Skip to main content

Former Guantanamo Bay prisoner Omar Khadr is shown in an undated handout photo from the Bowden Institution in Innisfail, Alta. THE CANADIAN PRESS/HO-Bowden Institution

HO/THE CANADIAN PRESS

Is there not even one meeting room in the Bowden Institution, a medium and minimum security prison in Alberta? Is there even one space in the entire facility with four walls and a door? According to the warden, no, there isn't. And as a result of the vagaries of Correctional Service Canada interior design, Omar Khadr cannot be interviewed by journalists.

Last Friday, Justice Richard Mosley of the Federal Court of Canada bent over backwards to accept this incomprehensible response from the warden of the jail that is now the home of Mr. Khadr, a former child soldier and member of the notorious jihadi Khadr family.

A newspaper reporter, the CBC and a documentary filmmaker have for months been trying to interview Mr. Khadr. There is great public interest in his case. When the warden refused, they applied to the Federal Court.

Story continues below advertisement

All the interview requires is some space for a reporter, a cameraperson and Mr. Khadr himself. A small room. A large closet. A vacant hallway. Anything.

Bowden Institution describes itself as an "open campus," with a layout that "lacks containment barriers." The warden claims that an on-camera interview with Mr. Khadr would disrupt the inmates' work, school and other programs, and if conducted after "business hours," their leisure activities, too. That "would spark unrest amongst the inmate population."

The premise that an interview with Mr. Khadr would have to be held in a large open area in front of all other prisoners, or that all inmates would have to be relegated to their cells and "locked down," is supremely implausible. Even a cursory Internet search shows that the prison has meeting rooms for parole hearings.

In his decision, Justice Mosley was excessively deferential to what he believed to be the expertise of the jail's officials – which in this instance just does not add up.

The media applicants have good grounds to appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter