Security Certificates Struck Down

[jdobbin]

Even Harper's appointed judge struck it down. Guess he needs even more conservative judges than the one he has put there.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070223/...ty_certificates

n a 9-0 judgment, the court found that the system, described by government officials as a key tool for safeguarding national security, violates the Charter of Rights.

[Saturn]

Even Harper's appointed judge struck it down. Guess he needs even more conservative judges than the one he has put there.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070223/...ty_certificates

n a 9-0 judgment, the court found that the system, described by government officials as a key tool for safeguarding national security, violates the Charter of Rights.

I don't know how conservative a judge Harper has to appoint to determine that locking people up without telling them why or charging them with anything does not violate the Charter.

[Catchme]

Even Harper's appointed judge struck it down. Guess he needs even more conservative judges than the one he has put there.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070223/...ty_certificates

n a 9-0 judgment, the court found that the system, described by government officials as a key tool for safeguarding national security, violates the Charter of Rights.

I don't know how conservative a judge Harper has to appoint to determine that locking people up without telling them why or charging them with anything does not violate the Charter.

This very telling as to why the 2 sunset clauses need to be sunset, as they are dealing with this very thing.

Being held, without charges, not knowing why, but yet being compelled to provide evidence that you did something wrong.

It would seem that Harper is all about wanting to violate the Charter buy his support of the 2 clauses that violate; the Charter and International Laws and rights, and indeed common sense.

[newbie]

A great day for Canada.

[White Doors]

Even Harper's appointed judge struck it down. Guess he needs even more conservative judges than the one he has put there.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070223/...ty_certificates

n a 9-0 judgment, the court found that the system, described by government officials as a key tool for safeguarding national security, violates the Charter of Rights.

I don't know how conservative a judge Harper has to appoint to determine that locking people up without telling them why or charging them with anything does not violate the Charter.

This very telling as to why the 2 sunset clauses need to be sunset, as they are dealing with this very thing.

Being held, without charges, not knowing why, but yet being compelled to provide evidence that you did something wrong.

It would seem that Harper is all about wanting to violate the Charter buy his support of the 2 clauses that violate; the Charter and International Laws and rights, and indeed common sense.

You make this to be a partisan issue? Hello, the liberals passed this law....

Do you not have any shame with your lies and partisanship? Are you a paid member of the liberal party?

Also, the Liberal SENATE recommended that it be extended too.

You are nothing but a HACK.

[Charles Anthony]

point of order:

Condense your quotations. It is not necessary to repeat an entire post in a quotation.

Check out these threads:

NEW RULE! - Trim Your Posts, Please take the time to remove the bulk of the post your quoting

Trim Your Posts and Quotes, Don't just hit "Reply"

Using the [ Quote ] Feature:, Avoid using more too many quotes!

[August1991]

Even Harper's appointed judge struck it down. Guess he needs even more conservative judges than the one he has put there.

There was little if anything struck down, as the G & M makes plain:

"While there is a risk of catastrophic acts of violence, it would be foolhardy to require a lengthy review process before a certificate should be issued," the court said.

However it said the various forms of review in which a designated lawyer is empowered to act on behalf of detainees could pass constitutional muster.

Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin suspended the effects of the ruling for one year to give the Federal Government time to craft a new security certificate process.

...

In the House of Commons, Conservative House leader Peter van Loan offered formal thanks to the court for its decision and signalled that the Tories would get to work trying to bring the legislation into accord with the Charter.

"We will be reviewing that decision and seeing if there is a way to — and we are confident we can — reconcile the need to protect the security of Canadians with the directions to Parliament from the court," Mr. van Loan said.

At present, a certificate is only issued (ie. a foreigner is held in detention) if the minister and a judge review and approve the case. The Supreme Court now says that a designated lawyer must be added to this list for approval.

There is much confusion about these certificates. They are only issued against foreigners in Canada with no residency status. Moreover, these detainees are free to leave prison any time they want as long as they leave the country.

The certificates are more a reflection of our fundamentally flawed refugee system (and inability to deport) than anything else. If the Supreme Court had really struck down these security certificates, then we'd be in serious trouble. We would have nasty foreigners in our midst and no way to deal with them. Canada should not become a safe haven for any terrorist thug from a rogue regime.

[geoffrey]

This very telling as to why the 2 sunset clauses need to be sunset, as they are dealing with this very thing.

Actually they are COMPLETELY different, and the SCC has ruled they are constitutional. As Mr. Dion would eloquently say, "you know nothing you speak about."

Being held, without charges, not knowing why, but yet being compelled to provide evidence that you did something wrong.

