Security Certificates Struck Down

[hiti]

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.

Sounds like what Shrubby Bush is doing to his own country and in Guantanamo prisons.

[August1991]

Sounds like what Shrubby Bush is doing to his own country and in Guantanamo prisons.

There's a world of difference between people held in Guantanamo and those held under these Security Certificates.

You undermine your argument by comparing the two.

Detainees in Canada are free to leave anytime they want. They are only held because they chose to come to Canada.

[marcinmoka]

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.

What good are ALL the other elements of the Charter if you cannot ensure the fundamental security of our nation?

As scribblet and the NP pointed out, it's not the spirit of the Security Certificates which were shut down, but just their current presentation. They will be here to stay, just slightly amended to ensure OUR safety.

[jdobbin]

What good are ALL the other elements of the Charter if you cannot ensure the fundamental security of our nation?

As scribblet and the NP pointed out, it's not the spirit of the Security Certificates which were shut down, but just their current presentation. They will be here to stay, just slightly amended to ensure OUR safety.

It isn't a slight amendment. It means you can't be imprisoned without representation and due process.

Due process. Even those held under security certificates are guaranteed this. If it was such a small and tiny matter, the Supreme Court would not have heard it or voted unanimously on it.

[Catchme]

You have got it backwards marcinmoka in actual fact.

Individual rights must come befoe national security rights.

If you have NO Rights as an individual, you have no security as an individual,

Therefore, if an individual Canadian does not have individual security, there can be NO national security in truth.

The Nation is made up of individual Canadians with out individual Canadians there is NO Canada,

The first premise of a democratic country is upon the individual, not the nation.

Therefore, individual rRghts must come before anything else.

When individual Rights are guaranteed, then security of the nation can be addressed, within those individual rights that are now collective Canadian rights guaranteed.

[August1991]

The Nation is made up of individual Canadians with out individual Canadians there is NO Canada,

The first premise of a democratic country is upon the individual, not the nation.

These security certificates do not apply to Canadian citizens. No Canadian citizen is held without due process.

There are 6 billion people in the world. We cannot offer them all due process, at our expense, to sort out their various grievances.

[Catchme]

That is a strawman argument, 6 billion people are not in Canada as landed immigrants.

When you are a landed immigrant, all Canadian Rights apply it would be ludicrous for it to be otherwise!

That is why they were struck down, and the other 2 sun set clauses would target Canadian citizens as well.

[August1991]

When you are a landed immigrant, all Canadian Rights apply it would be ludicrous for it to be otherwise!

Permanent residents (landed immigrants as you call them) cannot vote in elections and they cannot travel abroad with a Canadian passport. They are not Canadian citizens.

We can and frequently do deny citizenship to people who have permanent resident status.

In such circumstances, we usually deport such people. The people being held under a Security Certificate would normally be deported.

CatchMe, are you suggesting that we should let anyone into Canada? How would you feel if an Argentinian or Chilean general (c. 1975) showed up?

[Argus]

Oh how self righteous.

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

So now anyone who doesn't want foreigners with terrorist connections in Canada is a xenophobe? Maybe the concept of "judgement" is beyond you but most of us have little problem with it.

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.

Zat a fact? Then why were you sniveling that Canadians weren't consulted about security certificates?

[Argus]

What good are ALL the other elements of the Charter if you cannot ensure the fundamental security of our nation?

As scribblet and the NP pointed out, it's not the spirit of the Security Certificates which were shut down, but just their current presentation. They will be here to stay, just slightly amended to ensure OUR safety.

It isn't a slight amendment. It means you can't be imprisoned without representation and due process.

Due process. Even those held under security certificates are guaranteed this. If it was such a small and tiny matter, the Supreme Court would not have heard it or voted unanimously on it.

The Supreme Court was probably ecstatic to discover a small part of the system which had not yet been economically exploited by lawyers. "Hurrah! Millions more for us," they cried.

