Security Certificates Struck Down

[jdobbin]

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.

And you miss the point that the court said you can't hold people without due process. If you are going to deport them, have a system in place to do so.

This legal limbo was bound to be challenged since it follows no process one way or the other.

[Argus]

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.

If we just exempted the entire immigration and refugee determination system from the Charter we would save BILLIONS of dollars and get rid of hundreds, if not thousands of undesirables overnight.

[jdobbin]

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.

That check was written by your Conservative party.

[Argus]

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.

And you miss the point that the court said you can't hold people without due process. If you are going to deport them, have a system in place to do so.

The same court which makes it virtually impossible to deport people.

This legal limbo was bound to be challenged since it follows no process one way or the other.

Clearly it follows a process. The court simply does not like the process.

[Argus]

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.

That check was written by your Conservative party.

Those cheques are written on the orders of a Supreme Court stacked with bleeding heart liberals appointed by the Liberal Party of Canada.

[jdobbin]

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?

The Charter makes it possible to get your due process within Canada. It doesn't give you unlimited freedoms.

As far as strictness in immigration goes, the Conservatives just made it easier for many to come to Canada on extended work visas.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

Refugees, on the other hand, have no papers.

[Keepitsimple]

Several posters have already mentioned it....but it's so frustrating, that I'll put in my two cents anyway. Security Certificates have been in place since the 70's and they worked just fine - if someone was deemed a risk - we deported them back where they came from - no muss, no fuss. But along came our Charter and in 2001, the ruling came down that you could not deport someone to a country where there was a reasonable chance that they could be tortured. Conveniently, almost all countries where terrorists originate could be viewed as countries that engage in torture. So as a result of that ruling what happens? Well of course everyone who steps on Canadian soil and is thought to have terrorist connections, claims that they cannot go back because they will be tortured. This ruling is not as the Toronto Star trumpets, a huge victory for rights - it is a clear warning that while our Charter is well meaning, it has created a huge loophole that prevents Canada from getting rid of undesirables. In fact, one could make the argument that the Charter now infringes on my rights by letting loose on the public an undesirable non-Canadian with possible terrorist ties.

Maddeningly, The Toronto Star seems to hold these detainees in high esteem as if this is some worthy crusade when in fact the question remains....how to we kick these guys out of the country?

[jdobbin]

Those cheques are written on the orders of a Supreme Court stacked with bleeding heart liberals appointed by the Liberal Party of Canada.

Oh really. Seems to be Harper wrote that check all on his own.

And as another great man said, "You had a choice, sir."

[jdobbin]

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.

It's not surprising that the National Post is baffled. They think it is a small thing that those in prison didn't have a lawyer. It isn't. It's fundamental to the Constitution.

Security certificates might remain but the government cannot hold people without allowing them an advocate.

[Argus]

Those cheques are written on the orders of a Supreme Court stacked with bleeding heart liberals appointed by the Liberal Party of Canada.

Oh really. Seems to be Harper wrote that check all on his own.

And as another great man said, "You had a choice, sir."

Would you care to expand on this? Are you suggesting Harper could refuse to fund legal services for those held by security certificates without facing Court censure?

[Argus]

It's not surprising that the National Post is baffled. They think it is a small thing that those in prison didn't have a lawyer. It isn't. It's fundamental to the Constitution.

They are foreigners who are free to walk out of prison at any time just so they leave Canada.

Security certificates might remain but the government cannot hold people without allowing them an advocate.

Yes, it's very important to spend even more of our money on helping foreigners fight our decision to send them home. Yet another decision by lawyers which benefits the legal profession.

[jdobbin]

Would you care to expand on this? Are you suggesting Harper could refuse to fund legal services for those held by security certificates without facing Court censure?

I'm saying he had a choice on the $10 million paid to Arar.

He also has choice on security certificates. It is called the notwithstanding clause.

If you have a problem with the court, tell Harper to use that clause. If he doesn't, this is all a lot of whining.

[PolyNewbie]

Fantastic news !!! Never give up though. We haveb a long way to go against this corrupt & self serving establishemnt.

[jdobbin]

They are foreigners who are free to walk out of prison at any time just so they leave Canada.

Yes, it's very important to spend even more of our money on helping foreigners fight our decision to send them home. Yet another decision by lawyers which benefits the legal profession.

Just not free to have a lawyer.

And as I said, if you have a problem with it, tell Harper to use the notwithstanding clause. It trumps all legal arguments. The final power on this rests with the legislative body. It always has.

[Argus]

Would you care to expand on this? Are you suggesting Harper could refuse to fund legal services for those held by security certificates without facing Court censure?

I'm saying he had a choice on the $10 million paid to Arar.

What has that got to do with what we're talking about? We're talking about the cost and difficulty of expelling undesirable foreigners. Arar is a Canadian citizen, was never under a security certificate, and so far as I know there was never any move to deport him.

He also has choice on security certificates. It is called the notwithstanding clause.

If you have a problem with the court, tell Harper to use that clause. If he doesn't, this is all a lot of whining.

I would be in favour of using the notwithstanding clause over all immigration and refugee matters. I have a feeling you and the other Liberals here would be screaming at the top of your lungs, however, and the political realities of a minority government mean this is not really an option.

[jdobbin]

What has that got to do with what we're talking about? We're talking about the cost and difficulty of expelling undesirable foreigners. Arar is a Canadian citizen, was never under a security certificate, and so far as I know there was never any move to deport him.

