OTTAWA, 15 June 2006 — Lawyers for three men with alleged terror links asked Canada’s top court Tuesday to quash an extraordinary security measure that allows Ottawa to detain foreigners without charges for many years.
The controversial security certificates, which permit secret court hearings, undisclosed evidence and infinite incarceration, have been enshrined in Canada’s immigration act since 1978. Since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, they were used to jail five suspected terrorists, including the appellants Adil Charkaoui, Mohamed Harkat and Hasan Almrei. Canadian lawmakers say the measures are absolutely necessary to thwart possible terrorist attacks. But critics argue they breach civil liberties.
The appellants’ attorneys asked the Supreme Court to “strike down” the law because the security certificates circumvent normal judicial process and are thus unconstitutional, as well as “discriminatory.” Harkat’s lawyer, Paul Copeland, said the government’s refusal to divulge secret evidence in such cases, much of it gleaned from foreign intelligence sources, “emasculated” defense attorneys.
“You should strike down the legislation,” Copeland told the nine justices. Outside, a handful of protesters denounced secret trials as Charkaoui, released on bail under strict conditions, told reporters: “I don’t just want to be released. I want justice ... I want a fair trial (to clear his name).” “I am asking for the same rights as any Canadian, as any human being ... They cage us like animals ... threaten us with deportation to countries where we would face torture and certain death,” he said. “No Guantanamo in Canada!”
The case comes as the nation is gripped by the arrest of 17 Canadian suspects in a massive anti-terror sweep in Toronto on June 2, and as Canada’s parliament conducts a critical review of the act, to be completed by year end. The 17 Canadians who allegedly plotted to behead the prime minister and explode bombs in southern Ontario province face charges under a newer Anti-Terrorism Act, not the immigration act. But the Supreme Court’s decision, expected within six months, is likely to set a precedent in how all accused terrorists are treated and whether national security concerns should trump individual rights, say pundits.
According to court documents, federal lawyers plan to argue Wednesday that unusual secrecy in these cases prevents possible disclosure of intelligence and spy techniques to terrorists abroad.
“The greater the number of individuals with access to this information, the greater the risk of advertent and inadvertent disclosure,” federal lawyers said in a court brief.
“What is fair depends entirely on the context.” Civil libertarians hope the court will undo what they call a hysterical reaction to security threats. Eleven groups will present their arguments to the court. James Loney, a former Canadian hostage in Iraq, told AFP the certificates are “contrary to the basic principles of a civil, democratic society,” noting that the internment of Japanese-Canadians during World War II as possible security threats had since become “a national disgrace.”