[Charles Anthony]

So now anyone who doesn't want foreigners with terrorist connections in Canada is a xenophobe? Maybe the concept of "judgement" is beyond you but most of us have little problem with it.

Yes, I do believe it is xenophobia. Judgement?? What judgement?

I see you can not meet my challenge above.

Zat a fact? Then why were you sniveling that Canadians weren't consulted about security certificates?

-- because the pretense was that they were consulted. That pretense was used as a justification.

CatchMe, are you suggesting that we should let anyone into Canada? How would you feel if an Argentinian or Chilean general (c. 1975) showed up?

I would welcome it.

I just would not assure him security. Where is the problem?

The problem you pose is ridiculously unrealistic because a dictator would only come to Canada if there was a Canadian politician (read: person who has more civic control than you or I) licking his boots.

Now, should we let 6 billion people into Canada? If I owned the ports, I would have a hard time doing that even if I wanted to do so.

Airlines should not be permitted to dump people on "our" land, should they? That is the problem.

[Catchme]

When you are a landed immigrant, all Canadian Rights apply it would be ludicrous for it to be otherwise!

Permanent residents (landed immigrants as you call them) cannot vote in elections and they cannot travel abroad with a Canadian passport. They are not Canadian citizens.

We can and frequently do deny citizenship to people who have permanent resident status.

In such circumstances, we usually deport such people. The people being held under a Security Certificate would normally be deported.

CatchMe, are you suggesting that we should let anyone into Canada? How would you feel if an Argentinian or Chilean general (c. 1975) showed up?

No, we do not usually deport people for just being landed immigrants, and not getting Canadian citizenship.

http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/release/index.cfm

There are about 2 million landed immigrants living in Canada, who are either getting citizenship, or remaining in country as landed immigrants or refugees.

Refugees may get deported once their claims are found unworthy.

Those who are granted permanent resident status can be landed immigrants until they die if they want.

Canadian immigration

When you are granted permanent resident status, you are entitled to ALL the rights and freedoms Canadians have. Correctly so. And we do not deport them once they have been granted "permanent resident status".

Just imagine all those poor mennonites who would not have any rights at all now if this were not the case.

This is also the case for refugees until their claims are proven either correct or incorrect. When proven not to be correct, they are deported back to country of origin.

xenophobia appears to be the motivator with those who are supporting the loss of individual human rights.

That they think everyone should lose individual rights because of their xenophobia, is wrong.

[geoffrey]

Refugees may get deported once their claims are found unworthy.

Unless they have babies while waiting. This is the one big area we need to address... people born in Canada shouldn't get automatic citizenship. It gives refugees a fast track ticket to citizenship.

Birth tours will soon become a larger issue too... for reasons from 'a better life of my kids' to 'avoiding paying international tuition fees.'

[Catchme]

Refugees may get deported once their claims are found unworthy.

Unless they have babies while waiting. This is the one big area we need to address... people born in Canada shouldn't get automatic citizenship. It gives refugees a fast track ticket to citizenship.

Birth tours will soon become a larger issue too... for reasons from 'a better life of my kids' to 'avoiding paying international tuition fees.'

Of course people born in Canada should get automatic citizenship. What are you thinking?

and your statement regarding birth tours has no basis in fact whatsoever!

[sally]

and your statement regarding birth tours has no basis in fact whatsoever!

Seems to be a lot of that on this forum!

[guyser]

and your statement regarding birth tours has no basis in fact whatsoever!

Seems to be a lot of that on this forum!

Unfortunately to some degree that is exactly what is/may be happening.

Seems the chinese have been doing it, there is another thread about this. They come, have a baby , apply for citizenship , then try to stay. The problem is that if unsuccessful then when they return to china the kids are not allowed in school, not allowed healthcare like a native.

I doubt that it is a dire situation right now for Canada, but could be a problem for BC.

[geoffrey]

Of course people born in Canada should get automatic citizenship. What are you thinking?

