# Mohamed Harkat (merged thread)



## muffin (2 Feb 2006)

In keeping with it's reputation of having the most correctional facilities per square Km, Millhaven Institution in Kingston is building a new 6 person facility (completely seperate from the existing institustion) that will house suspected terrorists. 
Apparently there are 4 suspected terrorists in custody now (no charges laid).

7 Prisons, Abardeen St Parties, and now terrorists... I love K-town  :


Reference:
Report heard on K-Rock Morning News, anchor Tony Orr, 7:30 a.m. Feb 2nd 2006


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Feb 2006)

Oh well, I can think of lots of areas that would love the economic spinoffs......jobs, local supplies, etc...


----------



## muffin (2 Feb 2006)

Ah - Glass half full - 

That is true -


----------



## Long in the tooth (2 Feb 2006)

Street parties, Alfies, Gaels Football and Homecoming.... gotta love K Town!


----------



## big bad john (2 Feb 2006)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060202.PRISON02/BNPrint/theglobeandmail/TopStories

High-security centre to house terror suspects
Detention unit for half dozen men being built on grounds of Millhaven
By TIMOTHY APPLEBY 

Thursday, February 2, 2006 
Posted at 2:59 PM EST

Call it Guantanamo North, or perhaps Guantanamo Lite. What's for sure is that the new high-security detention centre being built near Kingston to house foreign terrorism suspects is exceedingly small, with space for just six inmates.

As things stand, that should pose no problem for Canada's security needs. Just four people -- all Arab nationals -- are believed detained under the government's controversial security certificates. All are resisting deportation on grounds that they fear persecution if sent home. 

A fifth man is free on bail in Montreal, subject to severe restrictions. None of the five has been charged with a crime.

The self-contained unit, under construction behind the walls of maximum-security Millhaven Penitentiary, is due to open at the end of March and all four suspects will be going there, Correctional Service Canada spokeswoman Michele Pilon-Santilli said yesterday.
"It's within the grounds of Millhaven but is a totally separate facility, being built specifically to house security-certificate detainees," she said. "[Prisoners] will be kept separate from other inmates at all times; there will be absolutely no contact."

Authorities would not say what the new facility is costing to build, or disclose the size of its cells. Each inmate will be held separately, CBSA spokeswoman Cara Prest said, with visitors subject to the same scrutiny as those who enter the rest of Millhaven. 

Word of the new prison-within-a-prison follows a recent report by a United Nations human-rights group. After touring Canada last year, the group said it was "gravely concerned" about the use of security certificates. Chiefly at issue, it concluded, are the detainees' right to a fair hearing and their ability to challenge the evidence used to hold them, portions of which are often kept secret. Nor is there any mechanism for a judicial review of the circumstances of incarceration.

The unit is a response to a request by the Ontario government, which currently oversees the inmates' detention, Ms. Pilon-Santilli said.

"This was based on needs. If and when there are more [detainees], we'll look at them on a case-by-case basis."

Ottawa lawyer Matthew Webber, counsel for long-time detainee Mohammed Harkat, voiced dismay at his client's prospects.

"One might view this obviously remedial step as an alternative to bail," he said. "It's an obvious recognition of the fact that the current circumstances are unacceptable, but this is really just a Band-Aid."

The certificates pertain only to non-citizens believed to pose a security threat. Canadians accused of terror-related offences must be charged under the Criminal Code.

All four men are suspected of being allied to Islamic extremists:

Algerian-born Mr. Harkat, a refugee claimant who worked at an Ottawa gas station before his arrest in December, 2002, is being held at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre.

Syrian-born Hassan Almrei, imprisoned since October, 2001, is at Toronto's Metro West Detention Centre. 

Egyptian-born Mohammed Mahjoub, arrested in June, 2000, and Mahmoud Jaballah, also of Egypt, have been detained since August, 2001. They, too, are behind bars at Metro West.

Adil Charkaoui of Morocco, who was held from May, 2003, to February, 2005, is free on bail in Montreal.

© Copyright 2006 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Feb 2006)

That's a let down. I read the thread title and thought they were talking about the Ironsides Bonspiel that's being held there in March


----------



## a_majoor (3 Feb 2006)

Instead of Kingston, they should build the facility on Hans island and take care of two problems at once.....


----------



## Armymatters (4 Feb 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Instead of Kingston, they should build the facility on Hans island and take care of two problems at once.....



That would quickly take care of any escape attempts, no?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Feb 2006)

Okay, so whats happens if, GOD FORBID, a seventh terrorist shows up?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (4 Feb 2006)

> Okay, so whats happens if, GOD FORBID, a seventh terrorist shows up?



Hey, we have to start somewhere...


----------



## George Wallace (4 Feb 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Instead of Kingston, they should build the facility on Hans island and take care of two problems at once.....


'and all the Human Rights Orgs are protesting Gitmo.....What would they say about Hans Island?

I would like to see something along these lines up North, on a larger scale, anyways.  Not just for Terrorist Suspects, but for all 'Serious' and 'Dangerous' offenders.  Build a large, isolated community, with tight access control and use it as a Refugee/Illegal Immigrant clearing station as well.  

This solves so many problems.  No more Illegals disappearing into the metropolitan areas or US.  Populated community exercising our Arctic Sovereignty.  Removal of dangerous criminal and terrorist elements from populated areas.  Huge wages to attract employees to the North.  

 ;D


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Feb 2006)

As long as it faces east, who could complain? :crybaby:


----------



## 3rd Herd (4 Feb 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I would like to see something along these lines up North, on a larger scale, anyways.  Not just for Terrorist Suspects, but for all 'Serious' and 'Dangerous' offenders.



Supermax: a highly restrictive, high custody housing unit within a secure facility, or an entire secure facility, that isolates inmates from the general prison population and from each other due to grievous crimes, repetitive assaultive or institutional behaviour, the threat of escape or actual escape from high custody facilities or inciting or threaten to incite disturbances in a correctional facility.
IU.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections,"Supermax Prisions: Overview and General Considerations
http://www.nicic.org/pubs/1999/014937.pdf

Gulag: A system of penal institutions in the Soviet Union est'd after the 1917 Russian Revolution . The name comes from the Russian acronym for the Chief Administration for Corrective Labour Camps.

In both examples significant outrage has been made by the more liberal of our society. In the idea of constructing secure facilities an often heard quote now is "Do we want to face the legal challenges that may accompany the expansion of placement criteria beyond what is absolutely necessary".


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 Feb 2006)

How about:

Main Entry: dis·ap·pear 
Pronunciation: "di-s&-'pir
Function: verb
intransitive senses
1 : to pass from view
*2 : to cease to be : pass out of existence or notice*
transitive senses : to cause the disappearance of
- dis·ap·pear·ance  /-'pir-&n(t)s/ noun 

"Please use it in a sentance"
"Nobody cared about the disappearance of the terrorists.  They were just happy they were gone"


----------



## Meatpuppet (6 Feb 2006)

Wow Canada seems to be getting dumber every day!....Hey if we cant go to the war...lets bring it here?????? :blotto:


----------



## aluc (7 Jun 2006)

http://www.torontosun.ca/News/Terror/2006/06/07/1618334-sun.html



OTTAWA -- An Ottawa man accused of terrorist ties "cannot be trusted" to abide by bail conditions and will renew contact with other Muslim radicals if released from jail, the federal government says.

Justice department lawyers are moving to keep Mohamed Harkat behind bars, arguing he poses a "serious threat to the well-being and security of all Canadians."

The government is asking the Federal Court of Appeal to put his bail proved last month -- on hold until full arguments can be heard.

"Harkat's release would place him in a position to recommence his contacts with members of the Islamic extremist network, allowing them to be involved in planning and execution of terrorist acts," says a federal submission filed with the court.

Harkat, detained on a national security certificate for more than three years, was granted bail with a raft of strict conditions by Federal Court Justice Eleanor Dawson.

He's one of five Muslim men facing deportation on certificates -- controversial anti-terrorist tools issued under federal immigration law.

