Security Certificates Struck Down

[August1991]

Lol, nope, no skeletons in my closet, my family both sides has been here since the mid 1600's....

Nor am I, as a WASP....

Just a second here.

The population of New France was about 30 in 1630 and no more than a thousand or two in 1660. The only other European inhabitants of what is now Canada were in Newfoundland and they were no more than a few hundred, if that. From 1650-1800, the British had a deliberate policy of discouraging permanent settlement of Newfoundland. There were English in Nova Scotia after the fall of Louisbourg in 1745 and of course in New Brunswick and Ontario after 1776 with the arrival of Loyalists.

In short, I find it hard to believe your claim of being a WASP with ancestry in Canada dating back to the mid-1600s.

[Catchme]

Ya hit it right with NFLD, and indeed they were there and have been since 1653. The darn sundering of the Clans ya know, I guess you missed my posts on the First 500.

Part of my other half were originally in BNA fleeing from pogroms and moved north as it shrunk.

So, I suppose I could be inclusive and say Canadian North American. But I prefer Canadian as they remained loyalists.

[Argus]

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".

Total bullshit, of course.

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

What's your problem with Mennonites this week? One of them wouldn't toss any money in your jar when he walked past your corner?

[Argus]

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

Seems to be a lot of that on this forum!

Nothing Cathme says has any basis in fact.

[Catchme]

Provide proof argus that we regularily send landed immigrants home, I see you cannot, or you would've instead of attacking the poster. The sure sign of a weak position, or non position.

And when you are a landed immigrant or refugee, of course you get all the protection of our charter, that's what is at issue here, eh? Not allowing then to have Charter Rights as Canadians do.

Again you are wrong.

[guyser]

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!

Why would national safety take a back seat? One can secure the nation withjout violating rights.

What the H does 9-11 have to do with this? Caught those guys...??...they were living and working under their noses taking flying lessons. Maybe if they read the reports and did not resort to infighting they may have figured it out.

[Catchme]

Interesting, the USA is applauding the SCC getting rid of the security certificates and in fact I would bet Congreess is going to do something very similar shortly!

The United States was not the only country to respond to the horror of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks with policies that went much too far in curtailing basic rights and civil liberties in the name of public safety. Now we see that a nation can regain its senses after calm reflection and begin to rein back such excesses, but that heartening news comes from Canada and not the United States.

After the 2001 attacks, the Canadian government began using it aggressively to hold terrorism suspects, claiming that it was an important tool for keeping Canada safe.

That is just the sort of argument the Bush administration used to ram the excesses of the Patriot Act and the 2006 Military Commissions Act through Congress, and offered as an excuse for other abusive policies, like President Bush’s illegal wiretapping of international calls and e-mail.

The Canadian justices rejected their government’s specious national security claim with a forceful 9-to-0 ruling that upheld every person’s right to fair treatment. “The overarching principle of fundamental justice that applies here is this: before the state can detain people for significant periods of time, it must accord them a fair judicial process,” Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote.

The contrast with the United States could not be more disturbing...Congress also has a duty to revoke or rewrite the laws that have been abused in the name of national security, starting with the 2006 tribunals law.

Lawmakers have only to look to the Canadian court for easy-to-follow directions back to the high ground on basic human rights and civil liberties.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/opinion/...gin&oref=slogin

[jdobbin]

Interesting, the USA is applauding the SCC getting rid of the security certificates and in fact I would bet Congreess is going to do something very similar shortly!

Interesting to see the New York Times view on this. Obviously they don't see Canada as being soft on terrorism.

[jbg]

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?

The West seems to have a death instinct when it comes to terror. They think that because these people speak in tongues, they're saying something profound. We must resume "no fuss, no muss" deportations. Canada and the US are for Canadians and Americans; not for those who'd destroy is.