Saul Itzhayek, for the oldest reasons in the world, for money, for self-aggrandizement, was victimized. We followed this story for so long and, I dare say, we were the first to raise it in the media because what happens to one person, even 10,000 miles away, matters. Martin Luther King Jr. once said that “injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere. What happens to any man affects every man.” That is the case and cause of the Saul Itzhayek struggle... he finally came home last Friday.
$">
$">Beryl Wajsman: Saul, let’s start with the first and most obvious question — we know you’re happy to be back home, what do you want to say to Canadians and the world?
$">
$">Saul Itzhayek: The one thing I want to say is if Canada wants to protect its sovereignty, it better protect it, starting with its people. Without its people, it’s nothing. That’s the first priority it should have.
$">
$">BW: As we followed your story, one of the frustrating elements at the beginning — in talking to [Mount Royal MP] Irwin Cotler and [Cotler chief of staff] Howard Liebman and Saul’s sister] Sylvia, and this came out in your story but it was a mirror of what happened in other stories over the past several years — is the time it took for Canadian representatives just to get to you. Were you wondering about that?
$">
$">SI: I was wondering why they didn’t come at the beginning. They only came by pressure, they only work when there’s pressure. That’s the only time they came to see me, when they were getting calls from my family. Otherwise, I don’t think they would have come to see me. Nobody said anything. Nobody would have done anything. They knew about my arrest when I was at the police station, they knew about it before I was in jail.
$">
$">BW: They knew about it before you were in jail...
$">
$">SI: They knew about when I was at the police station, I was calling them on the cell phone, telling them directly that I was being arrested and was going to be put in jail. I called the High Commissioner. I also called the Israeli embassy as well, and I advised them. They even spoke to the police officers.
$">
$">BW: Sylvia, this was one of your great frustrations because you were hearing all kinds of things from Ottawa and from the Department of Foreign Affairs, “we care”, “we’re concerned” , “we’re there”. I remember one official told you “this is the 10th world of a third world country, nobody’s going there.” Was that the point of greatest frustration for you?
$">
$">Sylvia Itzhayek: It was really, you felt despair, that he was never going to get out of there and that nobody was going to go there and help him. In fact, 18 days after he was there, there was somebody from the High Commission in Katmandu that went to visit him and carried a document — a reinstatement of his visa — to the police station, and we only found out months later that the policemen didn’t process the application, that they were sitting on it.... [The High Commission] was causing damage in this case. They didn’t help him. Instead of giving it to the ministry, [the High Commission] brought it to the police station. He ended up languishing for another three or four months, only to find out his bail application was denied. We started all over again. I was worried about his health. It was just one drama after another.
$">
$">BW: Irwin Cotler, what Saul is talking about — we have heard this mantra over and over again. Regardless of what party is in power, when the Liberals were in power, Dan McTeague was Secretary of State for Canadians abroad and he had a great frustration with the bureaucrats in Foreign Affairs. The Tories have the same frustration, but we’ve seen this failure by Canada not only to protect, but to arrive at a scene. We saw it in the William Sampson case, in the case of Abdullah Almalki, a Canadian spirited from Damascus Airport who suffered 18 months of torture. Over and over again. Is there ever going to be something like a “do it” memo at the Department of Foreign Affairs to deal with the bureaucrats?
$">
$">Irwin Cotler: I think Saul put it correctly at the beginning. The first responsibility of government is the protection of its citizens. The second is it has to discharge that responsibility as effectively as possible. We’ve seen, going back to Maher Arar and William Sampson in 2002 and fast forward to today, that which I recommended to them, which has not been taken up, needs at this point to be implemented. Parliament, as a representative of the people, the body that holds government accountable, has to have hearings into the way these things are taking place. We may even have to have a committee that, in particular, is established for that purpose — a standing committee that deals with the question of Canadians who are imprisoned abroad and particularly when we have the situation here of Canadians unjustly imprisoned abroad.
$">
$">BW: You were the first to use “entrapment” in Saul’s case.
