Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Court puts security certificates in limbo

KIRK MAKIN

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 9:58 AM EDT 23/02/07

Ramifications will extend far beyond Canada's borders, human rights group says ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. bill johnson from Quebec, Canada writes: Nice to see these unanimous decisions on everything. The libbies have succeeded in turning our judiciary into their nondemocratic yet activist wing. Any time a controversial decision regarding legislation comes down the pike, they need only to refer it to the Supremes (yeah, sure) to get the desired result. Well done.
  2. Gardiner Westbound from Canada writes: .

    Osama is laughing is a$$ off.

    .
  3. Mary O'Hara from Toronto, Canada writes: I believe Lenin's term was 'useful idiots'. Google it.
  4. robert marshall from Scarborough, Canada writes: Well when the next terrorist attack comes we will be screwed
  5. ross sako from llyodminster, Canada writes: Who is making the laws in Canada? Way to go P.E.T.!
  6. Zando Lee from Vancouver, Canada writes: This is just an excellent decision, the terrorists did not win in Canada!
  7. Andrew Mendez from edmonton, Canada writes: Who the hell's running this country, the judges? this is so canadian, lets just bury our heads in the sand and pretend there there is no terrorists. Maybe once we get attacked they'll wake up.
  8. Satori Zen from Security obsession ward, Canada writes: 'The Supreme Court... unanimously... a violation of life, liberty and security of the person.... process is hopelessly flawed and must be redrafted by parliament to eliminate the extreme secrecy...' -- More than five years for a glimmer of hope in humanity! -- '...has been a target of constant, harsh condemnation from civil libertarians.' Three cheers for the libertarians! Had it not been for them...
  9. Bill G from Calgary, Canada writes: So we continue to give constitutional protection to non citizens? Where is the benefit of being a citizen?
  10. Ron Cook from timmins, writes: Who is running this country?? The government who I can vote for or against, or the court where I as a Canadian citizen I have no influence. This is a left over Trudeau legacy of the so-called Charter of Rights. The question always is 'whose rights'?
  11. bruce weaver from Canada writes: Let's see, someone comes to Canada with a false passport. We later learn he was a high ranking member of the Taliban who killed Canadian soldiers. He can't be deported, he is accorded the rights of Canadians and we can't hold him. God help us.
  12. Carl Eric Codere from Saint-Lambert, Canada writes: Simply incredible, i thought they would have struck down only part of the legislation, but they got rid of everything... Excellent news for all terrorists worldwide - come to Canada, you'll have free reign!! Who is going to protect us now?
  13. Mary O'Hara from Toronto, Canada writes: Are there any elected politicians paying attention to this insanity?
  14. Tony . from Waterloo, Canada writes: Despite what some alarmists above are saying, this is NOT in any way, shape or form, an 'open door' for terrorists. Holding ANYONE for years without revealing why they are being held to anyone, including the accused or their lawyers, goes directly against everything we stand for. If we can't be better than that then we are little better then the terrorists we're all so scared of.

    The answer is simple, if they are terrorists, ARREST THEM! Don't go beating around the bush with hidden documents, behind closed doors meetings with judges and just indefinitely locking people up. If these men are a threat to national security then we have EVIDENCE, and that evidence doesn't need to be hidden among some old boys club of lawyers and judges.
  15. William Feader from Kingston, Canada writes: To all the chicken littles who have posted here, let me remind you that the Supreme Court has given the government 1 year to come up with a better solution to national security issues. If you want to criticize something, take aim at the government not the independent Supreme Court. Thank god there is still some democracy left in the world.
  16. Jason Lansdowne from toronto, Canada writes: Mary O'Hara you're so out of touch you're embarrassing yourself.

    The Supreme Court has stood up for freedom, democracy and the notion that you're innocent until proven guilty. All things the terrorists loathe.

    Your knee-jerk 'kill 'em all and let god sort them out' attitude makes you a greater threat to freedom than any terrorist.
  17. The Emperor's Paparazzi from Canada writes:
    What is this god called National Security for which many of our citizens will sacrifice their liberty to protect?
  18. Carl Eric Codere from Saint-Lambert, Canada writes: @Tony: If the evidence comes from secret agencies that are not Canadian, and we have vowed to keep that evidence secret for them, what would you do?? Free them?
  19. john earl from Canada writes: Don't get me wrong. I believe any convicted terrorist should join Timothy Mcveigh on the gurney. BUT : When we allow the state to detain anyone without charge or without allowing them access to information on the suspicions surrounding them , we are moving closer and closer to a police state.
  20. Marcella x from West Overshoe, Canada writes: It's true. I do blame Trudeau, and his successors of course. Keep this in mind folks, as his pampered son enters politics.

    I guess there is one place in Canada that will always be safe from terrorism. The halls of the Supreme Court of Canada, because that will always be the terrorists last safe haven.
  21. Kevin M from Toronto, Canada writes: Sadly, it's a little too easy to forget how the Charter reads and the rights that we're all guaranteed because of it. It's understandable, individual rights aren't very tangible. But it's not excusable.

    These decisions are wrongly viewed as giving terrorists an easier time at accomplishing their aims. Thier aims are to destroy the underpinnings of our society - underpinnings that include these fundamental rights. When we turn to fear and begin giving up rights that many people fought hard to get for us in the first place, that's when terrorists begin to celebrate their successes. The courageous and much more difficult path is to be able to hold true to our values in the face of adversity.