The government will contend Friday before the Court of Appeal that releasing Harkat would be a mistake.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service says Harkat, 37, is a collaborator with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network.

Harkat denies any involvement with terrorism.



I'm no expert, but if CSIS is watching you, doesn't it mean that you have been up to something wrong?  Everyone is claiming their innocence in these terror trails , which they're allowed to do. But I mean, if CSIS and the RCMP are involved in your life, you've had to have done something to attract their attention.  I know everyone is innocent until proven otherwise, but come on......


----------



## Trinity (7 Jun 2006)

Assumption of guilt is bad....  you said it yourself, just in not such a clear way


----------



## Centurian1985 (7 Jun 2006)

Octavianus said:
			
		

> Harkat, *detained on a national security certificate for more than three years,* was granted bail with a raft of strict conditions by Federal Court Justice Eleanor Dawson.
> 
> I'm no expert, but if CSIS is watching you, doesn't it mean that you have been up to something wrong?  Everyone is claiming their innocence in these terror trails , which they're allowed to do. But I mean, if CSIS and the RCMP are involved in your life, you've had to have done something to attract their attention.  I know everyone is innocent until proven otherwise, but come on......



CSIS and RCMP dont hold people for three years unless they have significant proof of activity.  Then, once the court process starts, they have to go through a bail hearing in which they have to prove that the person poses a threat to the public; if not, bail is granted.  It will be interesting to see if he disappears...


----------



## aluc (7 Jun 2006)

> "Assumption of guilt is bad....  you said it yourself, just in not such a clear way"




Very true....however, I am only human, and we all let our emotions get the best of us occasionally, especially when very serious and terrifying allegations are brought up. I've already made a decision  on this trial, yet it's imperative that we let the justice system take its course. Becasue if I was in such a situation and was innocent, I would appreciate a fair trial.  Guilty until proven innocent, eh?


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Jun 2006)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the  Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/06/canada-high-court-hears-arguments-on.php

Canada high court hears arguments on permanent terror detentions 
Joe Shaulis, Paper Chase Newsburst, 13 Jun 06

''Lawyers for three men Arab Muslim men argued before the Supreme Court of Canada Tuesday that a program allowing the government to indefinitely detain and deport foreigners with suspected ties to terrorism is unconstitutional. The three men - Adil Charkaoui, Hassan Almrei and Mohamed Harkat  - contend that their detentions breach the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . Suspected of membership in al Qaeda, the men were arrested on special security certificates authorized by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Suspects can spend years fighting deportation while courts hear sensitive intelligence evidence against them, often in closed session without defense attorneys present. As a result, a lawyer for one of the men argued, suspects can be branded as terrorists without a fair hearing. But Canadian Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin seemed dubious of challenges to the legislation, asking "What does the world do with somebody who is truly dangerous wherever they go. Is freedom really an option?... [A]re not the only options permanent detention in a country like Canada or sending them back to a country that may be worse?" ''

Background
Canadian Border Security Agency Backgrounder, under ''Immigration and Refugee Protection Act'' (IRPA)
http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/newsroom/factsheets/2005/certificat-e.html
IRPA
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/I-2.5/index.html
Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada Fact Sheet
http://www.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/prg/ns/seccert-en.asp
Canadian Security Intelligence Service Fact Sheet
http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/en/newsroom/backgrounders/backgrounder14.asp


----------



## George Wallace (14 Jun 2006)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> " Canadian Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin seemed dubious of challenges to the legislation, asking "What does the world do with somebody who is truly dangerous wherever they go. Is freedom really an option?... [A]re not the only options permanent detention in a country like Canada or sending them back to a country that may be worse?" "



I think this is an important point.  As long as they insist on staying in Canada, they will be detained.  They have the option of freedom, but that entails their returning to the country from where they came.

They are choosing detention and remaining in Canada.

It is similar to the Illegal Refugees who have been tying up the Courts with claims that they will be tortured should they be sent back to their countries of origin.  One case in particular has a man from India, who has used this ruse to stay in Canada, while all the time building himself a multi-million dollar mansion back in India. 

If they are choosing detention, rather than freedom to leave the country, one has to question their motives.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Jun 2006)

Interesting - any names or details to Google the Indian detention case?


----------



## Kunu (14 Jun 2006)

Yup, Harjit Singh, Judy Sgro, pizza, those are the first ones that come to mind.


----------



## GAP (14 Jun 2006)

These certificates are all reviewed by a federal judge, PRIOR TO being implemented.  :

As far as I am concerned, the NON-citizen has had his case reviewed, end of subject. The suspect should then be immediately deported back to the place from which he came, and we need to stop this hand wringing and shoulder patting over his probable fate. He made his bed, now he gets to try it on for fit.  :'(


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (14 Jun 2006)

I just cannot fathom how people see this a criminal issue.  This isn't a group trying to run bootleg booze where prosecution and inprisonment will in any way act as a deterrent either in advance of committing the crime, or after their sentence. This is an issue of a group of unaffiliated individuals (not tied to a nation state) who have declared war upon us but whose ultimate motive is to kill as many non-muslims as possible, and if they die in the process in the service of Allah, then so be it.  

The danger and lethality of our enemy necessitates we handle this with the protection of the general public taking priority over the rights of the individual because the downside of failure is not someone passing 1kg of marijuana, it's hundreds and possibly thousands of dead....which then threatens to tear the country's multicultural goodwill to shreds.

Bottom Line:  We have too much to lose to handle potential threats with kid gloves....


Matthew.


----------



## Shec (14 Jun 2006)

Agreed, signed by two cabinet ministers and reviewed by a judge is enough.  However, we have signed a UN convention in which we undertake not to deport anyone if that potentially endangers them.  Furthermore, citizens or not,  they are protected by the charter of rights & freedoms.  On top of that is our national angst over interning Japanese, Germans, Italians, and Ukrainians during one or both of the world wars.

So what can we do now?  Can't deport 'em.  Can't shoot 'em.   Can't jail 'em.  Can't free 'em.

Maybe we should "encourage" them to settle someplace out of harm's way.  Like Ellesmere Island perhaps.  Call this new community Guantanamo Eh.


----------



## aluc (14 Jun 2006)

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1150282851880&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News

Security trumps rights, top court told
Jun. 14, 2006. 11:49 AM
CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA — Protecting national security is the key to maintaining a free and democratic society, say federal lawyers defending their arsenal of legal tools for evicting terrorist suspects from Canada.

Government counsel Bernard Laprade says security isn't just a nice thing to have — it's an absolute necessity if people are to enjoy all the liberties guaranteed by the Charter of Rights.

The comments came as Laprade appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada to defend the much-criticized deportation process for foreign-born terrorist suspects.

Some of the nine judges appeared reluctant to accept the claim that national security trumps everything else.

Justice Louis LeBel, for example noted that if Canadians have security but no individual liberties, they may as well be living in North Korea.

The court is reviewing the so-called security certificate system that provides for secret hearings and indefinite detention of non-citizens accused of having terrorist ties.


----------



## probum non poenitet (14 Jun 2006)

Octavianus said:
			
		

> http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1150282851880&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News
> Justice Louis LeBel, for example noted that if Canadians have security but no individual liberties, they may as well be living in North Korea.



That's it! I'm never voting for that judge again! Oh, wait ....

That quote sounds like Benjamin Franklin meets Hedy Fry.

If one must throw around ludicrous comparisons to North Korea, how about the decisions of the elected representatives being overturned by an unelected and apparently unassailable body? INTERPRET the law, I thought it was, not DICTATE.
Always to this extreme - introduce an unpopular law and 'the whole fabric of democracy is disintegrating.' At least the Hitler comparison hasn't come up ... yet.

It is of relevance that in the Japanese Internment, no evidence was ever found of espionage or sabotage, yet an entire community was punished.
In this era, individuals are targeted for their deeds, not their ethnicity, and communities as a whole are not punished.

The courts had better not pooch this.


----------



## Gunnar (14 Jun 2006)

> If one must throw around ludicrous comparisons to North Korea, how about the decisions of the elected representatives being overturned by an unelected and apparently unassailable body? INTERPRET the law, I thought it was, not DICTATE.
> Always to this extreme - introduce an unpopular law and 'the whole fabric of democracy is disintegrating.' At least the Hitler comparison hasn't come up ... yet.