To Canadian parents sure. If some Brits are here for example working, why should their kid get dual citizenship by just being born here.

Perhaps we can extend them a choice. They can have Canadian citizenship if they are born here to foreigner parents, but they can't have a second citizenship at birth.

and your statement regarding birth tours has no basis in fact whatsoever!

Actually it does. $20k will get your baby some Canadiana!

The bold newspaper ad two weeks ago in Seoul seeking pregnant women who were interested in having their babies in Canada got more than 10 responses within a few days of its publication.

Wohn and his travel agent partner in Seoul were promising pregnant mothers medical check-ups, delivery at a Vancouver area hospital, two months of postnatal care, a return flight, a local guide providing services ranging from airport pickup to getting the baby's birth certificate, social insurance number and eventually Canadian citizenship.

The cost was $22,000 or 19 million Korean won.

Source: http://www.asianpacificpost.com/portal2/40...28c13bf.do.html

[Keepitsimple]

This whole thing is a mountain made out of a molehill - exacerbated by the media leaving out key pieces of information. I just watched CBC Newsworld - Don Neuman interviewed a fellow who I think was the head of the Canadian Bar Association (Legal - not beer/liquor). He clearly spelled out some points of the Supreme Court ruling:

1) A top priority for the government is the protection of it's citizens

2) Subject to a more balanced hearing, the Court agrees that it is OK to:

i) Hold a non-citizen indefinitely

ii) Withhold all evidence from the person being detained

3) The Court, in their ruling, provided an example of "satisfactory" improvements. The example was actually provided to the Supreme Court by the Canadian Bar. The example involved having a rotating staff of high-security-cleared councillors who would review the evidence and charges and would act as an advocate for the detainee - without speaking with the detainee. The councillor would simply act as an adversary to the government. The final ruling would still be made by a judge. The councillor will have no contact at all with the detainee.

4) If the above example was put into legislation, the Supreme Court says it would pass the Constitutionality test. The Court said there may be other ways but this one was acceptable.

Given the above, I consider it to be a wise ruling.

[Catchme]

Wow, thanks for that, I really had no idea, and in this case I agree, they should NOT be allowed Canadian citizenship.

If they are in Canada under a tourist visa, or students visa and already pregnant, upon arrival, no way should their children get citizenship.

The loop hole should indeed be closed

[Catchme]

1) A top priority for the government is the protection of it's citizens

2) Subject to a more balanced hearing, the Court agrees that it is OK to:

a) Hold a non-citizen indefinitely

Withhold all evidence from the person being detained

3) The Court, in their ruling, provided an example of "satisfactory" improvements. The example was actually provided to the Supreme Court by the Canadian Bar. The example involved having a rotating staff of high-security-cleared councillors who would review the evidence and charges and would act as an advocate for the detainee - without speaking with the detainee. The councillor would simply act as an adversary to the government. The final ruling would still be made by a judge. The councillor will have no contact at all with the detainee.

4) If the above example was put into legislation, the Supreme Court says it would pass the Constitutionality test. The Court said there may be other ways but this one was acceptable.

Given the above, I consider it to be a wise ruling.

That is disengenuous and Britian has done similar, to what is above, google the Macdonald incident security England.

The top priority of citizens protections is rights, they were very clear on the fact that rights and due process had to be protected first and foremost, before safety hence their ruling and types of changes that could be made, that MIGHT meet Charter litmus.

But you see if we have the government choosing councillors and judges, as Harper wants, how are we guaranteed absolute unbias and forthright actions by our government? Answer we can't be.

[blueblood]

1) A top priority for the government is the protection of it's citizens

2) Subject to a more balanced hearing, the Court agrees that it is OK to:

a) Hold a non-citizen indefinitely

Withhold all evidence from the person being detained

3) The Court, in their ruling, provided an example of "satisfactory" improvements. The example was actually provided to the Supreme Court by the Canadian Bar. The example involved having a rotating staff of high-security-cleared councillors who would review the evidence and charges and would act as an advocate for the detainee - without speaking with the detainee. The councillor would simply act as an adversary to the government. The final ruling would still be made by a judge. The councillor will have no contact at all with the detainee.