    Showing the resolve to maintain these important individual rights, even if it means some of us will die, is the only way the 'war on terror' will be won. Isn't that why we fight wars in the first place? Certainly the world wars involved putting lives on the line to defend our beliefs. The purpose behind more recent wars may be less direct.
  22. Justin Campbell from Ottawa, Canada writes: Here come the ignoramuses, who can't see that deporting human beings to face imprisonment and torture -- without even a fair trial -- is a policy that has no place in a democracy.
  23. Ramesh Fernando from Canada writes: This is an absolute disgrace. We again triumph rights over the security of Canada. Many of these guys should get deported to where they came from. As Mary O'Hara said, all the terrorists must be patting themselves on the back. Tamil Tigers, Al-Quaeda, Hezbollah and Somalian Islamic Courtsyou name it we have them in Canada on welfare and disability pensions so they can use that money to fund terrorism or better yet go fight for their favouriite terrorist course. They all are planning on blowing up CN Tower and making Canada into Taliban's version of government or have already made Toronto into crime central with the Tamil Tiger gangs.
    We continue to pander to every bad person except to the majority of citizens who want safety with their families.
  24. Vern McPherson from Toronto, Canada writes: CHildren, CHILDREN !!!!!

    If you had no rights there wouldn't be a Globe forum where you could sound off your little minds. Moreover, the cops could come to your home and hold you indefinitely because they don't like your politics ot your shirt.

    If one citizen has a right then all must have the same right. Otherwise we become like the terrorists. We become Taliban.

    Funny some are so paranoid they are afraid to uphold rights of citizens in the face of challenges from terrorists.

    There is a better way to do this and the SC had given Parliament a year to accomplish it. So you COns have the ball.

    GET IN THE GAME !!! QUIT YOUR BLIND PARTISAN ACCUSATIONS AND BLAMING THE UMPS. ALTERNATIVELY YOU CAN TAKE YOUR BALL A LA little stevie AND GO HOME !!
  25. Dan L from Toronto, Canada writes: 'Mary O'Hara from Toronto, Canada writes: Somewhere in Afghanistan, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Kashmir, and Toronto a bunch of terrorists planning to kill lots of innocent Canadians have just opened their papers, read the news, and started patting each other on the back and laughing at the naivety and ignorance of Canadians.'

    Is this a serious comment or did you drink too much coffee this morning?

    I can also make up stuff that scares people for no reason. Here goes nothing: 'Now that Stephan Harper is a little 'slimmer' he is decidedly a greater threat to [the eating of] babies'. See how stupid that sounds?

    Clearly, it is our foreign policy that will decide whether we become a target for terrorists (ie. see the US) and this ruling has no consequence to that.
  26. Carl Eric Codere from Saint-Lambert, Canada writes: @Justin: I don't have a problem against what you say, except, we should not be allowed to free suspected terrorists because our proofs come from Foreign Governments that has promised that their sources be kept secret...
  27. tao chi from Beijing, China writes: How come so few people here seem to care for ' violation of life, liberty and security of the person'? Are not life, liberty and security of the person what you claim needs be respected the most by the State, my Canadian friends? Today, I fail to understand.
  28. Ben B from Canada writes: Quit your useless, ignorant yammering and read the decision before commenting! ALL OF YOU. You'd have this country run by apes flinging waste at each other rather than on reasonable people discussing differing opinions. You are the very antithesis of justice: taking positions at the very extremes without even knowing the most basic and easily available facts.

    I have no hope.
  29. Carl Eric Codere from Saint-Lambert, Canada writes: @tao chi: Its a balancing act, the security certificates were flawed, and the law should be modified in this regards... But we NEED such a system to be able to protect us against terrorists...
  30. W J N from Canada writes: Terrorists of the world, welcome to safe haven in Canada !
  31. Mary O'Hara from Toronto, Canada writes: Kevin M: 'Showing the resolve to maintain these important individual rights, even if it means some of us will die, is the only way the 'war on terror' will be won.'

    Seriously?

    So we should fail to aggressively protect ourselves against people who are NOT CITIZENS, who have routinely been shown to come here under false pretenses, and who openly espouse the strategy of taking advantage of liberal democratic judiciaries, social welfare, and unwilllingness to fight as the means of defeating them in a cultural and societal war?

    Oh, and it's nice and easy to say 'do this all in open court'. Sure, and then your sources of intelligence are destroyed for future use.

    Idealism is great in high school, but in the real world you sometimes need to be pragmatic.
  32. Fiona Hammond from Ottawa, writes: Excellent. The moment we start abusing Human Rights in the name of security, the terrorists win.

    Good to see that we're a country that leads by example.
  33. Chris Hay from Regina, Canada writes: Reading the rabid rantings against our 'Liberal' Court, one must wonder how many of these commentators have actually read through the decision issued by the Court. I would venture extremely few if any as an answer. By the same token, how many of the commentators are aware that the Law Lords of Britain, and the US Supreme Court have ruled much the same way? The ironic part is that it is precisely because of rulings such as this one, that those same vitrolic comments are even allowed - namely that the Court is upholding the basic rights of the Charter to allow people a freedom to express their views as a matter of respect and dignity. IF those same commentators are that against the rulings of the Court, then they should begin strong pressure tactics upon their leader, Mr Harper to have the entire Charter of Rights struck down and stricken from Canadian Laws. Today's ruling upon reading it, is logical and makes sense.
  34. Mail Man from Toronto, Canada writes: Liberal Judges!!!
  35. William Moore from Toronto, Canada writes: One wonders how many millions this ruling will cost us tax payers when the 3 involved inevitably hire a very willing lawyer to represent them in this 'obvious violation of their human rights' .............. Ararr times three would be about $36Million ............
  36. George Osicki from Poland writes: For now we have the opportunity to use this space to try to discuss reasonablly issues that arise in articles. If we abuse this right then we will loose it as well. I realize that these comments here are often a good means to release anger , etc... so be it . I also realize that this space has little room often for some sort of rational discussions , but , be that as it may , if I can I will always try to add a few comments. I praise the Supreme Court for today's decision . The law is very complicated , but so are people , individuals. Some how we need to find the means to continue to try to see fairness and justice. I am not pleased with many aspects as many others , but I still do not see a solution in a solution that is so radical that it is revolution which always takes the good with the bad. We lost almost our entire family in fighting for liberty . We have to be very careful when anyone is threadened with loose of freedom. We can not lower ourselves to the level of a criminal to punish criminals for then we can and/or do become as bad as they are and everything escalates . If we think we are better and we are better if we try to respect each life , then we need to show it in using our energies and our creativties to come up with better legislation than sloppy , quick fix situations. This is what the Court is saying and what I praise them for.
  37. Mike G from Ottawa, Canada writes: Pay attention people!! All that has happened is that people who might be held in the interest of national security now cannot be held indefinitely without charge or due process. This is the most basic premise of legitimate legal systems anywhere.

