Reflections on the Bail Hearing for Hassan Almrei in a Land of Secret Trials

(report from Matthew Behrens of Homes not Bombs)

July 1, Toronto -- Today was Canada Day, and as millions celebrated with fireworks and patriotic sentiments, I received a collect phone call from the Metro West Detention Centre. It came from Hassan Almrei, a 29-year-old Syrian refugee who has spent the past 20 months in solitary confinement on a CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service) secret trial security certificate.

We talked about the irony of his calling on a day that many use to proclaim Canada the greatest country in the world, and how this would be a much better, stronger country if we did not have secret trials targetting largely Muslim men for execution by deportation.

We also discussed the bail hearing that was held last week, another in a series of similar proceedings which reveal the courts of Canada are being led around on a CSIS-directed leash.

At these proceedings, we learn that bureaucrats responsible for administering these secret trials -- as well as those responsible for deliberations regarding deportation to torture and murder -- seem to make things up as they go along.

There is no accountability because there is so much secrecy and so little oversight. There is no sense of legal responsibility because there is so much buck passing: the statute was passed by Parliament, the reasoning goes, so it must be sound. One thinks of Nuremberg when one hears these officials who traffic in human misery reduce flesh-and-blood fears and concerns to a "synthesis" of facts which are "balanced" against the interests of the state by representatives of that state.

This is all behind closed doors in the interests of "national security."

Having attended a number of these proceedings, one begins to see similar patterns develop. The deck is always stacked against the defendant, and so the crown rarely seems to present any case law. It’s in the bag.

The security certificate process is in many ways a nightmare on stage. One enters the court chamber, having been checked for metal objects and anything which might disrupt the show, and proceeds to watch a drama whose tragic plot is almost always predetermined.

On a hot June morning the week before Canada Day, a detention review is scheduled for Hassan Almrei, who has not seen more than three days outside of solitary confinement over the past 20 months. For the Crown attorneys, this is "unfortunate" but, well, it’s in the script, and you cannot deviate from the script.

Besides, if the blood in a staged tragedy is really ketchup, then the 20 months in solitary can’t be real either. Perhaps the endless days and nights in lock-up are an aesthetic metaphor, but surely not a living hell where every moment that ticks by, it appears the only way out could be a one-way ticket back to Syria and one’s state-sponsored murder.

As we await Almrei’s entrance, a well dressed man and woman, looking far more serious than a sunny day would suggest is necessary, look hither and yon throughout the court. They are the "ushers" for the judge, a Mr. Blanchard who, had he been entered in a separated-at-birth contest, would be a stand-in Deputy Prime Minister John Manley with a bad case of sunburn.

Almrei is a Syrian refugee caught up on the post-Sept. 11, 2001 hysteria, when CSIS was looking to bag anyone it could to show the Americans Canada was a serious playing ground for alleged terrorists. But even the most cursory of glances at Hassan’s story indicates that there is no substance to the allegation.

Subsequent revelations show the foundation of CSIS’s weak case resembles nothing if not quicksand, and that the only way such a case can continue is because of the secret "evidence" which cannot be seen, much less challenged, by a defence lawyer. No, a summary of that evidence can only be heard behind closed doors by a CSIS-approved judge, and the defendant and the defence lawyer are left in the dark.

So it has been in Canada for well over a decade, long before the new round of legislative atrocities introduced and passed by a rubber stamp Parliament post-9/11,

It is scary how the term 9/11 has entered our common vocabulary. Before 2001, 9/11 meant a nightmare for the people of Chile, whose democratically elected government of Salvador Allende was brutally overthrown on September 11, 1973, by a group of respectable terrorists with names like Nixon and Kissinger. There were no mass roundups of white men in suits following that coup and the subsequent years of torture and murder. There was no international effort to shut down the network of terrorists which General Pinochet, with CIA assistance, sent throughout the Americas and Europe to terminate with extreme prejudice any opponents of the regime.

But in the play that CSIS directs, such historical memories are best left for the critics who demand impossible concepts like consistency, truth, and humanity in their shows.

The eager CSIS Crown Mr. MacIntosh is on hand, a man who has done so many of these cases it appears his frequent objections are auto-pilot gestures that respond to any attempt by the defence to enter bits and pieces of truth. But these truths may upset the smooth production of "allegation made," "allegation need not be proven," "allegation found ‘reasonable’ by secret evidence presented behind closed doors," "individual subject to execution by deportation to a country where affixing to anyone the label ‘alleged ties to terrorists’ is enough to spell the end.

Before the detention review even begins. MacIntosh jumps to the lectern to remind the judge, who may not have seen this movie before, that the issue of the conditions under which Almrei has been held for the past 20 months are "irrelevant." It is pretty clear MacIntosh has never visited a prison cell where one is held in what is bureaucratically referred to as "administrative segregation." Ever the fair minded soul, however, he concedes there may be some "tangential relevance on constitutional grounds."

Almrei’s lawyer, Barbara Jackman, argues that what is considered "reasonable" in terms of Almrei’s detention must be contextual, taking into consideration his living conditions and the lack of speed with which his case has progressed through the immigration bureaucracy. She points out Almrei’s constitutional rights have been violated, and invites the judge to view the conditions in which Almrei has survived for the past 20 months.

Jackman first calls Frank Griswaldo, the security manager of Metro West Detention Centre, to discuss the conditions. He discusses how, currently, the West is made up of ranges with 10 cells each and a common area. Designed in the 1970s for one individual, these cells currently have on average 3 individuals squeezed into them. That over-crowding alone has been a factor considered by judges in numerous cases, he points out on questioning from Jackman.

Griswaldo describes solitary: a single cell, 9 X 12 feet, a bed and a toilet. There is a tiny window which, is Almrei stands on his bed, he can look out. There is always a light on, slightly dimmer at night. Almrei’s time outside the cells is "unfortunately very limited." While "we try" to provide showers daily, that doesn’t always happen -- it’s more like every three to four days. Same for yard access, for which Hassan is entitled to 20 minutes, although it is usually closer to 10 minutes when he actually does get it.

When Hassan is in the yard, he is there by himself. In the wintertime, in addition to his orange jump suit, he is allowed access to a coat, but no winter boots, when taken outside. There is a library, but he is not allowed to use it. A Muslim cleric has only been allowed to see Hassan once or twice in 20 months.

Had Hassan been held on the range, he would have better access to services for Muslims. There are no educational programs.

Griswaldo allows that Metro West is a short term facility, with 90% of people awaiting trial. Immigration cases are held on the range unless they are high profile. How did Hassan end up in solitary? He describes how, when Hassan was brought in to the jail in October, 2001, "immigration personnel brought us individuals who were alleged terrorists, it was new to us, new to me, fair to say it was new to the ministry."

Jackman asks if a meeting was held to determine where Almrei should be held in the jail, and asks if CSIS was involved. "They [CSIS] can’t tell the superintendent what to do, but they can make recommendations," Griswaldo states.

"Do you know what CSIS did recommend?" Jackman asks.

"I really don’t know," he replies.

But what is significant is Griswaldo’s next revelation. "The RCMP has advised us this is no longer a high profile case, they lifted the security level, so he came to court through Toronto court services level just like everyone else today." The RCMP has concluded his "threat" level is low.

Griswaldo confirms there have been "absolutely no" problems with Hassan, noting that he was placed in solitary when, after a day on the range, he was beaten by other prisoners. Of course, anyone who has been tarred through the media as a terror suspect is not likely to receive a warm welcome behind bars.

Jackman asks why Almrei cannot be transferred to a place like Beaver Creek, a federal facility with educational programs and other services for longer term detainees.

"The fact that he’s not been sentenced limits the ministry’s options," comes the reply. But a sentence in a security certificate case is not to jail, but to torture and execution abroad.

Jackman asks if 20 months in solitary is normal.

"No," he says.

"If this court continues Hassan’s detention, are there other options for him?" she asks.

"Unfortunately, the answer would be solitary."

On cross examination, Crown MacIntosh asks in Orwellian fashion whether Hassan has been mistreated and whether he is denied "necessities." Someone whispers in the gallery, "Yah, freedom’s a necessity!" The question is so far removed from reality, MacIntosh might as well be asking a torturer whether his victim is provided the "basic requirements" inbetween pokes with the electric cattle prod. The Crown cannot bring himself to accept that seemingly endless incarceration in solitary is mistreatment in and of itself.

Macintosh asks if Griswaldo is aware of the allegations against Almrei, to which he replies "something to do with being associated with 9/11."

"Would you agree with me that individuals associated with 9/11 pose a threat to your facility and the public?" MacIntosh asks.

"They can pose a threat," he replies, yet if this is the case, it is curious that the RCMP has downgraded his threat status to low.

Griswaldo is asked if Almrei is a security threat. "My answer to my superintendent, as a professional, is that he’s not a threat."

Next on the stand is Peter Dietrich, a regional program advisor with Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) who speaks so softly it appears to those of us in the gallery that he’s a character in a silent film.

Jackman asks how someone like Hassan ends up in a provincial remand centre, like the Don Jail, East Detention, Maplehurst or Lindsay.

"The province provides the facility for individuals who are not low risk," he says.

"Why a provincial jail for someone on a federal hold?" she asks.