$">
$">IC: That’s right. I used the word entrapment and I will go at this point to the point of saying that we are all pleased that the ordeal of the unjust imprisonment has ended, but we also have to look at the fact that Saul should not have been in prison to begin with. This should never be forgotten. The second thing is, his personal security and safety were at stake because of a bombing taking place adjacent to where he was being held. I think these are things we must look into, if we want to protect Canadians not only against unjust imprisonment but, in this instance, with respect to personal safety and security. This warrants, in my view, a parliamentary hearing that will look into all of these cases, of which Saul’s is the immediate case study, and will thereby develop a policy and practice of effective protection for Canadian citizens imprisoned abroad.
$">
$">BW: Howard, you were in almost daily contact with everybody, from Helena Guergis, Secretary of State, to the foreign minister’s office. You said to me at one point, I’ll never forget, there were things you learned about our system that just leave you baffled, like “why are they there?” What was the most frustrating part of this, in light of what Irwin’s talking about as far as government response? The most frustrating part of the process...
$">
$">Howard Liebman: I’ll just start with a headline, and it’s something you wrote, “Saul could be us all.” I live and work in the centre of Mr. Cotler’s constituency of 100,000 residents in a riding, and a lot of them travel for business and to be with family. In my mind, if any one of them — my family, your family, anyone’s loved one — could be going through this ordeal and everything took week after month after 10 months to get any advancement, it was a terrible frustration. I went through this as if it were my own loved one, my own family, and as we’ve been saying for the last half hour, none of this should have happened. [We have to] come out of this and not just walk away from it but to ask the questions that need to be asked for our elected officials to deal with it, because there were a lot of people who did care. Let’s make no mistake about that.
$">
$">BW: There were, you’re right, but they felt an impotence.
$">
$">HL: They did feel an impotence and they did what they could. And if that was sending a letter, e-mail or whatever, but there are other examples out there, and some of it is starting to come out in the media — comparisons to other countries, whether it’s the British Commonwealth office, the British Foreign Office, the American State Department, we have to ask questions in this global village of what, bottom line, is the role of a consular officer or diplomat abroad.
$">
$">BW: Saul, this is going to be a busy time for you but a healing time as well. This has taken a painful personal toll. Is that the worst of it, as bad as being in that prison?
$">
$">SI: It’s dealing with it that’s the hardest.
$">
$">BW: It’s dealing with the anger about it?
$">
$">SI: Lots of anger.
$">
$">BW: It’s more than time that somebody should just say “I’m sorry.”
$">
$">SI: Sorry doesn’t cut it. It just doesn’t cut it. It doesn’t cut it, at all.
$">
$">BW: How was it reuniting with your family? I remember meeting your stepsons during the demonstrations, some of the stories, and they were incredibly lonely and moved by your plight and wanted you back. How was that first time?
$">
$">SI: There’s light in their faces now. Day by day, we’ve got to work it out. I’ve got to get back on my feet, see where I’m going now. A lot of bad things happened, a lot of bad memories. Really bad memories.
$">
$">BW: Motahari Prison, I wrote about, it’s not a good place to be. It wasn’t a good place when they imprisoned Gandhi there, and it can’t be much better today. Not just the bombings...
$">
$">SI: It hasn’t been changed since Gandhi was there, it was built in 1932 and never renovated. They’ve got septic tanks inside and a stench you’re smelling all the time. They don’t clean it. I lost my appetite and was getting sick all the time. You got all kinds of flies and mosquitoes. Everything was open in the wintertime and you had fog coming out of the mountains from Nepal. It goes right through you. There was no heating, no electricity, no fan. You want your food, they break your food when it comes inside the jail. All kinds of things happened from inside the jail. They threaten you on a regular basis, they try to extort money from you, all kinds of things. It’s like walking with a satellite on your head and trying to block yourself from every corner all the time. This was the hardest thing for me. I need you to understand something. I’m seriously strong because the first thing I did is pray to God every day, from morning to night, to keep me strong. The other thing that kept me strong is I had my way of communicating. It was there and I protected it.