    Its not like the court is preventing surveillance of terrorists or preventing arrests. Intelligence and law enforcement can get it wrong sometimes: see Maher Arar, and also the fact that detainees have been released from Guantanamo Bay.

    This ruling simply ensures that law enforcement and intelligence cannot be taken as infallible (which effectively is the case if one doesnt bother to question what they do), and that those held get something resembling fairness.
  38. Ted Andrews from Canada writes: It is quite obvious from what is written here that FEAR has played the role the government wants it to play.
    It used to be that the 'Cold War' kept citizens in FEAR.
    Now it is 'Terrorists' and 'Terrorism'.
    FEAR is used to justify war, increased military/police/national security spending, suspension of civil liberties, etc.
    This court decision is commendable.
  39. Alpha Sigma from Kitchener, Canada writes: I would like to know why the charter protects the rights of non-citizens? If someone is a non citizen shouldn't the Fourth Geneva Convention be in effect?
  40. Fiona Hammond from Ottawa, writes: 'Ararr times three would be about $36Million ............ '

    As Arar was found completely innocent, that would be money well spent. What price freedom?
  41. Dark Green from Greenland, Cuba writes: The Blue Right (reeeeformed) is not pleased! Oh! not pleased at all. Isn't their yelling 'murder!' the best proof possible that it doesn't give a d.. ime about life, liberty, and the security of the person? Beware all converts, on the eve of an election! Beware! Check the color... GREEN is best.
  42. Alexander Slimnich from Canada writes: *Life*, liberty and *security of person*.
    A terrorist attack and the terrorists who commit it are fundamentally opposed to life, liberty and security of person..

    I contend that the Supreme Court has just violated my - and every other Canadian's - constitutional rights with this ruling.

    J'accuse Supreme Court, J'accuse..
  43. Dan L from Toronto, Canada writes: 'Mary O'Hara from Toronto, Canada writes: Kevin M:
    So we should fail to aggressively protect ourselves against people who are NOT CITIZENS, who have routinely been shown to come here under false pretenses, and who openly espouse the strategy of taking advantage of liberal democratic judiciaries, social welfare, and unwillingness to fight as the means of defeating them in a cultural and societal war? Oh, and it's nice and easy to say 'do this all in open court'. Sure, and then your sources of intelligence are destroyed for future use. '

    There is a country where they do this [aggressively protect themselves from innocent people etc etc what you said above]. You should check it out. Lots of crime, poverty and the occasional terrorist attack. Just drive south for a while and stop before Mexico.
  44. Paul C from Canada writes: Kevin M from Toronto, Canada writes:'Showing the resolve to maintain these important individual rights, even if it means some of us will die, is the only way the 'war on terror' will be won.' I'll make sure to stand behind you when the shots are fired if you don't mind.
  45. Paula W from Smithers, BC, Canada writes: A bit surprised that the comments above suggest that Security Certificates somehow protected Canadian security. The purpose of the certificates is to deport suspected terrorists - wouldn't Canadian security be better served by incarcerating real terrorists found on Canadian soil? These men should be tried and if the allegations are true, they should be jailed. Adopting this 'not in my back yard' approach to suspected terrorists (as the security certificates do) hardly addresses the real risk issue. Personally, I see this as not only a victory for human rights, but also a good opportunity to reevaluate Canada's security policy to make citizen and non-citizen threats held to the same standards.
  46. Cup of Tea from National, Canada writes:
    Mary O'Hara writes: Somewhere in Afghanistan, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Kashmir, and Toronto a bunch of terrorists planning to kill lots of innocent Canadians have just opened their papers, read the news, and started patting each other on the back and laughing at the naivete and ignorance of Canadians.

    No Mary, quite the opposite. They are cursing that we maintain our freedoms. And they are surprised that Canadians are so wise and intelligent, considering our Harper-Hillier actions in the field.

    The Supreme Court ruled wisely (again).
  47. Francis CHRISTIAN from Edmonton, Canada writes: Fellow Canadians, REJOICE. Our nation has shown the way for all nations. Our courts have upheld the tradition of centuries and laws that have combated terrorism effectively - such as that perpetrated by the IRA in Britain - whilst safeguarding human dignity and our common humanity. Bravo! We have much to be thankful for.
  48. R. Carriere from Canada writes: Of course there are certain problems with the security certificates, yet this decision concerns me somewhat. Completely throwing out a law and giving parliament a year to re-write it? I believe the law stays on for another year.