"We have an ad hoc agreement with the province for higher risk people. We do not have an agreement with Corrections Canada. It’s a working relationship, not a formal agreement."

The Feds, it appears, pay for each detainee, but it is unclear whether the province makes money on it.

"Why is there no ad hoc agreement with Corrections Canada?" Jackman asks. "Is this agreement with the province in writing, or in memos? You make it sound very informal."

"There is no memorandum of understanding," he says. The rates are set by the province, but there’s nothing specific. "Ideally we would have an agreement."

"Are you trying to get one?" Jackman continues.

"Efforts have been made in the past."

Jackman asks if there’s been any discussions with the province on minimum standards, such as international human rights safeguards for immigration detainees.

"That you would have to address to the province," comes the bureaucrat’s reply.

"But if a guard kills one of your detainees, are you not in some way responsible?"

"That’s a complex legal question," Dietrich replies in a non-reply.

"I know, but you’re the ones putting them there. Don’t you want to make sure they’re safe and secure?" Jackman asks.

He shuffles uncomfortably in his seat as Jackman continues.

"So the federal government has not put out conditions to be met by the province?" she asks.

"I’m not aware of it," he answers softly.

"Does Immigration have an understanding of acceptable conditions in detention?"

"Not that I’m aware of," comes the answer of the longtime immigration official.

"If it DID exist you’d see it, no?"

"I presume they would be the same guidelines as for others in Canada," Dietrich struggles.

His answers continue to come at a decibel level suitable for dogs down the street but not for humans within earshot. Even the judge asks Dietrich to speak up.

Jackman asks if Dietrich is aware of the conditions of long term detainees.

"Have there been any discussions on how to deal with them?" she asks, pointing to recent cases of endless immigration holds such as that of Rudy Pacificador (7 years), Mansour Ahani (9 years), and Mr. Suresh (2 and a half years). "Have there been any discussions in terms of where they are held, and the conditions? Has anyone had any concerns?"

"I’m not aware of any discussions which may have taken place at my level among immigration officials responsible for such cases," Dietrich replies, to which numerous gallery members whisper "Nuremberg!"

"Has there been any discussion with the province about these cases?" Jackman asks.

"We, CIC, have had discussions with the province in an effort to find a facility for immigration purposes and to this point we have not been successful."

"You mean the superjail?"

"Yes, that’s--"

"That deals with ALL immigration detainees, but have there been discussions regarding long-term detainees?"

"Not that I’m aware of," says the broken record.

"If a person is held in solitary confinement is that brought to the attention of Immigration officials?" Jackman asks.

"I’m not sure. If there is an issue with solitary confinement, they do what is necessary pursuant to government statute. We will eventually find this out in the context of a detention review."

There is a shocked pause as Dietrich’s answer sinks in. He appears so out of touch with his human cargo that he is only finding out about the solitary confinement because he is testifying at a detention review.

"So you came here to find out?" Jackman asks. "If Hassan’s detention is continued, his options remain the West or the East. Can you arrange to send him to Beaver Creek?" she continues.

"It’s a federal facility," he replies.

"So?"

"We don’t have an agreement with the feds."

But neither, it appears, does one truly exist with the province.

Increasingly, it appears the options for Almrei are extremely limited. Whatever the crown might think, it is obvious that this line of questioning should play a major role in determining whether Almrei should receive bail.

MacIntosh rises with only one question. Has Dietrich received a complaint from Almrei? Dietrich’s answer is no, but Jackman offers to present a letter written on behalf of her client protesting his treatment.

Following a 20 minute intermission, questioning begins for Brian Foley, a senior analyst at the intelligence branch of CIC. He discusses how there is a "delicate balance" act which has to occur in determining whether to deport Almrei.

"It’s complicated and takes a lot of deliberation to reach a conclusion."

He says with Almrei, CIC will need to conduct a new interview with respect to new admissions he has made. That information will be "synthesized", and the process should take another six months.

Through Jackman’s questioning, we learn that CIC’s intelligence branch was created 18 months ago, and that Foley had been with the branch’s predecessor, case management, since 1989. There he analyzes security cases and oversees administration of the 6-person unit.

"Why will Hassan Almrei’s case take 6 months when some of my clients’ cases have taken 8 years?" Jackman asks, drawing a Crown objection. She rephrases the question.

"There are cases of people waiting 8 or 9 years?"

"Perhaps," comes the reply.

"What’s the difference between them and Hassan Almrei? Is his case prioritized?"

"Yes, it is a priority."

"How many priority cases do you have?"

"We have strict time frames we must adhere to," Foley says, awkwardly failing to answer the direct question.

"What’s your training to be a security analyst?" Jackman inquires.

"I worked previously on organized crime."

"Are they [refugee security screening and organized crime] the same thing?"

"Yes."

Great. Now we have an admission of how the federal government truly views the plight of refugees. It’s on a par with organized crime.

"What training, program or course is used for security analysts?" Jackman asks about the individuals who must make the delicate balancing act in determining whether Almrei and others in a similar situation can stay in Canada or be deported.

"There’s no specific job training." Foley says, apparently seeing nothing wrong in his response.

"Is there any introductory training?"

"There is a training package we do for other units, for visa officers overseas. They sit in on a training session which is an afternoon, two to three hours."

"How do the Suresh principles (not returning someone to torture) fit into your job?"

"We must balance the risk of return to the threat to Canada."

"Is it fair to say if there is a risk of torture the decisionmaker could still return them? They could be removed if there is a risk of torture?"

"Yes."

"Has that happened. Could that happen?" Jackman continues.

"I could not say."

"Have you read Suresh?" she asks.

"Yes."

"Isn’t it clear that you can’t return someone to torture?" Jackman demands.

Crown MacIntosh objects.

Jackman seeks clarity on the process and goes through the circuitous process these special refugee claims must travel. Foley confirms what Jackman explains, adding "This was all done before Suresh."

"No, it was not, this process was the point of Suresh," she counters.

"I stand corrected."

It can hardly be comforting for refugee claimants to know that individuals in charge of their cases need to come to court to get their history lessons.

Through further questioning, Foley reveals he seeks advice on cases from various officers in CIC, including pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) officers, though PRRA officers are not directly involved because the process is run out of national HQ. None of these six security analysts has country-specific training, and once a determination is made, the analysts do not sign off on their recommendation because "It’s not part of the process." Foley makes this process of seeking advice seem fairly informal, so much so that counsel is not informed of the conversations.

"So you do it secretly? And not tell counsel?" an incredulous Jackman asks.

"No, part of the process is that an analyst is obliged to research and seek advice."

"So you seek advice and not tell counsel about it? The risk officers are here [Toronto]. Was it done in Hassan Almrei’s case? Do you find anything wrong with doing that seeking of advice and not telling counsel about that? If they get advice, whether or not it’s formal, it impacts on the case. My question: is that unfair to seek opinions and not tell the person concerned?"

"We seek advice on relevant factors, seek the best advice available," comes the bureaucrat’s reply.

"Can you review your notes and tell us if it was done in this case?" Jackman asks.

"I don’t have that information."

"But you can find out, perhaps over lunch I want to know if there were secret discussions going on in the department that we didn’t know about."

After some Crown objections, Jackman explains that the risk Almrei might face in Syria is a relevant factor in his detention review, and that her line of questioning goes to the issue of Foley’s credibility. "They [analysts] don’t have any training, not even in intelligence matters," she explains to the judge.

"Is it fair to say your risk analysts do not have any specialized training on conditions in other countries?" she asks.

"That’s true." Foley replies. "There may be some incidental knowledge, but not necessarily."

"Were you ever a PRRA officer [someone who might have some country-specific knowledge]?"

"No."

"Was anyone else in the office ever a PRRA officer?

"Not that I know of."

Under further questioning about who makes the decision about whether Almrei can stay in Canada, Foley explains that there are three director generals involved (also known as "ministers’ delegates," one each from case management (which deals with inadmissibility for immigration cases), intelligence branch (security and removals) and Enforcement (removals).

Jackman then asks a question which in many respects speaks to the heart of the hearing.

"Is there a director general of admissions or of welcoming to Canada?" she asks.

"No," Foley says.

"Why are the delegates picked from enforcement rather than from some more neutral area? These are adversarial people who are signing off on certificates," Jackman points out.

After the judge interrupts, Jackman explains that "this process is a fixed process. Why would they pick a person’s chief adversary in making these determinations? They are not a neutral party. So your role (judge) in making a determination is important."

MacIntosh from the Crown’s table tries to clarify matters in brutally honest terms: Mr. Almrei "does not benefit from the presumption of innocence." Jackman replies that Almrei has never been charged or convicted in a criminal matter, then continues her questioning of Foley.

"Why is it that enforcement officials are the delegates?"

"I do not know."

Foley explains that Almrei is likely to have an interview in the next few weeks.

"What is the process? An officer shows up at the cell without notice to counsel?" Jackman asks.

"I don’t think that’s how we envision it," Foley stumbles.

"So there is a right of counsel to be present? Will officers tape the interviews? Have you ever received a transcript of a taped conversation in one of these cases?"

"No. Just a summary of notes."

"Notes are not countersigned to ensure their accuracy?" she asks.

