It's a day that ends in "y," ...

... so the Conservatives have a shiny, new excuse for abandoning Abousfian Abdelrazik:

... the government document obtained by The Canadian Press from Abdelrazik's lawyers rejects that claim and also questions his allegations of torture while in Sudanese custody.

"They challenge the credibility of Abousfian Abdelrazik on the torture allegations," said Brousseau."These are serious allegations."

... "There is no documented evidence that the applicant ever reported to Canadian officials the torture he now alleges was inflicted by Sudanese officials," it says.

"Nor did consular officials, who are experienced or trained in looking for mistreatment, see any signs of the torture the applicant now alleges."

"Serious allegations?" Really? About whether Abdelrazik was actually tortured? One wonders what relevance that has. Would Abdelrazik have a stronger care for repatriation if he could establish that he'd been tortured in Sudan? Would that somehow make him more "Canadian," or something? And one is amused by:

"Nor did consular officials, who are experienced or trained in looking for mistreatment, see any signs of the torture the applicant now alleges."

A curious position to take, indeed, given their previous position:

Mr. Abdelrazik says he was beaten and tortured during nearly two years in Sudanese jails, an account consistent with Canada's own internal reports on the Khartoum's regime's grim human-rights record.

In an effort to discredit his accounts of torture, Canadian Justice Department lawyers have tried to get Mr. Abdelrazik to say scars on his abdomen were self-inflicted mutilations.

"There was no evidence he was tortured! But if there was, he did it himself so that doesn't count." Here's a thought -- pick a position and stick with it. This vacillation is really unbecoming. But not as unbecoming as suggesting that a Canadian citizen marooned overseas needs to somehow prove he was tortured for the Stephen Harper Party of Canada to give a shit about him.