    While the Supreme Court is so quick to defend the Charter rights of anyone, citizen or not, where is this same Court's sense of RESPONSIBILITY towards the greater good of Canada and for Canadians as a whole? As more decisions come forth, there is a subtle appearance of 'making law' instead of inturpreting law. We should be very much on guard and question this unelected body and its appointments and procedures-maybe even term limits. Everyone in the same job for too long goes stale. I really do not wish to experiece a judicial coup d'etat.
  49. Philip Van Bergen from Hashima, Canada writes: That's pretty funny Ms Ohara- ('Somewhere in Afghanistan, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Kashmir, and Toronto a bunch of terrorists planning to kill lots of innocent Canadians have just opened their papers, read the news, and started patting each other on the back and laughing at the naivety and ignorance of Canadians.')
    I can't imagine that anything Canada does makes the news in Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world for that matter. I think you've deluded yourself into thinking that you are American, part of a country that has real power and influence in the world.

    As for the 'liberal' judges asking for a re-write of the Liberal law,
    we have all these 'conservatives' complaining!! Go figure!! Only
    in Canada would conservatives support the Liberal Party!!
    What a joke! If the world knew half of it they would really be
    laughing!
  50. randy davies from Vancouver, Canada writes: Terrorists 1 Canada 0
  51. Rob C from Toranna, Canada writes: Tony . from Waterloo and William Feader from Kingston and all the other level heads- I agree.

    The govt. has one year to come up with a better plan for certificates that should have enough teeth to catch the guilty- but not jaws that will bite the innocent in the process.
  52. Gerry Pankhurst from Westport, Canada writes: If this doesn't give credence to the Prime Minister's intention to change the way judges are appointed, what does? Hopefully the courts will operate in the not too distant future from a level playing field instead of being stacked with left wingers and the days of the Liberal version of what is justice will just be a bad memory.
  53. randy davies from Vancouver, Canada writes: Arrar was not found completely innocent.

    He simply was found not quilty.
  54. John P from Calgary, Canada writes: One day...the terrorists will murder Canadians and the blood will lead to the Supreme Court of Canada. Their decision is a disaster. They have just made killing Canadians that much easier. The terrorists do not care about our laws...they only care about killing us. The Supreme Court and its justices sicken me as a Canadian. You pretend to protect rights of Canadians, yet you only endanger our lives with your foolish decisions.
  55. R F from Canada writes: I can't believe how many fearmonegring and unti-democraic/anti-human comments I see in here, especially the first few.

    The decison confirms that Canada is NOT the US, although it has its own share of fearmongers; I have to add.

    Great decision for human rights and for Canada!
  56. Marky Bouy from Ontario, Canada writes: Who was it that said something to the effect, giving up freedom and liberty for security deserve neither...oh yeah that was Ben Franklin...we need a law that doesn't infringe on freedoms yet protects us. Democracy in action people.
  57. Mary O'Hara from Toronto, Canada writes: Dan L: There is a country where they do this [aggressively protect themselves from innocent people etc etc what you said above]. You should check it out. Lots of crime, poverty and the occasional terrorist attack. Just drive south for a while and stop before Mexico.

    It's also the country that saved the world's butt in WWII, against communism, and has paid the bills for Nato, the UN, and most of the world's aid to poor nations in the last 50 years.

    While smug self-righteous Canadians pat themselves on the back for being so superior, they sponge off the US's economic productiveness and scientific advancements, and consume their media and entertainment products in vast preference to our own.
  58. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: To the pundits making the comments critical of the decision: I draw your attention to this obscure observation: 'Those who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security'.- Ben Franklin. Giving any government the kind of power that the Security Certificates provide, without appropriate and reasonable mechanisms of oversight and correction, makes everyone unsafe. People like Mary O'Hara are extremely funny, in a bleak sort of way. They would have been the majors and colonels in the CHEKKA, NKVD, KGB and other similar organizations in the government founded by Lenin. Equally funny is that the crowd that is so eager to give the government and police such extensive, intrusive and unsupervised power and access to their private lives and personal liberty are the same ones who expend so much energy and anger about government 'intrusion' when issues like product health, safety and quality come up for discussion. The irony in that is breathtaking. They have no concerns about giving a group with the legal authority to kill an individual the power to arbitrarily detain, arrest and hold anyone without oversight or recourse to self-defence (you know, see the 'evidence' that may be false or flawed), but complain about the process that ensures the food they eat and the products they use won't harm or kill them. So, Mary O'Hara et al, who actually are the 'useful idiots' here?
  59. R D from Canada writes: Tony - nice thought. Unfortunately, when asked their occupation, most will not say Terrorist. It is obviously difficult to tell who is a threat. This decision has now meant we will need more prove rather than err on the side of public safety. And even after they are arrrested, they get out on bail now to dissappear. What nice little cocoons these judges must live in. Too bad they have no feel for the real world.
  60. S Foley from Ottawa, Canada writes: This was the right decision. The potential for severe abuse was there. These certificates must be designed with caution, otherwise we betray all the principles that this country stands for. We do not want to head down the road towards Zimbabwe or Venezuela.
  61. tao chi from Beijing, China writes: Dear Mr. Codere , 'a balancing act' is good, very good, right, but are not the comments here, today, balancing a little much to the right? Very little left on the left, no equilibrium, dangerous ship be out of balance, no?
  62. Ben B from Canada writes: THANKS YOU to Tony, Chris Hay, George Osicki, and even to Mary O'Hara in her 10:24 comment (although most definitely not her earlier ones).