"They do that sometimes."

Jackman returns to the issue of how long this process will take.

"So this case will take six months? How fixed is that?"

"Based on the outside case," says Foley.

"In terms of your experience, when officers in your unit -- I ask because I think it’s the worst in terms of timing -- how accurate are these predictions of meeting your targets?"

"I have no idea."

"You may not meet your targets? You said you acted diligently. What is the intended time frame in a security certificate case? Do they have a target time frame?"

"The Act says 120 days."

"Where did that come from? How often does the department do that, within 120 days? In Almrei’s case, the case was upheld in Nov. 2001, a decision by the minister’s delegate was made in January 2003. Why is that not a delay? January to October is more than six months, is that normal?

"There are outstanding circumstances, new process..."

"So you are unaware of other similar cases where such delays have occurred, like Jaballah [whose extended CIC delay was ruled an abuse of process in May]?"

Macintosh objects.

"I’m giving him an opportunity to say he doesn’t know," Jackman explains.

The morning closes with Jackman explaining that she wishes to question a CSIS and RCMP officer, but does not know their names to issue a subpoena. Such questioning is necessary, she says, because of the nature of the alleged case against Almrei. She notes that he was rounded up in the post 9-11 hysteria and, now that the dust has settled, some new issues need to be explored, but only the Crown knows the identity of the relevant agents.

MacIntosh allows that, while solitary confinement is "certainly not a pleasant experience," Jackman is trying, through such witnesses, to launch a "collateral attack" on the judicial decision which upheld the security certificate against Almrei as "reasonable."

Jackman responds that she DOES intend to attack the decision directly, not through backdoor efforts, because she says it is a nullity because of a "fundamental breach of fairness and the principles of natural justice." (Almrei was not accorded due process because the court refused Almrei’s right to testify "in camera" -- behind closed doors, in the presence of his lawyer -- about sensitive details which, if disclosed publicly, could endanger his life if deported, or endanger loved ones in Syria.)

Judge Blanchard interrupts Jackman to say, "I can’t see how this would help you without getting into information we can’t make available to you," a reference to the secret evidence she is not allowed to see. He reminds her the onus is on her if she wants to bring up argument regarding the prior decision.

"If the onus is on me, how can I bring evidence if I don’t know the RCMP officer’s name? If we’re to meet the test, we can’t do it unless we know who they are....You need to know the strength of the case to determine the level of risk," she concludes, and this judge needs to hear from the RCMP and CSIS that circumstances have very much changed from 2001 (for example, a key plank of CSIS allegations was Almrei’s alleged association with Nabil Al-Marabh, who was deemed a terror suspect immediately after 9/11 but who was cleared of all such allegations one year later, AFTER the case against Almrei was deemed "reasonable.")

Jackman also reminds the judge that he should "take a view" at the jail to get a physical sense of the hell that has been Hassan’s life for almost two years.

Crown MacIntosh places another ironic foot in his mouth when he points out that judges normally "take a view at a crime scene." The scene where someone has been locked away in solitary for 20 months could hardly be called less.

The afternoon’s witnesses are people who have come forward to provide bail for Almrei. By prior agreement, Matthew Behrens will, with Dr. Aly Hindy, monitor Hassan if he’s released on bail; surety will be provided by Frank Showler, Diana Ralph and Dr. Hindy.

Showler explains his lengthy history as a human rights advocate over seven decades. After Behrens explains how he would stay in touch with Almrei if released, Diana Ralph takes the stand and explains why she is there. Her testimony is powerful.

"As a Jew whose father was an international lawyer at the Nuremberg tribunal, it concerns me when groups of people are singled out for persecution" she states. "I’m also very concerned about not repeating the shameful decision of the Canadian government to incarcerate the Japanese during World War II. I don’t want to be a party to that type of hysteria. I have a strong interest in standing up for people who are falsely accused."

Ralph says "Hassan comes across as a conscientious young man, 2 years older than my son, caught up in massive historical trends. I have the time and energy to develop a relationship with Hassan. If it were necessary, I have an apartment in our house where he could live."

Dr. Hindy says he has made arrangements for Hassan to live with a number of young people near the Scarborough mosque where he is an imam. As with prior witnesses who have come forward, Hindy is subject to very direct, partisan questioning from the Crown, who demands to know how Hindy would keep Almrei from associating with the bin Laden network (an allegation which Almrei has denied from the start)

"Not I, nor you, nor he would know how to join Al Qaeda," Hindy says, pointing out under repeated questioning that this question cannot be answered because it does not make sense. After all, how does one "associate" with this network, where is it, does it have a physical form in Canada other than in the paranoid imaginings of those behind the security certificate process? And if it DID exist, how would Almrei, separated from the outside world for so long, be able to make contact when the much self-vaunted CSIS has been unable to? And if it DID exist, and if Almrei did try and "associate" with it, wouldn’t Almrei, under constant surveillance, thereby lead CSIS to them?

But the leaps of illogic do not matter. Simply asking the question repeatedly tars Almrei in the same manner that a Crown repeatedly asking someone if they’re absolutely sure they are not a child pornographer taints the individual being questioned and the proceeding itself.

The Crown seems to imply that none of the sureties is good enough because they cannot monitor Hassan 24 hours a day.

Jackman counters that no one is released on bond with bondholders needing to know their 24-hour-a-day whereabouts, and if there is a precedent, the crown should bring one forward. The Crown does not.

The day comes to a close with argument about whether or not an affidavit of Almrei’s can be sealed for his protection and the protection of his family. Media in attendance are given an opportunity to contact their lawyers to seek standing to argue that the affidavit should be made public. It is an ironic moment, one which will result in a day-long in camera hearing the next day arguing whether the affidavit, or expurgated parts of it, can be released.

It is a strange moment because the media have no problem trying to force into the open information which might result in harm to an individual. Yet it does not appear that the media have tried a similar tack at the start of these secret trial hearings by demanding to know the state’s sealed evidence. It is hoped they might engage in this process at the upcoming hearings for Mohamed Harkat and Adil Charkaoui, also held on security certificates.

In the end, submissions from both sides must be presented and replied to by mid-August, and Almrei must wait until September for his next court date.

In the meantime, this Canada Day, while millions watch fireworks, Almrei is spending another night under a dim light in solitary confinement. In our conversations, there is a remarkable lack of bitterness, an almost unbelievable absence of hatred towards those who have punished him so harshly, and an undying hope and dream of all that he will achieve and contribute to this country, in which he sought peace and refuge, when he is hopefully released on bail.

Jul. 16, 2003. 01:00 AM

Terror suspect denied bail

CSIS calls him sleeper terrorist

Claims he's linked to Al Qaeda

GRAHAM FRASER

NATIONAL AFFAIRS WRITER

OTTAWA-Adil Charkaoui, a Moroccan graduate student held in detention since May 16 under suspicion of being an Al Qaeda terrorist must stay in jail, the Federal Court has ruled.

In a 30-page decision rendered yesterday, Federal Court Judge Simon Noël decided that Charkaoui had not provided sufficient evidence to contradict the claims by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) that he represents a danger, and refused to grant bail.

CSIS says Charkaoui is a sleeper terrorist in Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network and he could be activated at any time.

"As far as I am concerned, the government's conclusions and the observations of danger to national security and to others with respect to the respondent (Charkaoui) are very serious and mean that the respondent must, for his part, present proof that refutes that of (the government)," the judge said.

Charkaoui, 30, who has lived in Montreal since 1995, is being held under a rarely used security certificate which, under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, permits the federal government to detain without charges any landed immigrant or foreign national who is considered to be a threat to national security.

Reviewing the evidence that he heard, Noël wrote that the government had pointed to the similarities between Charkaoui's experience and that of Ahmed Ressam, the Algerian who was arrested with bomb-making material on entering the United States and confessed that he was on a mission to undertake a terrorist attack on Los Angeles Airport.

"For the government, (Charkaoui) is a member of bin Laden's network, and followed a similar training to that of Ahmed Ressam," Noël wrote.

The evidence that was made public - some of it was given in secret - showed that Charkaoui had visited Pakistan, and was a student of martial arts - both indicators, according to CSIS, of suspicious behaviour.

Members of Charkaoui's family had testified earlier this month, at a hearing on the case, that Charkaoui had visited Pakistan to study Islam.

Dr. Marie McAndrew, one of his university professors, testified that a terrorist would not have been as open-minded as Charkaoui, and another professor, Patricia Lamarre, testified that Charkaoui participated actively in her classes and that "his opinions were marked with hope concerning the possibility for Moslems to live together peacefully with other groups in Montreal."

Earlier at a hearing on the case, a CSIS official identified only as Jean-Paul, testified that a sleeper agent was an individual trained in a way that allowed him to operate in a country according to the needs of the organization directing him.

"They give him the necessary courses and then, they send him back to the country he came from and they tell him `Fine. Go back to your everyday life, carry on as if nothing happened. You don't tell anyone you took this course. And then one day, someone will come to see you, you will perhaps get a message, a letter, an e-mail, a telephone call, and it will be time to do what we want you to do.'"

The government argued that Charkaoui's trip to Pakistan, would have enabled him to attend terrorist training camps.

