Canada can rehabilitate Khadr, if they try.

Call him what you will: guilty, innocent, murderer, victim, terrorist, terrorized.

Omar Khadr, detained in Guantanamo Bay for over six years, is accused of murdering a U.S. medic in 2002. He was a child, only 15 years old at the time. In the wake of U.S. President Barack Obama’s order to close the Guantanamo Bay detention centre within the next year, it is one indisputable label that will determine his future. That label is ‘Canadian citizen’.

As the trials of the remaining detainees in Guantanamo will most likely end up in the U.S. federal court, to ease the burden on the system Khadr may be offered back to Canadian custody. Whether the Canadian government likes it or not he will most likely be coming home. But what will be his fate once he returns?

Khadr’s trial by the U.S. military commission was due to begin on Jan. 26, 2009. Now void, the government could choose to emulate the U.S. commission and try him in the Canadian federal justice system for his alleged crime. This is a costly and timely process. With his anguished history, there is a better alternative – reintegration into civilized society.

With a case so controversial, reintegration offers Khadr a life of some normalcy that he has not had for over six years. He was linked to the terrorist group al-Qaeda as a 15-year-old boy, allegedly through his father’s influence. Upon his capture by U.S. military forces he was shot three times. In The Huffington Post on Jan. 8, 2009, Andy Worthington’s report on Khadr’s case suggests his treatment has been with “a heartless disregard for his terrible wounds in the months following his capture, severe isolation in Guantanamo, and prolonged periods of abuse and humiliation.”

The reintegration process has proven successful in similar cases. Australian al-Qaeda terrorist suspect and Guantanamo inmate David Hicks was repatriated from detention in 2007 by then- prime minister John Howard. Following an assessment of his case on home soil, Australian officials deemed it safe for Hicks to be released into society, subject to a 12-month control order.

During his period of reintegration, the control order saw him report to a police station several times a week, adhere to a curfew from midnight to 6a.m., and use a police-approved sim-card for his mobile phone. This monitoring process was successful and Hicks proved his ability to live a calm and compliant life. The control order was not renewed upon its expiry in 2008.

Our government may soon be given power to give Khadr a chance at a relatively normal life. Like Hicks, he has spent a significant portion of his life in detention limbo. Bearing witness to violence and bloodshed from such a young age, what should be focused on now is the rehabilitation of his fragile mental and physical well-being. A Canadian emulation of the U.S. military trials will only hinder this process.

Just because we want it, doesn’t mean we need it.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that “everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment”. However, in this historically long and ongoing battle between the city and the striking OC Transpo workers, both sides are being exposed to such callousness, along with the citizens of Ottawa.

 In the forced vote ordered by Federal Labour Minister Rona Ambrose, members of the Amalgamated Transit Union – some 2, 300 workers – rejected the city’s latest contract offer to return to work by nearly three-to-one. And so, as Ottawa disappears under ice in this bitter winter, a choir of disgruntled voices thunderously calls for OC Transpo to be declared an essential service.

 But this tag of essentiality will limit the workers’ rights on the job far longer than the extent of this strike. Before throwing support behind this motion, people must consider what it will mean for the workers of OC Transpo.

Just as the Charter protects our basic human rights, since June 2007 it also protects the collective bargaining rights of employees – of which striking is a key element. Bargaining agreements between unions and employers give power to employees in regulating to what terms they are willing to work under. And since these rights have been protected, interference with them must be justified against the protection provided by the Charter.

The collective agreements and the bargaining rights of workers are more essential than a public service. Declaring OC Transpo as such a service has consequences for the rights of transit workers that need to be considered beyond the emotion-laden inconvenience felt by those held hostage by the strike.

 According to the Canadian Labour Code, in order to declare the service ‘essential’ it must be necessary to prevent immediate and serious danger to the health or safety of the public. In these instances, the services are maintained to the level required to meet these safety standards. Significantly, for workers in these sectors, striking becomes illegal and the Charter’s protection is disparaged.

Services that qualify as essential differ across the nation. According to the Public Service Labour Relations Act, government programs that may be considered essential include border safety, correctional services, food inspection and health care. In Ontario, firefighters and nurses are both occupations that are considered essential, and they may not lawfully walk off the job. Without these services, the safety of Ontarians would be put in significant danger. The immediate danger of striking transit workers is not so obvious.

 Five weeks in to the strike, Ms. Ambrose asked the Canadian Industrial Relations Board – who have the authority to declare OC Transpo an essential service – to consider the transit strike a danger to public safety. The Board has the power to issue cease and desist orders in cases of unlawful strikes. To make their decision they have called on the stranded citizens to tell their tales of woe detailing the ways in which their health and safety have been impeded.

 To date, the CIRB has received over of 2000 responses since they called for comment. And if these responses resemble the growing online petition supporting the declaration of transport as an essential service, then they will colorfully detail dissatisfaction with the strike. But, the role of the CIRB is to remain neutral and fair in their decision, so elaborative public complaints may not be an effective catalyst in this instance – immediate danger to public safety must be proven.

 Citizens say that without access to public transport they are being denied access to education, necessary health services and in extreme cases have lost their employment. But, since nothing fatal or dangerous has really occurred due to the strike, the suggestion that the safety of the public is in jeopardy may be hard to justify.  In this instance, inconvenience may not equal imperil. Having no public transport to health care services is less significant than having no health care services at all.

Rather than join the chorus to undermine legislature protecting collective bargaining agreements and make a submission to the Board, the city council persist in exploring alternate ways to ease the inconvenience for the stranded. They have made transport allowances in terms of free parking, expanded traffic lanes and taxi vouchers for the elusively defined “vulnerable” citizens of Ottawa. Their reluctance to support this bid shows that it may not be the best solution.

This strike is undeniably inconvenient. But, a workers right to strike is entrenched in Canada’s Charter. It’s a significant right that workers outside of essential services enjoy, along with the right to life and the freedom of expression. To declare OC Transpo an essential service because we want it rather than need it will affect the transport workers’ rights for a long time to come – well beyond the extent of the current strike.

With so much at stake for the protection of OC Transpo rights at work, rather than demand transportation be declared an essential service it might prove best to just ride this one out.