Government argues security certificates necessary to protect national secu

Government argues security certificates necessary to protect national security
Last Updated Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:45:49 EDT
CBC News

Lawyers for the federal government argued before the Supreme Court on Wednesday that national security outweighs the rights of individuals.

The government side is defending the use of security certificates, which allow the indefinite detention of non-citizens who are accused of being threats to national security.

Three men who have been detained are challenging the practice.

On Tuesday, their lawyers argued the certificates violate the Charter of Rights.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/06/14/scoc14062006.html

Labour bows to 'get tough' prison lobby

The full extent of Labour's more punitive approach to law and order was revealed yesterday as Tony Blair boasted that more than 1,000 offenders have been locked away in the last 12 months without a fixed release date under the new breed of "public protection sentences".

The rapid growth in popularity amongst supposedly "soft" judges of this new "indefinite" sentence for dangerous and violent offenders, introduced by David Blunkett when he was home secretary, has taken the criminal justice system by surprise. The chief inspector of prisons, Anne Owers, has said prisons are already facing problems in dealing with serious offenders who will remain behind bars until the parole board decides they are no longer a risk to the public - until they die if necessary.

As Mr Blair and David Cameron yesterday traded claims over who was toughest in their treatment of life-sentenced prisoners, Home Office ministers were quietly confirming that the introduction of a more liberal regime for 60,000 offenders is being postponed. The delay in the introduction of the new sentence of "custody plus" for short-term prisoners was confirmed yesterday by the prisons minister, Gerry Sutcliffe in a Commons written answer. The sentence was designed to replace prison terms of up to 12 months with a shorter period in custody combined with a longer period of rehabilitation and supervision in the community.
The new home secretary, John Reid, is preparing emergency measures to tighten up parole board procedures in deciding the release date of lifers and the new "public protection" prisoners.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1797769,00.html

And they were talking about the security certificates.

I'm curious: what are the views of the Canadian citizens on this? Are the majority for or against?

I don't have a sense of where the majority stand on this one, I suspect if most knew exactly what it meant, they would be against it but I don't have anything to prove it. I KNOW I disagree with the certificates as they are being used.

if the questions and comments made by the SCC during this hearing so far are any arbinger of things to come, I suspect they will uphold the validity of security certificates.

And I suspect that most Canadians would agree with that in the limited circumstances in which security certificates are utilized here - because they are used very sparingly and are only applicable in the limited circumstances enumerated in the legislation.

I.e. there have been only 27 cases, I think, in total - and for reference purposes, only 5 since September 11/01.

But it is not the same as in the US of A. The provinces have a lot more authority in Canada and with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms they would have to trample over a lot of ground to quash things.

However, it seems that they may be taking an approach to try and reach a middle ground, although with the new gunslingers in Ottawa who knows how it may end up?

Judges cool to 'security over rights' claim

OTTAWA — Protecting national security is the key to maintaining a free and democratic society, say federal lawyers defending their arsenal of legal weapons for evicting terrorist suspects from Canada.

Some of the nine judges were clearly reluctant to accept the view that security must always trump individual rights in such cases.

"If we don't have the rest we'll be living in North Korea."

The main reform proposal would see the appointment of security-cleared lawyers to attend closed-door hearings as "special advocates" with the power to challenge government evidence.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1150321811353&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News

In short. Can't give an up or down answer to your question yet. Guess that it has to go on the back burner and simmer for awhile, like the softwood issue.

The provinces have no actual authority in matters of immigration as it pertains to foreign countries; foreign immigration laws are within the purview of the federal gov't.

But I agree with you on the latter point that there is no real answer yet to the question asked and it will take some time for one to become clear.

Does Charest agree with that?

So I don't know how he feels about it.

But I do know that immigration is governed by federal statutes and that it is administered in federal courts. Quebec has always been an anomoly, of course, in many ways, including its "civil code" that doesn't apply in the rest of the country.

Was there a specific point that you were trying to make about immigration law and how it pertains to the provinces, though, or were you just inquiring about Mr. Charest's thoughts?

Care how he feels about it.

The point is that Quebec may have different ideas about things.

You're anomaly may be someone else's wedge.

If one looks back at Quebec and the Feds, it seems at least in my interpretation, that they manage to balance things out by putting opponents in the two positions.

As Charest is a Liberal and a Conservative, it would seem to me that the next provincial party in Quebec will come from a different corner.

So in as much as officially, things of this nature are in the hands of the Feds, it becomes a matter of politics when Quebec and Ontario are not satisfied with Ottawa.

No fucking way...it's offensive

Putting anyone, regardless of citizenship, in a dungeon potentially forever with little more than a secret star chamber fed by unverifiable foreign intel obtained through myth and torture is an abomination...if there is evidence of a threat to national security then it should be in open court...period. The 'horse and pony' show last week was sickening--the cops reserve the right to release just enough information to prejudice the case and make political statements, but the public will never get the whole story and most of those guys will be quietly released in a few months anyhow.

This whole thing of working behind a veil tends to cover national security as well as mistakes--when they are wrong, the public must told about it.

People are slowly talking themselves into dictatorship here...