Noël noted there was a period in his life, between 1992 and the end of >the 1990s, where little was known about Charkaoui.

Johanne Doyon, Charkaoui's lawyer, may appeal.

NEWS STORY

Charkaoui still a security threat, court rules

Alleged to be Al-Qa'ida agent. No bail for Moroccan-born Montrealer while awaiting decision on deportation

KINDA JAYOUSH

The Gazette

Wednesday, July 16, 2003

ADVERTISEMENT

Canada's Federal Court rejected a request yesterday to free Adil Charkaoui, a Montrealer of Moroccan origin arrested in May on suspicion of being a sleeper agent of the Al-Qa'ida terrorist group.

The ruling by Justice Simon Noël said Charkaoui, 30, remains a threat to Canada's security and should be kept in detention while Federal Court decides on the validity of his security certificate.

Security certificates allow the government to detain, without charges, any landed immigrants or foreign nationals judged to be a threat to Canadian security.

Yesterday's ruling says Charkaoui's visit to Pakistan in 1998 for five months to study Islam, and his contacts with high-profile terrorist suspects, are a major security concern. "Because of the reasons mentioned above, the detention is justified," the ruling said..

The ruling cannot be appealed and Charkaoui faces deportation to Morocco if the tribunal upholds the security certificate.

The final hearings in Charkaoui's case were July 2 and 3.

Charkaoui, a permanent resident who arrived in Canada in 1995, was detained in May on the certificate issued after a report by the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service that said he was a threat to security.

At the hearing, friend Samir Ezzine said Charkaoui knew Abousofiane Abdelrazik, and Raouf Hannachi.

Abdelrazik was described by French authorities as an "important Islamic militant ... close to Abou Zoubeida - a high-level Al-Qa'ida operative in charge of recruiting and training."

CSIS considers Hannachi a terrorist suspect.

Ezzine said many people knew Abdelrazik and Hannachi, Canadian citizens who were never charged with any crime and were free to associate with anyone.

Noël's ruling drew immediate criticism from the Muslim Council of >Montreal and Charkaoui's lawyer, who said they would contest the constitutionality of the process in court.

"It is a sad day for justice and democracy in Canada," council president Salam Elmenyawi said. "We cannot keep a man who is not charged with a crime in detention, based on secret evidence that is not known to him or his lawyer.

"I can see them adding Charkaoui to the list of many Muslims who were arrested and lost their constitutional rights after (the terrorist attacks of) Sept. 11 (2001)."

Charkaoui's mother received the news with shock.

"They want to send him to Morocco while they are executing people there," she said, sobbing. "He has not committed a crime and they do not have real evidence against him.

"His young daughter is sick and she always asks for him. His pregnant wife is devastated. Let them have mercy on us. Why are they doing this to us?"

Judge refuses protection to former CSIS agent, defence lawyers

(This report and reflections on the Desecration of Democracy is prepared by Matthew Behrens)

GATINEAU, QUEBEC – Ottawa in summer is a bustling, energetic tourist town, a political Disneyland, a massive set piece for a potboiler called "Canadian Democracy, Love It or Leave It."

But as with any Hollywood North epic, a visit to the set reveals that much is facade, much is myth and make-believe. While the most pressing issue of debate on the morning drivetime CBC radio show is whether the "Canada and the World" Pavilion is boring, tourists and bureaucrats alike nightly gather for a jazz festival in Confederation Park, watched over by the towers of the War Dept.

As music fans quaff beers under postcard-perfect sunsets, it seems almost impossible to believe that in those towers, high-level War Dept. officials, along with "just doin’ my job" bureaucrats, are guiding the illegal occupation of Afghanistan, an occupation for which one commander immediately resigned upon its announcement, and for which War Minister John McCallum confidently concedes at least 10 Canadian soldiers will not return alive.

These officials are also pressing for the expansion of the Joint Task Force 2 (JTF2) training area in Dwyer Hill over the objections of the community and a beleaguered farmer, Ron Mayhew, whose 36 hectares borders the site. He has been harassed by military security while on his own property, and part of his property was flooded when the military trespassed on his property to dig two ditches. JTF-2 is infamous for pictures of its commandos handing over Afghan prisoners to the U.S. for the illegal detention camp at Guantanamo Bay.

It might equally seem impossible to believe that in a building many jazz fans will stroll past later that evening -- Citizenship and Immigration Canada -- a man, minister Denis Coderre, signs papers that can have you declared a threat to national security, without telling you why. He is also behind a bill which will allow him to rescind the citizenship of permanent residents, using secret evidence, with no right of appeal.

But wait. The tour guides keep telling us that this is Canada, true north strong and free. Sure, we have our problems (okay, so over 5 million Canadians do go to bed hungry every night and hundreds of homeless die each year for lack of housing; sure, 5,000 people will die prematurely from air pollution while others will die from poor water treatment; sure, lots of war veterans still cannot benefits from their government). But at least we have national security (whatever that means), and are onside in the war on terrorism (whatever that means).

For those who peek behind the happy facade that is carefree Ottawa in summer, though, something sinister can be found. A short stroll across the river to Hull (aka Gatineau) and a trip through the ridiculous security into one of the Gatineau courthouse’s airless, windowless chambers (no shorts, no water, no throat lozenges), and one is suddenly on the wrong end of the rainbow.

It is here that the public portion of a secret trial is taking place. It sounds odd that a secret trial can have a public portion, but this is Canada, which is always short of the courage to do things straight up, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.

Indeed, just as close to 1,000 Canadian troops took part in the recent slaughter of Iraqi people -- all, mind you, in the name of standing up to the Americans (who says irony died with 9/11?) -- Canada likes to have it both ways when it comes to secret trials. If we must be repressive, let us at least appear to be democratic about it. If we are to enact a procedure in which someone in the prisoner’s dock has absolutely no rights and zero chance of success, let’s at least try to make it look fair with some fancy words and pretty window dressing.

And so, in this mid-July set piece, the latest players are gathered for a security certificate hearing for Mohamed Harkat, a sweet-faced man who seems almost embarrassed to be the subject of so much attention. Mo, as he is affectionately known to family and friends, is an Algerian refugee who represents the face of Canada’s economic apartheid: he is part of that refugee and immigrant class of folks who do much of the low-paying, thankless hard work in this country. Until his arrest on International Human Rights Day, December 10, 2002, he was pumping gas and delivering pizzas on average 20 hours a day. He no doubt would have driven taxi as well if the constraints of a twenty-four hour day and the requirement for some sleep did not exist.

Since December 10, Mo has been in solitary confinement at the Ottawa Detention Centre, held without charge or bail, on the vague assertion by Canada’s scandal-ridden Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) that he may have in the past, could at present, or may at some point in the future be associated with an organization whose allegedly terrorist activities might make Mo a member of a class of persons who would be "inadmissible" to Canada.

Of course, in this game of smoke and mirrors, no one is actually saying Harkat has actually done anything wrong (though press reports noted with horror that he had taken pictures of Parliament Hill upon his arrival in Ottawa, a crime committed by postcard companies and thousands of tourists annually).

In a hearing earlier this year, Harkat lawyer Bruce Engel requested additional disclosure when all he received was a mandated "public summary" of a secret security intelligence report that outlines the foggy allegations against his client, allegations which are a collection of meandering reasons to believe, suppositions, and theories which are not explained, for to do so would be "injurious" to national security and the safety of persons.

Of course, this concern about the safety of persons does not extend to the likes of Harkat who, if returned to Algeria, would be in mortal risk. If things were bad when he left as a refugee, they can only be worse upon a return stamped with "alleged terrorist" by the Canadian government.

Engel’s spring request for additional disclosure was turned down by Federal Court Judge Eleanor Dawson. (One hesitates to use her official title of "Justice," for she presides over a hearing in which there is none.)

And so, Harkat, his lawyers, friends and family, are literally searching in a dark room to find a light switch that does not exist. They will not be told why this young man cannot see the "evidence," if such exists, against him.

But for anyone just peering in for the first time, the optics are intimidating. A judge is handed a 1,500 page dossier on terrorism-related news clippings, none of which mentions Harkat, but CSIS says it has "reasonable grounds to believe" he is somehow in the past, at present, or perhaps in the future associated with that dossier.

Nowhere in the public summary does it say that Harkat has broken any law or harmed any individual. But nonetheless, he still sits in solitary confinement, without charge or bail, for the protection of Canada and the preservation of Canadian democracy.

The court is full of security. On the left, in the centre near the judge, and on the right stand three expressionless RCMP tactical squad members, POLICE written across their bullet-proof vests and wires going into their ears. They are joined by three of their brethren who sit behind Harkat in the prisoner’s box. Another crew of court security make sure no one puts their elbow on the back of their seat, chews gum, sips water, or does anything to interfere with the demeanour of the court or the administration of justice.

A series of six microphones hang down from the ceiling, allegedly to capture the words of the judge, the lawyers, the Crowns, and the witnesses, but, as is appropriate in the public portion of a secret trial, they don’t appear to work very well, so those in the gallery must strain to hear what is being said.