    These few people among the dozens who have posted here have spoken within the limits of their own knowledge. They couldn't have read the decision yet, but at least they aren't either condemning it or applauding it. Is it too much to ask for some modesty from posters here?
  63. Mary O'Hara from Toronto, Canada writes: LMAO. I think this topic will set a new record for comments.
  64. Carl Eric Codere from Saint-Lambert, Canada writes: As others stated, the law should be redesigned so as to avoid abuses, BUT security certificates should still be allowed in a way or another... As usual a balancing act. Security certificates should be an exceptional measure, but it should be allowed, but maybe the suspects should have a better chance of defending themselves...
  65. Erik D. from Ottawa, Canada writes: To tao chi from Beijing, China who writes: 'How come so few people here seem to care for ' violation of life, liberty and security of the person'? Are not life, liberty and security of the person what you claim needs be respected the most by the State, my Canadian friends? Today, I fail to understand.'

    It is because they lack moral fiber and any sort of backbone and are basically running scared. They believe reverting to a police state, with no rights or freedoms will keep them safe from terrorists. Sad really. They easily forget, that there are more deaths in a country from things like car accidents, etc. than anything the terrorists have done in the States or Canada or Western Civilization. If anything, police states or totalitarian states (basically the same thing) like the USSR as one example have killed more people in the name of internal security than any of these terrorists organizations. In this sense the terrorists have won or are winning, as they are degrading the free society in which we used to live in and were proud to have attained and which they despise.
    Of course, when threatened one needs to become cautious, but one needs equally to be diligent so that ones freedoms, the ones our countries fought for and our brave soldiers died for in various wars and peace keeping activities, are not thrown out with the bath water so to speak.
    That balance between freedom and security is what this is all about. The ones crying the loudest about removing safe guards to rights and freedom, feel threatened the most, and likely have never experienced living in a police or totalitarian state and don't really understand what it takes to fight terrorism while living in a state the prides itself on freedom.
  66. scott thomas from Canada writes: Reading the comments on this blog, I am astonished at the wholesale rush to give away our rights. Evidently most of you don't even know what Habeus Corpus is, much less care what it does. In a 'free society,' which I aspire to, there are of course risks. But those risks are worth it for our freedom. Otherwise, the terrorists (and I will point out that the most recent terrorist bombing of a building in Canada was the Morgentaler clinic on Harbord Street in Toronto) will have won. The terrorists appear to have won convincingly in the US, where torture is now state policy.
  67. I Am Still Learning at 76 from Regina, Canada writes: The SCC has made the right desision. We as a sovern country cannot be allowed to go the way of US human rights abuses. Mr McKay is at this very monument in talks with Ms Rice to harmonize the three independent country's . Canada,US and Mexico. Any agreements with the US will be to their advantage. With the Harper Government's ability to get a good deal for the US make me very afraid for the citizens of Canada who do not want to be a part of the 'North American Union' or the other name for it 'SPP' . Google it at Gov of Canada.
  68. Carl Eric Codere from Saint-Lambert, Canada writes: @tao chi: I agree with you, at first i was shocked with the decision, but after thinking about it, the Supreme Court did not rule against the concept of security certificates, but only part of the process... which is flawed. But the reactions i see on the forum are normal, people are afraid for their own security (which is quite normal), and when some laws are stuck down to protect people that have total disregard of life.. its normal to react negatively...
  69. Marky Bouy from Ontario, Canada writes: Eric D. Well said.
  70. Harold Uhlman from Lunenburg, NS, writes: I know it seems we have given up ground to the terrorists. However, does anyone really think security certificates would keep terrorists out. There are no deterrents to terrorists. So at home it's a matter of balance between security and our sense of freedom. I expect the Arar incident affected this decision, not just its constitutionality . It's now up to the law and order government to come up with something that will stand a constitutional challenge. They have a year to do so.
  71. b mac from Canada writes: Incredible. Were do these judges come from anyway? Just another case were Women are from Venus and men are from Mars?
  72. paul malouf from Montreal, Canada writes: Excellent ruling by Supreme Court. remember: All men are Created Equal, is often cited. However I would suggest that - All men Should be Treated as Equal. The Canadian legal system is one of the best. And with this ruling it's back on track. 5 yr detention without seeing the evidence is morally
  73. Carl Eric Codere from Saint-Lambert, Canada writes: @Erik: Please don't compare USSR with Canada, its an insult, Security certificates were still reviewed by the courts... I think there is misinformation on both side... If you really think that Security Certificates make us a Police State, i think you should also live in some other countries... And you'll see Canada is not that bad after all...
  74. Cup of Tea from National, Canada writes:
    John P from Calgary, you're hysterical.

    And an extremist.

    Mary O'Hara from Toronto, just so you are aware (although I'm sure facts won't get in your way): The US has not paid the bills for the UN. In fact, U.S. arrears to the UN currently total over $1.3 billion. There are no plans to pay these amounts.

    Your ill-informed (dare we say uneducated?) comments are about as accurate as your facts about the US-UN relationship. Maybe Bonkers Bolton has been whispering in your ear again, eh?
  75. randy davies from Vancouver, Canada writes: Asinine! Idoitic! Viperous! The not with standing clause should be used to over rule these clowns.
  76. Buddy Canada from Toronto, Canada writes: The terrorists win when they attack Canadian targets and kill Canadians. If there is sufficient evidence to detain but it may not be evidence that stands up in a court of law then the government has a duty to the lives of its citizens to detain or deport those who threaten our safety. perhaps the answer is not to have these security laws but end immigration from certain countries.
  77. Dana Dana from Canada writes: Quick note to remind all that each and every post you read condemning today's SC decision and promoting fear comes from a Conservative.
  78. Shirley Jackson from Oliver, BC, Canada writes: Thank god. The Enlightenment still exists at the Supreme Court where judges are judges and freethinkers, not whores. In contrast, the Federal Court is our People's Court. The Americans bombed the People's Court of Nazi Germany. What about protecting citizens from the star chamber, false accusations, and cruel and unusual punishment? When will the CSIS Act be struck down?
  79. Dan L from Toronto, Canada writes: 'Mary O'Hara from Toronto, Canada writes:
    It's also the country that saved the world's butt in WWII, against communism, and has paid the bills for Nato, the UN, and most of the world's aid to poor nations in the last 50 years.'

