by Andrew Duffy Source: The Ottawa Citizen URL: [link] Date: January 8, 2011 One declared Ibn Khattab a terrorist, the other didn't and, writes Andrew Duffy, that divergence could lead to the deportation of Ottawa's Mohamed Harkat

[PHOTO: CSIS alleges that Mohamed Harkat operated a guest house in Pakistan for Ibn Khattab, shown above. There is conflicting evidence whether Khattab was part of the bin Laden network.] In the Federal Court of Canada, one judge's terrorist is another's jihadist warrior. In two security certificate cases, two federal judges have drawn vastly different conclusions about Ibn Khattab, a Saudi known as "the lion of Chechnya." The judge who upheld the certificate against Ottawa's Mohamed Harkat earlier this month deemed Khattab an al-Qaeda linked terrorist. Last year, however, another judge dismissed the case against Toronto's Hassan Almrei, ruling that Khattab "could not reasonably be said to be part of al-Qaeda." Their conflicting views highlight the complexity of certificate cases, in which judges must often decide hard questions of history.

[ Read the rest ... ]

by Michel Prairie Source: The Militant URL: [link] Date: January 17, 2011 MONTREAL - A federal judge declared December 9 that Algerian-born Mohamed Harkat “is a danger to Canada and that the security certificate against him should be maintained.” The Canadian government has announced its intention to deport Harkat back to Algeria. Harkat was given refugee status in 1997 on grounds that he faced political persecution if he returned home. Harkat was arrested in 2002 after being labeled an al-Qaeda sleeper agent by the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service. Before his arrest he worked in Ottawa as a pizza delivery man and a gas station attendant. Since then Harkat and his wife Sophie Harkat-Lamarche have been waging a broad campaign both to clear his name, lift the security certificate against him, and abolish the entire security certificate process. The certificates are used to detain and deport refugees and immigrants the Canadian government deems a threat to “national security.” The system is based on secret evidence that the accused can neither see nor challenge in court. In 2007, under pressure from Harkat’s campaign and others victimized by such certificates, the federal Supreme Court ruled the security certificate process “invalid” under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In response, Ottawa made a number of cosmetic changes to the process a year later. The ruling against Harkat is the first time a court has validated the “new” security certificate system. Harkat’s defense campaign, which has won wide support among civil libertarians, unionists, and others, led to his release from house arrest in 2006. When a “new” security certificate was issued against him in 2008 under the revised law, he appealed the decision. In the meantime courts have since invalidated and lifted security certificates of two other victims of this anti-working-class judicial procedure, Adil Charkaoui in Montreal and Hassan Almrei in Toronto. In a message issued December 22, the Justice for Mohamad Harkat Committee stated, “We are still standing, and stronger and more determined to fight this injustice than ever.” In a widely reported Ottawa press conference December 10, Harkat announced that he will appeal the constitutionality of the new security certificate law to the Federal Court of Appeal and, if necessary, to the Supreme Court of Canada. Information about the Justice for Mohamed Harkat Committee is available at [link] John Steele contributed to this article.

by Justice For Mohamed Harkat Committee Source: Harkatjustice mailing list URL: N/A Date: December 19, 2010 (français dessous) Message from the Justice for Mohamed Harkat Committee More Determined Than Ever!

To all supporters of Justice for Mohamed Harkat: The December 9, 2010 ruling by Federal Court judge Noel that the Security Certificate against Mohamed Harkat is "reasonable" was, as many have stated, a punch in the gut. But we are still standing, and stronger and more determined to fight this injustice than ever. Legally speaking, Mohamed Harkat is now in exactly the same situation as he was in 2005, when the first Security Certificate against him was ruled reasonable and a pre-removal risk assessment was produced. Those proceedings were frozen as his appeal made its way to the Supreme Court; in 2007 the Supreme Court agreed with him. But a new certificate was issued in 2008 after the government made cosmetic changes to the process. At the same time, the political situation is very different. Along with our success in the Supreme Court, we have succeeded in building broad, mass support for our position against secret trials. Mohamed Harkat and the other detainees are no longer behind bars, which is significant, although they still live with monitoring bracelets and restrictions on their movements. The Government's use of Certificates has come under scrutiny and fire from politicians, the media, and the general public; as a tool for deportation its use has been severely curtailed.