The two government lawyers -- Michael Dale and Jim Mathieson, to be joined on the second day by a Donald Rennie, forming a menage of miserable men -- are among the most unhappy men you are unlikely to see. One wonders if this sort of illegal proceeding eats away at the souls of those who prosecute them in the same way that it must have somehow, at some point, eaten at the conscience of those southern prosecutors who enforced segregation laws or Nazi lawyers who pursued Aryanization laws.

It’s worth noting that Mathieson worked on the only case since 1991 that CSIS lost big time when it was impossible to lose -- that of Mahmoud Jaballah. So he’s likely going to be quite sensitive, especially when the lawyer who bested him, Rocco Galati, is also on the Harkat defence team. But just to be sure, Mathieson has added a megaton of overkill to his "case". He has written to Engel and Galati, threatening both them and a potential witness with prosecution under the Security of Information Act,. the revised Official Secrets Act, with potential jail terms of 5 to 14 years. Why would such a threat be necessary? When you rely on secret evidence which neither the accused nor the defence lawyer can see, you can never be too sure!

It is this threatening letter and the intimidation of a witness, former CSIS agent Jean-Luc Marchessault, which forms the bulk of the second day of the hearing. But before that begins, the private lives of Sophie and Mohamed Harkat must be aired as part of a defence to show that the government’s contention that Mo is a sleeper cell is about as accurate as claiming that the world is flat.

DAY 1

At first, it appears that this is like any other court hearing in Canada. Robed lawyers stand about, cracking knuckles and jokes, the prisoner in the box does not enjoy white skin privilege, and court security makes sure no one is wearing a hat. Then a doorbell rings, and a "quiet on the set!" order is enforced as the judge, Eleanor Dawson, walks in.

After the standard reading in to the record of why we are gathered here, CSIS lawyer Jim Mathieson announces there is new information regarding contacts between CSIS and Harkat, but it cannot be released to Harkat’s lawyer until an in camera (behind closed doors) meeting occurs with the judge and CSIS, without defence counsel present. After this meeting, a "public summary" of information will be given to Harkat. Although the "new" information, received the previous Friday, was from a 1998 interview, Mathieson says it was "overlooked" and just found. This is typical CSIS sloppiness (anyone interested in a 20-year history of incompetence sloppiness, and illegality on the part of Canada’s national spy agency can wade through the voluminous reports on the website of the Security Intelligence Review Committee).

Meanwhile, Engel reveals that he received a phone call late Friday from defence witness Marchessault, the former CSIS agent, who expressed a reluctance to attend because of the threatening letter which was sent by CSIS attorney Mathieson. Citing a fear or civil and criminal repercussions, Marchessault has sought legal counsel and the once cooperative witness is now afraid. As a result, an abuse of process motion will be brought forward due to this intimidation of a witness.

Following an hour break, the judge returns, satisfied that the "new" information is relevant, and that some of the information contained would be injurious to national security if revealed. She is "satisfied" that the summary provided is sufficient for the defence.

At this point, the judge and lawyers discuss how best to proceed. Dawson says she wants the hearing to go as quickly as possible for the sake of Harkat, given his ongoing detention, but the irony is lost here on those unfamiliar with Dawson’s recent history (she is also the judge for the bail hearing of Muhammad Mahjoub, held since June of 2000 on a security certificate. She promised a decision from his May 11 bail hearing in "a few weeks," but almost three months later, he is still in detention, unable to hug and kiss his little children).

Things get sorted out, and Sophie Harkat takes the stand. She discusses her January, 2001 marriage to Mo, and the courtship they undertook beforehand, begun when she was struck by the cute guy with the beautiful smile at the PetroCanada gas outlet. So cute that she found excuses to go and buy diet Pepsi during his shifts, so cute that she even sent her mother over to check the guy out.

A good portion of Sophie’s testimony focuses on Mo’s former gambling addiction. On their first date, they went to the casino in Hull and he won $16,000. She says they didn’t talk much about politics, and Mo’s main interest was going to the casino when he was not working crazy hours at three jobs.

Like any couple, they had discussed having children, buying a house, settling down for a life together. The only major crisis in their lives was confronting Harkat about his gambling, and Sophie’s persistent efforts to get him to stop, especially as his gambling debts went through the roof, eventually paid off, and things were getting better by the time he was arrested.

Sophie relates that although Mo does not talk much, he did tell her a bit about his past, when as a teenager, his family’s house was used as a membership office for the Algerian FIS, a legal political organization which was brutally repressed when it appeared they would win an election in Algeria almost 15 years ago. As his friends were arrested, Harkat felt threatened and went to Pakistan, where he worked in a refugee camp distributing food and blankets. He eventually went to Malaysia for a week and then came to Canada. Mo told her he wanted to come here "because it’s supposed to be a free country," a comment which draws laughter from the gallery.

Engel asks Harkat if Mo was ever evasive or inconsistent in discussing this with Sophie, to which she firmly replies, "No." She says the only time he ever lied about his whereabouts was when he went to the Casino, and she usually found out about this when she went through his receipts. It is clear through the testimony that Mo and Sophie were in almost constant contact with one another -- he would call her five or six times during his shifts (she could tell where he was calling from on her call display), and in their free time they hung around their apartment or went to movies or out to dinner.

Was there ever a time when you did not know where Mo was, apart from his trips to the casino, Engel asks. No, Sophie replies, noting Mo is a bad liar, and she could always tell when he went to the casino even if he said he hadn’t

Sophie says the only time Mo gets emotional is in discussing how much his misses his mother in Algeria. He often sent money to his family, including one lump sum of $10,000 which he won gambling. He last saw her in 1990.

"He always said he wanted landed status so he could go and see his mom," Sophie says.

She also says Harkat is very disorganized, leaving his bills everywhere. "He used his car as a filing cabinet, and we lost some bills when our car was stolen in 2001." She found the stealing of the car strange, as it was a "crappy old Buick," but when they found the car a few blocks away the next day, those bills and receipts were missing. (Sophie later learned that CSIS often undertook such car thefts in looking for information).

Establishing herself as the boss of the house, Sophie notes she took care of all the bills, even depositing Mo’s cheques, so if she had seen anything suspicious --a long distance call, a weird transaction -- she would have noted it.

Sophie details the process of trying to get Mo his landed status, and how it was taking incredibly long. This was difficult, as for refugees, health care is not as accessible as it is for landed immigrants. "I wanted his leg checked out, because he has a limp from when he was a young kid and dropped a propane tank on his foot. The bones in his foot were never operated on so one foot is larger than the other." Every time Sophie called to inquire about his status, they would tell her his file was with CSIS, or with Immigration. She was never interviewed by either organization with respect to his status.

She discusses how she and Mo watched in horror the events of Sept. 11, 2001. "He was genuinely upset, we couldn’t believe it was happening." She says she was more protective of him after that day. "It was obvious when we went grocery shopping that people looked funny at him because of his nationality. I could see he was being looked at in a different way."

On Sept. 14, CSIS visited Mo while Sophie was at work. She was furious. Since Mo is not the type of guy who likes to argue or be disagreeable, she says, he spoke with them. They had asked him if he knew anyone connected to the events of the previous three days. "I was furious that they could come over like he was part of this event. We should have been brought to an office with a lawyer present. I felt this was an invasion of our privacy."

But Mo wasn’t too offended. "He has the sweetness of a five year old child, he doesn’t get into arguments, he’s a bit too compliant sometimes."

Engel asks how Mo is when it comes to providing consistent information.

"He sucks," Sophie says. "His English is terrible. He does not use complete sentences. He would say "This thing there, the thing there,’ that;’s how he speaks" (a real contrast to the perfectly formed English sentences that comprise his answers in CSIS interviews, interviews which were not tape recorded, but transcribed from written notes.)

"One question he was asked is what is the definition of discrimination," Sophie relates. "He didn’t even know what it meant, he thought it was an appliance. Now that he’s in jail he knows what it means."

Sophie says Mo doesn’t remember names or dates, that it took him six months to remember her sister’s name, and that he simply calls Sophie’s mother "Mom" because he could never get her name right.

"He’s an open book. He leaves everything lying around, he relies on me to do everything, his resumes, his bills, everything."

Sophie recounts how she consistently received strange calls every night at 11:30 pm. There was never any voice, just the sound of someone picking up on the other end. This happened for about 6 month until she finally called police. It stopped immediately. She thinks it was CSIS tapping her line.

She then describes the arrest. "It was like a horror movie." She didn’t see Mo until almost two days later, at the detention centre. "We didn’t really talk. We just looked at each other and said, "what the... We said we’ll be strong. He didn’t understand why he was there. It took two months to explain to him the difference between an allegation and a charge. He kept thinking he was there for ‘tourism,’ not ‘terrorism,’ He couldn’t even get that straight."

Does Sophie have any doubts about the allegations against Mo? "None." Are you concerned for your safety if he returned home, she’s asked. No. Has anyone ever come to protect you from Mo? Never. Did anyone warn Sophie about marrying him? No.

"You’ve seen the summary and the allegations. Are those allegations consistent with the man you know?" Engel asks.

"No."

"Do you love Mo?" Engel asks.

"I love him a million timers more," Sophie replies.

"What happens if he’s deported?"

"If he goes to Algeria, he’d be going back to his death. I married him for better or worse, so I would go with him. I’m ashamed of the hell the government of Canada has put me through. I’m only asking the government to give us a fair trial. The more CSIS comes up against him the more I will support him. I love him more every day for his strength."

