Dear Editor,
The 10.5 million dollar government payout to Omar Khadr only reinforces how much we are a country of contradictions, double standards and hypocrisy. Clearly Canadians are overwhelmingly opposed to the settlement as seen in opinion polls. Yet the Government and a minority of persons attempt to justify their break from public consensus regarding the payout by invoking the Charter thereby seeking a higher moral ground.
Our Prime Minister says that recognizing ‘rights are not easy on difficult matters and that his government will recognize rights even when it is not easy or popular.’ This is an interesting statement regarding a Prime Minister’s willingness to push Charter Rights.
Can we then as Anglophone residents in the Pontiac expect our Federal Government to invoke our Charter Rights over signage legislation in Quebec? Likely never, as it is an uncomfortable question for some and not politically beneficial for any Federal Party hoping to secure a majority government.
Canadians understandably wished to see the Khadr matter go before the court, this is why we have courts where laws can be tested and provide clarity on future matters. This is called judicial process and judicial precedent. This is why we as taxpayers pay to maintain a Supreme Court. Instead we have a Government who does not have the stomach or courage to see the matter through to the end and would rather cut and run.
Still others attempt to justify the payout by explaining that Khadr was a ‘child soldier’ and, as such, he could not be held responsible for his actions at age 15. Again, here we have contradictions. As a reminder, our government, as previous ones in the past as well, trains, arms, and uniforms ‘child soldiers’.
If we use the definition of child which means (1) a person yet achieving puberty, and/or (2) a person yet achieving the age of majority then we as a nation have ‘child soldiers’.
To become a member of the Canadian Armed Forces one only needs to be 17 years old with parental consent. At 17 one cannot vote and cannot legally drink and requires parental permission on many matters. Yet, as a nation we are willing to arm these ‘children’.
By this definition, I was a ‘child soldier’ when I enlisted in the Reserves when the age requirement was only 16, only one year older than Kadar was at the time of his confessed actions. At 16 I was provided training on a wide range of small arms ranging from rifles to anti-tank rockets much the same as Khadr was, yet there’s no outcry that we are a nation that possess “child soldiers’.
If one does not consider the argument I am proposing then consider this; our country pays for and maintains ‘child soldiers’ the same age, or younger, as Khadr. Many of them have yet achieved puberty in the Army, Sea and Air Cadet Program. We uniform these children and train them in the basics of small arms, sailing and flight.
I would wager that any ‘child’ currently in the Armed Forces or Cadet Program who felt that the values of their homeland were being threatened would fight for it, just as Khadr fought for what he believed in. Yet, our tax dollars are paid out to a person who not only fought against our values but killed a soldier allied to our cause.
Try and explain this to a veteran of our Armed Forces who will not have the government recognize his or her full benefits. If you oppose the payout, please take the opportunity to express your objection to our MP Will Amos.
Todd Hoffman
Clarendon, Que.
