tango Posted March 19, 2009 Report Posted March 19, 2009 (edited) 'My family is broken,' dad says Sons better off if he's in jail By MICHELE MANDEL Last Updated: 19th March 2009, 2:37am Too often it is the sons who must bear the sins of their father. And so it was that when the excited young boys of Mohammad Mahjoub rushed home in July to play the new Wii game their parents had just bought them to celebrate their birthdays, they came face to face yet again with the caged life they lead with a dad under strict house arrest for being a suspected al-Qaida terrorist. While they were out, six armed Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) officers had stormed into their home and confiscated the kids' new Wii gaming system. Under their father's stringent bail conditions, Mahjoub is not allowed any device that can be connected to the Internet. It is only one small example of the oppressive life imposed on the boys, aged 11 and 9, since their father was released under stringent bail conditions in 2007: Followed to school as border police agents snap their pictures. Prevented from ever being alone with their dad. Humiliated at the local skating rink when agents cut short their approved outing and sends them home. Barred from venturing out again as a family for three months. And on and on. "They oppress the whole family and mainly the children," their mom says of the government agents monitoring their every move at an estimated cost of $1 million a year. "They commit child abuse; they psychologically and emotionally abuse the kids and the adults and tore the family apart." Unwilling to see their children become increasingly angry and depressed, they've come to the incredibly difficult conclusion that they will be better off if their father returns to prison. Yesterday Mona El-Fouli withdrew as her husband's bail supervisor and surety, and Federal Court Justice Simon Noel had little choice but to reluctantly order Mahjoub back into custody. ... It is this country's shame. Mahjoub is one of five Muslim foreigners facing deportation under controversial national security certificates that have identified them as threats to public safety through secret intelligence presented to a Federal Court judge. Held for years without trial, and only recently released on bail, none has been charged with any crime in Canada. And still they wait for their day in court, even as the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 2007 that the security certificate process is unconstitutional. more... Edited March 19, 2009 by tango Quote My Canada includes rights of Indigenous Peoples. Love it or leave it, eh! Peace.
Progressive Tory Posted March 19, 2009 Report Posted March 19, 2009 'My family is broken,' dad saysIt is this country's shame. Mahjoub is one of five Muslim foreigners facing deportation under controversial national security certificates that have identified them as threats to public safety through secret intelligence presented to a Federal Court judge. Held for years without trial, and only recently released on bail, none has been charged with any crime in Canada. And still they wait for their day in court, even as the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 2007 that the security certificate process is unconstitutional. Shameful. We're becoming a fascist state. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
myata Posted March 20, 2009 Report Posted March 20, 2009 Let's just remind that these folks are only held "without trial" because they just wouldn't go, and prefer to stick in the ugly Canadian jail. That's right. Judge, government officials reviewed their files and found, through a due process, that they aren't wanted in this country. Do we really have some kind of an obligation to hug and kiss everybody who'd show up on this doorstep? Do we need a "trial" simply to let somebody know that they aren't welcome and are free to move on - anywhere to their heart's desire - just not here? Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Progressive Tory Posted March 20, 2009 Report Posted March 20, 2009 Let's just remind that these folks are only held "without trial" because they just wouldn't go, and prefer to stick in the ugly Canadian jail. That's right. Judge, government officials reviewed their files and found, through a due process, that they aren't wanted in this country. Yes but why don't we want him or his family? For many Arab-Canadians a six degrees of separation can tie them with some militant organization. Heck it could probably tie a lot of us to some group we've never actually been involved with. In January 2005, judge Eleanor Dawson stated that there was no evidence suggesting Mahjoub was a danger to Canada simply because he had worked on a farm owned by Bin Laden and had met people such as Khadr. Bin Ladin money financed George Bush's oil companies. Did that make him a danger to .... oh, wait. Not a good example. Being held without trial can also mean there is nothing to try him with. "In December 2008, CSIS revealed that it had been wiretapping phonecalls between Mahjoub and his lawyer, in contravention of solicitor-client privilege." If they had heard something they thought put us at risk, he would have been arrested and charged. He can be a person of interest and loosely monitored without his family suffering constant intrusion. This is clearly an attempt to intimidate them into leaving. Again, we are becoming a fascist state. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