After lunch, Sophie is cross examined by CSIS attorney Michael. Dale. His tone drips with contempt. He seems disturbed that Sophie has been so much in the media talking about the case. He quotes from some of the articles in which she has appeared and a Canada AM program in which she mistook Pakistan for Afghanistan. She explains she was called at 4:30 am to do the interview, was tired and stressed, and made the error, correcting it afterwards. His questions are short and designed to trip her up. He asks how Mo can see his mother is he feels threatened by return to Algeria,. She explains no plans have been made, and they might have chosen to go to a third country for such a visit. Afterwards, she gets to sit with Mo for five minutes. She jokes "I’m paying far too much for 5 minutes with my husband."

DAY 2

It’s Wednesday morning, and a former CSIS agent has come to court to explain why he is afraid to testify.

Jean-Luc Marchessault was a rising star at CSIS who, disturbed by the corrupt workings of the agency, raised some questions and, as a result, was, as documented in Andrew Mitrovica’s book Covert Entry, "the victim of a well coordinated campaign by CSIS to destroy his reputation, raise doubts about his allegiance and force him out of the service he loved."

As Mitrovica documents, Marchessault "saw some senior officers routinely return from lunch unsteady on their feet, while others didn’t return at all. ‘Some supervisors that I worked with would go out for two- to three-hour lunches and come back smelling like a brewery,’ he says. ‘And by four o’clock, the office was a ghost town.’ He learned of senior officers who were involved in serious car crashes with CSIS vehicles. The accidents were covered up to protect reputations and careers. He saw officers embellish their reports with information from questionable sources to curry favour with their superiors. He learned that some money from intelligence operations had been used to buy stereo equipment instead. He saw safe houses used by officers for nightly trysts or weekend getaways. He learned that an officer had invited his mother along to a debriefing with a source....’There is an understanding, a culture at CSIS that says that to get along, you have to belong,’ Marchessault says. ‘The drinking, the laziness, the vices were all secrets of that fraternity.’"

Marchessault was eventually forced out of CSIS.

"‘They wanted to break me, but they couldn’t," he told Mitrovica. "‘The service said I couldn’t do my job, but it was a lie. They believe they are above the law, but they are not. They play by their own rules, and they make them up as they go along. They have absolutely no respect for the law, and it’s time that CSIS was held to account. It may sound naive, but I truly believe that the rule of law is at stake here.’"

Marchessault’s concerns about the rule of law are certainly on the minds of many in the courtroom that morning. After all, this is the second day of a hearing in which we are supposed to accept at face value the secret, uncontested word of CSIS, which, twenty years after its creation, is still criticized by its generally lap-dog oversight committee for not getting basic facts correct in writing affidavits.

Marchessault is here to discuss why he is afraid to testify. "If I answer [certain questions] I’m fearful of prosecution," he explains.

He explains that he is concerned that even if he provides truthful evidence, "for example, if I alluded to the fact that some of my colleagues play computer games all day," that he could still be prosecuted. "It was my intention to speak in general terms," but not to reveal the nature of CSIS operations. But the penalty of 5 to 14 years in prison is a heavy one, and "even by providing the truth I could be prosecuted. I have two young children who are dear to me." He says if he were provided with some form of protection he would feel better.

The problem, it appears, is that Marchessault could inadvertently "cross the line," even though he would not discuss operational methods. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that even if it is clear he does not cross that line, CSIS, being a vengeful organization, would say he had.

Galati asks whether CSIS agents have the capacity to make judgment calls on whether they are crossing the line while in court. Marchessault answers yes.

"Do you fear CSIS would have you prosecuted even if you didn’t cross the line?"

"Yes, based on my experience with CSIS. I didn’t intent to [cross the line], but I consider it a very powerful organization and I am fearful."

At the heart of this matter is a letter from CSIS lawyer Jim Mathieson to Harkat attorney Bruce Engel (and by extension to Rocco Galati, who joined the case later), written April 29, 2003. Without even knowing what Marchessault will testify to, Mathieson writes that nevertheless, provisions of the Security of Information Act (the revised Official Secrets Act) "apply to the testimony of M. Marchessault as an expert for Mr. Harkat. It also applies to any discussions he has with you as Counsel for Mr. Harkat in preparation for his testimony." The letter further threatens the attorneys that, even in the process of preparing the witness, lawyers asking certain questions "could be construed to be an act by you counselling M. Marchessault to commit an offence contrary to sections 13 and 14 of the Security of Information Act."

In other words, even a discussion of potential testimony could wind all three -- Marchessault, Galati and Engel -- in the slammer for many years.

In a response, Galati wrote that the letter is "indigestively threatening and arrogant in its tone which, in its reference to already deliberated assertions of fact and law, orbits on the extortive with its threat that the calling of this expert and even talking to him could lead to criminal charges against counsel."

With respect to CSIS concerns about testimony regarding the means by which it gathers evidence, Galati points out "as the Supreme Court of Canada has already stated, in this context, there is only so many ways any investigative agency can collect information and/or evidence which is known to the Courts, and any illegal, or unconstitutional actions by your service agents cannot be blanketed by any non-disclosure privilege."

Galati concludes that he and Engel should not be subject to "in limine threats of criminal prosecution" in "an already oppressive and questionable procedure not yet reviewed, on its substance, by the Supreme Court of Canada."

"This threat by the CSIS counsel to criminally prosecute any potential witness and Mr. Harkat’s counsel, if evidence to contradict the analysis or the assumptions in the CSIS summary were called, is medievally oppressive," Galati explains. "That hasn’t happened since the Middle Ages. You can’t have the king in a sense telling the witnesses and the jury what to do...or else. How are we supposed to work under the threat of 5 to 14 years in prison for simply calling evidence?

" How would you feel if you sat there as a witness with the lawyer looking at you who’s threatened to prosecute you depending on what you say, and how would you feel as the lawyer calling the witness with a lawyer sitting there who’s threatened to prosecute you depending on what you lead into court? How do you conduct a fair, independent hearing with that kind of oppressive stench in the courtroom?"

Galati points out that no notice has been given to indicate Mr. Marchessault is permanently bound to secrecy. Galati says that a question can be asked and, if Mathieson objects on national security grounds, it goes to the judge for determination.

"CSIS agents regularly testify at these proceedings without fear of prosecution, because they are empowered to determine when they cross the line," Galati explains.

As a result of this threatening atmosphere, an abuse of process motion has been brought forward calling for the certificate against Harkat to be quashed.

"This is an issue which pierces the integrity of the administration of justice and the independence of the judiciary," Galati points out. "We have threats of prosecution which have had the effect of chilling a witness. How does Mr. Harkat have a right to be heard if his lawyers are under threat of prosecution if they call evidence on the analysis in the public summary itself?"

Galati says Mathieson "as CSIS Counsel, is sitting as finder of fact, judge and jury", and that his letter threatens prosecution "without a hint about what the evidence is about." Galati says the letter is akin to a crown attorney sending a letter to all defence witnesses in a case threatening them with perjury if they provide testimony. "You wouldn’t have too many witnesses" in that situation.

Once an operation is complete, the Supreme Court has ruled that the methods employed by police cannot remain secret. "It’s no secret there are limited means of covert actions, from informants, surveillance, seizure of property, break and enter, but the threat of charges for me to speak of operational methods?" Galati asks. "To speak that the world is round is heresy--that’s what is sounds like. If we cannot do this then my client cannot be heard. We have severe prejudice in undermining and removing his reasonable opportunity to be heard. It’s an oppressive, abusive threat, especially in these post 9/11 times, Even if it’s not designed to be, it doesn’t matter, the effect is the same.

"In our view, Mr. Marchessault’s responses to our questions would not cross the line, but if the respondents (CSIS) feel they do cross the line, then Mr. Engel and I will have to mortgage our houses. We don’t have the information to make that judgment call, only the CSIS officer is in that position. We shouldn’t have to be put into this position in a courtroom.. It’s a bad way to run the railroad. It taints the entire judicial proceeding."

Galati clarifies that at the least, for Mr. Marchessault to speak, an order would be needed that he can testify without fear of charges.

"It’s common knowledge that Mr. Engel and I are under wiretap," Galati says. "I don’t want to be prosecuted for preparing a witness. Without a blanket prohibition [regarding prosecutorial charges], the air of suppression linkers like smog on a summer day. We’re not only uneasy for ourselves but, more important, it ties our hands in representing our client."

Galati then moves to the issue of calling a current CSIS officer, whose name no one except the CSIS lawyers knows, to clarify the broad allegations in the public summary.

"The summary is the only, and I put this word in quotes, ‘disclosure,’ for lack of a better word....At the end of the day it’s the only glimpse we have . Under the barest notions of natural justice, Mr. Harkat is entitled to have a witness speak to the nature of those allegations. We need someone who put this together for clarifying and focusing on what the statement is so Mr. Harkat can have a reasonable opportunity to respond and be heard."

Galati points out, for example, a reference made to Afghanistan (a country Harkat denies visiting). It does not say whether Harkat was alleged to be there when the U.S. supported those resisting Russian occupation, or at sometime later. The distinction, in defending Harkat, would obviously be a crucial one, and answering the question could in no way endanger national security.

