Thomas Sowell sums up "Social Justice"

Short but sweet: one of my favourite authors, one of my favourite subjects, one of my favourite quotes.

"What do you call it when someone steals someone else's money secretly? Theft. What do you call it when someone takes someone else's money openly by force? Robbery. What do you call it when a politician takes someone else's money in taxes and gives it to someone who is more likely to vote for him? Social Justice" Thomas Sowell

Embracing Our Inner-Barbarian: Canada and Torture

I really should not be writing my blog today; I am far too busy. The weight of assignments is accumulating, the extra hours that I have to work are taking their toll, friends are asking me more often for help in editing or writing their works, and I barely have enough time for all of this. A personal life is almost non-existent, and writing, which I love, is even less so.

There have been a few issues lately that are really, really bothering me. I am working on some pieces on education, welfare, the false promises of modern “social justice,” and all have been on my mind. The Pickton inquiry and alleged cover-up in BC has made me feel at various times both outrage and grief. It’s not enough that scores of Vancouver prostitutes fell prey to Robert Pickton years ago; now their memories and remaining families are being further victimized by “lost” police files and notes that seem to have never been taken during what one would think was an investigation that merited serious detail. This is all happening to the outrage of the lawyer representing the families of the missing and murdered women. Lawyer Cameron Ward keeps alleging a police cover-up, while inquiry commissioner and former BC Attorney General Wally Oppal habitually keeps dismissing or excluding evidence from the inquiry that might shed light on what went so wrong during the Pickton investigation, all the while denying any type Mr. Ward’s cover-up claim. When reading the details of the inquiry, it becomes difficult to objectively arrive at the same conclusion as Mr. Oppal. The inquiry seems to underscore the devaluing of the life of the voiceless; the fact that there isn’t more outrage over it should provide concern about how much we as a society have chosen to accept the ever-greater marginalizing of our most vulnerable members.

While all this has been troubling, it was an issue around another voiceless segment that caught my eye and compels me to write. I feel like I am in mourning for not just the voiceless victims of this issue, but my own country as well. If the soon-to-be-passed omnibus crime bill C-10 wasn’t proof enough or our return to the dark ages, the recent revelation that Canada is allowing information obtained through torture in “exceptional circumstances” to be used as intelligence surely cements proof of our regress. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-tells-spies-to-use-possible-torture-info-in-exceptional-cases/article2329406/).

With a seemingly endless plethora of data available condemning the validity of information gained by torture, as well as the common sense acknowledgement that anyone under torture will say what their torturers wish to hear to stop their suffering, there is very little need to state the obvious: the information gained by means of torture is rarely, if ever useful. That there is almost universal recognition of this fact is enough to trouble any reasonable citizen of a government that tolerates, much less endorses these measures. Or, as Liberal leader Bob Rae succinctly puts it in the Globe’s article: “The law in Canada has been pretty clear that information based on torture, first of all, is not reliable and, second of all, is not permissible.”

More troubling however, and potentially far more dangerous to innocent people, is the potential result of that information.

The government has defended its decision to allow information gained through torture using two time-honoured methods: pleading ignorance, and inciting fear. In using the former, former CSIS director Jim Judd asserted that “It is very difficult, if not impossible, for the service to confirm whether information is derived from mistreatment or torture.” If, however, this is true, this is all the more reason to reject that information. If CSIS is not capable enough to discern whether or not the agency it is getting information from has an earned reputation for coercion, then surely it cannot be competent enough to discern the validity of the information gathered. Countless criminal investigations have been quashed due to the character, nature or lack of credibility of those who may potentially testify. If our spy agency doesn’t know the character or reputation of the sources it gets information from, why should Canadians believe that they performed due diligence with the information gathered?

Having duly ignored the above, the graver problem emerges: the potential implication and prosecution of the innocent, all done in the name of national security. As the article from the Globe further quotes Public Safety Minister Vic Towes’ spokesman Mike Patton, “Our government will always take action that protects the lives of Canadians.” While this sounds like government intent on guarding precious life, what if the opposite should occur as a result of failing to question how our sources procured their information? Given the current climate of paranoia, how certain are we that under the best of circumstances, a prominent, devout Canadian Muslim of Iranian decent would be free from potential suspicion if tensions continue to escalate between Iran and NATO-allied nations? Does it really take great imagination to envision another Maher Arar situation occurring in Canada? I wonder if Mr. Toews “will always take action that protects the lives of Canadians” who may be falsely accused of certain acts, given that those accusations may have come as a result of a confession produced through violence?

Lost in all this of course, are the lives of those tortured in the first place. By passively refusing to examine the condition which produced the information, Canada is turning a blind eye to human rights violations of the worst kind. If we don’t discourage and reject coercion as a means of acquiring information, we, by extension provide a laboratory for the cancer of torture to destroy lives with impunity. In doing so, we will collectively shrug our shoulders while innocent blood gets shed globally, all in the name of public safety.

By accepting coercion abroad, Canadians set a timer counting down to the time when we accept it on our own soil. By turning a blind eye to the victims of torture, we desensitise ourselves to the humanity in others, and thus to humanity as a whole. By tolerating torture in “exceptional circumstances,” we set aside due process and the rule of law completely; for when those two foundations of our legal system perish occasionally, they perish as a whole. Neither were meant to be set aside ever, even in “exceptional circumstances.”

Gandhi once opined that “A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members;” if that axiom holds on a global scale, then Canada’s greatness has suffered a mortal wound. Call it one of the unseen fruits of torture.