The comparison isn't ludicrous...if the basis of the ideas is the same, the end result will be the same.  The only difference in the here and now would be the degree of consistency with which those ideas are applied.

The purpose of the constitution is so that the legal system can safeguard the country against governments who would undermine the very basis of the free and democratic country in which we live....a constitution sets limits on what the government is ALLOWED to do.  Thus, the government is not allowed to legislate the religious basis of marriage, but may have no choice when it comes to recognizing it as a *government*.

The whole purpose of a free country is that I am free to espouse unpopular views and causes...in fact, I am free to be hated by everyone, but I cannot be outlawed, and the police MUST protect me as long as I live within the confines of the legal system, and the presumption must be, unless there is EVIDENCE to the contrary, that I AM living within those confines, until PROVED otherwise.  If the legal system can now throw me in jail without suitable trial or rules of evidence, where has freedom gone?  Sure, it's democracy...just like when they killed Socrates.  The majority dictated that he was unpopular enough he had to die.  Was it just?

If our elected government introduces a law which abrogrates freedom, then it has become an outlaw government which must be dealt with by the courts.  Telling a government that "your law sucks and will not be enforced" is not the same as making law--it is enforcing the will of the people by protecting them from themselves....  It is fair, *just* legal courts which make us the good guys.  Arrest these guys, sure.  Give them a speedy and fair trial, sure.  Then, when they are found guilty, throw them in jail (or an open pit) and forget about them.  But don't forget the niceties.  I like the legal niceties...it's what makes the difference between freedom and dictatorship.

Speaking of Benjy, "Those who give up a little freedom for security deserve neither freedom, nor security."

Or, another quote:  "The nation that pays as little attention to its philosophy as it does to its plumbing will soon find that it has neither philosophy nor plumbing".



> In this era, individuals are targeted for their deeds, not their ethnicity, and communities as a whole are not punished.



Sure, but inasmuch as they have yet to be proved guilty in a court of law, then why are they being punished NOW?  Where is the presumption of innocence?  (Sure, I figure they're guilty too, but the law is supposed to be blind...)



> The danger and lethality of our enemy necessitates we handle this with the protection of the general public taking priority over the rights of the individual because the downside of failure is not someone passing 1kg of marijuana, it's hundreds and possibly thousands of dead....which then threatens to tear the country's multicultural goodwill to shreds.



And the protection of the general public includes ME...like protecting ME from unjust laws, or secret courts or Star Chambers.  You can't start down this slippery slope and expect freedom to continue to exist.  First, there was freedom of speech.  Then, there was "hate speech".  Now it's "inappropriate" to make *ANY* comment which could conceivably offend someone....we accepted censorship of beliefs, now somehow we believe that the government has the right to "adjust" our other freedoms.

One of the downfalls of the belief system of soldiers and police is that they are usually great upholders of law and order...and will often take that road in preference to JUSTICE....unfortunately, too much law and order can lead to a great deal of injustice, if it's not intelligently applied and if you continue to make new laws as you go along...



> These certificates are all reviewed by a federal judge, PRIOR TO being implemented



Forgive my ignorance here, but are the minutes of these reviews available to public scrutiny?  Is there any way the common citizen can be assured (apart from the fact that most judges were brought up under a free system, and are therefore unlikely to do the Star Chamber thing) that these certificates were fairly applied based on evidence?  Or do we simply need to take the government at its word?  Like when they promised that Income Tax was temporary, to help pay for WW1?


----------



## probum non poenitet (14 Jun 2006)

Gunnar, I respect your sentiment, and you present your arguments clearly.

But I disagree with some of your points: GAME ON!  ;D



> The comparison isn't ludicrous...if the basis of the ideas is the same, the end result will be the same



North Korea is about as extreme as you can get when it comes to lack of rights. It's silly to draw the comparison with such dramatic language, especially from the Supreme Court.
Is Universal Health Care socialist? Hell yes, it's just like North Korea!
When you leap to extremes, you look ... extreme. If you are a judge, tone it down is all I'm asking.
Internet debate is another ballgame.  



> The purpose of the constitution is so that the legal system can safeguard the country against governments who would undermine the very basis of the free and democratic country in which we live....a constitution sets limits on what the government is ALLOWED to do.



Point well made, well taken. But I believe that Canadian politicians have developed the convenient habit of leaving difficult decisions to the courts, to keep 'their hands clean.' As a result I _perceive_ that Canadian judges often foray into _de facto _law-making. I think this is a result of years of lazy legislative habits, so when something important like this comes along, it bites us in the butt.



> The whole purpose of a free country is that I am free to espouse unpopular views and causes...in fact, I am free to be hated by everyone, but I cannot be outlawed



Strongly disagree here. The rights of your fist ends where the rights of my face start. You can be and most definitely are outlawed if you conspire to commit murder or publicly incite violence against others.
Big difference between advocating for an unpopular cause and plotting the violent overthrow of the lawful authority. This is the major sticking point of the argument. I see a distinction, many Canadian citizens don't share my view. I respect *them*, but ironically not those they are defending.




> the presumption must be, unless there is EVIDENCE to the contrary, that I AM living within those confines, until PROVED otherwise.  If the legal system can now throw me in jail without suitable trial or rules of evidence, where has freedom gone?



You can be remanded to custody while awaiting trial if you are considered dangerous enough. I am neither a cop nor a lawyer, so I may be over my head here. But as I understand it, these security certificates are similar to that. They are a bit more harsh, because someone plotting terrorism is a hell of a lot more serious than a stereo thief.



> Sure, it's democracy...just like when they killed Socrates.  The majority dictated that he was unpopular enough he had to die.  Was it just?


Uhhh ... no. (Although nobody likes a know it all)  ;D
But seriously, that's the standard counter-argument. We detain some clown who has more terrorist ties than Osama's dry cleaner, and now we're murdering Socrates?  :brickwall:



> Give them a speedy and fair trial, sure.  Then, when they are found guilty, throw them in jail (or an open pit) and forget about them.


I like where you are going with this, but this is where reality steps in.
Instead of an open pit, they are more likely to get a plea deal down to a few years, with reduced time for time already served and good behaviour. When they finish their correspondence psychology degree, and the parole officer sees that they are harmless, they'll be back on the streets before you can say 're-offend.'
Or even better, the case will be 'too politically sensitive' and dropped altogether. (Read FLQ and Oka)

I've seen the justice system fail personally far too many times to have much faith in it stopping terrorism without a revamp.
Still, I admire your defence of rule of law and the rights of the citizen. I am onside with you on that one, with some distinctions.



> You can't start down this slippery slope and expect freedom to continue to exist.  First, there was freedom of speech.  Then, there was "hate speech".  Now it's "inappropriate" to make *ANY* comment which could conceivably offend someone....



"THE CALGARY FLAMES SUCK!" Some may be offended by that self-evident truth, but I am not going to be jailed for it. If I stand on a street corner inciting people to murder (insert minority group here), that's another story. Our legal system can discern the difference.
Likewise, I don't expect to be arrested for advocating vegetarianism, but I DO expect to be arrested if I spend my summer vacation learning how to assemble car bombs in Baghdad.



> One of the downfalls of the belief system of soldiers and police is that they are usually great upholders of law and order


And one of the curiosities of the mindset of much of the Canadian public is that soldiers and police are their enemies, whereas the Khadr family et al are downtrodden heroes of the people.
Oh well, good thing I didn't join up for the gratitude.



> Forgive my ignorance here, but are the minutes of these reviews available to public scrutiny?  Is there any way the common citizen can be assured (apart from the fact that most judges were brought up under a free system, and are therefore unlikely to do the Star Chamber thing) that these certificates were fairly applied based on evidence?



It's a war. There are secrets. I see your concern, but this is the great democratic dilemma.
I side with CSIS and the gang on this one, but I respect your right to disagree.


