Considering all the recent abuses of power it has perpetrated in the name of national security, it’s sad to think that the U.S. can teach Canada a lesson when it comes to protecting the rights of citizens.

But it’s true; it can. Consider the following statute:

“Whenever it is made known to the President that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand of that government the reasons of such imprisonment.

“If it appears to be wrongful and in violation of the rights of American citizenship, the President shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen, and if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, the President shall use such means […] as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate the release.”

That was Title 22, Chapter 23, Section 1732 of the U.S. Code, a collection of American federal laws. How sad it is that there doesn’t seem to be a Canadian equivalent.

Wednesday night, Yavar Hameed, counsel for Abousfian Abdelrazik, reminded students at the Faculty why we might need one. He was at McGill to speak out against Canada’s complicity in the unlawful detention of his client in a Sudanese prison and its refusal to allow him to return home. Mr. Hameed’s talk was an introduction to the Symposium on Counter-terrorism and Civil Liberties, which will be taking place at McGill next semester.

His client, Mr. Abdelrazik, was detained in Sudan – without charge and at Canada’s request – for the better part of six years. While in detention, he was repeatedly tortured. The CSIS agents who questioned him even told him “Sudan would be his Guantanamo.”

When he was released in 2006, the government opposed his repatriation at every turn until Mr. Hameed and his legal team convinced Federal Court judge Russel Zinn to order his return. In a stinging indictment of Canadian and international security policy, Justice Zinn compared Mr. Abdelrazik’s ordeal to a scene from Franz Kafka’s The Trial.

“It’s an apt analogy because one you are branded, once you fall under this net of suspicion [of terrorism], it’s up to you as an individual to prove to the general public that you are not deserving of that title,” Mr. Hameed told students last Wednesday.

Mr. Abdelrazik is a recent addition to a growing list of Canadians who have been, in one way or another, abandoned by their government overseas. The list now includes Maher Arar, Ahmad Abou El-Maati, Omar Khadr, and Suaad Hagi Mohamud.

“There is deliberate political maneuvering to deny rights to Canadian citizens, and to be clear, these are Canadians of a different background, a different religion, and a different colour. And I don’t think it’s inappropriate or mistaken to say that this is the enforcement of a second tier of citizenship,” said Mr. Hameed.

Those are strong accusations. But given the government’s persistent refusals to repatriate Mr. Abdelrazik, even after he was cleared of any wrongdoing, as well as the irresponsible statements from the director of CSIS accusing him of being a media opportunist, it’s clear that Canada’s national security policy is indeed highly politicized.

Media and grassroots advocates have been talking about this problem for a long time, but there tends to be little discussion of solutions. For Mr. Hameed, it appeared the way forward was clear, at least in some respects.

One of his suggestions was that Canada create a national security oversight body with the power to make binding orders. The Security and Intelligence Review Committee oversees CSIS, but it has no teeth – Mr. Hameed explained that as the law stands today, CSIS is under no obligation to follow the Review Committee’s recommendations. That has to change such that CSIS held accountable for its actions.

Mr. Hameed also called for greater openness during Review Committee hearings. As it stands now, CSIS agents being cross-examined can request to answer questions in camera whenever they see fit. Mr. Hameed is of the view that a change to that rule might force agents to take greater responsibility for their actions.

He also suggested that courts should be prepared to recognize Charter application overseas, even despite the recent decisions in R. v. Hape and Amnesty Canada International, et al. v. Chief of the Defence Staff for the Canadian Forces, et al. He suggested those decisions could be distinguished on their facts from an Omar Khadr-type situation.

“When you have a Canadian citizen in a foreign territory being questioned by Canadian state agents, and is clearly subject to an interrogation which is in the full power of Canadians to direct… if that interrogation is in and of itself found to be coercive interrogation or torture, it would be absurd not to allow the application of the Charter in that context,” he said.

Let’s hope the Supreme Court agrees.