At paragraph 65 of the summary, it says Harkat supports individuals and groups involved in political violence and terrorism, a broad allegation. Are these two terms to be equated as the same?

"Without clarification," Galati concludes, "this summary says if you’re a Muslim touching on any conflict anywhere, anytime, you’re an extremist."

Dawson suggests written questions could be put to a CSIS officer behind closed doors, without Galati there to hear the responses. Any responses would then be filtered for "national security" and returned to Galati and Engel, who would then provide additional written questions for follow-up. Galati insists in-person questioning is easier and more effective.

The CSIS attorneys respond to the abuse of process motion and request for a CSIS agent to testify by essentially pooh-poohing the whole thing. Attorney Rennie actually stoops to the point of suggesting things would go a lot smoother if Galati and Engel actually worked on a close level together with the CSIS lawyers, cooperating to present the case to the judge in a collegial, friendly spirit.

It is a disturbing, Kafka-esque idea which Galati dismisses. "To say it is our job to work with the crown is nonsensical, absurd. It’s our job to make sure our client gets a fair hearing, that’s our only job, to make sure we uphold the rules of the court and the laws of our country. It’s not our job to help the crown prosecute our client."

Rennie says the threatening letter is in fact "measured in tone, informative in content," and dismisses the notion that any prosecution is intended.

CSIS lawyer Mathiseon says that to allow a CSIS witness to testify would be to seek additional disclosure, and that matter was already dealt with in the spring. Galati has said on half a dozen occasions that he does not seek additional disclosure, but clarification of what is a minestrone of allegations that reads like "around the world in 80 minutes."

Mathieson counters that "we all know" how Mr. Galati operates (as if to defend your client as best as you can is a crime) and that "I can only assume answers (to Galati’s questions) would be injurious to national security." Mathieson asserts this not knowing what questions will be asked, or why.

He says in terms of clarification from Galati, "it would not end there, it could not end there. It would force the witness to go behind the summary and tread on ground covered in the [secret] security intelligence report [which neither Harkat nor his lawyers can see]."

Both Mathieson and Rennie refer to the Ahani security certificate case in a disturbingly detached manner. They do not explain what eventually happened to this Iranian refugee who spent nine years in Canadian prison on secret "evidence," without charges or bail, before he was deported back to Iran last year against the objections of the UN Human Rights Committee. He has disappeared.

Galati responds that he does not see how his questioning the service’s view that the FIS (Islamic group in Algeria) constitutes a terrorist group would injure national security.

As we leave the court that afternoon, a critical question remains unresolved. It is unclear how a defence can be mounted without a judicial order preventing the attorney general from taking legal action against Harkat’s lawyers or their expert witness.

Dawson says she needs a day to figure this all out and will return on Friday morning with a decision.

Day 3

It’s Friday morning, and Dawson’s answers are not positive at all. Like a southern judge throwing Rosa Parks in jail because the law is the law, and the law says black people can’t sit in the whites-only area of the bus, Dawson adheres to the unfair security certificate law, explaining what her role is and how she has been "careful" in the process. "Throughout, I am mindful that the openness of court proceedings is one of the important protections of our free and democratic society. At the same time, our free and democratic society depends upon the protection of our nation’s security."

She then says Harkat may submit written questions, and "to the extent that the Ministers have any concerns that the answer to any question may be injurious to national security or the safety of any person, they may request that the Court hear such information in the absence of Mr. Harkat and his counsel."

So much for an open court proceeding.

Dawson then dismisses the abuse of process motion, quoting Rennie as saying the letter is informative and measured. She also says, with respect to protecting Marchessault, that "it would be a matter of significant surprise to me if truthful testimony given in this Court in this proceeding could result in prosecution."

Afterwards, Engel says the "language" of her ruling doesn't go far enough to make anyone "comfortable" with testifying or questioning a witness about CSIS methods.

"I still have some very strong concerns and some reservations about continuing in this manner," Engel says, as "none of us still have the protection we want and that's a problem."

He calls the decision "a brick wall" which ties his hands and which could lead to a long, drawn-out process.

And so it was handcuffs and another trip back to the Ottawa Detention Centre and the solitary confinement cell for Mohamed Harkat. With his fellow Muslim security certificate detainees (Muhammad Mahjoub, jailed since June 2000), Mahmoud Jaballah (August, 2001), Hassan Almrei (October 2001) and Adil Charkaoui (May, 2003), he awaits a more enlightened time both in the courts and in the legislature, when the use of secret evidence by an organization with a shoddy record when it comes to truthtelling, will be a nightmare in our collective past.

In the meantime, four upcoming events will provide folks concerned about this desecration of democracy an opportunity to be heard. In Toronto on Thursday, August 14, friends and families of the detainees will be in front of the CSIS headquarters at 277 Front Street from 12 noon to 1:30 pm, handing our flyers and gathering signatures on a petition that will be presented to the Prime Minister’s office in Ottawa on Monday, August 25. There will also be a Festival of Rights in Grange Park in Toronto on Saturday, August 23.

On Friday, October 31, friends and supporters are organizing a national day of actions against secret trials in Canada, with a nonviolent civil disobedience at CSIS headquarters in Ottawa. If you would like to organize a vigil or public event in your community on that day, please get in touch with us. The greatest threat to CSIS’ bulldozing of civil rights is exposure. Join us in that campaign of exposure, and demand an end to the security certificate and use of secret evidence.

Prime Minister Jean Chretien Refuses to Meet With Families of Canada’s Secret Trial Detainees

Tears Flow as Members of Five Families, Including 10 Children, Plead for the Release of Their Loved Ones

(In which a group of five families goes to Ottawa hoping to meet the prime minister with a single question on behalf of the children: when is my dad coming home? They are the human fallout from Canadian repression, and the front line of the battle to preserve civil liberties in Canada. If these families cannot win justice, no one in this country can win justice. The shadow of the anti-democracy probe of the RCMP/CSIS which secretly jailed 19 Pakistani men in Toronto a week earlier hangs over the gathering as an omen that unless we continue to speak up, the slender threads of democracy will continue to tear and come apart.)

Ottawa, Ontario, August 25, 2003 -- It takes a lot of courage to fight a fire, courage which has been on display the past few weeks as fires have ravaged parts of British Columbia. Even Prime Minister Jean Chretien came out of his seclusion to view the human toll of the tragedy and to shake hands with the survivors.

There is another fire raging in Canada that is causing deep, possibly irreparable harm to Canada, and threatening the safety of all who live here. It is a fire whose flames lick at the Canadian constitution, and which has already burned deep holes in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In many instances, it has seared Canada’s international obligations under such covenants as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The fire is represented by words like "CSIS security certificate," and by headlines from the past week about 19 Pakistani men who disappeared from the streets of Toronto for over a week before anyone knew they’d been arrested. On Monday, the focus was on the Secret Trial 5: Mohammad Mahjoub (jailed since June, 2000), Mahmoud Jaballah (jailed since August, 2001), Hassan Almrei (jailed since October 2001), Mohamed Harkat (jailed since December 2002) and Adil Charkaoui (jailed since May 2003).

These five men have been held, largely in solitary confinement, a collective 94 months without charge or bail, on secret "evidence" neither they nor their lawyers are allowed to see. That "evidence" is provided by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, a scandal-ridden spy agency with a remarkable record of dishonesty, corruption, and disregard for civil rights .

On Monday, August 25, a courageous group of fire fighters came to Ottawa to extinguish this fire. They were the friends and families of the secret trial detainees who, in a historic moment, were all gathered together in one place, in common cause, in an act giving new life to the worn-out cry of solidarity.

They came to Ottawa to present a petition to the PM with thousands of signatures demanding freedom for loved ones and the end of the secret trial security certificate. They came to Ottawa in the same spirit they came to Canada -- with hope that they would find freedom from persecution and torture. They came here because they believed in the democratic process and the promise of a new, more peaceful life. And they came because they want so desperately to see democracy work.

It’s unclear ultimately what every family member expected, balancing their deepest hopes for justice against the litany of abuses they have suffered and continue to endure. But by the time they made it to the red carpet at the entrance to the PMO, they had the door slammed in their face by Chretien’s deputy communications director Steven Hogue as a wall of RCMP officers looked on.

It was the end of a one-month journey that began in late July, when a letter from the Campaign to Stop Secret Trials in Canada was sent to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), requesting a meeting for August 25. A letter was also sent from Ahmad Jaballah, a 17-year-old whose father, Mahmoud, just marked two years in Metro West Detention Centre, as well as from the Jaballah’s MP, Liberal Jim Karygiannis.

Throughout the month of August, numerous calls were made every few days to check on the status of our proposed meeting with Chretien or with one of his aides. Each time we called we were told that the file was still "open," and that we would be hearing from them.

But as our vehicles from Toronto pulled in to Ottawa late Sunday evening, we had not yet had confirmation of this meeting. As of Monday morning, as the vans began showing up from Montreal, we were still told that the PMO had an open file on us, but that it was not clear if we would get our meeting. We kept getting transferred to an answering machine where we could leave a message about our "concerns."

