Irrational problem solving is in, rational problem solving is out. What is the difference? The main objective is to make the victims of miscarriage of justice feel better — justified or not, right? First there was Omar Khadr, except that — believe it or not — he wasn’t the first. Now that there have been five precedents for about $10 million each, things should be rolling right along. How many more cases like this are coming down the pipe?
Summation of the article
The CBC article states that three Muslim-Canadians were arrested in Syria and tortured:
1.) Abdullah Almalki, a Syrian-born graduate in electrical engineering from Ottawa’s Carleton University with a successful electronics export business, was arrested in May 2002 upon his arrival in Damascus to visit family. He was held in custody for 22 months.
2.)Ahmad Elmaati went to Damascus to get married in the fall of 2001. He was handcuffed and hooded at the airport and taken to a Syrian prison and tortured. Then he was put on a private jet and sent to Egypt, where he was tortured further. He was released in January 2004.
3.) Muayyed Nureddin, Iraqui-born Principal of a Toronto Islamic school…was detained in 2003, as he crossed the border from Iraq into Syria. …Nureddin was held for 34 days in a Syrian dungeon before he was released and allowed to return to Canada.
All three men had sued the Canadian government for compensation, for $100 million each. All three men settled out of court with the Canadian government. “The statement does not provide any details about the nature of the settlements reached, financial or otherwise.” I wonder whether the figure for each of the men was perhaps $10.5 million. After all, that seems to become a familiar figure for such settlements, because,
There is also another case, »A 2006 inquiry led by Justice Dennis O’Connor found that Canadian officials played a role in Arar’s torture, and he received an apology and $10.5 million from the federal government. O’Connor also recommended a review of Almalki, Elmaati and Nureddin’s cases.«
Issues and Consequences
I wonder. Does the Canadian government really have a responsibility to compensate people whom they grant citizenship, only to find them returning to where they came from and to be arrested there?
It is a safe guess that the settlements now total about $53 million. Before we know it, they may be some more cases, and — $10 million here, $10 million there — before we know, we are talking about real money.
Money does not appear to be the main concern for the Canadian government. After all, what is another $53 million that is being added to the $12 trillion of what we already owe to lenders and future generations, which we will be made to try but never manage to pay all back anyway?
What would be wrong with travel advisories to Canadian nationals who are Muslims and wish to return to the places they sought refuge from? Should the government perhaps tell them, “Look if you go to a country like that and get arrested and tortured, we will not be liable. You go there at your own risk. Here is a release form for you to sign, if you wish to go.”?
By the same token, just in case the Canadian government is incapable of keeping track of who wishes to go where (which they are and can’t), why not just issue a general travel advisory and tell all Canadians, when they purchase their tickets, that they will be going at their own risk? That is what health-insurance companies do, and why shouldn’t they? They need to worry about making a profit. Our governments don’t even worry about the debts they run up. They don’t, because no one holds them accountable.
Still, such a travel advisory is the norm for anyone else. Why does the Canadian government not issue any? That should take care of anyone from being caught in a fire-fight anywhere between local government forces and their allies, against terrorists troubling the local governments. When he realizes that no one will help him out of the bind he will get himself into, he will think more than twice about getting into it.
What is happening is becoming ridiculous, but why not? If you can’t get any money from the regime that arrested and tortured you, why not go for compensation from the pushover country that let you go there? That works fine, doesn’t it?
How many more cases like that are in the pipe? Now that there have been five precedents for about $10 million each, things should be rolling right along.
Rational or Irrational Problem Solving?
We have got a problem. The problem with Muslims who have Canadian citizenship but yearn to be in Islamic nations of one sort or another for whatever reasons is turning into quite a good-sized liability. Perhaps having Muslims coming to Canada and then opting for dual citizenship is not such a good idea because it is plainly an all-around bad deal.
How should the problem be solved?
The rational way to fix a problem is to,
- Recognize and admit that there is one;
- Determine the most economical and most effective way to fix it and how it can be prevented from re-occurring, and
- Fix it and keep it from happening again.
Irrational problem solving, the Liberal way to deal with the very same problem, is to,
- Ignore that there is one, but relish the pain experienced by anyone as a result of the problem;
- Determine what needs to be done to make the victims of the consequences of the problem feel good, and
- Make the victim of the problems feel good, regardless of the cost, and keep looking for more victims who can be made to feel good as well.
Rational problem solving addresses the fundamental causes of a problem, the causes that made the problem happen and keep it alive. Rational problem solving eradicates those fundamental problem causes and keeps them from ever happening again.
Irrational problem solving focuses on problem symptoms and how to mitigate them, without ever wasting a thought on the fundamental causes that make the problem produce problem symptom after problem symptom.
Irrational problem solving ensures that there will be a never-ending number of problems symptoms that need to be mitigated. Irrational problem solving can be compared to treating the symptoms of small-pocks with Band Aids, without ever spending a thought on developing a vaccine that will eradicate the small-pocks virus forever.