----------



## xenobard (15 Jun 2006)

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=93e3b6a3-02db-4620-8348-449357c2e7f2&k=77048&p=1

Excerpt from the article:


> "We are here after three years of struggle because we want justice," he [Adil Charkaoui, a landed immigrant from Morocco who is alleged to be an al-Qaeda agent] told a crush of reporters in the Supreme Court foyer. "I am asking them to give me the opportunity to be heard by a court in a fair trial without secret evidence, with a right of appeal, without secret meetings between the judge and the prosecutors. I am asking for the same rights as any human being in this country."


  (He was also on CPAC this evening and said pretty much the same thing.)

How the @#$@ can this guy think he can get away with this?  What a twit.  He's either getting punted or locked up for good.

First, he is *not* a Canadian citizen and we have no legal obligation to allow him to stay in this country, only a moral obligation if in fact there are strong indications that he'll be *unjustly* tortured or killed in his home country, which is doubtful.

What he doesn't seem to understand is that he has not *earned* Canadian citizenship, and as such he may not have "the same rights as any human being in this country."  Such rights are not God-given.  They are earned by being a long-standing contributing member of Canadian society.

It can take as long as 10 years of living and working in most developed countries to earn full citizenship.  In many countries during this probationary period, you can be deported at the discretion of the government with no explanation.  Case in point: Japan, a western liberal democracy no less.  Now, what rights would any of us expect to have in Morocco's court system?

He is probably an al-Qaeda agent; one trying to manipulate the very freedoms he and his fellow fanatics seek to destroy, all in order to find a way to stay in this country and recruit more disenfranchised Muslim youth to his cause.  So if CSIS wants to punt him, then I say punt him.  However, if CSIS wants to lock him up and throw away the key, then i suppose we'll have to have some sort of judiciary tribunal or something - closed door proceedings of course; therefore there would be no need to risk thousands of Canadian civilians lives by releasing any information to the public which could jeopardize ongoing surveillance of terror plots like the one that almost happened in TO a couple of weeks ago.  Personally, I'd have no probelms with secret courts; i don't want to stick my neck out for this guy or his buddies to come and chop it off Jihadi style.  No thanks.

If CSIS doesn't have the evidence to punt him or lock him up and throw away the key, punt him just to be safe.  Even if his country wants to execute him for something he did over there, who are we to tell them what they can or can not do with their convicted criminals?


----------



## Gunnar (15 Jun 2006)

> >The whole purpose of a free country is that I am free to espouse unpopular views and causes...in fact, I am free to be hated by everyone, but I cannot be outlawed <
> 
> Strongly disagree here. The rights of your fist ends where the rights of my face start. You can be and most definitely are outlawed if you conspire to commit murder or publicly incite violence against others.



You snipped in a bad place, sorta like a botched vasectomy.  I agree with this point...just that in a free country, I expect to be left alone...and even if I am hated, I don't expect to be thrown in jail without due process of law.  If I am conspiring to commit a crime, identify it, and do the jail-throwing on a solid basis.  If I punch someone in the head, fine...it's assault.  But if I say "X deserves a punch in the head" (or a throat punch), I don't expect to be thrown in jail, without any evidence of a crime being committed.



> I respect them, but ironically not those they are defending.



I'm defending rights of free citizens.  If these suckers are guilty, let 'em hang.  Of course, we live in a country with schools named after Louis Riel, a traitor who was hanged for treason, so there you go...



> You can be remanded to custody while awaiting trial if you are considered dangerous enough. I am neither a cop nor a lawyer, so I may be over my head here. But as I understand it, these security certificates are similar to that. They are a bit more harsh, because someone plotting terrorism is a hell of a lot more serious than a stereo thief.



I agree...but if that is the case, I expect any evidence that was used to give them that status to be publically available.  I mean, theoretically, I could charge you with murder, and because of the heinous nature of the crime, lock you up indefinitely....without proof.



> But seriously, that's the standard counter-argument. We detain some clown who has more terrorist ties than Osama's dry cleaner, and now we're murdering Socrates?



Osama has a dry cleaner?  Really?  Does he have a frequent cleaning programme...?   Oh, sorry...got sidetracked.

Isn't there some sort of law about associating with known anti-social types and criminals that covers this...?



> Give them a speedy and fair trial, sure.  Then, when they are found guilty, throw them in jail (or an open pit) and forget about them.
> I like where you are going with this, but this is where reality steps in.
> Instead of an open pit, they are more likely to get a plea deal down to a few years, with reduced time for time already served and good behaviour. When they finish their correspondence psychology degree, and the parole officer sees that they are harmless, they'll be back on the streets before you can say 're-offend.'
> Or even better, the case will be 'too politically sensitive' and dropped altogether. (Read FLQ and Oka)



I understand that that is the way things are...but if you don't aim for the ideal, you'll never achieve it.  Too much destruction of basic principles happens when you try to constantly adjust for changing circumstances...soon, there's no difference between you and the bad guys...because you threw *different* principles out the window than the bad guys...it's like cops who murder mafia types...saying "we need to ignore this point right now because we don't have time, or the issue is too important" ignores the fact that maybe it is the system that needs *changing*, not *bypassing*.



> I've seen the justice system fail personally far too many times to have much faith in it stopping terrorism without a revamp.
> Still, I admire your defence of rule of law and the rights of the citizen. I am onside with you on that one, with some distinctions.



Judging by popular culture, North America appears to agree with you.  Law & Order, House, etc., etc....all recent plots involve throwing process and respect for individual rights to the wind to pursue known "scumbags".  I'm simply pointing out that as soon as you treat people like scumbags without due process, then you open the door for ANYONE to be treated like that.  And that worries the hell out of me.  Nazi Germany (there, I've said it and ended the argument) started out like this...middle class people who wanted radical change, without working within the democracy to change it (apart from their once every 4-5 years vote).  And  you've seen how violently Canadians react when a great injustice is done...they go back to reading the Toronto Star...unless you try to fire a hockey commentator...



> You can't start down this slippery slope and expect freedom to continue to exist.  First, there was freedom of speech.  Then, there was "hate speech".  Now it's "inappropriate" to make *ANY* comment which could conceivably offend someone....
> 
> "THE CALGARY FLAMES SUCK!" Some may be offended by that self-evident truth, but I am not going to be jailed for it. If I stand on a street corner inciting people to murder (insert minority group here), that's another story. Our legal system can discern the difference.
> Likewise, I don't expect to be arrested for advocating vegetarianism, but I DO expect to be arrested if I spend my summer vacation learning how to assemble car bombs in Baghdad.



I believe incitement to murder, or counselling to murder is somewhat different than saying "all <insert minority/majority you dislike here>" are worthy of murder, are subhuman, etc., etc.  One is specific, the other general.  You can hold whatever beliefs you want...it's when you must swing your fist to actually hit the nose of others that I want to stop it swinging.




> One of the downfalls of the belief system of soldiers and police is that they are usually great upholders of law and order



Bad vasectomy time again.  But not so much upholders of JUSTICE.  The law is a system to assure JUSTICE primarily, not order (although it remains an important component).  I don't have a problem with law and order.  I have a problem when it replaces JUSTICE.  Law and order serve justice, not the other way around.



> And one of the curiosities of the mindset of much of the Canadian public is that soldiers and police are their enemies, whereas the Khadr family et al are downtrodden heroes of the people.  Oh well, good thing I didn't join up for the gratitude.



And that attitude is returned in spades by at least the police...approach a cop sitting in his car on a hot day...try to chat with him...see the kind of look you get...siege mentality is self-reinforcing.  Community-based policing my ass.  Know any of the cops in your neighbourhood?

Oh, and just for the record, I wouldn't p**s on that family if they were on fire.  And you have my gratitude.  The things I hold dear can't exist at all without the thin red (green?) line.



> It's a war. There are secrets. I see your concern, but this is the great democratic dilemma.
> I side with CSIS and the gang on this one, but I respect your right to disagree.



Only for as long as democracy lasts.  As long as this sort of thing remains a dilemma, we don't  have a problem.  It's if it ceases to be one.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and I'm watching is all.