$">
$">BW: I remember speaking to you on the cell phone that you gerrymandered.
$">
$">SI: You have no idea. We had 200 soldiers come in to find it, and they couldn’t find it.
$">
$">BW: Welcome home. This microphone is always going to be open to you. Saul Itzhayek, Sylvia Itzhayek, thank you. Irwin Cotler, Howard Liebman, job well done.
$">
$">Saul and Sylvia Itzhayek: Thank you, Beryl, for everything. 

Itzhayek wins appeal!

By Joel Goldenberg, The Suburban

Photo by Joel Goldenberg, The Suburban From left to right: Rev. Darryl Gray of Imani Family and Full Gospel Church, Saul’s sister Sylvia Itzhayek, Rabbi Michael Whitman of Hampstead’s Adath Israel Poale Zedek Synagogue, Suburban editor Beryl Wajsman, Father John Walsh of St. John Brébeuf Côte des Neiges resident Saul Itzhayek is expected to be freed from an Indian prison this week, after an appeals court upheld his conviction on a visa violation yesterday but granted his freedom for the 10 months he served. $"> $">The Suburban was the first to call the world's attention to Itzhayek's plight. $"> $">Itzhayek was sentenced to three years for being in India without a visa, after being lured to India by a police superintendent on the pretext of picking up his belongings from a vehicle alleged to have been stolen, with assurances that he could show up without a visa. He has been in jail for 10 months. Itzhayek is expected to be escorted from jail to an airfield and flown back to Canada in the next 24 to 48 hours after press time. $"> $">Saul Itzhayek's sister Sylvia, who campaigned for his cause non-stop, was elated. $"> $">“I just want to thank you ever so much for your devotion and first response to this case,” she told Suburban editor Beryl Wajsman. “You were the first to believe enough to make the difference in Saul's life and in the life of all of us. You opened the floodgates to the public awareness that ensued and we will be forever grateful.” $"> $">Sylvia said she had not slept at all for the two nights before her brother's appeal hearing. She provided a vivid account of how she first heard the news of the court's ruling just after 7 a.m. Montreal time. $"> $">“I called my attorney Aparajita Singh of Harish Salve's office at 6:34 a.m, and he told me to call back in a half hour,” she explained. “The first time I heard the news was at 7:02 a.m. on CTV Newsnet from Paul Workman, reporting from Motihari Jail. The phone was ringing off the hook since the announcement.” One of those calls was from Saul himself. $"> $">“I spoke to my attorneys at 7:50 a.m.  - Aparajita was driving back to Patna  - she said she argued the whole case and tried not to delve too much into the details of the case since no evidence was produced during the trial. She argued on the basis of his suffering, that Saul is not a criminal and time served should be enough. $"> $">“The judge was satisfied with and ordered him released tomorrow morning (today) - our evening today. He will be released to the custody of the Canadian High Commission officials. I'm so elated. [His wife] Marina is over the moon. My mother and father were crying and can't wait to see him. $"> $">“The nightmare is finally over and I look forward to seeing Saul and helping him with his long recovery back to normalcy.” $"> $">Howard Liebman, who as Mount Royal MP Irwin Cotler's chief of staff also worked tirelessly on the case with the rights lawyer and activist, was very pleased. $"> $">“We were delighted to support Saul and his family over the past number of months, together with an impressive group of grassroots supporters in the media, non-governmental organizations, faith leaders and municipal governments  - and look forward to welcoming him home to the embrace of his family where he belongs.” $"> $">Yesterday's news follows yet another inter-faith rally held last Thursday at Rev. Darryl's Gray's Imani Family and Full Gospel Church. The Jewish, Catholic and Baptist religious leaders had penned a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper in an effort to “ratchet up” the effort to free Itzhayek, especially in the wake of bombings and a murder at the jail. $"> $">Sylvia, who also attended the rally, highlighted the immediate dangers facing her brother at the time. $"> $">“There's another notorious criminal who has an adjacent cell to my brother, who will be the next target, we understand,” she said Friday. “He's part of the same gang the other person was murdered for. This is the scary part now.” $"> $"> The letter to Harper said that in light of the violence “within the prison and the risk of reprisals, Saul fears for his life and is afraid to leave a corner of his cell. Even more disturbing is the blasé attitude of the authorities entrusted with the security of the 1,500 prisoners including Saul, such as Motihari Superintendent of Police Sunil Kumar Jha in his public statements to the Indian press. $"> $">The letter was signed by Rev. Gray; Father John Walsh of St. John Brébeuf Parish; Rabbi Reuben Poupko of Côte St. Luc's Beth Israel Beth Aaron Synagogue; Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz of Côte St. Luc's Tifereth Beth David Jerusalem Synagogue; and Rabbi Michael Whitman of Hampstead's Adath Israel Poale Zedek Synagogue.  