"it is close to impossible to get a coherent and timely response from Foreign Affairs"– Michael Petrou

Journalist Michael Petrou writes about the extreme reluctance of DFAIT to provide any meaningful information on a 'sensitive' topic, even when obliged to do so by access to information law.

Petrou is trying to find out about Canada's supposed efforts to bring to justice the individual responsble for the brutal death of the Canadian journalist Zahra Kazemi in Evin Prison in Teheran. He has spoken to two people who approached Canadian officials with information about the case, only to be ignored.

Michael Petrou

For those of you blessed not to work in media, it is close to impossible to get a coherent and timely response from Foreign Affairs. You, as a journalist, will call with a very specific question. Days go by. A media spokesperson calls back and reads from a prepared statement that often has nothing to do with what you asked in the first place. You point this out. The spokesperson repeats his prepared lines. Your ears start to bleed.

I now have a better idea of what’s happening on the Foreign Affairs end of these exchanges. A bit of background for starters. There was a time when the Canadian government didn’t treat its diplomats and analysts like untrustworthy children. You could mention you were a journalist at some sort of embassy shindig, and they wouldn’t start to look around nervously. Hell, you could even go out for lunch with some of them. That’s all over. If, for example, I want to know about a meeting that took place between an Iranian dissident and a Canadian diplomat in Ankara, and I email that diplomat, he’ll refer me to a spokesperson in Ottawa, who wasn’t at the meeting and has no idea what I’m talking about. It’s not the diplomat’s fault. He’s simply not allowed to talk to me.

This doesn’t mean that the Foreign Affairs media people back in Ottawa ignore press inquiries. They spend an awful lot of time working on them, just not on answering the questions they are asked. In this case, after several days, and numerous phone calls and emails, about all Foreign Affairs could tell me was that they could not confirm or deny that Canada’s embassy in Ankara met with Vafaseresht and that Canada does not consider the Zahra Kazemi case closed.

Here are some of the internal emails – to and from a dozen different people – that it took for Foreign Affairs to arrive at their statement:

“I think we can go back to the reporter maintaining our privacy line but rebutting the Kazemi closed allegation by reiterating our strong commitment and reference our poor relations with Iran and the tenets of the Controlled Engagement Policy….”

“I would be grateful for you guidance, as we are concerned that a very negative story might be published on the basis of the above allegations….”

“We could, in addition to the previous line, perhaps add a line such as: If any meeting(s) took place, we would need the explicit written consent of the person who had met with the Canadian official, in order to release any information about any meeting(s) and what was talked about….”

[This is a popular government tactic. I obtained Vafaseresht’s explicit written consent, and Foreign Affairs still told me nothing.]

“While we recognize that the written permission line is often used in similar consular cases, we are not comfortable with the written permission option….”

“Here are the lines that PCO [Privy Council Office] approved for use when the reporter originally called on this story….”

“If pressed, [we could say,] ‘Sensitive information provided to the Canadian Government is kept in the strictest confidence to protect those who provide it….’”

Complete original article on MacLean's website
by Michael Petrou, published on Monday, July 27, 2009