4) If the above example was put into legislation, the Supreme Court says it would pass the Constitutionality test. The Court said there may be other ways but this one was acceptable.

Given the above, I consider it to be a wise ruling.

That is disengenuous and Britian has done similar, to what is above, google the Macdonald incident security England.

The top priority of citizens protections is rights, they were very clear on the fact that rights and due process had to be protected first and foremost, before safety hence their ruling and types of changes that could be made, that MIGHT meet Charter litmus.

But you see if we have the government choosing councillors and judges, as Harper wants, how are we guaranteed absolute unbias and forthright actions by our government? Answer we can't be.

Right To Security of Person or Right to Habeous Corpus --->Pick one

It is with an attitude like that we have an Organized Crime problem in Canada. Many people's rights to Security of Person are being comprimised because of all the rights granted to criminals. Without safety there can be no rights. The tory gov't is not some Pinnochet type regime as much as you'd like it to be. I found the security certificates to be fair. If you have skeletons in your closet linking you to terrorism then maybe Canada isn't for you.

I'm just as scared having the Liberal party picking judges for the same reason as the tories are doing. Judges leaning both left or right on the political spectrum are equally as dangerous and should not be tolerated. We can't be guaranteed absolute unbias actions from a left of centre gov't either.

[Catchme]

Lol, nope, no skeletons in my closet, my family both sides has been here since the mid 1600's. Can't really get anymore "Canadian" than I, I suspect. Unless of course, if you're my daughter or granddaughter. Or another close family member, or part of the same group fleeing from European or British tyranny.

But that does not prevent me from understanding what comes first, personal liberty and freedom.

Nor am I, as a WASP, being xenophobic, nor being intellectually dishonest like some here about why they are advocating a holocaust in the ME, or why we should give away our personal freedoms because of their alleged fear.

First they came for.....

[Leader Circle]

A great day for Canada.

Indeed Newb....

Welcome to Canada!

Whether you are a facist, communist, terrorist or child molester, come to Canada and we'll let you decide what the courts or police should do to you. If you are good enough at story telling, we'll even give you $10 mill for your troubles!!!

So pathetic it is when national safety takes aback seat to "human rights"!

I guess all of you missed September 11, 2001?

If the authorities had have caught those guys before the attack, they should have just let them lawyer up and find some hardcore bleeding heart judges to hear their case and then turn them free, back to their terrorist cell meetings to find a proper way to attack the world and cause as much devastation that they can!

Great idea!

[blueblood]

Lol, nope, no skeletons in my closet, my family both sides has been here since the mid 1600's. Can't really get anymore "Canadian" than I, I suspect. Unless of course, if you're my daughter or granddaughter. Or another close family member, or part of the same group fleeing from European or British tyranny.

But that does not prevent me from understanding what comes first, personal liberty and freedom.

Nor am I, as a WASP, being xenophobic, nor being intellectually dishonest like some here about why they are advocating a holocaust in the ME, or why we should give away our personal freedoms because of their alleged fear.

First they came for.....

If you have skeletons in your closet linking you to terrorism then maybe Canada isn't for you.

Whoops I wasn't referring to you there, just arbitrary individuals who are like that.

I didn't know Canada had other nationalities other than French Canadians living here in the mid 1600's, oh well.

Anyhoo, you'd be surprised to know that I don't support a lot of the U.S. foreign policy or their terror laws. I find ours to be reasonable. I advocate the lesser of two evils, that is IMV a primary pillar of Conservative ideology. A person shouldn't give their right to security away because of living in fear of crime.

[Catchme]

funny how that all rhetoric of pre-emption falls apart when you find out the USA is again funding Al Qaeda eh?

There is no freedon or security if personal liberty is lost!

Those who advocate it, want personal liberty lost and nothing more.