They have been challenged as unconstitutional before the Supreme Court. (A decision is expected by early next year.) They've been harshly criticized at both Commons and Senate committees.
Amnesty International has slammed them as a violation of fundamental human rights. A United Nations working group concluded that they deny suspects a fair trial.
Although security certificates have been around in one form or another since 1978 (the current, more robust version dates to 1991), they became controversial only after 9/11.
That's when Canadian security forces scooped up, jailed and ordered deported five Muslim men who the government claims are linked to Islamic terrorism.
All five have challenged that contention, arguing that if the government thinks they are terrorists it should charge them with a crime and bring them to trial. They also argue that they can't properly defend themselves at security certificate hearings because they can't see the evidence against them.
In such cases, the government is allowed to present evidence in secret before a federal court judge. Neither the defendants nor their lawyers are entitled to be present. Nor are they permitted to know the details of the government's case.
http://tinyurl.com/yhug7y
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on November 17, 2006]
Note: http://tinyurl.com/yhug7y
A Handy Boost For Certificate
Posted on Friday, November 17 at 09:47 by 4CanadaContributed By
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1
Based on the average usage, we were right on track for someone to get nabbed (the 5 Muslims were grabbed between 2001 and 2003). Also based on averages, the majority of those who have been detained have not been muslim. In fact, only the 5 nabbed after 9/11 have been (the people I have found have been predominantly eastern European, although I must admit that I have some incomplete information on this... there are several people in the list of 22 that I have been unable to identify so this may be incorrect. However the fact that the defence for the 5 has not brought any "racism" motion forward based on prior arrest records corroborates this theory).
The arrest of the speculative "Russian" is on track with the statistical average. His nationality is in line with the statistical average. That we have not been able to detain more people is testament to how lenient we truly are (why are there no Chinese spies on the list I obtained I found disturbing... but maybe they are amongst the missing). That only 28 people in 28 years have been detained indicates that this device is not used excessively, indiscriminately or on a whim. The arguement, though it tugs on the heartstrings of the conspiracy theorists, is without merit.
<br />
"No free person shall be jailed without a jury of his peers."<br />
<br />
Writ of habeas corpus:<br />
<br />
every single person who is detained can walk into a courtroom and state, "Tell me why I am in jail."<br />
<br />
Are Security Certificates consistent with these fundamental democractic rights which have been around for only about 800 years? We either live in a democracy or we do not live in a democracy.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/apr2006/cana-a11.shtml">http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/apr2006/cana-a11.shtml</a>
The use of security certificates predates the September 11th attacks. Security certificates have existed in one form or another for over 20 years. <br />
The security certificate process is pursuant to provisions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), not the Anti-Terrorism Act. <br />
Canada removes approximately 9,000 people per year. In contrast, only 27 security certificates have been issued over the past 14 years (first certificates were issued in 1991). Only five security certificates have been issued since September 11, 2001. <br />
<a href="http://www.psepc.gc.ca/prg/ns/seccert-en.asp">http://www.psepc.gc.ca/prg/ns/seccert-en.asp</a><br />
<br />
Michael,<br />
<br />
I think the *selling* of security certificates has become very obvioius and I agree with Thomas in that the way I read his article is that the Muslim target (5 certificates in 3 years after a Muslim sold war), has not worked as the enemy so going back to the Russian spy and the "cold war enemy" may be what is needed to defend the indefensible. The SALE is not being bought the way that CSIS and the USAss-kissers want them to. <br />
<br />
How do you justify this behaviour in your mind? I don't think you could possible have it in you to actually imagine yourself in such a crcumstance otherwise you could not agree with this kind of treatment. You must imagine yourself untouchable, above the law, fifteen and invincible? Christ, you talk as though having emotions and a heart is some kind of retardent. If you care so little for others who cares about you?<p>---<br>"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." Friedrich Nietzsche<br />
The Canadian government complained about the rendition of Maher Arar by the US government, yet it has no moral right to do so when it does the exact same thing itself.
Canada's government consists of hypocrites, liars, and wannabe despots.
---
Expect little from life and get more from it.
These guys are not Canadian citizens (so they don't have any Charter rights), and we don't want them here. We want to deport them. They have not done anything here which is criminal (otherwise we could put them on trial and then on a plane), but their activities overseas have shown that they pose a risk if they were allowed to stay. They don't want to go anywhere else for fear of torture, incarcaration, etc. Which are legitamite fears for them I would think. So they choose to fight deportation based on the security certificate - which is their right (see, they have rights... we didn't just throw them on a plane and toss them back in their home country). They are incarcerated by their choice. They could choose to be deported back to their home country. But they all seem to not want to go (small wonder since they probably would be put in jail in their home countries and those jails are nowhere near as nice as their current residence).
These guys are not "disappeared". They are dangerous. They pose a risk to us. But even though they are not Canadians, we still don't just toss them away. Which is why, 3-5 years later, they are still detained and they are still being processed through the legal system.
You seem to believe that I don't think this could happen to me. Well, you are partially right. I don't think this would happen to me in Canada (being a citizen, I can't have a security certificate applied against me). And it wouldn't happen to me if I were to visit any of these guys home countries either. Because if I were suspected of anything there, I wouldn't be detained by a security certificate and provided a podium where the baby Trudeau could come visit me, I would just vanish. Tortured, probably killed. No legal recourse. Nobody to plead my case. So let's not kid ourselves. This isn't the thin edge of the wedge here. This is a set of extraordinary circumstances that happens about once a year since the 1970's. A set of circumstances that needs a special tool to handle them. And it just so happens another special case came up last week. Which is right on the average.
Funny how the Russians are not protesting this btw. No outrage, or terse diplomatic statements. Just a shrug of the shoulders. Maybe because they know they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar (though I'm sure the tin foil hat crowd will say the Russians are in on it). I'm quite sure this guy won't be fighting extradition.