Saul could be us all! The most troubling aspect of our cover story about Saul Itzhayek is that it could happen to any of us. And it already has. Far too often and far too spectacularly the diplomats and bureaucrats representing our foreign affairs establishment do little to protect Canadians at risk. If the single unifying principle of nationhood is the protection of persons and property, that protection – that resolve – must extend to the sovereignty of the individual abroad, not only to the integrity of our Dominion at home. $"> $">William Sampson languishing for three years in a Saudi prison undergoing torture for a crime he did not commit. Abdullah Almalki snatched from the Damascus airport and living through a similar hell in a Damascus jail. These are but two of the most infamous cases of Canadians who could not count on their government to rescue them from harm’s way. $"> $">This is not at all a partisan question. The Harper government has been steadfast in reversing years of policies of appeasement in the principle and purpose of Canada’s place in the world. Yet the highest ranking Ministers dealing with our foreign policy are continually frustrated by the stumbling blocks put in their way by foreign affairs functionaries. The previous Liberal government faced many of the same problems on those rare occasions when it appointed someone of character and conscience to a portfolio dealing with matters abroad. Dan McTeague, who was Secretary of State for Canadians Abroad, was oftentimes at odds with DFAIT. $"> $">The bottom line is that Canadian officials too often fail to intervene on the grounds that individuals abroad have violated some aspect of a foreign country’s criminal law. In reality most of the cases involve nothing more than administrative law issues. And even in those that are criminal in nature the penalties are grossly disproportionate to the offences. Our Department of Foreign Affairs seems to have a great deal to say about proportionality when it comes to other nations’ response to aggression. The Department should be just as ready to use the same standard to protect our citizens. If the Department can criticize another nation’s foreign policy, why can’t it do the same in justice policy? $"> $"> As noted civil liberties attorney and constitutional expert Julius Grey stated in his letter to the Prime Minister on the Itzhayek matter, “Unfortunately, we have noted over the last few years, an excessive deference on the part of our officials in defending Canadian nationals abroad.  We submit that when conditions of detentions amount to torture and when the alleged offense could not possibly justify extended imprisonment, we should defend a Canadian caught in this predicament and facilitate his return to Canada.” Amen! Saul could be us all. $"> $">  The trials of Saul Côte des Neiges man imprisoned in India amidst Canadian inaction By Beryl Wajsman Gates of Motihari prison Bihar state is nestled in the gently sloping eastern shoulder of India. A fertile agricultural area, it is surrounded by the Indian states of Uttar Pradesh on the west, Jharkand to the south and West Bengal to the east. In the north it borders Nepal. $"> $">Bihar is the birthplace of India’s first president, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, and many of the most legendary fighters in India’s struggle for independence. Gandhi launched his first Satyagraha (civil disobedience) campaign there for the rights of peasants on indigo plantations. $"> $">But that noble Bihar was not the place that Côte des Neiges resident Saul Itzhayek was confronted by. He has been engulfed, and imprisoned, in the border frontier with Nepal for almost five months. A frontier that has been called “the tenth world of a third world country” by a Foreign Affairs official. And that is where this story of yet another Canadian at risk abroad unfolds. With a background in electronics, Saul Itzhayek went into independent trading some 10 years ago. He has traveled the world buying and selling everything from metals to electronic components to resources. In early May he left London for Katmandu in Nepal to acquire quantities of iridium. Iridium is a