To: Raymond Duray who wrote (1397 ) 12/3/2003 8:18:41 PM From: John Sladek Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 2171 03Dec03-Toronto Star-Uneasy questions from Khadr case "Everyone knows me now," Abdurahman Khadr said this week as he talked about his experiences in Afghanistan. "Everywhere I go people will think: `He's Al Qaeda.' Maybe if you don't know anything about my story, or my life, you shouldn't judge me." Unfortunately for Khadr, judging him is exactly what many Canadians are doing in the wake of one of the most riveting — and unsettling — televised press conferences in a long time. Indeed, many people were left with an uneasy feeling as they watched the 20-year-old Khadr speak of his training at an "Al Qaeda-related" camp in Afghanistan, where he learned how to use a Kalashnikov assault rifle, among other things; of his release from a U.S. military prison camp in Guantanamo Bay; and of his travels across two continents with people smugglers before being flown to Toronto from Sarajevo. Uneasy because we ask ourselves what was a Canadian kid who went to school in Scarborough, albeit for only two years, doing in an alleged terrorist camp where some of Al Qaeda's specialized brigades trained? Uneasy because he was detained, along with his brother, Omar, 15, in Guantanamo by U.S. forces after the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan. He was released several months ago by the Americans, a clear sign the U.S. had little proof that he is a terrorist or has links to Al Qaeda. Uneasy because his father, Ahmed Khadr, is an alleged Al Qaeda financier who may or may not be dead. Uneasy because the Canadian government won't issue a full passport to his mother and sister, who live in Pakistan, because they have "lost" too many previous Canadian passports. Abdurahman Khadr may be totally innocent. Indeed, no charges of wrongdoing have been laid against him, either by the U.S. or Canada. However, his case raises questions about how Ottawa should treat Canadians who, by choice, join a foreign terrorist group with the purpose of waging a holy war against the West, or another country or religious group. There are laws making it a crime to fight against Canadian troops or to belong to or raise funds for any group deemed a terrorist organization by Ottawa. But in this post-9/11 world, more Canadians are suggesting it's time to consider another drastic step — revoking citizenship of naturalized Canadians who abuse their passport, using it purely as a convenient tool to go back and forth, raising money here for terror groups and possibly recruiting new "foot soldiers." What's wrong, they ask, about stripping away the citizenship of those who join foreign holy wars? The Canadian ideal is for tolerance, respect, and acceptance of others. Holy wars go entirely against that ideal. When we issue passports to new Canadians, it is with the expectation they will respect our laws, especially dealing with treason and terror. Citizenship is a privilege, they claim, not a right that can be abused with impunity. At the same time, those pushing this argument would not revoke the citizenship of those born in Canada. Others argue it is wrong to go this route because it would put us on a slippery slope of eroding more of our basic rights as citizens and creating, in effect, two classes of Canadians. If Canadians have done something wrong, this side says, then arrest them and charge them under our laws. Both sides raise valid points. What's needed now is a full debate.torontostar.ca