The clauses that are going to sunset do:

1) allow the Police to proactivtively arrest someone, on the condition they are brought in front of a judge within 24 hours for the judge to decide if the police are just in their concerns. If so, charges still need to be filed within a reasonable period, assumed to be about 72 hours.

2) Compell a witness to give up terrorists that have attacked Canada (Air India) or terrorists that are plotting to attack Canada. Again, a judge must deem the use reasonable.

NOTHING at all even close to security certifications, a Liberal invention by the way that applies more to Immigration than Terrorism. It's even a part of the Immigration act, not the anti-terrorism bill.

Some research before condemning common sense would be appreciated. Dion should do the same, maybe listen to the dozen or so security experts in his party that are outspoken in favour of this legislation.

Unless of course, his goal is to let his donors escape testimony.

It would seem that Harper is all about wanting to violate the Charter buy his support of the 2 clauses that violate; the Charter and International Laws and rights, and indeed common sense.

Actually, the 2 clauses don't. In Application under s. 83.28 of the Criminal Code (Re), 2004 SCC 42, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 248 the Supreme Court found that using the section in context of the Air India hearings was reasonably justified in a democratic society. Section 83.28 has been upheld, in context.

Per McLachlin C.J. and Iacobucci, Major and Arbour JJ.: The purpose of the Anti-terrorism Act is to prosecute and prevent terrorism offences. Although terrorism necessarily changes the context in which the rule of law must operate, it does not call for the abdication of law. The challenge for democracies in the battle against terrorism is to balance an effective response with fundamental democratic values that respect the importance of human life, liberty and the rule of law. Subject to interpretive comments, s. 83.28 of the Criminal Code meets that challenge.

Sorry, but again, you insufficiently researched your argument and based it instead on what you saw on TV or in the papers. Just shows some bias there when you can reasonably come up with your opinion (most people share your opinion), when in reality, it lacks any truth. I saw the TV segements too, I was all 'what the hell is Harper doing'. Then I took at a look at the reality of 82.28 and the SCC judgements on it's application. There is nothing wrong with it.

[jdobbin]

At present, a certificate is only issued (ie. a foreigner is held in detention) if the minister and a judge review and approve the case. The Supreme Court now says that a designated lawyer must be added to this list for approval.

There is much confusion about these certificates. They are only issued against foreigners in Canada with no residency status. Moreover, these detainees are free to leave prison any time they want as long as they leave the country.

The certificates are more a reflection of our fundamentally flawed refugee system (and inability to deport) than anything else. If the Supreme Court had really struck down these security certificates, then we'd be in serious trouble. We would have nasty foreigners in our midst and no way to deal with them. Canada should not become a safe haven for any terrorist thug from a rogue regime.

It is a pretty strong ruling that made in clear that the security certificates were unconstitutional. It is no small change that a lawyer must be retained within 48 hours.

Civil liberties are worthy of a debate and the Tories have been trying to shut that down. The court has shown there are limitation.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070223/...curity_politics

Dion said he can accept the principle of certificates. But he said the current system needs improvement and he promised to co-operate with the government while it redrafts the laws to comply with the Constitution.

Under the existing law, non-citizens can languish in jail for years without charge, without seeing the full evidence against them, or without hearing any explanation of why they're suspected terrorists. The laws were originally introduced by a Liberal government almost 30 years ago.

[geoffrey]

I think the SCC made the right decision today with security certificates. I don't like them. They never applied to Canadians, but why not try these people for their crimes? It's the only way to do things IMO.

[jdobbin]

I think the SCC made the right decision today with security certificates. I don't like them. They never applied to Canadians, but why not try these people for their crimes? It's the only way to do things IMO.

I'm just surprised that it took this long. Evidence should be presented and prosecuted. Too much is blacked out and held for national security.

The legislation went too far.

[August1991]

I think the SCC made the right decision today with security certificates. I don't like them. They never applied to Canadians, but why not try these people for their crimes? It's the only way to do things IMO.

Try them? We should deport them - unless we put them in a prisoner of war camp (which we couldn't do now).

These certificates are a fix for one badly worded part of the Charter of Rights.

With this decision, the Supreme Court has merely said the fix needs to be adjusted.

[geoffrey]

I think the SCC made the right decision today with security certificates. I don't like them. They never applied to Canadians, but why not try these people for their crimes? It's the only way to do things IMO.

Try them? We should deport them - unless we put them in a prisoner of war camp (which we couldn't do now).

If you want to deport them, that seems reasonable. Why not? They aren't Canadians, we choose who comes and goes in Canada.

[August1991]

It is a pretty strong ruling that made in clear that the security certificates were unconstitutional. It is no small change that a lawyer must be retained within 48 hours.