myata Posted March 20, 2009 Report Posted March 20, 2009 You don't understand. Each year, Canada receives some 200,000 immigrants, including some 0,000 refugees. How many of applications are rejected? Should each rejected applicant merit a "trial", with "evidence" and "lawyers" (at our taxpayer's expense, granted), and blah and yada, and bells and whistles? After all, the only difference between all those people and Mahjoub is that they remain "there", invisible (and therefore, non existent, right?) for us, while Mahjoub was dropped right here on our doorstep. Does it mean that he's got stronger case though, than all those left behind? But wait. What about all those uncounted millions or even billions, who's never even made the claim, because they didn't have access to consular facilities, or even weren't informed that it's available? Surely they shouldn't be forgotten either? So, can we afford to run another 0,000 or 00,000 or even 000,000 "trials", annually? Is it realistic in any way, or plausible or even not dumb right crazy? Don't get me wrong. I am all for a fair process, including some form of a review of to reverse wrong decisions. But the process must be 1) efficient; and 2) finite; for the sake of the same genuine refuge seekers, so that limited resources aren't boggled and waisted on countless reviews and appeals of a handful of cases. And once the process has run its course, there has to be a way to get those who are deemed to be unwanted here, out. Or, they are free to hang around in jail for as long as they want to, and I have no problem with that whatsoever (but I wish there was a way to charge them for the cost of accommodation, as it too is coming from no, not infinite budget for immigration, thus denying somebody maybe with a more pressing need much needed resources to obtain a shelter here). No process is perfect and for those who feel that they are rejected unfairly, there's about 200 other countries they could try their luck with. Those who deliberately refuse to move on have only themselves to blame, and "fascist" state has little to do with it. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Argus Posted March 20, 2009 Report Posted March 20, 2009 If they had heard something they thought put us at risk, he would have been arrested and charged. Thus displaying - yet again - that you don't know anything about how anything works in this country. We do not charge people simply because we think they might put us at risk. Charge him with what? He hasn't commited any crime. He's considered a risk due to his terroristic background - the evidence of which was duly reviewed by judges and found to be good enough to deny him entry to Canada. So let him go the hell home. We don't want him, and we should have simply deported him years ago. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
myata Posted March 20, 2009 Report Posted March 20, 2009 Yes. This is one rare case in which I'll agree with Argus, and even with PM Harper himself. They committed no crime (here), so they don't need no "trials" (at our expense), the only thing they need is to move on. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Progressive Tory Posted March 20, 2009 Report Posted March 20, 2009 Yes. This is one rare case in which I'll agree with Argus, and even with PM Harper himself. They committed no crime (here), so they don't need no "trials" (at our expense), the only thing they need is to move on. If he was directly involved with terrorist organizations, then by all means he should not be allowed into the country. If there was enough evidence actually linking him to a terrorist organization, he shouldn't be allowed in. Working on a multi-kazillionaire's farm who happens to be involved in Bush Oil and indeed a terrorist, doesn't make all of his employees one; anymore than it makes all Bush employees terrorists by association with the Bin Laden family. I'm just afraid that we might be targetting a 'type'. All Muslims and Arabs become immediately suspect. This is not the Canadian way. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Alta4ever Posted March 20, 2009 Report Posted March 20, 2009 If he was directly involved with terrorist organizations, then by all means he should not be allowed into the country. If there was enough evidence actually linking him to a terrorist organization, he shouldn't be allowed in. Working on a multi-kazillionaire's farm who happens to be involved in Bush Oil and indeed a terrorist, doesn't make all of his employees one; anymore than it makes all Bush employees terrorists by association with the Bin Laden family.I'm just afraid that we might be targetting a 'type'. All Muslims and Arabs become immediately suspect. This is not the Canadian way. Do you know what was in the secret intellegence that the judge got to see? Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
Progressive Tory Posted March 20, 2009 Report Posted March 20, 2009 Do you know what was in the secret intellegence that the judge got to see? Did you? The judge who didn't deem him to be a threat must have. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
myata Posted March 20, 2009 Report Posted March 20, 2009 If he was directly involved with terrorist organizations, then by all means he should not be allowed into the country. If there was enough evidence actually linking him to a terrorist organization, he shouldn't be allowed in. Working on a multi-kazillionaire's farm who happens to be involved in Bush Oil and indeed a terrorist, doesn't make all of his employees one; anymore than it makes all Bush employees terrorists by association with the Bin Laden family. No, you still do not understand. He was deemed inacceptable to this country, via a due process. Should we ask the same question (why? ... evidence... lawyers .... trials.... appeals... more trials... more lawyers .... yada ... etc) for every single one of the x ,000 of other applications that are rejected annually? Or something makes this Mahjoub case special in your view? Should the process be improved? Most certainly, if you demonstrate that it is flawed, and a way to improve it. Should we throw up hands every time somebody's application is rejected? This is synonimous to "should we just open the borders and let everybody in". I'm just afraid that we might be targetting a 'type'. All Muslims and Arabs become immediately suspect. This is not the Canadian way. And you happen to have something to substantiate your fears? There's 1) the outcome of a due process (security check of a refugee application); and 2) conclusion of an independent judge, that Mahjoub is a threat and shouldn't be in this country. Why do you think that he should, nonetheless? And, secondly, if security check and decision of a judge can be questioned at will, what would be the point of having an admission process? Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Oleg Bach Posted March 20, 2009 Report Posted March 20, 2009 To hold in custody a person without trial or charge is an abuse. It is the highest and most sophisticated form of terrorism...but what is a terrorist by western definition? Is it a person who threatens the vested interests of a rich man? Is that the real definition? Someone who is against the state if it is abusive and corrupt and enjoys endless exploitaition of the underprivledged? Jesus Christ himself was considered a rebel and terrorist...He did well untill he threatened what the empire loves most - their great tool and social lubricant - MONEY>.. The moment Christ walked into the bank and started cursing people out and kicking over tables was the begining of his demise - declare your self the son of God if you wish - but don't mess with our damned money or we will kill you - states the state of Rome - He messed with THEIR religion. Quote
myata Posted March 20, 2009 Report Posted March 20, 2009 Well, yeah. The real problem is, as it happens, in the detail, i.e that they still have to kept somewhere. Where? - Hello, I'm on your doorstep, and I want in, can I? - No you can't. - I'll help myself in anyways, thanks. If that's what we want, just say it, openly and clearly, what the heck with hiding behind this (or any other) ostensibly emphatic case? If a process can be ignored on a whim, what's the point of having it, and let's just open the doors wide and let everybody in. Not that I make any presumptions about the process being perfect, and needless of change, but pointing out flaws (and improving) it is a far cry from what we have here. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
eyeball Posted March 21, 2009 Report Posted March 21, 2009 It is this country's shame. Mahjoub is one of five Muslim foreigners facing deportation under controversial national security certificates that have identified them as threats to public safety through secret intelligence presented to a Federal Court judge. Held for years without trial, and only recently released on bail, none has been charged with any crime in Canada. And still they wait for their day in court, even as the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 2007 that the security certificate process is unconstitutional. I agree, Canada should be ashamed of its government and the people who are ignoring the SC ruling should be arrested for contempt. The state is breaking the law meaning there is even less reason to believe the secret intelligence it's gathered or used can be trusted. There is less and less reason everyday to trust any single thing our government tells us. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
myata Posted March 21, 2009 Report Posted March 21, 2009 Still, though, which one it is (please pick): 1. Open the borders and do no security or any other check whatsoever (if any decision on any such check can be reversed at any time, it becomes a big waste of time and money). 2. Run a full "trial" every time an immigration request is rejected. 3. There's a reasonable process to establish that would be immigrant does not represent a security threat for this country, and the outcome of the process (complete with any due reviews and/or appeals) is respected and enforced. If choice is 1 or 2, continue. If it's 3, what is to be done with those who are, through a due process, deemed to be a threat (or otherwise unwanted) in this country, but refuse to move on? Let them go -> see #1. Review their "evidence" one more time, publish it in the media, create interest groups, etc, yada, demand a full trial with laweyrs and evidence -> see #2. Any other, original ideas? BTW if I recall it correctly, the court did not declare detaining of immigrants deemed to represent security threat unconstitutional, only the current process of it. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Oleg Bach Posted March 21, 2009 Report Posted March 21, 2009 American style security certificates have no place in Canada - this is an adopted measure that is left over from the Bush administation - who were such cowards that they dare not offend their friends the Saudis by approaching them and saying "YOU - rich oil shiek - buddy of mine - stop giving money to terrorists - I know you rich bored guys need a hobbie but knocking down the world trade center was a bit much". It is dispicable to hold a man or woman without trial - or charge - It is a facist approach that is generated by rich people who fear the poor. Quote