[ Read the rest ... ]

There is a new film project called "THE SECRET TRIAL 5" and a brand new Website that you must check out: www.secrettrial5.com

The documentary is not completed yet. It's a work in progress. It will examine the human impact of security certificates in Canada. It is also a "crowd-funded" project which is very cool. Visit the filmmaker's Website to learn more.

by Richard Fidler Source: Life On the Left blog URL: [link] Date: December 20. 2010 In a harshly worded decision released December 17, the Ontario Court of Appeal rejected the appeal of Mohammad Momin Khawaja, an Ottawa resident, against his conviction on terrorism charges and increased his sentence to life imprisonment. The decision by a three-judge panel restored a controversial provision in the Anti-Terrorism Act that the trial judge had ruled unconstitutional, endorsed the trial judge’s view that aiding the Afghan insurgency amounts to terrorism, and proclaimed that terrorism offences must be subject to exceptionally harsh punishment as attacks on “Western culture and civilization”. Momin Khawaja, the first person sentenced under Canada’s post-9/11 terrorism laws, was convicted in October 2008 on five charges of participating in a terrorist group and helping to build an explosive device which, he argued, was intended for use in fighting foreign troops occupying Afghanistan. For background, see Afghan resistance is ‘terrorist’ under Canadian law, Khawaja trial judge rules and Tory government introduces new ‘anti-terror’ law as Khawaja sentenced to 10½ more years in jail. Material support of Afghan resistance is ‘terrorist activity’

The appeal court endorsed the trial judge’s conclusion that Khawaja’s actions, intended to provide material support to the armed resistance in Afghanistan, constituted “terrorist activity”. The judge had said, in part: “. . . it seems to me beyond debate that... those who support and participate in the insurgent armed hostilities against the civilian population, the government, and government and coalition forces attempting to reconstruct and maintain peace, order and security in Afghanistan, are, by definition, engaging in terrorist activity.” The appeal judges summarized as follows the trial judge’s findings in this regard, which he had made without hearing evidence on the matter: * the internationally recognized government of Afghanistan is backed by a coalition of western nations, including Canada, pursuant to various United Nations Security Council Resolutions; * insurgents in Afghanistan are conducting armed warfare against the coalition forces, the local government and that part of the local population that supports them; * Canadian forces have sustained fatal casualties as a result of insurgent fighting in Afghanistan; and * the purpose of the armed insurgent attacks is to intimidate those assisting in or supporting the peaceful reconstruction of Afghanistan and to compel those persons to desist from those efforts. And the court concluded (at para. 173): “The trial judge did not err in concluding that these skeletal and obvious facts about the basic nature of the conflict in Afghanistan... are notorious and beyond dispute among reasonable persons.”

[ Read the rest ... ]

by Christian Legeais Source: The Marxist-Leninist Daily URL: [link] Date: December 24, 2010

Security Certificates and Indefinite Detentions An Unjust Law Can Only Give Rise to Injustice and Breach of Rights

(version française en dessous)

The three Federal Court rulings of December 9, 2010, concerning the reasonability of the Security Certificate against Mohamed Harkat exposes the injustice and horror of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, of the Security Certificate and, above all, the hyprocrisy of "Canadian democracy" according to which any breach of human rights is possible. With these rulings, the Federal Court aims at enshrining in law the arbitrariness and impunity of State organs of repression and of the political police, in particular the Canadian Intelligence and Security Service; the abuse of power and of procedure against entire collectives; the constitutionality of unjust laws, i.e. its conformity to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, itself an archaic document which neither stipulates nor defends any rights whatsoever; as well as deportation to torture, to disappearance or to death. Since its creation, the Security Certificate is and remains an instrument of medievalism which violates human rights, which has no place in a modern society, which does nothing to protect the security of Canadians and which, on the contrary, threatens this very security. This violation of rights is unanimously condemned by the Canadian people who denounce it and demand that it be abolished. In February 2008, the Canadian government was forced to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act as well as the Security Certificate, replacing one unjust and unconstitutional law by another. Unjust laws can only give rise to injustice and breach of rights. This ruling by the Federal Court is entirely based on "probability of belief" and on secret information and intelligence "inadmissible to justice" put forward within the context of secret hearings and which no one can see or can ever see, especially not Mohamed Harkat and his lawyers. The Security Certificate and its so-called reasonableness in the case of Mohamed Harkat, and which leads to torture, to disappearance or to death, are declared to be in conformity with "fundamental justice." To come to this conclusion, the Federal Court simply replaced the words "fundamental justice" in the Charter with "national security," without further explanation. What this ruling cannot hide is the fact that an unjust law can only give rise to injustice and that a breach of rights is simply that: a breach of rights. Abolish Security Certificates! Justice for Mohamed Harkat!

===== Les certificats de sécurité et les détentions indéfinies Une loi injuste ne peut donner que des résultats injustes et la violation des droits

par Christian Legeais Les trois jugements de la Cour fédérale du 9 décembre 2010 concernant la raisonnabilité du certificat de sécurité dans le cas de Mohamed Harkat exposent l'injustice et l'horreur de la Loi sur l'immigration et la protection des réfugiés (LIPR) et du certificat de sécurité, et surtout l'hypocrisie de la « voie canadienne » où toutes les violations des droits humains sont permises.

[ Read the rest ... ]

by Stephen Lendman
Source: The Progressive News Hour
URL: [link]
Date: December 23, 2010


In place since 1978, it lets authorities detain and/or deport foreign nationals and other non-citizens suspected of human rights violations, alleged threats to national security, or claimed affiliation with organized crime, using (usually bogus) secret evidence withheld from defense counsel.

