By Kimiko Inouye
Source: email to Sophie Harkat
URL: N/A
Date: February 8, 2008

Adam Thompson
Committee Clerk Special Senate Committee on Anti-terrorism
The Senate of Canada
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0A4
[email]

To Adam Thompson,

I am a concerned individual who has been involved in the campaign to free Mohamed Harkat from his arrest under Canada's security certificate.

I continue to be disturbed by the new legislation that would replace the previous security certificate. I feel strongly that the new legislation will continue the regime of a two-tiered justice system consisting of secret hearings, indefinite detentions without charge, house arrests, and deportations to torture.

I would like to request to be appear and speak to the Senate about the many problems with the security certificate process - that is the new legislation that is being proposed. My desire to be heard on this matter is a result of my personal involvement and attachment to Mohamed Harkat's situation, my experiences as a racialized member of society, my own family's history of internment (of Japanese Canadians) during the second world war and my commitment to social justice.

Now Canadians look back at the Japanese Canadian internment and mainly feel shame about what happened. This collective feeling of shame should also be felt with regards to the security certificate. The security certificate process is a clear violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and should be abolished to maintain the integrity of Canada's human rights claims. Members of Parliament should recognize that xenophobia and racism - those ideologies that shape and inform legislation such as the security certificate - are also violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedom.

I have met Mohamed Harkat, as well as the wives and children of others who are detained under the security certificate. I feel deeply for them and believe that they should be reunited with their husbands and fathers under a fair and just system.

I would like to speak to these points made in this request, as well as to question why the security certificate process is necessary, what the need is for a two-tiered justice system, and why the government is passing a law that all legal experts are saying is unconstitutional.

Sincerely,

Kimiko Inouye
Toronto

By Janet Bagnall Source: The Montreal Gazette URL: N/A Date: February 8, 2008 Our government has not raised a finger to help imprisoned Canadian

On July 27, 2002 , an Al-Qa'ida compound in Afghanistan was bombarded by U.S. warplanes for four hours. The bombing over, U.S. soldiers stormed the compound. Inside, according to a document released accidentally by U.S. officials Monday, a soldier found two people still alive. There was a man who had an AK-47 beside him, "moving and moaning." The soldier shot this person in the head, killing him. The soldier, identified as only OC-1, said he saw a second person "sitting up facing away from him leaning against the brush." The soldier shot this person two times in the back. The second person was 15-year-old Omar Khadr, the Canadian who has now been held in U.S. custody in Guantanamo Bay for almost six years and who has become, on the evidence, an obsession with the Pentagon. The U.S. military has accused Khadr of throwing a grenade that killed U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer during the battle on July 27. No one saw him throw the grenade, but because he was, until this week, thought to have been the only person still alive in the compound, it was assumed that he alone could have thrown it.

[ Read the rest ... ]

By Jim Brown (CP) Source: The Toronto Star URL: [link] Date: February 7, 2008 Will pave way to deport foreign-born suspects

OTTAWA–New legislation to kick foreign-born terrorist suspects out of Canada has cleared the House of Commons and is headed for the Senate, as the minority Conservative government races to meet a court-imposed deadline. The bill passed the lower house by a 196-71 vote yesterday, with most Liberals supporting the Tory measure while the NDP and Bloc Québécois were opposed. "It's not an ideal bill," said the Liberal public safety critic, Ujjal Dosanjh. "But given the time constraints it was the best we could do."

[ Read the rest ... ]

By unsigned editorial
Source: The Globe and Mail
URL: [link]
Date: February 8, 2008

Canada accepts 250,000 immigrants and refugees a year, but seems to feel compelled to apologize for insisting on weeding out the few seriously dangerous ones - potential terrorists, war criminals, Mafiosi.

The Liberal Party, in sensibly supporting the Conservative government's revised national security-certificate law this week, did so as if holding its nose. "This isn't a bill we would have introduced ourselves," said Ujjal Dosanjh, the party's national-security critic.