dense, hard, brittle, transition metal found naturally and used in high strength alloys that can withstand high temperatures. It is the most corrosion-resistant element known and is used in high temperature apparati such as electrical contacts, and as a hardening agent for platinum. Nepal has considerable cheap supply. $"> $">Arriving in Nepal, Itzhayek hired a driver and an interpreter. For several weeks he went quietly about his business meeting with suppliers and sourcing the product he was looking for. Toward the end of May he made his way to the frontier town of Birgunj, Nepal’s industrial hub. The frontier Birgunj rested against was that of the Indian state of Bihar. $"> $">On May 27 Itzhayek contacted his wife and asked her to send several thousand dollars by wire transfer to him. The fastest way was by Western Union. There was a WU office just across the border in India in a town called Lucknow. On May 28 Itzhayek sent his driver and interpreter to Lucknow to pick up the money. He didn’t go himself because his Indian visa had expired. Though he had been to India several times he hadn’t planned on going this trip and so didn’t get a new visa. The trip was to take no more than an hour and Saul had left his suitcase and some papers in the car. The driver and interpreter did not return. $"> $">The next day, May 29, Saul received a call from Manu Maharaj, the superintendent of police in the neighbouring Indian border town of Raxaul. He asked Maharaj how he had gotten his number and was told the following tale. The car belonging to Itzhayek’s driver matched a description of a stolen vehicle reported several months earlier. The car had been impounded by the police and the driver was arrested as he was trying to return to Nepal. While looking through Itzhayek’s suitcase and papers the police had found the number of Saul’s hotel in Birgunj. Superintendent Maharaj told Saul to come to Raxaul and pick up his belongings. Itzhayek was wary and told Maharaj that he had no visa to cross into India. Maharaj told him not to worry. That it was only a short walk down the road from Birgunj and he would assure Itzhayek of safe passage. Itzhayek walked into India wearing a t-shirt, shorts, flip-flops and carrying nothing but some cash and a cellphone. Such was his state for his descent into hell. Immediately upon his arrival at the police station Itzhayek was taken into custody by Maharaj. He was accused of being involved in a car theft ring and endured a grueling 15-hour interrogation even though he had produced the receipt that demonstrated he had rented the car. That interrogation was interrupted only by the entrance of Saul’s driver who was brought in by the police and beaten and interrogated in front of Saul. Maharaj then continued berating Saul, insisting on a confession to criminal acts and demanding that Saul explain his business and personal affairs. Saul refused. $"> $">Seeing he was getting nowhere, Maharaj then made it plain that for a financial consideration Saul would be free to go. Saul refused again. Maharaj then had him thrown in jail and then transferred to the infamous Motihari prison. His single offence on the charge sheet was entering India without a visa. That “crime” carries a maximum sentence of seven years under article 14 of the Foreigners’ Act. It is clearly stated in the first information report signed by an officer named Hallan Prasad rather than by Superintendent Maharaj (Prasad was later suspended under curious circumstances), that there was no evidence linking Itzhayek to any other offences. Motihari was built under the British Raj in 1932. Gandhi was imprisoned there. The conditions are fetid. Saul was allowed a few calls at the beginning of his incarceration. He contacted his family in Montreal. They immediately contacted Canadian Foreign Affairs officials and hired noted civil liberties attorney Julius Grey. $"> $">I first became aware of this case when Grey called me several weeks ago. He had already written the Prime Minister. He sent me all the documentation, including the initial charge sheet. They were written in Hindi. I sent the documents to a senior foreign policy specialist in India who frequently advises that government. He confirmed that Itzhayek was charged with nothing more than traveling on an expired visa. He also called Bihar the “wild west” of India. Saul’s family had also contacted the office of their MP Irwin Cotler. That office is still awaiting answers to letters it had sent to foreign affairs bureaucrats. $"> $">I managed to speak to Saul in prison. Saul, having been trained in electronics, has gerrymandered a set-up where he can draw electrical current from a wall outlet to charge his cellphone. For certain considerations