’s case, her return is “both a legal and humanitarian imperative….Ms.
Polman is experiencing profound infringements on her human rights, we are
concerned for her survival and believe that her return to Canada is critical to
prevent those specific and identifiable harms.”
On February 10, 2022, 10 UN experts again called for Polman’s repatriation to receive life-saving medical care. While
Global Affairs officials acknowledged in court papers that Polman
was eligible to be considered for repatriation because of her medical condition,
Letta Tayler, Associate
Crisis and Conflict Director at Human Rights Watch, pointedly asked:
“How close to death do Canadians have to be for their government to decide they
qualify for repatriation? Canada should be helping its citizens unlawfully held
in northeast Syria, not obstructing their ability to get life-saving health
care.”
An Unrepentant Scofflaw
The cases of Letts, Polman, and
the other 42 Canadian men, women and children detained in Northeast Syria shine a glaring
spotlight on Canada’s role as an unrepentant scofflaw when it comes to
respecting international law.
In addressing the unending detention of Jack
Letts, the Rapporteurs write that, as with the no-exceptions ban on torture,
the prohibition on arbitrary detention is a peremptory norm of international
treaty and customary law from which no one is ever allowed to derogate. Indeed,
they write “arbitrary deprivation of liberty can never be a necessary or
proportionate measure,” adding that no country can ever claim that “illegal,
unjust or unpredictable deprivation of liberty is necessary for the protection
of a vital security or other interest proportionate to that end.”
Yet that is what the Liberals – and,
specifically, the Global Affairs Canada (GAC) bureaucracy – have done with a policy
framework that seeks to use unnamed and unsubstantiated threats as an excuse
not to fulfill their duty to ensure the return of the Canadian detainees and to
end their complicity in torture and arbitrary detention.
The framework’s top priority lists “national
security considerations,” and applies those equally to adults and children under the age
of 7. Despite a growing body of case law which proves otherwise, the document
declares there is no “positive obligation” on the part of Global Affairs Canada
to provide consular assistance or repatriation.
“In practice, the policy has done nothing to facilitate
repatriations since its adoption and suggests discriminatory provision of
consular assistance,” Human Rights Watch concluded. To
add insult to injury, GAC failed to share its framework for a full year with
the family members; it only came out through the legal case’s disclosure
process.
Even though the life-threatening conditions
faced by Kimberly Polman qualified her for repatriation under GAC’s highly
restrictive policy, Canada has actively prevented her return, even when a former US diplomat offered to escort her out
of the camp. Polman described the long-term effects of malnutrition to CTV news earlier this
year, saying “Almost everyone’s got breaking teeth. And
they’re not just breaking, like cracking. It’s almost like they’re tearing off
because they’re soft.”
Subcontracting Arbitrary Detention
As disturbing as the Canadian government’s failure to repatriate
its citizens is its role in subcontracting their suffering via a non-state
party, which is consistent with past Canadian practices of subcontracting
torture of Canadians Muslims in Cuba’s Guantanamo Bay, Syria, Egypt, Sudan, and other
countries (documented by two judicial inquiries as well as numerous Federal and
Supreme Court decisions).
The UN Rapporteurs highlight the fact that the
very members of the so-called Global Coalition fighting Daesh are investing in
the detention infrastructure that punishes their citizens with conditions
described as tantamount to torture and which have no legal basis in law (much
like the CIA black sites and other torture centres that have long been part of
a global network of repression).
Indeed, the Rapporteurs note “that what is
now emerging is capacity building and technical assistance provision supporting
such indefinite detention of [Canadian] nationals enabled and supported in part
by the Coalition” of which Canada is a member. Indeed, the “entrenchment and
protraction of allegedly arbitrary detention in these inhumane condition in
North-East Syria … is premised on the direct security assistance provided by
the Coalition” to a non-state entity, the Kurdish authorities. In turn, this
raises “serious questions of State responsibility and of complicity in the
facilitation, sustainment and continuation of the serious human rights
violations that are taking place in the prisons and detention centres in
North-East Syria.”
