| The
Challenge: DAY ONE On June 13, 14, 2006 at OTTAWA, Adil Charkaoui, Hassan Almrei and Mohamed Harkat challenged the constitutionality of their respective security certificates at the Supreme Court of Canada. Click here to read the information flyer that was handed out to the public during the "Camp Hope" vigil held on the lawn of the Supreme Court as the hearings took place. YayaCanada  DAY ONE: Not
being able to attend court full time,
I can only give you a general idea of what is going on. Adil
Charkaoui, released
on a control order and seen in photo at the left, was the only one
of the three challengers able to be present at court.Individual supporters and groups who could not be present sent banners to represent them among the many that were spread out on the grass and hung on the police barriers. "Camp Hope" supporters generally hugged the sides of the big lawn in front of the Supreme Court building, staying under the trees, passing out information flyers to passersby on the street side, playing and singing music in the shade, keeping vigil as history is made in the courtroom.   It is so
much easier to see the faces and hear the voices of the participants
that Sophie decided to join the rest of us in the cheap seats. Anyone
who has sat through the painfully poor accoustics of a regular court
room, staring at the backs of the lawyers will immediately recognize
this as a gift from Above.Basically, what I understood from the arguments I've heard so far is that the Security Certificate is tied in with our Immigration policies, and that therefore Canada does not treat all residents according to the principles of "fundamental justice", and this situation is unique to Canada.  The
terrorism act in Britain, for instance, has not defined its terrorism
act in the context of immigration, and lawyers here are arguing that
Canada should follow suit. As the arguments are being presented,
occasionally a Supreme Court Judge will interrupt with questions or
comments. One of the comments was that the immigration model is a
preventive measure because a suspect can be stopped before committing a
terrorist act, whereas criminal law can go into action only after the
act has been committed.It was pointed out that terror can be committed by citizens as well as non-citizens, and that preventive measures are included in criminal law, such as prosecuting conspiracies to commit crimes. What is especially discriminatory about a separate system for non-citizens, particularly in the wake of 9-11, is that our terrorism measures are profiling people with regard to race, nationality and religion. Prevention needs to be carried out across the board, because even though the public may be largely uninformed about it, terrorism is not restricted to Arabs and/or Muslims. There are Irish terrorists, for instance, but we do not assume all Irish immigrants or citizens are potential terrorists. One lawyer pointed out that the majority of Arabs in Canada are actually Christian and quite peace loving, but as a result of post 9-11 stereotyping they have become a community at risk. In the minds of the public and the police, Arab=Muslim=terrorists.  The
Security Certificate diminishes our own
society, creates a breeding ground for discontent, and actually tends
to undermine our national security.
Well known lawyer, Edward Greenspan spoke eloquently on the need for our nation not to allow fear to cause us to sacrifice our principles. We've done this before in times of exigency, such as when we herded all of our Japanese Canadians into internment camps during the last world war, and have lived to regret our lapses of morality and justice.   Other lawyers went on to discuss the problem of
indefinite detention. Because Canada has a policy of not
deporting to torture, security certificate detainees can be imprisoned
for inordinately long periods of time without the allegations against
them ever being challenged or proved. There is no limitation on
the time they can be detained. Indefinite detentions with no
trial are considered illegal according
to international law.Whatever model is adopted, it should include a challenge as to what is and what is not a national security issue. The confidentiality of the evidence must be balanced against the rights of the individual. This could be done by having a kind of go-between who would assess how much of the information considered secret could safely be transmitted to the defendant's counsel, and how much is legitimate to protect for the security of the nation.  The idea, of course, is to strike down the
Security Certificate and replace it with criminal prosecution in the
same way that criminal conspiracy charges are prosecuted, and with some
means to determine what information is safe to reveal so that it can be
cross-examined.I recall that Harkat's lawyers, during one of the past hearings, suggested that surely a member of the defence could be cleared at a level that would allow him or her to be present at the secret hearings afforded to CSIS agents. This person would be sworn, as the CSIS agents are, not to discuss the information beyond the Judge's chambers, but would be able to represent the defendant and challenge the evidence presented. As one of the lawyers presenting at the Supreme Court challenge said, a go-between could elicit information from the defendant to be used to challenge evidence, simply by asking the "right questions" and without the need to reveal information protected for national security. Day two Information flyer Related: Mohamed Harkat finally gets to come home! The government has lost its bid for a stay of Judge Dawson's decision to release Mohamed Harkat on a control order. What's wrong with Security Certificates - a brief for Members of Parliament (.pdf format) yayacanada.com Main Page - "Abolish the Security Certificate" |