A rchive Date
[ 14-06-2006 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Canada ]
|
[http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Law/2006/06/13/1629760-cp.html
Treatment of terror suspects challenged
By JIM BROWN
June 13, 2006
OTTAWA (CP) - The federal government is violating basic human rights by holding secret court hearings, indefinitely jailing foreign-born terrorist suspects and threatening to deport them to face torture abroad, the Supreme Court of Canada has been told.
Johanne Doyon, representing Moroccan-born Adil Charkaoui, led a landmark challenge of federal anti-terrorist policy Tuesday by arguing that the system denies the fundamental principles of justice. "Cases should be heard fully and publicly by an independent and impartial court," she told the nine-judge bench.
But federal law provides for hearing sensitive intelligence information behind closed doors when non-citizens are deemed to be security risks. If they choose to fight deportation, they can spend years in jail while the cases go through the courts. In the end, they risk being labelled as terrorists and stigmatized on the basis of flimsy evidence, said Doyon. "There may be consequences that last a lifetime."
Charkaoui, 32, put it more bluntly and personally outside the courtroom. "We're here after three years of struggle because we want justice," he said. "I'm asking the same rights as any human being in this country. . . . We cannot allow Guantanamo in Canada."
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, in a pointed intervention during the hearing, cast the issue in starkly different terms.
What would happen if Ottawa had no way of getting rid of foreign-born suspects, she wondered. "Would it be that anyone, no matter how dangerous or how terrible, would have to be left here? Would Canada not be in the position of simply having to accept any people, however dangerous, who happened to make it to our shores?"
Justice Ian Binnie also balked when it was suggested that immigration law shouldn't be used to kick out someone who is under suspicion, but hasn't actually committed any criminal act. "Does the state just sit on its hands until something terrible happens, and then prosecute?" asked Binnie.
Paul Copeland, representing Algerian native Mohamed Harkat, injected a chilling note into the discussion by warning that his client "will be, more likely than not, killed or tortured if he is sent to Algeria." Given that possibility, said Copeland, the Canadian courts must take special care to ensure his rights are protected.
Charkaoui and Harkat are among five men currently targeted for deportation under so-called security certificates, based on allegations by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service that they have ties to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist network. All deny the accusations and say they could face persecution if they return to their countries of birth.
Federal law provides that most of the evidence against them be heard behind closed doors by a Federal Court judge, with only sketchy summaries released to defence lawyers.
Although Charkaoui and Harkat have won bail while they continue fighting their cases, the other three men - Syrian-born Hassan Almrei, and Egyptian natives Mohammad Mahjoub and Mahmoud Jaballah - remain behind bars.
The prospect of indefinite jail time carries the threat of "serious state-imposed psychological harm" for the detainees, said John Norris, one of the lawyers for Almrei. He acknowledged that, in some "intractable cases," the only solution may be indefinite detention for a truly dangerous suspect.
But others can be released on strict bail conditions, with adequate surveillance to guard against any threat to public safety, he argued.
The court is being asked to strike down the entire security certificate process as a violation of the Charter of Rights. But there are differences of opinion on what should replace it.
Doyon argued essentially that all evidence should be heard in public and judged by the strict standards applicable in domestic criminal law. Copeland and Norris, by contrast, conceded there may be valid national security grounds for keeping some evidence secret.
They suggested Canada could adopt the hybrid system used in Britain, where security-cleared lawyers attend closed-door hearings as "special advocates" to challenge government assertions. "I think there has to be a special advocate (in the Canadian system)," said Copeland. "Without a model of that sort, it violates fundamental justice."
The proposal clearly caught the attention of several judges, including Binnie, Rosalie Abella and Louis LeBel, who pressed for details on exactly how such a system would work.
The hearing continues Wednesday with oral arguments by government lawyers.
In written briefs already filed, they maintain it would undermine international efforts to combat terrorism if suspects could demand full disclosure of secret intelligence.
They also reject claims that the jailing of those awaiting deportation amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.
Should the court disagree and strike down the system, the government is asking the judges to suspend the ruling for a year so a new strategy can be put in place.
Copyright © 2006, Canoe Inc. All rights reserved
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|