Original author: Michelle Shephard
Source: The Toronto Star
URL: [link] (subscribers only)
Date: September 15, 2005
Security certificate cases `unfair'
Ottawa urged to take cue from inquiry
OTTAWA - After months of challenging the federal government's national security claims that forced evidence at a public inquiry to be heard in private, the Arar inquiry's lead lawyer is now lashing out against secret court trials in Canada.
Toronto lawyer Paul Cavalluzzo lambasted the federal government yesterday for allowing uncontested evidence to be presented privately to a judge in national security certificate cases. He suggested that the federal inquiry investigating the case of Maher Arar, which wrapped up hearings this week, should be used as a model for security cases involving sensitive intelligence.
While much of the evidence at the inquiry was presented in private, both commission counsel and an independently appointed amicus curiae, or friend of the court, attended the in-camera sessions to challenge the accuracy and reliability of the evidence.
Original author: Jeff Sallot
Source: The Globe and Mail
URL: [link]
Date: September 15, 2005
Chief counsel at Arar inquiry wants new model for deportations
OTTAWA -- The government and its intelligence officers can't be trusted to always get it right when they claim somebody is a national-security risk, the chief counsel at the Arar inquiry said yesterday, proposing a system for independent lawyers to vigorously challenge evidence at secret deportation hearings.
Paul Cavalluzzo, who has been grilling RCMP and CSIS witnesses in both public and secret hearings in the case of Ottawa software engineer Maher Arar, said the procedures adopted by the inquiry could serve as a model for the way courts deal with attempts by the government to deport individuals as security threats.
Current deportation proceedings -- secret court hearings closed to the individuals and their lawyers -- do not adequately protect the rights of people who can be kicked out of the country on flimsy evidence, Mr. Cavalluzzo told a news conference.
Original author: TASC (Toronto Action for Social Change) Source: TASC Email List Date: September 12, 2005
Friends, given the sheer amount of recent activity, we don't want to fill up your email with lengthy messages. Instead, there are references to website postings on the following items:
1. Mahjoub Hunger strike Today, secret trial detainee Mohammad Mahjoub enters day 68 of a hunger strike which may very well take his life unless the governments of Ontario and Canada act to meet his demands for urgent medical treatment and contact visits with his children. For background information and suggestions for what you can do, please visit: [link]
2. Jaballah Bail Hearing This morning in Federal Court a bail hearing will resume for secret trial detainee Mahmoud Jaballah, which heard three days of emotional testimony last week. Jaballah, family and friends described the mental torture against him and his family from the past 4+ years of indefinite incarceration without charge or bail. A CSIS agent also testified for the better part of a day, and it was revealed that CSIS' latest report on the effect of incarceration on long-term detainees appears to have deliberately held back crucial information from the Canadian government. A detailed report from the bail hearing is at:
Original author: Harsha Walia Source: Georgia Strait (British Columbia) URL: [link] Date: September 8, 2005
Hassan Almrei is a 31-year-old Syrian national who has been held in a provincial prison in Ontario for almost four years despite never having been convicted of a crime in Canada. During the Labour Day weekend, he ended a hunger strike after 73 days, a protest during which he demanded the same rights as a federal inmate.
His main demand is to be allowed the right to one hour a day of exercise outside his cell, a right enjoyed by all federal inmates. But both the federal and provincial governments consider Hassan a provincial inmate, so he is only allowed 20 minutes of exercise a day.
Provincial prisons are generally meant to detain prisoners for short periods. So why has Hassan served four years in solitary confinement in one of them? Because to serve time in a federal penitentiary, a person must be convicted of a crime and sentenced to more than two years, and Hassan has not yet been convicted of any crime.
Hassan is one of five men-collectively known as the "Secret Trial Five"-whose lives have been torn apart by accusations that they are not allowed to fight in a fair and independent trial.