----------



## Gunnar (15 Jun 2006)

> What he doesn't seem to understand is that he has not earned Canadian citizenship, and as such he may not have "the same rights as any human being in this country."  Such rights are not God-given.  They are earned by being a long-standing contributing member of Canadian society.



I couldn't disagree more.  While more specifically appropriate to the American milieu, the Declaration of Independance does outline some of the basic tenets of a free society...that is that "being endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights...".  Rights to a speedy and fair trial are inalienable, or are supposed to be under Canadian law.  It's the way WE treat people.  We're the good guys.  The state does not GRANT those rights...it is supposed to RECOGNIZE them.

Only if you accept that rights are "things the government says you are allowed to do" can you say that rights are earned.  Only problem is, rights exist whether or not the state chooses to recognize them.  That's the point of freedom...you don't need someone's approval to be FREE.

Privileges of being Canadian, such as voting, Canadian passport, etc. are a little different.  

Look, I know these guys are scumbags...but it's important in fighting them that we don't become scumbags ourselves.  Look at Toronto...all the major financial institutions have stepped up security.  If the purpose of terrorism is terror, I'd say it's working.  The more paranoid we get, the more we look beyond the concept of rights to some sort of authority-driven government model, the closer we get to what these crazies want...theocracy.  It's our freedom, our fairness, our justice that they can't stand.  If you try to subvert any one of these values to combat them, you've lost the war.

Now, I know that Canada isn't explicitly a free country, it's based on POGG power...but we like to act like a free country, so maybe we should talk the talk too, hmmm?


----------



## xenobard (15 Jun 2006)

> Privileges of being Canadian, such as voting, Canadian passport, etc. are a little different.



Exactly.  He's not asking for his unalienable human rights to be recognised; he's asking for the same treatment accorded to Canadian citizens: "I am asking for the same rights as any human being in this country."  And my point is that his request is laughable.  

Even moreso when we consider he is doing so appealing to the public - the very people against whom he is accused of conspiring to commit mass murder.  He is obviously a lunatic.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (15 Jun 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It is similar to the Illegal Refugees who have been tying up the Courts with claims that they will be tortured should they be sent back to their countries of origin.  One case in particular has a man from India, who has used this ruse to stay in Canada, while all the time building himself a multi-million dollar mansion back in India. .



So what was the harm in letting him stay - we were afraid he might spend millions of dollars in the Canadian economy instead? Come to that, why did he want to leave his palace in India?

I think Canada still bears some measure of perceived guilt about its refusal to assist in the Holocaust, turning away thousands of Jewish refugees in the 1930s and 40s, whose claims about being persecuted in Germany now, with benefit of hindsight, appear to have had some validity. Certainly we don't want a repeat of that again, either. I hope we all agree it's a fine line.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Jun 2006)

Michael, are you dense or something?  The man has been ordered Deported.  He has been eating up billions in Taxpayer Dollars in his legal redress of the Deportation Order.  It has been going on for years.  Surely you must see that we have a serious problem here.  Or is it you just want to see how much you can Troll before crossing too far over the line?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (15 Jun 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Michael, are you dense or something?  The man has been ordered Deported.  He has been eating up billions in Taxpayer Dollars in his legal redress of the Deportation Order.  It has been going on for years.  Surely you must see that we have a serious problem here.  Or is it you just want to see how much you can Troll before crossing too far over the line?



Well, George, not being a mind reader, I only know as much about this Indian gentelman as you've chosen to share in this thread. If you want to call "asking for clarification" trolling, it wouldn't be the first time.  I realize he (whomever you are referring to) has been "ordered deported" but you never said why. Is he a mass murderer, or did he simply not fill out his height and weight properly on some piece of paper?

And if he has millions of dollars to build a palace in India, why does he want to stay here? Your story makes no sense.


----------



## paracowboy (15 Jun 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Well, George, not being a mind reader, I only know as much about this Indian gentelman as you've chosen to share in this thread. If you want to call "asking for clarification" trolling, it wouldn't be the first time.  I realize he (whomever you are referring to) has been "ordered deported" but you never said why. Is he a mass murderer, or did he simply not fill out his height and weight properly on some piece of paper?
> 
> And if he has millions of dollars to build a palace in India, why does he want to stay here? Your story makes no sense.


well, reading George's post,


> One case in particular has a man from India, who has used this ruse to stay in Canada, while all the time building himself a multi-million dollar mansion back in India.


 I get that the Indian scam artist is staying in Canada, using the system to his own ends, and spending the money in India that he gets from our ridiculous socialist free-money-for-everybody-except-those-who-earn-it policies.

Stop provoking.


----------



## Daniel San (15 Jun 2006)

When a law is constitutionally challenged before the Supreme court, it undergoes a balancing test at the end of which, if the violation of Charter rights outweighs the goal of the law, it is quashed.

This test was established in the _Oakes_ case in 1986. The balancing is required by section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights :



> The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.



Here is how Chief Justice Dickson describes the balancing test :



> To establish that a limit is reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, two central criteria must be satisfied. *First, the objective, which the measures responsible for a limit on a Charter right or freedom are designed to serve, must be "of sufficient importance to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right or freedom"*: R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd[...]. The standard must be high in order to ensure that objectives which are trivial or discordant with the principles integral to a free and democratic society do not gain s. 1 protection. It is necessary, at a minimum, that an objective relate to concerns which are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society before it can be characterized as sufficiently important.
> 
> 70.              *Second, once a sufficiently significant objective is recognized, then the party invoking s. 1 must show that the means chosen are reasonable and demonstrably justified.* This involves "a form of proportionality test": R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., supra, at p. 352. Although the nature of the proportionality test will vary depending on the circumstances, in each case courts will be required to balance the interests of society with those of individuals and groups. There are, in my view, three important components of a proportionality test. First, the measures adopted must be carefully designed to achieve the objective in question. They must not be arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations. In short, they must be rationally connected to the objective. Second, the means, even if rationally connected to the objective in this first sense, should impair "as little as possible" the right or freedom in question: R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., supra, at p. 352. *Third, there must be a proportionality between the effects of the measures which are responsible for limiting the Charter right or freedom, and the objective which has been identified as of "sufficient importance".*
> 
> 71.              With respect to the third component, it is clear that the general effect of any measure impugned under s. 1 will be the infringement of a right or freedom guaranteed by the Charter; this is the reason why resort to s. 1 is necessary. The inquiry into effects must, however, go further. A wide range of rights and freedoms are guaranteed by the Charter, and an almost infinite number of factual situations may arise in respect of these. Some limits on rights and freedoms protected by the Charter will be more serious than others in terms of the nature of the right or freedom violated, the extent of the violation, and the degree to which the measures which impose the limit trench upon the integral principles of a free and democratic society. Even if an objective is of sufficient importance, and the first two elements of the proportionality test are satisfied, it is still possible that, because of the severity of the deleterious effects of a measure on individuals or groups, the measure will not be justified by the purposes it is intended to serve. The more severe the deleterious effects of a measure, the more important the objective must be if the measure is to be reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.



Although this is not a criminal case, the Charter is very clear :



> 9. *Everyone* has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.





> 10. *Everyone* has the right on arrest or detention
> (a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
> (b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
> (c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.



Moreover,



> 7. *Everyone* has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived therof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.



I'm pretty sure that not having access to the evidence upon which ones detention is based is in clear violation of section 7, at the least.

Of course, only Canadians citizens are entitled to the right to stay in Canada.

If strong evidence exists, strong enough to justify several years in detention, it should be shown to the defendant's counsel and not only the Crown attorney and a Judge. If it were to compromise national security than an independent defense group should be set up to ensure that defendants can legally challenge their deportation without having access to the information.

But, I'm pretty sure security certificates will be saved and declared constitutional because of the capital importance of the objective they are aimed at. It'll be more of a policy decision than a legal one, for good or for worse, IMHO.

But I guess we'll only know in several months so sit back and enjoy your time on Earth!

Cheer up lads!

PS : I'd bet a handsome amount of money that not all of those with their name on a security certificate are terrorists. But how will we ever know?