Sally Lane seeking a meeting with Trudeau to free her son Jack Letts
The Rapporteur reminds Canada that “States
must not render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by the
serious breach [of international human rights law] and must cooperate to bring
it to an end.” They also remind Canada that the building and support “for the
maintenance of prisons designed to keep these individuals in detention are incompatible”
with Canada’s international law obligations, especially the unbreakable
commitment prohibiting arbitrary detention.
While the Dept. of Justice prepares arguments
for the upcoming repatriation court case, it is no doubt looking to the French
government, which was the subject of a significant European Court of Human
Rights decision earlier in September regarding the repatriation of French woman
and children. As Un Special Rapporteur Fionnuala Ní Aoláin points
out, the decision affirms “a continuously deteriorating humanitarian
situation and a rights-free zone in which thousands of men, women, and children
have been arbitrarily detained for the past four years absent any legal basis
or review of the legality of their detention. Importantly, the Court’s decision
puts to rest myths relating to the impossibility of repatriation for security
reasons due to its confirmation that European states have access to the camps
and have successfully repatriated individuals in the past. All of this indicates
that states do not have a strong legal basis for denying repatriation requests,
particularly for vulnerable individuals who have had their fundamental rights
violated for far too long.”
In a revealing section of the decision, the
French government concedes (in a declaration that sounds like it is Canada’s
own policy) that it is fearful that any “humanitarian action might become an
obligation for the future.”
Let Them Eat Sand
The case of the Canadian detainees is an open
secret in Ottawa, yet apart from two statements by NDP MP Heather McPherson and
Green MP Elizabeth May, no one has raised concern. While Liberal MPs like Sameer
Zuberi of the Parliamentary Muslim caucus have staked their turf around the
very justified concerns around Uyghur Muslims arbitrarily detained in China, they have consciously
chosen silence for their fellow Muslim citizens arbitrarily detained in Syria.
There is a crude sense, according to off the record conversations with various
community leraders, that none dare touch these 44 Canadians, the ultimate
victims of a Good Muslim, Bad Muslim dualism in which Islamophobic electoral politics
trump the universality of human rights.
It is their silence that
perpetuates Canada’s Guantanamo in northeast Syria, where there is no clean
water or nutritious food, few diapers or sanitary towels, no medical care, no
education and no privacy. There are no playgrounds: children play next to
cesspools of human waste, into which some have fallen. Sewage floods their flimsy
tents while wild dogs roam the camps terrorizing people. Malnutrition is
rampant, many have been killed in all too frequent tent fires, and communicable
diseases common to such concentration camps such as tuberculosis and cholera
are a constant threat.
One Canadian child’s nutritional
deficiency makes them crave salt and minerals, and so they eat sand and dirt.
This is not a secret. This has been shared with Global Affairs Canada. Yet
Justin Trudeau, Melanie Joly and Chrystia Freeland are behaving as if state
security requires this child to eat sand and dirt and to die in the slow
suffering of starvation. Hundreds die every year from preventable causes.
The men’s prison cells are packed
with bone-thin prisoners, many with amputated limbs. Detainees remain in the
same position from 8 am to midnight because they are so tightly packed in, with
1 overflowing latrine for 80 people.
Loved ones of the detainees,
respected international organizations, and fellow governments keep GAC
officials abreast of all these facts. But instead of acting to end this
nightmare, Canadian government lawyers are busy preparing arguments to keep 44
Canadian citizens there forever. While a petition in
support of repatriation now has almost 11,000 signatures, it will take a lot
more voices to turn the tide of this humanitarian catastrophe.
In September 2021, Kimberly Polman wrote a letter describing her
plight. “I
am continually bleeding,” she wrote. “My teeth are
all broken...my legs cannot walk or stand... I am dying a slow death here and I
have done everything I can think of to get help. Nothing has worked.”
In a previous letter, Polman also asked a
question that can only be answered by people of conscience willing to take a
stand and demand immediate repatriation: “We survived ISIS, we were the lucky
ones. … But can we survive the camps?”
(an edited version of this story will appear at rabble.ca)