Original author: Hunger strikers support Montreal
psi at riseup dot net
Source: Coalition Justice pour Adil Charkaoui listserv
Date: September 4, 2005
(Also a statement by Hassan Almrei, below)
Health Professionals urge Prime Minister to act now: Situation dire for hunger strikers in Toronto prison
By: Samir Shaheen-Hussain
September 3, 2005
[Please note that according to a statement read at a rally held in Toronto today (September 3, 2005: see statement below), Hassan Almrei, on the 73rd day of his hunger strike, expressing his sorrow that the government will not give him his rights, expressing his faith in the people of Canada, said that the outcry following his hunger-strike has given him enough new hope that he will end his hunger-strike, but not the struggle for his rights. Mohammad Mahjoub continues with his hunger strike, having completed his 59th day today.]
On Friday, September 2nd, 2005, a group of health professionals made up of nurses and medical doctors formed a delegation to Prime Minister Paul Martin's office in Old Montreal. We wanted to present the PM with a letter outlining our grave concerns about the health and well-being of Mr. Hassan Almrei and Mr. Mohammad Mahjoub who, along with 3 other Muslim men, make up the "Secret Trial Five". Mr. Almrei and Mr. Mahjoub are currently being detained under a security certificate process in Metro West Detention Centre in Toronto and had been on a hunger strike for 72 and 58 days, respectively, as of September 2nd.
The goal of the delegation was to focus attention on the prolonged hunger strike of these two men, while urging the PM to act immediately to have their demands met so that their health and lives are no longer at risk. Their demands are modest, to say the least, given that they have been held without charges and without having access to any evidence that may be being used against them as part of the security certificate process for four and five years, respectively; Mr. Almrei's principal demand is to be allowed to have one hour outside his solitary confinement cell while Mr. Mahjoub's is to have contact visits with his wife and children. Although two men are not convicted of any crime, they are demanding no treatment beyond that which is accorded to most federal prisoners!
Original author: Heather Mallick Source: The Globe and Mail (?) URL: N/A Date: September 3, 2005
Two weeks ago, I woke at 7 a.m. with more than my usual "Oh what is the point of it all, do tell me" torpor. I was preparing to arise and go to a courthouse on University Avenue in Toronto where one of five men imprisoned without trial by the Canadian government would beg a judge for a hearing seeking access to a bail hearing. The accused-of-something was Mahmoud Jaballah. Some of his six children were to be there. I was planning to offer moral support, the polite Canadian kind which translates as radiating thought waves at the judge: "This Canadian-born citizen opposes internment without trial and so should you."
The reason I was comatose was that I knew I was not going to go to that courtroom. My motives were selfish. I knew that if I went, I would fall out of love, sorry, like, with Canada. I knew Mr. Jaballah would basically get nowhere. I did not know that, as justice activist Matthew Behrens told me, the lawyers representing CSIS, Immigration and Justice could not even bring themselves to look into the eyes of Mr. Jaballah's playful, naive little kids, aged 7 to 11, one of whom looked at them and asked with genuine curiosity, "Are those the guys that are against us?"
Original author: Sheema Khan Source: [link] (subscribers only) URL: The Globe and Mail Date: September 2, 2005
Clifford Olson. Paul Bernardo. Michael Briere. Names that evoke loathing. It seems that our justice system is doing its job by finding the suspects, laying charges, trying the accused in open court, and confining the guilty to prison. Built into the judicial process is the opportunity for adversarial review -- a system of checks and balances to minimize human biases and errors.
Now consider these five names: Hassan Almrei. Adil Charkaoui. Mohamed Zeki Mahjoub. Mahmoud Jaballah. Mohamed Harkat. All are non-citizens, Arab and Muslim. They, too, are behind bars. For murder? Terrorism? Pedophilia?
Investor fraud?
Actually, we don't know. Neither do they. None has yet to be charged with committing any crime. Our government and its security agencies -- paragons of transparency and trust -- have deemed each a threat to national security. According to the law, the government has the right to put each behind bars indefinitely, until he can be deported or charged. Furthermore, he has no right to see the evidence against him, due to "national security" -- that catch-all phrase invoked in the name of justice. The men are held in solitary confinement, or incarcerated with hardened criminals, without the right to appeal.