A designated lawyer. That's fair to avoid arbitrary detention. The Supreme Court has not put into doubt the principle of Security Certificates.

Civil liberties are worthy of a debate and the Tories have been trying to shut that down. The court has shown there are limitation.

Dobbin, that's spin.

I would argue that Right Wingers defend civil liberties or Libertarian principles more than Left Wingers. IOW, when it comes to defending the minority individual against the majority, the average Tory voter is more sympathetic than the average Liberal/NDP/BQ voter. Am I wrong?

[August1991]

If you want to deport them, that seems reasonable. Why not? They aren't Canadians, we choose who comes and goes in Canada.

Geoffrey, that's the problem. The Charter in effect prevents our government from deporting these people. We have no grounds to arrest them on criminal charges. Yet, we don't want them wandering around in Canada.

A Security Certificate is the bureaucratic solution to prevent their access to Canadian society. The Supreme Court has just said that the Minister and a judge are not sufficient to make this decision. The federal government must also designate a lawyer to make this pair a troika.

[jdobbin]

A designated lawyer. That's fair to avoid arbitrary detention. The Supreme Court has not put into doubt the principle of Security Certificates.

Dobbin, that's spin.

I would argue that Right Wingers defend civil liberties or Libertarian principles more than Left Wingers. IOW, when it comes to defending the minority individual against the majority, the average Tory voter is more sympathetic than the average Liberal/NDP/BQ voter. Am I wrong?

There has been plenty of talk prior to this on having a lawyer or an advocate. The Liberals initially and the Tories now wanted to hear nothing about that.

As far as spin goes, the Tories even today keep saying that the Liberals are soft on crime and national security. They were caught surprised by the Court's decision.

Now, with the law struck down, they will have to work with the Opposition to reform the law.

Many Conservatives don't think very highly of the Charter. They might be economic libertarians but they don't necessarily support all aspects of civil liberties.

[geoffrey]

A peice of paper doesn't make anyone more free than they were a day before 1982. Especially not if your talking about the Charter.

--

Why can't we just forbid enterance to these people? Perhaps we need to be more strict in who we take in without visas?

[August1991]

Why can't we just forbid enterance to these people? Perhaps we need to be more strict in who we take in without visas?

The Charter guarantees "due process" to "anyone in Canada".

"Due process" means the right to a lawyer (at taxpayer expense if necessary) and a court with possibility of appeal (all paid for by taxpayers). [The SCOC's decision about Security Certificates concerned due process.]

"Anyone in Canada" means any person who can put a foot in Canada.

There are six billion people in the world and many of them understand perfectly well that if they can put a foot on Canadian soil, the Canadian Charter protects them.

Clearly, because of our social policies and the Charter, Canada is a magnet. Our only defense, for the moment, is that Canada is hard to get to. We're in the North and we only have one land border.

[Charles Anthony]

Dion should do the same, maybe listen to the dozen or so security experts in his party that are outspoken in favour of this legislation.

Unless of course, his goal is to let his donors escape testimony.

That is a strong accusation.

Nevertheless, judging by the way the entire Liberal party immediately shouted down (let me stress: Harper did not get a word in at all) any mention by the prime minister of the news article, I would say that the accusation should be directed at the entire Liberal party.

We should deport them - unless we put them in a prisoner of war camp (which we couldn't do now).

The only difference between keeping a prisoner of war camp and keeping a person in some-other-prison-with-a-Sercurity-Certificate without charges is public knowledge that they exist.

Civil liberties are worthy of a debate and the Tories have been trying to shut that down. The court has shown there are limitation.

Dobbin, that's spin.

Whether it is spin or not, it is certainly a worthy debate.

I would argue that Right Wingers defend civil liberties or Libertarian principles more than Left Wingers. IOW, when it comes to defending the minority individual against the majority, the average Tory voter is more sympathetic than the average Liberal/NDP/BQ voter. Am I wrong?

I think you are wrong. The current events do not seem to support this dichotomy.

The concept of civil liberties or Libertarian principles can not properly be applied to this Charter versus Certificate issue. Unless you want to strike down the Charter and the Certificates and the entire state, you can never to be truly faithful to liberty -- you will only be favoring liberty of some at the expense of the liberty of others.

For those who support the Charter's "due process for anybody who sets foot in Canada" deal, they are forcing all of the citizens of Canada to pay for it.

For those who want to detain or deport people, they making it their perogative to speak on behalf of every other Canadian and forcing them to pay for it.

Bottom line: do not talk about civil liberties if you are going to hide behind the State -- unless you can rationalize why you should steal from Peter to give to Paul instead of stealing from Paul to give to Peter.

