A majority of Canadians think their government knew that Afghan detainees were being tortured. So what are the consequences?

While the full story of the Afghan detainees remains unknown and ultimately unknowable, certain facts are clear: Handing over prisoners in the knowledge that they will be tortured contravenes the Third Geneva Convention; and an overwhelming majority of Canadians believes the government knew that Afghan detainees were being tortured.

Given these facts, the renewed energy of opposition attacks on the government and the equally determined administrative control and stage management on the part of the government in the early days of the new session of parliament should not surprise us. Whether supporters or opponents of prorogation, politicians, party activists, and various interested publics have been busy, crowding the public sphere with questions, commentaries, editorials, investigations, strategic moves and tactical counter-moves.

But what will it all mean in the end? Has the Harper government been damaged? Will support for Ignatieff and the Liberals increase as a consequence of revelations regarding the conduct of the government? Might the NDP benefit from the affair? How might the Afghan detainee issue affect the political fortunes of the federal political parties?

To answer these questions, we must consider several factors:

1. Despite the fact that Canadians are close to unanimity in their belief that the government knew of the abuses, many do not know what to make of it or vacillate in their judgment. A minority actively supports the government. The lingering impact of the Bush administration’s black-and-white thinking, covert rendition, and tolerance of (borderline) torture, popularized in the fictional character of Jack Bauer, has conditioned some to accept breaches of international law and denials of human rights as necessary collateral damage in the war against evil. Even those who would not go this far are predisposed to take this line of thinking into account to some extent.

2. The detainees are Muslim and stand accused of wrongdoing. While many Canadians have overcome anti-Muslim sentiments, the subconscious power of such negative stereotypes continues to shape interpretations of political events and circumstances, notably those that are remote. The generic undertow of belief that Muslims are suspicious and potentially dangerous makes it difficult to identify with Muslim rights.

3. Any attention that the media pay to foreigners tends to fall into what Robert Hackett has called the “earthquakes, coups, and hostages” categories of visually dramatic, unexpected, and negative events. Under normal circumstances, strangers and foreigners remain invisible and, to the extent that they are visible, heavily stereotyped. In the case of the detainees, there are few visual images to assist in conveying the horrors described.

4. People are increasingly bombarded with global calls for help and opportunities to intervene from a bewildering variety of sources. This takes place in a social environment in which there are increasing levels of anxiety, doubt, and mistrust. There is a strong tendency to cut oneself off from the cries of a suffering world. A veteran journalist responded to my question regarding public opinion on the Afghan detainee issue by saying, “People are disengaged and cynical. They have become just so weary of this kind of thing that they shrug.” Moreover, unlike in the Somalia incident or Abu Ghraib, there are no arresting images.

5. It is difficult to muster a sense of political outrage when there is confusion over who to blame and who to turn to for leadership on condemning the abuses. The overall approach to Afghanistan has been bipartisan and both parties are implicated in the decisions made there. When it comes to the potential for an issue to motivate political choice not only must it be important to people, but it must be clearly identified with one party or another.

6. The Afghan detainee issue must compete with other issues for attention. It is hard to get worked up about remote foreigners when so many at home are facing unemployment or poverty. As prorogation came to an end, we were distracted by the bread and circuses of the Olympic Games and a moderately stimulative budget. The detainee issue is likely to become even more remote as it is removed from the political sphere to the quasi-judicial scrutiny of Frank Iacobucci.

7. To the extent that Canadians are unhappy with the existing government, it is a generalized dissatisfaction with a range of domineering, vindictive, and divisive actions. Each time there is another such example of the abuse of governmental authority, the critics become more firmly entrenched, the supporters more openly defiant, and the specifics get lost in the rhetoric and bitterness. At present, the Harper government rests on a small but solid foundation of core supporters and for as long as it can sustain comparative advantage among a divided and disillusioned population with few alternatives, it has a strategy to hold onto power.

The opposition parties will continue to do their work. It is always possible that the Afghan detainee issue will erupt again, perhaps with the clear-cut revelation of guilt on the part of a minister, the release of graphic photographs, or a relentless media campaign. Perhaps self-interest will come to play a stronger role if it is clear that Canada is becoming an international pariah or Canadian soldiers face the risk of retaliation.

In the end, opposition MPs could decide to take a hard line on the issue, demanding full accountability, even to the extent of compelling a defeat of the government and therefore an election. Of course, this would be a huge risk to take on the basis of a single issue, no matter how important, and the results could be catastrophic.

Were the opposition parties prepared to take such a hopelessly altruistic position, however, we might at least be able to discern a renewed politics of principle and vision.