    Is this a serious statement?
    Saved the world's butt in WWII? Don't you mean 'failed to join the war until they were directly threated right while letting most of Europe become occupied?'
    Saved the world against communism? Are you referring to Vietnam? Because as we all know, that was such a success in stemming the 'threat' of communism.

    I'll give you the NATO and UN stuff but you left out the best one of all: The invasions and subsequent occupation of Iraq.

    Seriously, though, your comments are some of the most ridiculous I have read on this board.
  80. Dave Medich from Windsor, Canada writes: ................. Welcome to Canada! Feel free to terrorize at your leisure and we won't bother you until after the fact if we can catch you then. Don't worry if you're not a citizen. You have more rights than they do. Enjoy your stay.
  81. T. Milrose from Toronto, Canada writes: Now THIS is good news. If the evidence is sufficient in the cases of the people under the certificates, let them be brought to court and faced with them. That's how a truly free society deals with its criminals. Anything else is pandering to fear and mob mentality.
  82. Carl Eric Codere from Saint-Lambert, Canada writes: @Dana: Untrue. Get your facts straight...
  83. Eddy Black from Small Town Ontario Town Ontario, Canada writes: It is great to be a Canadian and benefit from the freedoms we have under our Charter of Rights, isn't it?
    Now if we could just amend that Charter of Rights to include;
    Protection for Canadian Citizens from terrorists.
    The right to own Property for Canadians.
    Removal of Canadian citizenship granted to terrorists, people who gained citizenship on false claims and violent criminals.
    Protection given to unwanted visitors, terrorists and criminals identical to what Canadian citizens have.
    Canada is likely the only country in our world where there is no benefit to being a Citizen. Anyone who crosses our borders have the same rights we do.
    Intruders, terrorists and criminals are permitted to remain in Canada, if there is even a suggestion, that they might be mistreated if returned to their homeland.
    Pity, only in Canada and Wonderland.
  84. The Emperor's Paparazzi from Canada writes:
    I have more fear from being killed by a drunk driver than any terrorist. I think we should lock up indefinitely without trial any drunk drivers. No, wait, I mean anybody who intends to drink and drive.
  85. Carl Eric Codere from Saint-Lambert, Canada writes: @T. Milrose and ALL to say that there should be an open trial: What do you do if the proof comes from a foreign government who wants the evidence to be kept secret (for examples because of insider information)? Its easdy to say what you are saying, but there is a reason why proof is not made public, and that is probably the reason...
  86. David Bakody from Dartmouth, writes: Strange how the rules would change if it was you behind bars on a visit to the US of A or Mexico. Good for our courts, the goverment was given one year to right the law via debate I hope. Our only experience has been Oct 70 and Perrier Tredeau in retrospect handled it well. We have nothing to fear but fear itself.....give me Liberty or give me death, these are words of Democracy. If eithier forces of law have clear concise evidence then show it. Hell we can not even get a clear copy of Air India on the the table as promised by PMSH. Then there was proof by GWB of WMD's case closed. Time to go to work in Ottawa, to-day is a new day.
  87. Jaw Wabble from Vanc, Canada writes: No. 23: The Larch
  88. Fiona Hammond from Ottawa, writes: 'randy davies from Vancouver, Canada writes: Arrar was not found completely innocent.

    He simply was found not quilty. '

    And do we want to live in a country were people who are not guilty are kidnapped, incarcerated in another country and tortured? I certainly don't, but you're free to move to a country were such things are acceptable.
  89. Vern McPherson from Toronto, Canada writes: randy davies from Vancouver, Canada writes: Arrar was not found completely innocent.

    He simply was found not quilty.

    randi THAT IS A STONE FACED BARE FACED LIE AND YOU KNOW IT.
  90. The Centrist from Canada writes: Ah listen to the neocons who are against basic human and civil rights. Listen to them call for an AUTHORATARIAN STATE. I didn't vote for a Stalinist state and I don't want one-maybe the neocons do. And this PROVES that Dion was correct in opposing the governments extension of the anti-terror act, because it was a violation of BASIC HUMAN LIBERTIES. You can't throw someone in jail without due process, that is what happened to Arar. But in Shrub land, thats what Harper wants to do is to extend the draconian 1600 laws on terror. What an absolute outrage that the Harper is against basic human rights!
  91. Michael Doyon from Canada writes: reading thru these letters (perhaps...more to the point ...rantings) I belive I have seen right into the hearts of these ultra right wing writers. I am forever grateful for this eye opening glimpse and rest assured I'll not even consider giving my vote to anyone in the conservative party.
  92. Ian Gunn from Minneapolis, United States writes: If an individual is suspected of something or suspected on planning something, they should be taken into custody. An investigation should be done and either the person is charged or is released. Canada has enough laws on the books to enable this today and six years ago.