Clearly, because of our social policies and the Charter, Canada is a magnet. Our only defense, for the moment, is that Canada is hard to get to. We're in the North and we only have one land border.

Only defense?? Come on. That is lame.

If the social policies and the Charter are the problem, change them. Now: which one is the bigger problem?

How about we keep things simple and straight-forward.

We do international trade with demonically repressive regimes. We even send our leaders to shake their leaders' hands.

I have a question: what is the problem with letting "undesirable" Canadians into the country?

If they have not committed crimes in Canada, leave them alone. What is the big deal? Are we sooooooo inept at maintain domestic security?

[scribblet]

Have they really been struck down http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...76-0fd79c297a98

Security certificates are here to stay

National Post

Published: Saturday, February 24, 2007

We were slightly baffled Fri- day morning, when the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Charkaoui vs. Canada. Headlines immediately flooded onto the Web declaring that the court had "struck down" or "reversed" the system whereby foreigners on Canadian soil can be detained on the issuance of security certificates by the federal Cabinet. It would be much more accurate to say that the court had reviewed every aspect of the system, found that most of it was justified by national security, and asked only for minimal changes designed to protect the rights of the arrestees. Barring stronger legal arguments against them, the certificates -- along with the safeguards already built into the system by its legislative creators --are here to stay.

[Wilber]

"Due process" means the right to a lawyer (at taxpayer expense if necessary) and a court with possibility of appeal (all paid for by taxpayers). [The SCOC's decision about Security Certificates concerned due process.]

"Anyone in Canada" means any person who can put a foot in Canada.

There are six billion people in the world and many of them understand perfectly well that if they can put a foot on Canadian soil, the Canadian Charter protects them.

Clearly, because of our social policies and the Charter, Canada is a magnet. Our only defense, for the moment, is that Canada is hard to get to. We're in the North and we only have one land border.

Is it any wonder the Americans want passports?

[Argus]

I think the SCC made the right decision today with security certificates. I don't like them. They never applied to Canadians, but why not try these people for their crimes? It's the only way to do things IMO.

I'm just surprised that it took this long. Evidence should be presented and prosecuted. Too much is blacked out and held for national security.

The legislation went too far.

Both of you miss the point. These people can't be tried for their "crimes" as they are not accused of having committed any crimes in Canada. They are accused of having terrorist associations which make them people we do not want in this country. You cannot "try" someone for that. They are people we want gone, and as has been pointed out, they can step out of jail at any time by simply agreeing to go home.

[Argus]

Why can't we just forbid enterance to these people? Perhaps we need to be more strict in who we take in without visas?

The Charter guarantees "due process" to "anyone in Canada".

"Due process" means the right to a lawyer (at taxpayer expense if necessary) and a court with possibility of appeal (all paid for by taxpayers). [The SCOC's decision about Security Certificates concerned due process.]

"Anyone in Canada" means any person who can put a foot in Canada

Yes, because prime minister Bertha Wilson decided it was so.

[Argus]

A designated lawyer. That's fair to avoid arbitrary detention. The Supreme Court has not put into doubt the principle of Security Certificates.

Dobbin, that's spin.

I would argue that Right Wingers defend civil liberties or Libertarian principles more than Left Wingers. IOW, when it comes to defending the minority individual against the majority, the average Tory voter is more sympathetic than the average Liberal/NDP/BQ voter. Am I wrong?

There has been plenty of talk prior to this on having a lawyer or an advocate. The Liberals initially and the Tories now wanted to hear nothing about that.

As far as spin goes, the Tories even today keep saying that the Liberals are soft on crime and national security.

Very soft. Demonstrably so.

Many Conservatives don't think very highly of the Charter. They might be economic libertarians but they don't necessarily support all aspects of civil liberties.

We support real civil liberaties, moreso than the Left, which is ever ready to shout someone down or throw them into prison for expressing unpopular views. But we don't believe that every greasy foreigner who comes here without an invitation or who lied to get here deserves to have a ten million dollar cheque written out to them so they can fight our efforts to send them back home.

[Argus]

I think the SCC made the right decision today with security certificates. I don't like them. They never applied to Canadians, but why not try these people for their crimes? It's the only way to do things IMO.

Try them? We should deport them - unless we put them in a prisoner of war camp (which we couldn't do now).

If you want to deport them, that seems reasonable. Why not? They aren't Canadians, we choose who comes and goes in Canada.

Not since the Bertha Wilson decision. Bertha Wilson decided that anyone who set foot in Canada, however illegally, deserves to have a ten million dollar cheque written out to them by the taxpayers so they can retain a team of high priced lawyers to fight our efforts to get rid of them. Even mass murderers and terrorists can spend years litigating - at our expense - their "right" to stay here through appeal after appeal.