----------



## geo (15 Jun 2006)

why doesn't the gov't invoke the "notwhthstanding" clause?

It's against the constitution but................needed

I'm convinced. Anyone else?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (15 Jun 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> well, reading George's post, I get that the Indian scam artist is staying in Canada, using the system to his own ends, and spending the money in India that he gets from our ridiculous socialist free-money-for-everybody-except-those-who-earn-it policies.
> 
> Stop provoking.



Stop defending weak posts. The question stands - if he's "building a multi-million dollar mansion" in India, just how much are we paying him? It seems incredible to me, and I'm suggesting the story sounds fishy. I note there's no name attached to the tale. And I bring it up because hysteria about the Jews circulated in much the same way in the 1930s - hence it's a little relevant today.


----------



## paracowboy (15 Jun 2006)

stop equating us with the Nazis. Stop trolling. Full stop.


----------



## calgarytanks (15 Jun 2006)

http://migration.ucdavis.edu/rs/more.php?id=158_0_2_0

this is the story of the Indian building the mansion




> His refugee claim was rejected in 1992, and over the next 13 years, a very different picture of Harjit Singh emerged. He'd been convicted of migrant smuggling back in India; he'd faced charges of people smuggling in Canada that were dropped after he allegedly threatened witnesses; and he'd been found civilly liable in a $1-million credit-card fraud. Still, he managed to evade deportation, filing six bids to stay in Canada on humanitarian grounds and numerous federal court appeals, saying he would be a target of Indian police.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (15 Jun 2006)

SPECIAL just for Michael Dorosh:    (sorry it is a little long, but that is what he wants.)



> BROKEN GATES: Canada's welcome mat frayed and unravelling
> The Globe and Mail
> Saturday, April 16, 2005
> By Marina Jimenez
> ...



Go ahead Michael, defend these guys.

[EDIT] I see someone beat me to this article, and posted a shorter version with a link.  My apologies.   :-[


----------



## xenobard (16 Jun 2006)

@Daniel San



> 10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
> (a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
> (b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
> (c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.



I agree that the above should be applied in general, but the Charkaoui case is different because of substantial national security risks posed by his release, hence the proportional balancing act in the courts.  In the meanwhile, simply putting a GPS tracker on him and keeping a close watch is too much a risk in my point of view.

I mean I can't understand why he would be allowed to be interviewed on CPAC.  His public pleas for fair treatment could very well have been a smoke-screen for some sort of encrypted message relayed to Al Queda operatives through the Canadian media.  That risk - from my vantage point - was unnecessary.  Better to just punt him and be done with it.  There is something to say for keeping your enemies close, but that is a very fine and dangerous line indeed.


----------



## Daniel San (16 Jun 2006)

xenobard, I am pretty sure the Supreme Court is going to rule in favour of upholding security certificates for the reasons you stated. The only thing still bothering me is that the evidence is held secret, so we don't really know if it is strong or not.


----------



## Gunnar (16 Jun 2006)

> 10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
> (a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
> (b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
> (c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.
> ...



What do the rights listed here have to do with his release?  They don't mention release, they say he has a right to have counsel, know what the charges are for, and to be informed (habeas corpus) why he was charged...i.e., evidence.

Doesn't say that if there is even a tiny bit of evidence that he can't be held.  Just says that a reason for doing so has to be presented.



> In the meanwhile, simply putting a GPS tracker on him and keeping a close watch is too much a risk in my point of view.



If  the court has so determined, then presumably they had their reasons...be we can't even know if this is a good idea or not if the evidence is held secret.



> I mean I can't understand why he would be allowed to be interviewed on CPAC.  His public pleas for fair treatment could very well have been a smoke-screen for some sort of encrypted message relayed to Al Queda operatives through the Canadian media.  That risk - from my vantage point - was unnecessary.  Better to just punt him and be done with it.  There is something to say for keeping your enemies close, but that is a very fine and dangerous line indeed.



He's allowed to be interviewed on CPAC because until he is proved guilty, or detained by police in a lawful manner, he is a free man in a free country, and can do what he likes.

If they have the tiniest bit of evidence, and the balls to act on it, they can lock him up pending trial.  Not having the guts to upset liberal opinion is not sufficient grounds for throwing people in jail based on "secret" evidence.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Jun 2006)

Daniel San said:
			
		

> xenobard, I am pretty sure the Supreme Court is going to rule in favour of upholding security certificates for the reasons you stated. The only thing still bothering me is that the evidence is held secret, so we don't really know if it is strong or not.



Out of curiosity, do you know all the minutest details of any cases in the court, other than what you yourself may be involved in?  If all the facts were made public, then the case would be tried in the media and not the courts, and make an even bigger mockery of our Legal System.  These are not your normal violent criminal, as already pointed out, but Terrorists.  Maybe not the most competent of Terrorists, but still Terrorists, who are fighting a war, plotting mass murder.  

Think back to every war ever fought and give me an example where each and every Prisoner of War was given a trial that in any way resembles what these guys are going to get.  Other than the Nuremberg Trials at the end of WW II, there is nothing in the History books.  We have since set up the World Court in The Hague, where we are tracking down and prosecuting War Criminals after hostilities have ended, but it still is not the detaining of members of an organized force captured during a conflict.  

If naivete is what is going to be used as a Defence, then the old saying of "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse." should be the prominent point made in the prosecution of these individuals.  As for the "Young Offenders Act", these five youths should not be tried as Young Offenders, but as adults conspiring to Terrorism and be exposed to the fullest extent of the Law.  Youth Detention would do nothing to change their beliefs, so they should be detained for the maximum amount of time and kept out of the society they want to distroy.

In the end, will the Canadian Government and Legal System prosecute these 17 to the fullest extent of the Law?  In the end, it looks like we will be greatly disappointed.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 Jun 2006)

That's more like it; an actual source. Good article.  

Some things that jump out:



> Yet the vast majority of these removal cases involve failed refugee claimants who have never committed any crime and who leave Canada willingly. Fewer removal cases involve known criminals.



The “multi million dollar mansion” George mentioned was actually one of two homes, the second valued at $300,000 ... and palatial only by “Indian standards.” Not to suggest the immigration system isn't broken but hyperbole is hyperbole.

I liked this also:



> Diane Ablonczy, the Conservative immigration critic, says people complain to her about everything from long waits to sponsor parents, to a failure to track the removal of failed refugee claimants. 'They think the system is teetering on the brink of chaos. It is not geared toward ensuring that the rules are respected,' said Ms. Ablonczy, the MP for Calgary-Nose Hill. 'The fear is that the public's attitudes could turn negative toward immigrants, as has happened in Europe.'



Judging by some of the comments posted here, I guess that's already happened.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 Jun 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> stop equating us with the Nazis. Stop trolling. Full stop.



Para, you obviously misunderstood my comments . I was saying that we refused to accept Jewish immigrants because of our fear of immigrants - Albonczy mentions the same fear is once again creeping into Canadian society. Which part of that is comparing us to the Nazis?


----------



## xenobard (17 Jun 2006)

Michael,

I don't think xenophobia is what's going on here in Canada.  Instead, I see a perfectly rational awareness of the fact that our country is at war with an pan-national enemy whose members attempt to infiltrate our borders.  This awareness is quickly coming to fruition.  This is good.  We might finally see some political will in patching up the holes in our net.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 Jun 2006)

xenobard said:
			
		

> Michael,
> 
> I don't think xenophobia is what's going on here in Canada.  Instead, I see a perfectly rational awareness of the fact that our country is at war with an pan-national enemy whose members attempt to infiltrate our borders.  This awareness is quickly coming to fruition.  This is good.  We might finally see some political will in patching up the holes in our net.



If you are suggesting this forum may not be a representative sampling of the general populace, I think we would all agree that certain mindsets predominate here.  Ablonczy's point is, AIUI, simply that we don't want to repeat mistakes made in the past. I don't think that means she wants to turn a blind eye to everyone wanting to move here, nor do I think rejecting immigrants makes us bad people. Given the cost of housing in Calgary, I'd be glad to turn off the tap right now, for my own selfish reasons. But if having a world class Army is what gives us prestige among nations, as is so often argued here, certainly how we treat the disenfranchised of other nations also reflects on us.  And having said that, becoming a haven for criminals and terrorists is obviously going too far in the wrong direction as well - bringing us back to that whole tightrope thing.


