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 ... ]

by Andrew Duffy
Source: The Ottawa Citizen
URL: [link]
Date: December 14, 2010

The federal case against Mohamed Harkat makes him out to be not only a terrorist, but also a dishonest schemer who sought to marry a woman in Algeria, cheat his way to a taxi licence and collect government benefits to which he was not entitled.

Those allegations -- they were never proven in court -- are contained in legal disclosures made to Harkat as part of his security certificate case.

Federal Court Justice Simon Noel made them public last week in ruling against a defence motion to have the case thrown out as an abuse of process.

To support his contention that Harkat had enough information to properly defend himself, Noel detailed the legal disclosure in the case. It offers new details about Harkat's life in Canada.

In Ottawa, the government alleges, Harkat looked for someone to take a taxi driver's exam on his behalf in December 1999. A few months later, an acquaintance told Harkat that he had found someone willing to take the test for him, according to the disclosure document. (His wife Sophie Harkat said her husband did not hire anyone to take his taxi exam and only passed it on his fifth attempt.)

[ Read the rest ... ]

by News Release
Source: National Union of Public and General Employees Website
URL: [link]
Date: December 14, 2010

'The inability of an accused to challenge and question the evidence held against them is an affront to the fundamental principles of justice.' - NUPGE president James Clancy.

James Clancy, president of the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE)Ottawa (14 Dec. 2010) - The decision of the Federal Court of Canada in the Mohamed Harkat case fails to justify the morality of using security certificates that allow the government to try individuals in secret without accused persons knowing all of the evidence against them, says the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE).

James Clancy, president of the 340,000-member union, sent a letter on Dec. 10 – International Human Rights Day – to Mohamed Harkat and his wife, Sophie, following the decision by Federal Court Justice Simon Noel last week.

The judge determined that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Harkat is a security threat and to uphold the security certificate process being used by the Harper government to remove him from Canada.

Some of the evidence presented in the case was kept secret not only from the public but from Harkat and his legal counsel.

"It deeply saddens me that we spend yet another December 10th with Canada's justice system still conducting secret trials," Clancy said in his letter.

[ Read the rest ... ]

by Tonda MacCharles
Source: The Toronto Star
URL: [link]
Date: December 10, 2010


[Photo: Mohamed Harkat, right, wells up with tears as his wife Sophie Harkat looks on during a press conference in Ottawa on Friday Dec. 10, 2010. Harkat said he will appeal a Federal Court ruling Thursday that he remains a threat to national security.]

OTTAWA—A combative Sophie Harkat lashed out at a federal court judge for relying on secret evidence from an unnamed informant whom she said was a witness at her and Mohamed Harkat’s wedding.

Thursday’s ruling, which upheld CSIS’ claims that Mohamed Harkat is a terrorist supporter who should be deported, was like a “punch in the guts,” Sophie Harkat said.

“My husband said to me, ‘I am dying inside,’” she said while sobbing at a news conference. She said the two were “devastated” upon learning the judge had ruled against him on the basis of evidence that was never revealed to him or his lawyer, but seen only by government-appointed “special advocates.”

In broken English, Harkat said “I swear on my life” that he is innocent of all allegations against him. He said he was “never” involved in terrorism in the past or in the future. “I never be a part of bin Laden network in my life.” He said he fears prison, torture or death if returned to Algeria.

Harkat said he never denied using a fraudulent Saudi passport to enter Canada. His wife said the government acknowledged in court that 80 per cent of refugee claimants use false documents to enter.

He also said he never intended to end up here upon leaving Algeria, but his attempts to build a life in Pakistan faltered when “the situation got worse” there in the mid-90s.

[ Read the rest ... ]

by Mike Larsen Source: email fwd URL: N/A Date: December13, 2010 ATTN: Justice for Mohamed Harkat Committee RE: Federal Court Decision 12/2/2010

It was with shock and sorrow that I read last week’s decision by the Federal Court, which represents a judgement without justice. For Sophie and Mo’s sake, I wish with all my heart that the outcome had been different. But I also recognize that any decision about the reasonableness of a security certificate is ultimately the outcome of a fundamentally unjust process. In a democratic society, no single judge should have the ability to make such sweeping decisions about a person’s fate without affording that person the opportunity to meet the case against them in open court. Last week’s decision reinforces the fact that Canada’s courts are willing participants in a two-tiered system of justice that is deferential to the claims of the national security state. The Federal Court has had numerous opportunities to take a pro-active stance in support of human rights, but has instead worked to support the unconstitutional security certificate regime. The result is a hollowing-out – an evisceration – of the rule of law. The need to push for the abolition of security certificates has never been more apparent. This mechanism is incompatible with fundamental principles of justice, equality, transparency and due process. No amount of tweaking and tinkering will be able to ‘fix’ a system that can subject a person to eight years of imprisonment, control, and uncertainty on the basis of a secret file. Let’s harness our shock and indignation and channel it towards the abolition of secret trials and an end to the politics of fear and exclusion. Forever in solidarity, Mike Larsen Mike Larsen, Researcher, York Centre for International and Security Studies [link] Managing Editor, Journal of Prisoners on Prisons [link]