    There's a lot I don't agree with w/SCoC, but I'm 100% with them on this. No country has the right to imprison anyone without due process - Period. If you have a case against someone, PROVE IT. If you don't, let them go. Simple... Anything else, is not democratic.
  93. Not the Alliance from In my opinion, The Harper Gov't is Still Incompetent, Canada writes: Our New (tm) Gov't has been given one year to revise the current system. I can see why this is a problem for our New (tm) Gov't. One year from now, IF they are still in power, our New (tm) Gov't will still be New (tm). Perhaps the lefty, terrorist loving judiciary should have given our New (tm) gov't 18 months....
  94. Anthony B. from Sydney, NS, Canada writes: No secret courts, no detention without trial. Thank God someone is willing and able to stand up to a government (of any stripe) that will trample on human rights to get votes and commit excesses in the name of 'national security.' I'm not soft on terrorism or any other crime but if you've got the evidence to arrest a suspect, produce it. Any one who thinks otherwise better pray they never run afoul of the people with the power.
  95. Matthew Baldwin from London, ON, Canada writes: So....who wants to argue now with Harper's claim the judiciary has been packed with left-wing apologists?

    Anyone?
  96. James Young from Brantford, Canada writes: Satori Zen from Security obsession ward, Canada writes: Well done Tony . from Waterloo, Canada writes: W3ll stated. William Feader from Kingston, Canada writes: Well stated. Jason Lansdowne from toronto, Canada writes: Great. john earl from Canada writes: True Justin Campbell from Ottawa, Canada writes: Great Justin Campbell from Ottawa, Canada writes: Braindead who vote CPC. Chris Hay from Regina, Canada writes: yep George Osicki from Poland writes: yep Mike G from Ottawa, Canada writes: yep Ted Andrews from Canada writes: Well done. Locking people up and throwing away the key is not acceptable. This type of behaviour by Louie XIV eventually lead to the revolution that was basically the beginnning of the modern world freedom laws. These laws have been involving since 1776 in the US and 1792 in Europe. I am astonished that so many people would suggest allowing the state to remove these hard won rights. Fortunately from the many posts, it appears there are quite a few people, who advocate basic justice. A Democracy is always evolving, and the Supreme Court made an great ruling. I totally reject any view that the Supreme Court is in any way political, and everytime I see references that it is so, I cringe. Refreshing only a few CPC rants today! Durgan.
  97. S B from Woodbridge, Canada writes: I see that Mr. Ramesh Fernando from Ottawa is hate/fear mongering about Tamils as usual.

    Keep it up Mr. Fernando!
  98. Michael Manning from Mississauga, Canada writes: randy davies from Vancouver, Canada writes: 'Arrar was not found completely innocent. He simply was found not quilty. '

    Quite true. Now, prove YOU are not plotting the overthrow of our democratically elected government. Come on. Prove it! What's that? You can't? Well, we're going to send you somewhere where some nasty men will torture you until you confess that you are and use that confession as proof that any denial you make is a lie.

    Welsh Nationalists are latent terrorists, poised to strike at any moment. Clearly the Harper government is soft on terrorism because they let people of Welsh descent like Randy Davies walk free amongst unsuspecting Canadians.

    What a travesty of a democracy we have in Canada where Maher Arar and Randy Davies can both go about their business planning who know's what!
  99. Mitch Gullison from Fredericton, Canada writes: The law must have been flawed or the judges wouldn't have struck it down. Do you people think the judges sit around and say how can we help the terrorists today. I'm proud to live in a country that holds human rights in such high regards.
  100. Marky Bouy from Ontario, Canada writes: Looks like the right has left the building....
  101. AlienNation iswhatweare from Calgary, Canada writes: The 'war on terrorism' is a fraud. This is only about the elite wanting to systematically take away our rights and freedoms so we become the economic slaves that they want us to believe.

    How many 'moles' have they found in the Toronto case? Is it 3 or 4 now.

    For anyone who wishes to see the deceitful ways in each they try to scare and put fear in us then i suggest you go to YouTube and watch the movie TerrorStorm, you'll be able to see for yourself the lengths that the elite or NWO if you prefer, will go to to create fear in our society so that we give up our rights.

    The oklahoma city bombings, 911, the london bombings, the spanish bombings and countless more 'terror' plots were carried out by the CIA, MI6, and other secret agency. But i guess if you want to believe what the gov't tells you then that's up to you, i for one don't trust them as far as i can throw them.
  102. M. D. from Canada writes: To those who keep repeating the mantra 'what would you do if the evidence comes from a foreign government that wants it kept secret' the answer is you do not use it. What foreign government would that be? The US and its rock-solid evidence on WMD? The Myanmar junta? Great sources of information...

    I suggest the government take advantage of the one year grace period for security certificates and use it on the true threats to national security, the fearmongers who authored the first few posts of this thread. After they languish for, oh, four or five years in Guantanamo North we can see if their minds have changed.
  103. R L from Canada writes: Thank goodness there is still an institution left that defends the constitution and defends the rights of all Canadians. While all the political bickering and slandering goes on in parliament, the one institution which prevents them from overriding the rights of individuals in civilized and just society, is the judiciary. Detaining individuals without cause, warrant, or charge, is simply absurd and cannot be tolerated. Not for all the fear-mongering in the world.