I would be in favour of using the notwithstanding clause over all immigration and refugee matters. I have a feeling you and the other Liberals here would be screaming at the top of your lungs, however, and the political realities of a minority government mean this is not really an option.

I was referring to your $10 million dollar check statement. The only $10 million check I've heard about is in the Arar case.

As far as your arguments go on political realities of the notwithstanding clause go...piffle. Saskatchewan used it for pedophile legislation. What you are saying is that you don't want to pressure Harper to make a stand on the subject because he might be defeated. Utter cowardice. If he is right on the subject, let the chips fall where they may. But for Pete's sake, don't say he doesn't have a choice and then blame the Liberals who control Mr. Harper like a puppet pulling his strings.

[Catchme]

I would be in favour of using the notwithstanding clause over all immigration and refugee matters. I have a feeling you and the other Liberals here would be screaming at the top of your lungs, however, and the political realities of a minority government mean this is not really an option.

Ah, it is good to see someone on the right actually, acknowledges the fact that Harper and the CPC have no mandate to do anything other than their 5 points.

They know they cannot use the notwithstanding clause as a minority, but yet they are scurrying around doing other things they have NO mandate to do either.

Those who approve of;

1. holding people without telling them what they were charged with, without anyone knowing what they are charged with,

2. the notion those held, are supposed to testify "against" themselves to prove that the government has a good reason to hold them without due process,

3. when they cannot prove to the government, that the government has reason to hold them, they can be held in contempt until they do provide something to prove they have done what the government is saying they did,

4. the fact this expectation to prove the government is right, even though those held do not know what the government is saying they did to get arrested, is a good thing.

5. actions like this that have only been done in dictatorships.

This is not democracy in action, if it can be done to some, it can be done to ALL.

[geoffrey]

Ah, it is good to see someone on the right actually, acknowledges the fact that Harper and the CPC have no mandate to do anything other than their 5 points.

Just like the 1993 Liberals had no mandate to not cut the GST???

Your definition of a mandate is very partisan.

[Charles Anthony]

how to we kick these guys out of the country?

Are you talking about the Royal "we"? Who is the "we" that wants to kick them out?

foreigners fight our decision to send them home.

What do you mean by "our decision"??? I do not remember being consulted.

I would be in favour of using the notwithstanding clause over all immigration and refugee matters.

I am sure the people who have the power to execute Security Certificates care about what you think.

Admit it: this Security Certificate stuff is ugly. There are people -- we do not even know -- who have unaccountable power in Canada.

Unfortunately, I believe we need to suck it up and accept that comments like this:

Fantastic news !!! Never give up though. We haveb a long way to go against this corrupt & self serving establishemnt.

are frighteningly valid.

[Keepitsimple]

how to we kick these guys out of the country?

Are you talking about the Royal "we"? Who is the "we" that wants to kick them out?

The Royal "we" is all Canadians. Who in their right mind would willingly accept a foreigner with terrorist ties when there are so many hard-working immigrants and refugees who are lined up to embrace Canada and have a spotless record? Keep in mind that the existing process has seen a judge review evidence in private and that evidence was found to be enough to hold these people indefinitely as a danger to Canada. So....wouldn't you send them back - if you could?

[Charles Anthony]

The Royal "we" is all Canadians.

Wake up call: these security certificates give power to very few Canadians and the rest of all Canadians are NEVER consulted.

Keep in mind that the existing process has seen a judge review evidence in private and that evidence was found to be enough to hold these people indefinitely as a danger to Canada.

Keep in mind that is exactly what I am talking about.

So....wouldn't you send them back - if you could?

No, I would not. Unfortunately, people like you believe that everybody in Canada is one single person with the same opinion.

[sally]

A sensible ruling

[Argus]

The Royal "we" is all Canadians.

Wake up call: these security certificates give power to very few Canadians and the rest of all Canadians are NEVER consulted.

Oh how self righteous. And if there were a referendum that consulted all Canadians on these issues, what do you think would be the result? You know damned well the overwhelming response would say "kick their asses out of Canada immediately, and if the judges don't like it kick their asses out too". So don't even try to imply that the great majority of Canadians don't support security certificates as a resort against idiot judges. If it weren't for the judges we wouldn't need security certificates. We'd just kick these people out and be done with.

[jdobbin]

Oh how self righteous. And if there were a referendum that consulted all Canadians on these issues, what do you think would be the result? You know damned well the overwhelming response would say "kick their asses out of Canada immediately, and if the judges don't like it kick their asses out too". So don't even try to imply that the great majority of Canadians don't support security certificates as a resort against idiot judges. If it weren't for the judges we wouldn't need security certificates. We'd just kick these people out and be done with.

Probably why there are laws and processes around to keep people from running around with pitch forks screaming: "Burn the witch!"

[Charles Anthony]

Oh how self righteous.

Yes, it is. Sprinkle in a little "due process" too to mask the foul taste of xenophobia.

And if there were a referendum that consulted all Canadians on these issues, what do you think would be the result?

Personally, I do not give a damn what ALL Canadians would say. By the way, are you talking about 50%+1 or first-past-the-post or proportional-representation or clarity-act or.... what exactly are you talking about in this referendum?

I challenge you Argus: put your pitch-fork down and come up with your own "know damned well" referendum question.

I bet you could not even word it coherently.

Are you up for this challenge?