The Bloc Québécois opposed the bill because Canada needs only to show that a newcomer is probably dangerous - which is to say, that there is at least a 50.1-per-cent chance. The Bloc wanted Canada to have to prove dangerousness "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Not only the country's security but its liberal immigration policy (which includes constitutional rights the moment a newcomer sets foot on Canadian soil) depends on a strong security-certificate process.

Imagine if a terrorist were concealed among the 250,000 - not hard to imagine at all. Imagine if that terrorist blew up downtown Montreal or Toronto or Calgary. People would demand to know why the government didn't protect them. Because even those newcomers who raised a red security flag were untouchable? Canadians would quickly insist on plugging up the flow of immigrants.

This is the context for the security-certificate law that passed this week in the House of Commons. The law was not rushed through after 9/11; it had been around in various forms for three decades. (The Liberals were quite content not to alter its most contentious provisions when they were in power.)

The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously struck it down last year because the law provided, in the crucial beginning of the court process, for a secret hearing in the absence of the suspected terrorist and even in the absence of his lawyer. That put the onus on a Federal Court judge to challenge the government's evidence before deciding whether to summarize it in open court, allow it to be heard in full or keep it out altogether.

The new law allows for a special advocate with a security clearance to view the government's secret evidence and challenge it on the suspect's behalf. Britain has a similar model.

But the law is still a work in progress. Lawyers in Britain complain that they are not allowed to talk to their clients about the secret evidence. In both countries, judges may grant an exemption so the special advocates can discuss that evidence with their clients, but it remains to be seen whether (and in what circumstances) such exemptions will be granted in Canada. In Britain they are not granted often.

Democracies must give due process to suspected foreign terrorists; the state's case must be tested. But democracies don't need to apologize for insisting on a workable scheme to reject and expel dangerous newcomers.

© Copyright 2008 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

By Wesley Wark Source: The Ottawa Citizen URL: [link] Date: February 7, 2008 Even with amendments to the security certificate process, Canada still lacks effective laws for fighting terror

When Stephen Harper's conservatives signalled their intention last fall to push ahead with a controversial set of measures to sustain Canada's national security laws, it was easy to imagine that fireworks would ensue. This is a minority government after all, and everyone in the House is engaged in the great guessing game of when, and over what issue, an election might be forced. On some issues, this Parliament has shown a lamentable capacity to lose its head. The last time national security law had been up for debate in a major way -- over the extension of powers under the anti-terrorism act to allow for preventive detention and investigative hearings -- all sides in the House of Commons behaved badly. Allegations were freely traded about hidden agendas, political backsliding, and, to pick up an American theme, "softness" on terrorism. Stephen Harper had only himself to blame. The opposition parties ganged up, driven by desire for political blood, if not by logic, and defeated the government motion. That was a year ago. The latest episode in what will be a long-running political saga to find the elusive key to maintaining both security and democratic rights has forced Parliament to reflect on the troubling matter of security certificates. More fireworks? More bad behaviour? Surprisingly, both the government and the opposition Liberal party seem to have learned a lesson from the fiasco of the debate over the Anti-Terrorism Act and have toned down the rhetoric and engaged in a moment of relatively tranquil bi-partisanship.

[ Read the rest ... ]

By Richard Foot
Source: Canwest News Service
URL: N/A
Date: February 07, 2008


The House of Commons passed the government's controversial new security certificate legislation yesterday, two weeks before a court-imposed deadline. The Liberal-controlled Senate, which must now approve the bill before it becomes law, has agreed to push the legislation through Parliament before Feb. 23, when Canada 's existing security certificate law expires as ordered by the Supreme Court.

Security certificates are a contentious immigration measure that allows authorities to detain and deport non-citizens considered national security threats. Six Muslim immigrants accused of terrorist links are currently facing deportation from Canada under the process.

Last year, the Supreme Court said parts of the security certificate law were unconstitutional because they did not allow accused people to defend themselves against secret government evidence presented in closed judicial hearings. The court gave Parliament one year, until Feb. 23, to fix the law. The proposed law creates advocates -- security-cleared lawyers appointed by Ottawa to represent the interests of accused people in secret hearings.

Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

By Andrew Duffy Source: The Ottawa Citizen URL: [link] Date: February 07, 2008 Must face 'consequences' for alleged bail breach: government

A government lawyer has asked a Federal Court judge to put terror suspect Mohamed Harkat back in jail -- and to send a message to his principal sureties by seizing $95,000 in cash and bonds posted in support of his bail. Mr. Harkat's lawyer, Matt Webber, denounced the government's position as "unconscionable" and "appalling." "The evidence in this case is that his bail is being complied with and is working," Mr. Webber told Justice Eleanor Dawson. "The strictest bail order I've ever seen is working -- and the government asks for the forfeiture of all the funds and the revocation of his release?" Federal lawyer David Tyndale argued that there "must be consequences" for what he described as the collapse of the supervisory scheme created by the court's May 2006 bail order.

[ Read the rest ... ]

Source: Various Date: 1 février 2008 Le Devoir: Quand le secret de la preuve facilite la manipulation ...... et autres articles sur les certificats de sécurité
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 Philippe Robert de Massy, Avocat pour la Ligue des droits et libertés Le Devoir, édition du vendredi 01 février 2008 Il faut vivement s'inquiéter de la manipulation de la preuve dans le dossier d'Adil Charkaoui au moment précis où la Chambre des communes doit examiner en troisième lecture le projet de loi C-3. Le projet de loi C-3 constitue la réponse du gouvernement au jugement de la Cour suprême du Canada du 23 février 2007 qui avait invalidé les dispositions de la Loi sur l'immigration et la protection des réfugiés traitant du certificat de sécurité. Le projet de loi C-3 a suscité beaucoup d'opposition de la part des milieux préoccupés par le respect des droits de la personne. En particulier, les nouvelles dispositions ne remettent pas en question le caractère secret de la preuve et ont été dénoncées par le Barreau canadien, la Fédération des ordres professionnels de juristes du Canada, le Barreau du Québec et de nombreux groupes, car elles ne répondent pas aux exigences de la Cour suprême de permettre à la personne visée par le certificat de sécurité «de savoir ce qui lui est reproché de manière à pouvoir contester la thèse du gouvernement».

[ Read the rest ... ]

By Jim Brown (CP) Source: CANOE CNEWS Canada URL: [link] Date: February 6, 2008 ======================= See critique to Bill C-3 at: [link] See also: Bar deeply divided about legitimacy of 'special advocate' [link]

======================= Anti-terror bill clears Commons

OTTAWA - New legislation to kick foreign-born terrorist suspects out of Canada has cleared the House of Commons and is headed for the Senate, as the minority Conservative government races to meet a court-imposed deadline. The bill passed the lower house by a 196-71 vote Wednesday, with most Liberals supporting the Tory measure while the NDP and Bloc Quebecois were opposed. "It's not an ideal bill," said the Liberal public safety critic, Ujjal Dosanjh. "But given the time constraints it was the best we could do." The Supreme Court of Canada, in a landmark judgment a year ago, struck down the security certificate system used by Ottawa to deport terror suspects who don't hold Canadian citizenship.

[ Read the rest ... ]

By Randall Mikkelsen Source: Reuters News Service URL: N/A Date: February 6, 2008 U.S. SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Waterboarding used on 3 suspects, Congress told Suspected Sept. 11 mastermind, top al-Qaeda leaders subject to controversial interrogation technique, CIA director acknowledges

WASHINGTON -- The CIA used a widely condemned interrogation technique known as waterboarding on three suspects captured after the Sept. 11 attacks, CIA director Michael Hayden told Congress yesterday. "Waterboarding has been used on only three detainees," Mr. Hayden told the Senate intelligence committee. It was the first time a U.S. official publicly specified the number of people subjected to waterboarding and named them. Critics call waterboarding, which involves immobilizing a person on his back and pouring water over his face, a form of illegal torture. Congress is considering banning the technique. Those subjected to waterboarding were suspected Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and senior al-Qaeda leaders Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, Mr. Hayden said at the hearing on threats to the United States.

[ Read the rest ... ]