----------



## xenobard (17 Jun 2006)

> ....certain mindsets predominate here...



I, personally, have not noticed what kind of mindsets predominate here.  I guess I need to spend more time on this forum to discoverthat.



> If you are suggesting this forum may not be a representative sampling of the general populace



I'm not suggesting that.  Again, I don't know if in fact the opinions presented here are representative of the general population.  However, when I mention what I think most Canadians would agree with I take into account my general understanding of what Candians' perceptions are overall.   I don't pretend to know for certain what they are, however.  It is just an opinion.



> Ablonczy's point is, AIUI, simply that we don't want to repeat mistakes made in the past.



Yes.  I agree, of course.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that the vast majority of Canadians would also agree - so much so that it really isn't an issue anymore.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 Jun 2006)

xenobard said:
			
		

> I, personally, have not noticed what kind of mindsets predominate here.  I guess I need to spend more time on this forum to discoverthat.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that.  Again, I don't know if in fact the opinions presented here are representative of the general population.



A survey of many of the threads show a conservative leaning (I like to think it is really middle-of-the-road but everything is relative) and a vested interest in matters such as terrorism and security. I think a lot of the "common sense" stuff posted here really does match what people on the street near where I live are saying, but I'm from Alberta and I think our perspective really is different from those in the East, and perhaps in particular civilians there. An example where the differing attitudes is most apparent would be gun control, for example. People here train with them as part of their profession; soccer moms in T.O. only experience them when news reports tell about teenagers who are murdered with them.


----------



## GAP (18 Jul 2006)

Ottawa orders Harkat deported to native Algeria
Updated Tue. Jul. 18 2006   CTV.ca News Staff
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060718/Harkat_ordered_deported_060718/20060718?hub=TopStories

Mohamed Harkat, an Algerian-born Canadian accused of terrorist ties, has been ordered deported to Algeria by the federal government.

Harkat, 37, has said he fears being tortured if he's sent back to his native country, and his lawyer, Paul Copeland, said they will be fighting the ruling.

"We're going to seek a judicial review of the decision," Copeland told CTV News on Tuesday.

Harkat was notified of the decision by the Canadian Border Services Agency on Friday, according to a report in the Ottawa Citizen newspaper. 

James Schultz, a federal bureaucrat within agency, said in a 55-page decision that the danger posed by Harkat as an alleged al Qaeda operative outweighed his right to be protected from abuse in Algeria.
More on link


----------



## bilton090 (10 Aug 2006)

James Schultz, a federal bureaucrat within agency, said in a 55-page decision that the danger posed by Harkat as an alleged al Qaeda operative outweighed his right to be protected from abuse in Algeria.

     Why does it take years to deport these people ? If you do something wrong here before becoming a Canadian, they should be put on the first plane out of here !
      So what about the abuse he might get, the sh@t that he was planning out ways his rights ! but CSIS & the RCMP are just picking on him  :crybaby:, A Innocent muslim with ties to Al Qaeda  > .
     We have to start cutting out the cancer in this country, and not crying over the terrorist's right's, they are not losing sleep over the Innocent people they kill, they are trying to kill us all !
     They shoud be shout as spy's !


----------



## bilton090 (10 Aug 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Assumption of guilt is bad....  you said it yourself, just in not such a clear way


 They lock you up for 3 yrs for something to do ! ;D , they don't even lock up drunk driver's that killed someone, for 3 yrs ( house arst. ) it's not assumption of guilt, the f-er did something or was planning something !
     Padre Wake up ! this is not the good old days of WWII, these are sick extremists that are trying to exterminate anyone that doesn't think like the 1000 yr old, f-up ways they have. We should not be using minimal force, but all out war ! 
    
      P.S- get the rope !


----------



## geo (10 Aug 2006)

it's an interesting situation
you have people who "fear" being returned to their native country BUT
have no compunction with plotting the destruction of western culture AND the great satan.

Remember when Ayatolah Khomeini was a guest of France?
Remember when Osama & Sadam was a friend of the US?


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Feb 2007)

Decision:
Charkaoui v.  Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 SCC 9

Background on Security Certificates here

MSM coverage:
*Top court overturns security certificates*
Gives MPs a year to draft new law
Canadian Press, 23 Feb 07
Article Link

The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down the security certificate system used by the federal government to detain and deport foreign-born terrorist suspects.  In a 9-0 judgment, the court found that the system, described by government officials as a key tool for safeguarding national security, violates the Charter of Rights.  But the court suspended the judgment from taking legal effect for a year, giving Parliament time to write a new law complying with constitutional principles.  The lawyer for Mohammed Harkat, one of the three terrorist suspects who brought the case before the high court, said the judges delivered almost exactly what they asked for.  Critics have long denounced the certificates, which can lead to deportation of non-citizens on the basis of secret intelligence presented to a Federal Court judge at closed-door hearings ....


*Court strikes indefinite holding of terror suspects*
CNN online, 23 Feb 07
Article Link

Canada's Supreme Court struck down Friday a controversial anti-terror law that allows foreign suspects to be detained indefinitely on the basis of secret evidence.  The court ruled unanimously that the government had broken Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms by issuing so-called security certificates to imprison people, pending deportation, without giving them a chance to see the government's case.  "Before the state can detain people for significant periods of time, it must accord them a fair judicial process," Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote on behalf of all nine judges.  "The secrecy required by the (certificates) scheme denies the named person the opportunity to know the case out against him or her, and hence to challenge the government's case."  The court suspended the ruling for a year to allow Parliament time to rewrite the relevant part of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, under which the certificates are issued.  The court ruled on cases brought by three Arab Muslim men who were detained between 2001 and 2003 on suspicion they were part of al Qaeda.  Ottawa says the men can leave the country at any time but must remain in detention or very close watch until then because they pose too much of a threat. The men say they could be tortured if they are sent back to their countries of birth ....


*Canada's Highest Court Strikes Terror Detention Law*
Joe Schneider, Bloomberg news service, 23 Feb 07
Article Link

Canada's highest court struck down a federal law used to detain terrorism suspects, saying the law doesn't ``conform to fundamental justice'' and giving the government a year to rewrite it.  The Supreme Court's nine-member panel ruled unanimously today that the use of ``security certificates'' to detain people deemed a threat to the country's security is illegal.  Federal authorities can detain suspects, following approval of a security certificate by either the minister of citizenship or minister of public safety, without laying specific charges and without providing all the facts to the suspects or their lawyers. Federal officials have said withholding the information is necessary to protect intelligence-gathering methods.  ``Less intrusive alternatives developed in Canada and abroad, notably the use of special counsel to act on behalf of the named person, illustrate that the government can do more to protect the individual while keeping critical information confidential,'' the judges said ....


*Canada Rules Indefinite Detention Wrong*
BETH DUFF-BROWN, Associated Press, 23 Feb 07
Article Link

Canada's Supreme Court struck down the government's right to detain foreign terrorism suspects indefinitely and without trial, ruling Friday that the system violates the country's bill of rights.  The Justice Department had insisted that the "security certificate" program is a key tool in the fight against global terrorism and essential to national security.  But in a 9-0 judgment, the high court found the system violates the Charter of Rights and Freedom. It suspended the judgment from taking effect for a year, to give Parliament time to rewrite the law that deals with the certificates.  The certificates were challenged on constitutional grounds by three men from Morocco, Syria and Algeria -- all alleged by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to have ties to al-Qaida and other terrorist groups.  "The overarching principle of fundamental justice that applies here is this: before the state can detain people for significant periods of time, it must accord them a fair judicial process," Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote in the ruling ....


