Kerry Pither

It seems that the Hudson Institute’s Chris Sands can’t read. Or doesn’t want to. Here’s what the Ottawa Citizen’s Ian McLeod says Sands said at a conference on security last week:

“I don’t think that we’re convinced Maher Arar was vindicated or acquitted by your process,” Mr. Sands said, referring to the O’Connor judicial inquiry. “What you did was re-evaluate the treatment of Maher Arar and decide that procedural mistakes along the way had been made. That didn’t vindicate him from the charge that he was involved in fundraising for terror.”

And here’s what Justice O’Connor said in the Arar Inquiry’s report:

“I am able to say categorically that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offence or that his activities constitute a threat to the security of Canada.”

So what’s up, Mr. Sands?
I always find it interesting to substitute names in these kinds of careless statements. Consider this:

“I don’t think that we’re convinced Chris Sands was vindicated or acquitted by your process,” Mr. Pundit said, referring to the O’Connor judicial inquiry. “What you did was re-evaluate the treatment of Chris Sands and decide that procedural mistakes along the way had been made. That didn’t vindicate him from the charge that he was involved in fundraising for terror.”