Original author: Craig Forcese, Hilary Homes Source: The Ottawa Citizen URL: [link] (subscribers ony) Date: September 1, 2005
One measure of a society's values is how it treats those it fears most, including suspected terrorists. Four events now unfolding will determine what sort of civilization Canada has become: Adil Charkaoui's Supreme Court case, underway as of last week; Parliament's review of Canada's anti-terrorism law; the Maher Arar inquiry; and several anticipated Federal Court decisions on whether alleged terrorists will be deported to countries likely to torture them.
Let's review what is at stake:
- Does an accused terrorist have a right to due process?
Original author: op/ed by Riad Saloojee
Source: The Toronto Star
URL: [link] (subscribers only)
Date: August 31, 2005
It's about time: Our Supreme Court will finally review the constitutionality of security certificates.
In last week's decision, the court granted that opportunity to Moroccan Adil Charkaoui, currently on bail after being held for two years on terrorism allegations.
Four other Muslim non-citizens held under the certificates have already lived in limbo for a total of more than 14 years. And they have been subjected to conditions, as the U.N. Committee on Arbitrary Detention recently noted, that are more severe than those imposed on convicted killer Karla Homolka.
Two men on certificates, Hasan Almrei and Mohammed Mahjoub, have complained about systemic prison abuse during their nine-year tenure and are on prolonged hunger strikes. Almrei, held in solitary confinement for four years, is on day 69 of his hunger strike. He is not even asking for freedom; he is asking for an hour a day of exercise to keep his legs working properly.
Original author: unsigned editorial Source: The Montreal Gazette URL: [link] (subscribers only) Date: August 27, 2005
In the highly charged atmosphere after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, countries cast around desperately for mechanisms that would allow them to contain the previously little-noticed threat of large-scale terrorism.
It's safe to say that none of the resurrected or newly created mechanisms has proven over the past four years to be proof against legal challenge. In Canada, the Supreme Court this week agreed to hear a challenge mounted by Montreal resident Adil Charkaoui against the national security-certificate law.
This law, which actually dates back to 1991, allows Canada to declare non-citizens a danger to national security. Such a person can then be jailed for an indefinite period while the government seeks to have him or her deported. A critical safeguard is included in the legislation: A judge must rule that there are reasonable grounds for thinking the person poses a risk to national security.
The government can ask that portions of evidence be kept secret, on the grounds that doing so protects either individuals or national security. It is the judge who is empowered to rule on whether secrecy is indeed required for the purposes the government says it is needed. So far, so good.
Unfortunately, in practice the law appears to have been used to keep people under indefinite detention. There seems to have been no sense of urgency on the government's part to prove that a detention is justified on security grounds.
For example, Charkaoui, a Moroccan-born permanent resident of Canada, was held by immigration officials for 21 months on the allegation that he was an agent of Al-Qa'ida. Another suspected Al-Qa'ida member, Hassan Almrei, has been imprisoned for 31/2 years. That is long enough for Canada's security apparatus to find out if he poses a threat. Canadians need to be able to rely on security officers to do their job. And they must do it in a timely fashion.
After a number of legal appeals, Charkaoui was freed under strict bail conditions in February. In his Supreme Court appeal, he argues that the security-certificate system violates his right to a fair hearing under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The appeal will deal with the issue of whether secret procedures are constitutionally acceptable.
Click on the photo of Mohamed to see all items related to him. JUNE 2017: Mohamed Harkat once again faces deportation to his native Algeria after the Supreme Court of Canada declared the federal government’s security certificate regime constitutional.
This fight is not over. The Justice for Mohamed Harkat Committee will re-double its efforts to see that justice is done for Mohamed Harkat and that the odious security certificate system of injustice is abolished once and for all.