some guards let him talk at certain times. It is his one connection to his family and the outside world. The conditions he described were medieval. The first cell Saul was put into had about 130 people crowded together. He was later transferred to an “infirmary” ward with four people. That is where he began to use his phone. But the conditions are the same. Everyone sleeps on the floor. They are given a food ration that amounts to several cents a day, or 30 rupees, (a British law established in the thirties and never modified to adhere to today’s standards). There are no showers. Feces, insects and rats are everywhere. A bucket and a hose outside are used to wash. Most detainees do not wash for three months at a time. Everyone shares one dirty bathroom. $"> $"> The heat and humidity are extreme. Huge swarms of mosquitoes and other bugs which eat up skin and cause deep welts are everywhere. There is thick mold on the walls of the jail because of all the rain that falls there. Electricity is steadily available for only several hours a day. The prison is in darkness most of the time. There is one phone at the jail. The fax shares the same phone number and you must first call to advise the head jailer or superintendent of the jail that you want to send a fax. The other jailers do not speak English, Hindi being the main language of Bihar, and if they happen to pick up the phone when a long distance call comes in they hang up. $"> $"> Saul estimates he has lost some 50 pounds. For the first month he barely ate at all. Now when he does eat his meals are made up mostly of vegetables and bread. He has no protein in his diet and is losing muscle. Needless to say he is a very angry man. Particularly about the impotence of the Canadian government in protecting one of its citizens. No less than three officials in Ottawa were spoken to by the family in the weeks following Saul’s incarceration, including bureaucrats from consular case management who take care of Canadians abroad, and members of the Middle East, India and Pakistan sections. One of our consuls at the High Commission in New Delhi, Jaswinder Singh, was contacted by the family. Yet it was not until June 16 that Saul received his first visit from a Canadian official. That was Ed Doe, our High Commissioner to Nepal. The only other visit was on Aug. 30 by another of Canada’s consuls in New Delhi by the name of Jordan Walsh. $"> $"> To say High Commissioner Doe was unhelpful would be an understatement. Saul describes Doe’s initial suspicions of him and how he almost reflexively took the Indian side. Saul pled with him for the benefit of the doubt. Saul had filled out an application for an Indian visa prior to Doe’s visit. He gave it to Doe, asking him to send it to the Indian Home Office. Instead, Doe gave it to the police superintendent who sat on it while telling Mr. Singh at the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi that he would be forwarding it immediately. $"> $">During this time, and continuing through September and October, Saul has had to go through several court appearances. The court proceedings are a story unto themselves. Saul had to fire his first court-appointed attorney for incompetence. In the meantime the police superintendent refused Saul’s visa application himself, a power that he had under Indian law, and that led to a denial of bail for Saul when he finally had a bail hearing with his second lawyer, a Mr. Kaifi, on Aug.18. Kaifi never even took Saul into a courtroom. He only informed him of the proceedings after they happened. According to Saul’s family, at one point Kaifi even suggested that Saul buy his way out of the situation. Saul, suspecting that this lawyer was in league with the authorities, dismissed him. By mid-August Saul and his family were getting desperate. Saul held Israeli as well as Canadian citizenship. Getting nothing from Ottawa’s Foreign Affairs bureaucrats other than excuses that Canada cannot interfere in a foreign judicial process, Saul’s family contacted the Israeli Embassy in New Delhi and the Consulate in Mumbai. An Israeli consul at the embassy told them that they could get Saul moved from the prison in Bihar to a prison in New Delhi. Saul refused. He insisted he wanted to stay and clear his name and that if he was moved the judicial proceedings would have to start all over again and he would have lost almost three months. $"> $"> The Israeli consul in Mumbai, however, put the family in touch with a leading attorney named Haresh Jagtiani. Jagtiani was clear from the outset that no amount of money could get him to go to Bihar, but he had a solution that he said had worked for other foreigners in similar circumstances.  