----------



## old medic (9 Dec 2010)

Judge says grounds to declare Harkat security threat 
The Canadian Press
Date: Thursday Dec. 9, 2010 10:17 AM ET
Copy at: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20101209/judge-grounds-harkat-threat-security-101209/



> OTTAWA — A federal judge says there are reasonable grounds to believe Algerian-born Mohamed Harkat is a threat to national security.
> 
> Federal Court Justice Simon Noel's decision in the long-running case could pave the way for Harkat's deportation to his native country.
> 
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (9 Dec 2010)

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



*Ottawa's Harkat a terrorist, faces deportation, court rules 
*



By Andrew Duffy, 
The Ottawa Citizen 
December 9, 2010 11:06 AM 

LINK 

OTTAWA — Ottawa's Mohamed Harkat faces deportation to his native Algeria after a Federal Court judge branded him a member of the al-Qaeda terrorist network Thursday morning.

Justice Simon Noël ruled that two cabinet ministers made a reasonable decision in February 2008 when they concluded Harkat poses a threat to national security.

The federal government has been trying to deport Harkat since December 2002 when he was first arrested on the strength of a national security certificate.

Noël said Harkat lied on the witness stand when he denied any involvement in the terrorist network.

"He has surrounded himself in layers of clouds in which he does not let any light come through," Noël wrote. "At times, his testimony has been inconsistent, not only with his earlier statements, but also in comparison with the public and closed evidence presented by both parties.

"At times, his testimony was simply incoherent, implausible if not contradictory. The Ministers have provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the issuance of the certificate was reasonable."

The ruling means Harkat, 42, who has lived in Ottawa since September 1995, is under an automatic deportation order.

A federal immigration officer must now assess whether Harkat faces a significant risk of torture if returned to Algeria, the country from which he fled in 1990 as a political dissident.

Harkat has said that he will be tortured or killed if returned to that country.

The ruling represents a major victory for the federal government and its security-certificate law, which was designed to rid the country of foreign-born terrorists.

Harkat is the first terrorism suspect to have his security certificate upheld by the Federal Court since the new law was introduced in February 2008.

Two others, Adil Charkaoui and Hassan Almrei, have had their security certificates quashed and are now suing for millions in damages.

Security certificates give federal authorities the power to arrest, imprison and deport foreign-born terror suspects without revealing in public all of the evidence against them.

The process has foundered until now. In 2007, the Supreme Court ordered the government to redraw its security certificate legislation, but since then, intelligence dossiers have not stood up to the new system's increased level of scrutiny.

Harkat, an Ottawa pizza deliveryman and gas-station attendant, was first arrested on Dec. 10, 2002. He has always denied any connection to terrorism.

Noël, however, found that Harkat for at least 15 months operated a guest house in Pakistan for Ibn Khattab, a Chechen terrorist. The judge also concluded Harkat visited Afghanistan, contrary to his sworn testimony, and that he had links to an Islamic extremist group in Egypt, Al Gamaa Al Islamiya (AGAI).

What's more, the judge accepted evidence from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service that Harkat assisted two Islamic extremists in Canada and maintained links to al-Qaeda members Ahmed Said Khadr, a Canadian, and Abu Zubaydah, who is now held in Guantanamo Bay.

Noël said Harkat remains a threat to national security even though time has diminished the danger level associated with him.

The judge dismissed a constitutional challenge to the security certificate regime and an abuse of process application filed by Harkat's defence team.

This is the second time that a security certificate has been upheld in the Harkat case.

In March 2005, Justice Eleanor Dawson found it was reasonable for the government to conclude Harkat was an al-Qaeda terrorist. That decision was overturned by the Supreme Court when it ruled the security-certificate process was too secretive.

A second certificate was issued against Harkat in February, 2008.

Judge Noël began hearing evidence in the case later that same year, both in camera and in public. He was presented with a significantly different case from the one heard by Dawson.

Harkat testified that he came to Canada as a refugee in October 1995 after spending five years in Pakistan as an aid worker. He fled Algeria, he said, because of a crackdown on the political party to which he belonged, the Front Islamique du Salut (FIS).

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) contends Harkat developed terrorist ties in Pakistan.

According to CSIS, Harkat worked as a chauffeur and errand boy at a Peshawar guest house run by Saudi-born jihadist Ibn Khattab. The spy agency also alleges Harkat did work for Ahmed Said Khadr, a Canadian member of al-Qaeda, while in Pakistan.

In Ottawa, CSIS claims, Harkat helped facilitate the movement of money and people in the bin Laden network.

CSIS presented court with transcripts from 13 telephone conversations, intercepted between September 1996 and September 1998, to demonstrate that Harkat maintained links to Khattab, Khadr and Abu Messab Al Shehre, a Saudi deported from Canada after being stopped at the Ottawa airport with a garrote, a samurai sword and a balaclava.

Harkat's defence team argued that the evidence could not be relied upon since CSIS destroyed the original tapes. Lawyer Norm Boxall said Harkat was targeted because of the fear that permeated North American after 9-11 and suggested CSIS created the concept of a "sleeper agent" to explain why Harkat lived peacefully in Canada for seven years before his arrest.

aduffy@ottawacitizen.com

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen





==============================================

Exclusive: Harkat knew al-Qaeda lieutenant, files say

Harkat denies all terrorist ties

Analysis: How terror came home to roost

CSIS tapped phone despite order

Harkat helped with logistics, but wasn't in terror cell: CSIS agent

Mohamed Harkat background stories


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Dec 2010)

Summary from Fed Ct of Canada attached - here's links to the individual decisions:
- DES-5-08 Decision on Abuse of Process (PDF)
- DES-5-08 Decision on Constitutional Question (PDF)
- DES-5-08 Decision on Reasonableness of Certificate (PDF)


----------



## krustyrl (9 Dec 2010)

I say .........."  BOOT"...and take Khadr(s) with him.!          :yellow:


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Jan 2011)

....thanks to a Federal Court decision today:
- *DES-5-08 – Release of Redacted Top Secret Material*
- *DES-5-08 – Footnotes*
- *DES-5-08 – Annex*


----------



## mariomike (6 Jun 2011)

I did a search for "Todd Baylis". Although an old thread, I am sure many will remember the murder of this officer. This seems to be the relevant place for an update. It is hard to believe 17 years have passed:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/39348/post-395909.html#msg395909
"In 1994, a gunman ordered deported to Jamaica stayed here long enough to shoot dead Toronto Police Constable Todd Baylis. Then, in a similar slaying, Torontonian Vivi Leimonis was gunned down during a robbery in a cafe called Just Desserts."

Update June 04, 2011:
"Immigration Department settles multimillion-dollar lawsuit 17 years after Toronto police officers shot: Seventeen years after a Jamaica-born career criminal awaiting deportation fatally shot one Toronto police constable and badly wounded a second, the federal Immigration Department has acknowledged its failings in the tragedy by settling a multimillion-dollar lawsuit filed on behalf of the families of the two officers.":
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/immigration-department-settles-multimillion-dollar-lawsuit-17-years-after-toronto-police-officers-shot/article2047254/

Edit to add.
I was not looking up the Just Desserts murder, but it was mentioned in the next sentence. I found this: "The ITF was formed in June 1994 in response to the brutal homicide of Vivi Lemonis, a patron in a Toronto restaurant shot to death during a violent robbery. All four suspects were non-Canadians with serious criminal convictions in Canada and some were under deportation orders. The second catalyst was the fatal shooting of Toronto Police Service Constable Todd Baylis and the wounding of his partner Constable Mike Leone in June 1994.":
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/on/prog-serv/itf-gti-eng.htm


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Jun 2011)

Gayle was a POS when he was at my old jail and I'm sure he's even a bigger POS now................aren't we all glad that we are paying for his cable TV, school courses, etc?

Where's the gallows?


----------



## mariomike (10 Jun 2011)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Gayle was a POS when he was at my old jail and I'm sure he's even a bigger POS now................aren't we all glad that we are paying for his cable TV, school courses, etc?



Officer Baylis was taken to Sunnybrook. TPS took his partner to Humber Memorial. I wasn't there, but from what I was told, by the time the second ambulance arrived to take Gayle to St. Mikes, the mob was screaming nasty words because he was left for last.


----------

