In a letter to the International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy (IRFAN), Canada’s RCMP confirmed that the Harper government “has added the group to a list of “terrorist entities” as of April 24″.
IRFAN has been involved in channeling humanitarian aid to Gaza.
The Canadian government’s naming of IRFAN as a “terrorist” organization not only plays politics with Canadian charities but threatens the Canadian judicial system.
The Harper government has brought government funding into its political agenda in the past by aligning its own charitable contributions (formerly through CIDA) with Canadian business interests and by withdrawing funding from NGOs (such as the nondenominational Christian KAIROS) that represented the broader public interest.
The labelling of IRFAN as “terrorist”, however, brings this to another level because it effectively bans Canadian humanitarian aid to victims of a genocide and also threatens legal representation for those so accused in Canada.
IRFAN was reportedly providing food for Gazans — who are victims of what legal experts are describing as genocide — through the Ministry of Health of the democratically- elected Palestinian government.
Stopping such vital aid makes Canada complicit in the genocide, morally if not legally. The IRFAN lawyer is personally threatened because as its lawyer, he is now providing support to a named terrorist entity, and could presumably be charged for that under “anti-terrorism” laws. The situation threatens the rights of Canadians to access legal counsel under such circumstances, subverting judicial due process in Canada.
Ironically, while effectively banning the provision of humanitarian aid to those starving, Canada allows the charities supporting its Israeli ally to operate freely, despite the fact that they are funding what might be called state-sponsored terrorism and violations not only of international humanitarian law but of Canada’s official foreign policy.
The terrifying implications of terrorism charges warrant public discussion: should any democratically-elected government have the right to apply that term to other democratically-elected political parties and their members, by virtue of that affiliation?
Source: Global Research