He first confirmed to Saul’s family that indeed the final charge sheet related to nothing more than the visa violation. Jagtiani then suggested that the family approach the Canadian embassy and request it to send someone to appear in the Magistrate's Court and undertake to ensure that Saul would be deported accompanied by Canadian officials while Indian authorities kept his passport in their custody until he was on the plane. Jagtiani said this had been done so frequently it was almost a matter of course. $"> $">The family finally was seeing some light at the end of the tunnel. But when they raised this prospect with Canadian officials they immediately refused and said that “they will not do this”. Jaswinder Singh at our embassy in New Delhi once again told the family that “they cannot interfere in the judicial affairs of another country.” $"> $"> Saul was crestfallen. But more than that he was furious. His fury arose from the fact that in his first week in Motihari a Korean national in the same circumstances as Saul was taken out by Korean officials within four days of being detained. Saul has since gone through two more court hearings in late September and early October. Since we became apprised of this case we have been in touch with political officials in Canada. They seem as baffled by the inaction of the bureaucrats and diplomats as Saul and his family are. We can only hope that by bringing this to light over the past several weeks some back channel manoeuvres are under way. There is some evidence for hope. $"> $"> After conversations I had with Canadian and Indian officials I learned that the prosecutor in the case had declined to put forward any more pressure as he threatened to do last week and would leave it in the hands of Judge Om Prakash Singh. Over the past five days Saul and his third lawyer, Mr. Hashemi, have made their closing statements at two hearings in front of Judge Singh without any contestation or rebuttal from the prosecutor. Judge Singh’s decision is expected in the next few days.  Itzhayek incarceration continues 'I'm going to die here,' Saul tells sister By Beryl Wajsman Julius Grey Irwin Cotler Our cover story last week on Montrealer Saul Itzhayek’s five-month imprisonment in the fetid Motihari prison in the far eastern Indian state of Bihar for the “crime” of entering that country on an expired visa was followed up by the CBC (French and English), CP, the Globe and Mail and the Gazette. Sadly, all this media attention failed to stop Judge Om Prakash Singh of Motihari’s Magistrate’s Court from imposing a three-year sentence on Itzhayek for “violating the sovereignty of India.” The only thing more ludicrous than the judge’s words and sentence was the inaction of Canada’s foreign affairs bureaucrats both in Ottawa and in New Delhi. $"> $">Itzhayek crossed into India from Nepal on a guarantee of safe passage from Police Superintendent Manu Maharaj from the Indian town of Raxaul that neighbours Motihari. Maharaj had called Itzhayek in the Nepalese border town of Birgunj, where the Montrealer was staying, urging him to come collect his suitcase that was in Maharaj’s possession following an Indian police seizure of the car belonging to Itzhayek’s driver. Itzhayek had sent his driver on an errand to another border town called Lucknow. Indian police seized the car on suspicion of it being stolen. Itzhayek’s suitcase and some papers were in the car. $"> $">Itzhayek had informed Maharaj that he had no visa to come into India. Maharaj’s assurances were enough to get Itzhayek through the border crossing without any problem. He didn’t sneak into India. Once he arrived at the police station however, Maharaj had Saul thrown in jail on charges of car theft and entering India without a visa. The former charge was never included in any charge sheet because Itzhayek produced his car rental receipt. Despite that, Maharaj left him languishing in the horrible conditions of Motihari prison after Itzhayek refused to pay Maharaj a bribe to “make everything go away.” $"> $">Mount Royal MP and former Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, who represents the riding where the Itzhayek family lives, said that the actions of the Indian authorities were tantamount to “entrapment.” He has made contact with Canadian and Indian officials at the highest levels expressing his displeasure and demanding action to repatriate Itzhayek. Cotler and his office have also roused elements of civil and political society to come to Itzhayek’s rescue. $"> $">MP Dan McTeague, former Secretary of State for Canadians abroad, sent off a blistering letter to Helena Guergis, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, stating in part that he finds that “it is