eyeball Posted March 21, 2009 Report Posted March 21, 2009 Still, though, which one it is (please pick):1. Open the borders and do no security or any other check whatsoever (if any decision on any such check can be reversed at any time, it becomes a big waste of time and money). 2. Run a full "trial" every time an immigration request is rejected. 3. There's a reasonable process to establish that would be immigrant does not represent a security threat for this country, and the outcome of the process (complete with any due reviews and/or appeals) is respected and enforced. If choice is 1 or 2, continue. If it's 3, what is to be done with those who are, through a due process, deemed to be a threat (or otherwise unwanted) in this country, but refuse to move on? Let them go -> see #1. Review their "evidence" one more time, publish it in the media, create interest groups, etc, yada, demand a full trial with laweyrs and evidence -> see #2. Any other, original ideas? BTW if I recall it correctly, the court did not declare detaining of immigrants deemed to represent security threat unconstitutional, only the current process of it. Do what Jesus would do I guess. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Oleg Bach Posted March 21, 2009 Report Posted March 21, 2009 Do what Jesus would do I guess. I'm sure he would forgive but he would never trust you again...and if you attacked the King of Judea - he would break your nose and quick! People assume that Christianity means taking abuse..and turning the other cheek untill all your teeth are knocked out..that is not the case...for instance the turning of the cheek was a ploy to get the agressor to smack you with the flat of his hand - which was a sign of affection - to use humor to disarm...as the water into wine - the miracle was WATER ...it was an inside joke - that go smoked and mirrored by romantic Romans --- The wedding guest smiled as he sipped the cool water after hours of binging at the wedding and smirked "You have saved the best till last" It is impossible to turn water into wine - and why would you do that anyway..they had enough to drink! Christianity is a pragmatic and logical state of mind..not some airy fairy myth. Quote
eyeball Posted March 22, 2009 Report Posted March 22, 2009 I wasn't talking about Christianity. As for Jesus, I'm betting he'd distrust the state and tell it to go stuff it's so-called evidence where the sun doesn't shine. Lets face it, if there's anyone who knows what its like to be mistreated by the state on the basis of trumped up heresay its Jesus. I would have thought of all people he'd probably want to treat anyone walking in similar sandles fairly and squarely. You know what I mean? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
myata Posted March 22, 2009 Report Posted March 22, 2009 Right. And I wonder how likely would he to focus his entire attention squarely on Mr Mahjoob's case, out of tens or hundreds thousands of applications that are rejected? So, do we need to run a full "trial" for each and every rejected application? In the light that "government" evidence can never be trusted? Yes or no? Do have the right to not accept those who we deem unwanted here, or do we have a godly obligation to take in everyone and everybody who knocks on the door? Prosecutors and persecuted alike? Crime victims and gang members? Those flying violence and those planning to perpetrate it? Go figure. And the saddest part is that Jesus isn't with us at this time, so he can only speak through intermediaries and interpreters. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
eyeball Posted March 22, 2009 Report Posted March 22, 2009 Right. And I wonder how likely would he to focus his entire attention squarely on Mr Mahjoob's case, out of tens or hundreds thousands of applications that are rejected?So, do we need to run a full "trial" for each and every rejected application? In the light that "government" evidence can never be trusted? Yes or no? Yes if the alternative is that the state is allowed to gather and use secret evidence. Do have the right to not accept those who we deem unwanted here, or do we have a godly obligation to take in everyone and everybody who knocks on the door? Prosecutors and persecuted alike? Crime victims and gang members? Those flying violence and those planning to perpetrate it?Go figure. We have an obligation to not suspend the hard earned civil liberties our Charter guarantees everyone within Canada's borders. And the saddest part is that Jesus isn't with us at this time, so he can only speak through intermediaries and interpreters. What is there to interpret? Any kindergarten age kid knows the difference between right and wrong and can understand the logic of treating someone the way they'd like to be treated. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Argus Posted March 22, 2009 Report Posted March 22, 2009 We have an obligation to not suspend the hard earned civil liberties our Charter guarantees everyone within Canada's borders. I agree. We should let him leave Canada. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
85RZ500 Posted March 22, 2009 Report Posted March 22, 2009 I agree. We should let him leave Canada. #1, LOL our economy is in the dumpster, our education and health care systerms are swamped, job losses are skyrocketing. And we're talking about keeping people like this here? Sorry folks, clean it out and lock the gate. Quote
tango Posted March 22, 2009 Author Report Posted March 22, 2009 I agree. We should let him leave Canada. He says he'll be tortured if he goes back to Egypt. He wants an opportunity to face his accusers in court, find out what the "secret" evidence is that they are using to detain him. I think he has that right. It's ridiculous that he can be held this long without any evidence produced. Quote My Canada includes rights of Indigenous Peoples. Love it or leave it, eh! Peace.
tango Posted March 22, 2009 Author Report Posted March 22, 2009 #1, LOL our economy is in the dumpster, our education and health care systerms are swamped, job losses are skyrocketing.And we're talking about keeping people like this here? Sorry folks, clean it out and lock the gate. What do you mean by "people like this" ? We have no information that he's in any way undesirable. No evidence of anything has been produced. All we know is that he has a family. Quote My Canada includes rights of Indigenous Peoples. Love it or leave it, eh! Peace.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.