    If someone is to be detained or deported, and has broken laws sufficient to such an action, then he or she has the right to be informed of the charge against him or her, and is entitled to the right to a defence. The alternative is nothing short of absolute rule by an unaccountable state.
  104. The Centrist from Canada writes: The fear mongering neocons are out in full force because they want a Stalinist totalitarian state. They want the nanny state to take care of THEM YET AGAIN. But to have the nanny state take of the poor-that is not in the neocon playbook. The Harper Conservatives are against that-they tried to cut funding to homeless initiatives, they cut funding to literacy programs, and they cut funding womens programs. Then they had the AUDACITY to raise taxes by .5% on the poorest of the poor.-working moms and dads getting paid the minimum wage. Probably to pay for more jails so the NANNY STATE can protect the neocons from the fear they attempt to create. What an outrage!
  105. Bill G from Calgary, Canada writes: Wrong again Centrist. Most posters here are wondering why constitutional protection of a citizen is given to a non-citizen. We can't easily deport anyone that washes up on our shores thanks to an activist judiciary and their intrepretation of the Charter of Rights. No one is advocating restricting the rights of citizens relative to due process. Many are wondering why we would offer a non citizen terrorist a lawyer before we deport him.
  106. Ken DeLuca from Arnprior, ON, Canada writes: This is about the rights of an accused. If you have ever been wrongly accused, you will understand why due process is important and why it's in no one's interest to act out of fear.
  107. R F from Canada writes: From the article:

    'While carefully paying heed to fears of terrorism and the special difficulties of protecting national security, the court said that certain elements of fairness cannot be dispensed with -- including the right of a detainee to know the case against them and to make full answer and defence.'

    '...including the right of a detainee to know the case against them and to make full answer and defence.'

    How could anybody with a bit of decency have any problem with this? This is the basics of human rights.
  108. Marc D from Canada writes: It's interesting to read so many comments from people who have no idea what the Charter of Rights and Freedoms actually means, nor do they have a clue on the separation that should exist (and mostly does, unless Harper has his way) between our judicial and legislative/executive branches, nor do these wanna-be fascists actually understand what a 'common law' system really means. Hint: it includes the term 'judge-made law' and 'precedent'.

    If parliament wants its laws to be upheld by the courts, then perhaps those law makers, all of whom are elected based on popularity not competence, should start looking at making the laws they pass conform to our Constitution. Doing otherwise is just inviting the courts to slap them silly for overreaching their powers.

    Last I checked, the Constitutional documents, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, still trump any legislation that conflicts with it. The judicial branch is the one that makes these determination. If the fascist rednecks want to do away with the Charter and let our government imprison people without due process just because they want to, let them vote for people who will change our Constitution. Just because the Americans are letting their government get away with it doesn't mean, however, that we should as well.
  109. Marky Bouy from Ontario, Canada writes: A true patriot always questions his government and never follows any leader without question. Right or Left.
  110. Erik D. from Ottawa, Canada writes: to Carl Eric Codere from Saint-Lambert: I was not comparing Canada to USSR, I was only providing examples of police states, who use the excuse of internal security to kill and are a greater threat to a country than these terrorists. Yes, the Supreme Court has given a year grace to implement these properly, and I agree with that. I don't think the certificates in themselves make us a police state, but when if we implement them contrary to our own laws and beliefs in freedoms and rights, then we start on the slippery slope towards a police state. It is easier to nip these in the bud, than to try and recover from being in apolice state, look at Russia as a prime example of how difficult that is to do, as they are indeed slipping back into a totalitarian state.
    When 9/11 occurred, Western Civilization went into a panic mode, understandably, how we retreat from our panic state and how we recover from the response to that panic will in effect determine if we treuly remain a free state.
    As provided many times above, there are lots of responses to this blog which do indeed feel that these certificates are needed without any need to examine them relative to our beliefs and laws on rights and freedoms, in fact some state we should give up our hard fought rights and freedom, again forgetting the price our soldiers have paid to protect these same rights and freedoms. That is something as well to be wary of, as then scare mongering based on these fears becomes then a political tool used to generate votes as it feeds on these fearful elements of our society. This can also lead to police states.
  111. Not the Alliance from In my opinion, The Harper Gov't is Still Incompetent, Canada writes: Matthew Baldwin - I'll bite. Where's the proof in this decision?
  112. Peter S from Toronto, Canada writes: I don't understand those posters who think this is a bad decision. Surely the mark of any truly just and democratic society is its human rights record. Any measure that allows indefinite imprisonment with no right to trial, let alone seeing evidence, is a potential blight against us all. To those who think this is the Supreme Court 'running the country', you obviously missed the point - the Court is saying Parliament (yes, those people who we elect) are charged with changing the law to something legal. The Supreme Court protects us all by making sure our government doesn't overstep it's legal boundaries.
  113. Craig Martin from United States writes: It is a day to be proud to be a Canadian. Living in the United States, it has been shocking to see how the rule of law and the fundamental values of democracy have been so violently undermined by the policies of detaining non-nationals indefinitely in Guantanamo Bay without charge, with the attempts to deny them any and all access to the judicial system, and purporting to subject them to special war commissions that give kangaroos a bad name, all in violation of fundamental principles of international law and the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court put up the first signs of resistence against this political over-reaction to the threat of terrorism in Rumsfeld v. Hamdan, but today the Supreme Court of Canada has proclaimed loud and clear that the fundamental values that make our country worth defending, must be vigorously protected in the efforts to increase national security. Bravo.
  114. guy czaika from Montreal, Canada writes: I agree with the supreme court decision. Its just too easy to claim national security to hide evidence against an individual. This can be done against anyone for any reason. By all means, be tough with the bad guys, actively hunt them down and throw away the keys to their jail cells if you have proof of their guilt. But a system that allows indefinite jailing with no chance to challenge the evidence is just as bad as anything out there. Just what freedom would we be protecting?

    I am also getting tired of people complaining about 'liberal courts'. They don't make the laws, they apply them. The Canadian Charter of Rights is something that makes Freedom and Liberty something more than just catch-phrases to make us feel good.
  115. Erik D. from Ottawa, Canada writes: To randy davies from Vancouver, Canada who writes: 'Arrar was not found completely innocent.

    He simply was found not quilty. '

    In the same sense that Mulroney was found not guiltyof his questionable activities?