astounding that even after repeated efforts to get some assistance from our High Commission, Mr. Itzhayek is now facing a three-year jail term — even though he was lured across the Indian-Nepali border by the very police who arrested him. One would think that our High Commission would have raised this case at the highest levels of the Indian government. Yet, to date, this has not been done.” With the resumption of Parliament, McTeague and Cotler are sure to raise questions on this tragedy in the House this week. $"> $">The family’s lawyer, leading constitutional and civil liberties attorney Julius Grey, has written both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister. He criticized the fact that all too often, “… Canadian officials fail to intervene on the grounds that individuals abroad have violated some aspect of a foreign country’s criminal law. In reality most of the cases involve nothing more than administrative law issues. And even in those that are criminal in nature, the penalties are grossly disproportionate to the offences. Unfortunately, we have noted over the last few years, an excessive deference on the part of our officials in defending Canadian nationals abroad.  We submit that when conditions of detentions amount to torture, and when the alleged offense could not possibly justify extended imprisonment, we should defend a Canadian caught in this predicament and facilitate his return to Canada.” $"> $">Saul Itzhayek has lost 50 pounds. He sleeps on the floor amid feces and insects and mold. He shares one bathroom with hundreds of prisoners and can wash only using a bucket and hose outside the cells. Motihari prison, built in 1932, truly represents a state called “the 10th world of a third world country.” No one can remain passive in the face of such suffering and injustice. For our part, we at The Suburban have contacted a senior consultant to the Indian foreign ministry who is using his good offices in New Delhi to help resolve this life and death matter. In addition, the Canadian Expatriates Association has informed us that they will be contacting Canadian officials after reading last week’s article. $"> $">In the face of all this, the inaction of Canadian officials is beyond comprehension. Korean officials were able to send officials to Motihari and get one of their nationals released after four days. This happened in the first week of Itzhayek’s incarceration. The Korean had overstayed his visa in India by three years. Korean officials simply promised the Indians that they would take their citizen home and he would not return. Saul Itzhayek got three years for a three-hour sanctioned visit. Soon after the sentence was pronounced, Itzhayek talked to his sister in Montreal by phone. He said, “I’m going to die here if I don’t get out soon.” $"> $">Other than passing information along, Canadian bureaucratic officials have done little. It took them three weeks to get someone to see Saul. The only other visit was some 14 weeks after he entered Motihari. One of the most poignant lines of bureaucratese that Itzhayek’s sister Sylvia received was on Aug. 13 from Meiling Lavigueur, Consular Officer from the Middle East, India and Pakistan section, who wrote in part, “The High Commission is assessing the possibility of a visit, especially given your brother’s recent health concerns.” Assessing some 11 weeks after Saul’s imprisonment despite knowledge of his health problems. $"> $">Right after the trial, after more of Sylvia’s e-mails to our High Commission in New Delhi, Saul called his sister saying that Jaswinder Singh, a Canadian consul, had called the Superintendent of Motihari prison to say that forms were being prepared to transfer him from Motihari to New Delhi. Saul said he even got a note from the superintendent to that effect. Sylvia called Singh Monday to tell him that Saul agreed to be transferred. Jaswinder Singh denied that he had made any call to Motihari or that there had been any suggestion for transfer. $"> $">This is a sad, potentially tragic, tale of buckpassing, neglect, indifference and bureaucratic ass-covering. In a week when we learned of a bomber of a Paris synagogue hiding in Canada, and the publication of former Prime Minister Chrétien’s memoirs reminding us that André Dallaire, the man who broke into 24 Sussex, was freed on bail on an attempted murder charge, it is unconscionable that Saul Itzhayek continues to fester in an Indian prison. It seems to this observer that the only sovereignty that has been violated in the Itzhayek saga is the sovereignty of each Canadian’s individual consequence which should entitle us all to the protection of our government when we are in harm’s way of a foreign power.