Since 1991, 27 residents have been affected. In February 2007, Canada's Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in Charkaoui v. Canada. However, eight months later in October, the Canadian House of Commons passed Bill C-3 (a so-called anti-terror measure), amending the 2001 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act by introducing a special advocate into the certificate process on the pretext of protecting subjects during secret proceedings.

That and other provisions are troubling, including indefinite detentions, with or without charges, draconian house arrest with continuous monitoring and surveillance, and deportations to despotic states unjustly. Doing so assures torture, imprisonment or death. It's why subjects fled to Canada, believing they'd be safe.

The special advocate provision is reprehensible, providing legal cover for a fundamentally unjust process designed to stigmatize, vilify, convict, imprison, or deport mostly innocent victims to oblivion, pretending national and public security were protected.

As a result, human and civil rights advocates, anti-war activists, opponents of extremist government policies, and targets of convenience for political advantage (especially Muslims) are unjustly charged, arrested, and persecuted. Their constitutional right of assured innocence unless proved guilty in a fair and open process beyond a reasonable doubt is denied, subjecting them to police state injustice, common in third world dictatorships.

[ Read the rest ... ]

by Wesley Wark The Ottawa Citizen, special URL: [link] Date: December 18, 2010 The Harkat case shows the security certificate process needs much improvement -- but the alternatives for dealing with suspected terrorists are likely worse

[PHOTO: Supporters of Mohamed Harkat rally at the Human Rights Monument in Ottawa. Harkat is living in Ottawa under strict conditions imposed by Canada's security certificate process.] Security certificates remain one of the most controversial elements in the Canadian legal tool kit for dealing with terrorist threats. Although used sparingly by the government, they have come under intense public and judicial scrutiny in the post 9-11 period. The Supreme Court struck down the original security certificate process in 2007 -- deeming that, because of its reliance on secret intelligence, it denied those named by the government as national security threats the right to adequately defend themselves. Parliament responded by passing new security certificate legislation in 2008 with additional constitutional protections. The government issued renewed certificates against five individuals, all Muslim men it believed were terrorists. Since 2008, these five cases have been winding their way through Federal Court. If a security certificate is found to be "reasonable" by the presiding judge, then the government can attempt to return terrorist suspects to their countries of origin -- itself a difficult process given Canada's international law obligation not to return a person to a country that practices torture or abuse of detainees. The varying outcomes of these five cases show that, despite changes to the law, the process remains a problematic one. All are time and resource-consuming legal marathons. In fact, two of the cases are ongoing. Judgments have been reached in three of the cases, with one case dismissed, and one withdrawn by the government on the grounds that its continuance threatened the public disclosure of sensitive intelligence.

[ Read the rest ... ]

by John Baglow
Source: The Globe and Mail
URL: [link]
Date: December 14, 2010


A “just ruling” in Mohamed Harkat’s case (Terror Conundrum Turns Manageable – editorial, Dec. 13)? How do you know? Mr. Justice Simon Noel based his ruling for the most part on secret evidence, some of which was apparently so secret that even the “special advocates” for the defence were not privy to it.
More related to this story

I have no idea whether Mr. Harkat is a security risk or not. Neither do his lawyers. Neither does the public. Neither does The Globe. What all of us know or should know, however, is that an abysmally low standard of justice was applied, in which an accused is not permitted to know the particulars of the case against him. Truly right out of Kafka.

John Baglow, Ottawa

© Copyright 2010 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

by David Polk, in a letter to the editor
Source: The Ottawa Citizen
URL: [link]
Date: December 12, 2010


The Canadian system of justice is rooted in a thousand-year (and more) tradition of British common law. It might be a flawed system but it has, for the most part, served us well. We have always known that the rights of the innocent must be protected even to the extent of turning free the guilty so that justice will prevail.

Lately, however, the boogie man of terrorism has shown once again how tenuous our grasp of judicial civil rights really is. Like a red flag to a bull, the cry of "terrorist" seems to make us lose all perspective and toss away hundreds of years of legal precedent.

I do not know if Mohamed Harkat is a dangerous sleeper agent bent on destroying our way of life, but I do know that he is a man whose rights have been foully abused by our legal system. He has been denied the basic rights that we all should be able to take for granted. Held for years without trial and denied the right to see the evidence against him, he has had his private conversations with his lawyers secretly recorded and has been denied the right to confront his accusers. The list goes on.

If this were a simple criminal matter, he would have seen all charges dropped and the court apologize to him for the inexcusable infringements of his legal and human rights. We have not learned a thing since the imprisonment of the Japanese Canadians during the Second World War or the imposition of the War Measures Act. We like to think of Canada as a beacon of freedom and enlightenment -- the truth is far different and far uglier.

David Polk,
Navan, ON


[ Read the rest ... ]