Two weeks after the letters had been sent, members of the Mahjoub and Jaballah families gathered at CSIS in Toronto to seek a meeting. August 14 marked the second anniversary of the arrest of Jaballah, who had won against a previous certificate but who was arrested on a second certificate and was now behind bars despite the fact that CSIS said it had no new "evidence" against him, only a new interpretation of the old "evidence" that had been dismissed by a federal court judge.

Once at CSIS, they were met again with a wall of police who refused them entry. This was not new. At the end of a three-day walk to stop secret trials held in June in Toronto, a similar response met the families.

But on August 14, the media suddenly seemed interested, and lots of cameras were finally there to record the voices of families of secret trial detainees.

"If you don’t want us to go in, at least get somebody to come out," said Mona El-Fouli, whose husband Mohammad Mahjoub has been detained 38 months. "So they [CSIS] are free to go into homes and take people out of their homes, but they’re not free to come and talk to us and tell us why they did that. If they have evidence, why don’t they show it?"

For a few hours, it seems the story will get a national airing. But the big blackout began around 4:15 that afternoon, and the story of secret trials in Canada again went to the backburner.

The trip to Ottawa represents another opportunity to speak to the people of Canada, to awaken their sleeping conscience.

Monday morning dawns early for Mona El-Fouli. Before the sun is up, CTV has sent a cab to bring her to Ottawa’s experimental farm where, following a story on mad cow disease, Mona will go before a national audience to explain why she is making her first trip to Ottawa along with her three children. The cab driver is a perky fellow who normally does a lot of pickups for the Canada AM show, and seems to deliver his standard line as Mona gets ready to disembark: "Don’t let all this media go to your head, Mona!"

Mona smiles politely and then looks around at the bizarre site of a small camera crew trying to coax some cows into early morning "cow action," but the creatures would rather stare back with that sense of detached wonder at the antics of humans. El-Fouli tries to explain to the male technician that as a woman wearing hijab, she would prefer to put the earpiece in her ear by herself.

Some members of the crew have gone inside a barn and upset another group of cows, who scream out and kick wooden planks constantly, a distracting noise that will underlie Mona’s interview. And then Mona goes on and, in four and a half minutes, has to explain the effect the secret trial process has had on her and her children. She explains how difficult it has been, and the threat to her husband if he is deported back to Egypt. Indeed, when Mahjoub first came to Canada and was accepted as a refugee, the Canadian government informed the Egyptian government, and Mahjoub’s two brothers back home, a teacher and a doctor, were disappeared, and have not been heard from since.

The interview is very brief, but Mona’s message is clear: if the government has evidence against her husband, let them show it and have a fair trial. Otherwise, stop holding him and return him to his children.

It’s back into the cab and a trip to a nearby house, where, after the driver’s repeated warning not to let all this media go to her head, Mona prepares to do a more extensive radio interview with CBC morning. Throughout the day, CBC radio will be airing lots of coverage of two seemingly related but equally weighted stories: the plight of the families of secret trial detainees, and whether the RCMP should continue to use yellow as part of its uniform colours.

"I’m hoping to speak to the prime minister or member of the prime minister’s office and to be able to get them to understand this is not fair at all and to ensure a fair process," she explains. "It’s very, very difficult for my husband. It’s not easy to be in detention for three years and not to know what it’s all about. For the family it’s a nightmare. It’s stressful for me. First of all, he [Mahjoub] was the sole support for the family. The children keep asking where he is, what he’s doing, why doesn’t he come back?

" When they go and visit him, they feel uncomfortable speaking to him behind glass, they keep kissing and hugging the glass. It’s very emotional. One day my 6-year-old son saw guards behind my husband and started to break down and scream and scream, ‘I know, I know that he’s in jail, why is he in jail?’ It was too emotional a moment. I wonder, if I were to tell him why he is in jail, what would I say to him? Because we don’t know what the evidence is that’s put him in jail,. So I would like to see the evidence that put my husband for three years in jail."

El-Fouli explains that "at the moment, because they [the children] are still small and they don’t understand what jail is all about, they wouldn’t understand that there is no evidence against him, so I tell them that he is travelling and that he will be coming one day. But at the same time that I tell them that he is coming one day I wonder, IS he going to come back? What’s going to happen to him? And for what reason? I’d like to see the evidence, I’d like to see fair trials."

After gathering all the children together, El-Fouli, Sophie Harkat and her family, and the Jaballah family head downtown with placards and banners to set up at the Human Rights monument.

On the grass near the monument, surrounded by a huge horde of media, gather the wives, sisters, children and adopted families of the detained men. The families are amazed at the masses of media. There is a sense of hope that today, perhaps, their story will get out across the country. Live spots are set up for CBC, CTV, and Global.

It’s a morning filled both with the weight of the emotion that comes with living through a daily nightmare, and the liberation that comes with looking around and seeing that you are no longer alone in your struggle. Little children run around playing hide-and-seek behind banners and placards just like any other group of kids would do, only this group of kids shares a common tragedy: their dads are in jail on weightless allegations "supported" by secret "evidence".

An officer with the RCMP comes over and discusses the march route with walk organizers. He is friendly enough, and says he has been in touch with the prime minister’s office in the hopes of helping us get a meeting. He also informs us that the Montreal bus has been cancelled, and asks if we’ll leave sooner rather than later. We ask his source for this information, but none is provided. (We know that the Montreal folks are coming in vans, not a bus, and received a call that they were a bit behind, and so find the RCMP’s "news" curious!)

Before we even start speaking at the rally, the media have gathered in a big pack around Mona, around Diana Ralph, one of the adopted Canadian family members of Hassan Almrei, Sophie Harkat, and Ahmad Jaballah, a 17-year-old who eloquently puts forward his position as he explains how difficult the last few years have been.

"It’s been pretty hard," Jaballah says. "First of all, my studies are going down. I can’t focus in school for the past two years. I’ve been missing a lot of school because of going to court and so on. And also this week I’m supposed to be preparing for next week and going into grade 12 but now I’m here in Ottawa doing this, so I can’t prepare for school. School is the basis for my future, and as you can see my future is being messed up from the start. So it’s been pretty hard. And I’m the oldest, I’m only 17. I’m taking more responsibilities than I’m supposed to. I’m supposed to take care of my five brothers and sisters, and that’s not a responsibility for a 17-year-old. I have more stuff on my back than I should have. It’s hard."

Jaballah is asked why he thinks his father was arrested. It is the fifth time. Previously, he has said the media should really ask CSIS for an answer.

"They claim him to be a terrorist, but I don’t believe that. If you ask me what I think, I’d say it’s something against Muslims these days, they go all around the world, all around cities and towns arresting Muslims for no reason. It’s not just against my dad or the five but it’s something against all Muslims."

As with loved ones of the other detainees, Jaballah’s message is simple, and does not seem too much to ask, especially considering what they’ve been through. "If you have anything against my dad, show it and give him a fair trial, I’m on your side," Ahmad says. "Otherwise, stop torturing Muslims and my dad."

After brief speeches from family members, the walk gets underway, stopping first at Citizenship and Immigration Canada, where minister Coderre signs the security certificate. It is also where legislation is being drafted to allow Coderre to rescind citizenship of permanent residents based on secret evidence, with no right of appeal. Finally, we note it was the site of a peaceful sit-in by "non-status" Algerians seeking an end to deportations last May, an occupation broken up in brutal fashion by electric-prod toting RCMP tactical squad members.

We pass by the Supreme Court, which continues to refuse to take on a case where they would have to rule on the constitutionality of secret trials. And then we head for the PMO. The RCMP officer informs us that someone will meet us to take the petitions. We tell him that this is not good enough. We are insisting on a meeting. He says he will call back, and he does. He has been listening to these stories all morning, and he seems affected. He comes back and says we can have a representative of each family go in.

As we approach the entrance to the PMO, the tension is palpable. The little kids are excited about seeing Jean Chretien, the older folks are wary, hoping not to be disappointed yet again, yet also prepared for what may be the inevitable letdown.

As we wait on the red carpet of the PMO entrance, Steve Hogue, a deputy communications director, comes out the door and takes the petitions from Ahmad Jaballah. Explaining the petition, Jaballah says, "It says either show the evidence or release them and end the secret trial. Can you show the Prime Minister? That would be appreciated."

Hogue grabs the petitions and scurries back inside, as RCMP officers close in behind him. There will be no meeting. We turn to the RCMP officer who has been on the phone all morning. He seems more shocked than we do, and tears well up in his eyes as one by one, family members take the megaphone to discuss their reaction.

Hind Charkaoui, whose brother Adil is detained in Montreal, says the government is closed, so we’ll have to keep organizing and demonstrating. She then picks up 3-year old Howla Charkaoui, who manages to quietly chant "so-so-so, solidarite" and "no borders, no nations, stop the deportations."

Mrs. Charkaoui stands among the group, eight months pregnant, likely to give birth with her husband in solitary confinement.

Seven-year-old Ali Jaballah speaks as well, saying it’s not fair, and that he wants his dad to be free. 10-year-old Afnan Jaballah says she thought this country was supposed to be free, but she sees that it isn’t. The kids are getting a heavy-handed lesson in what democracy in Canada is really all about, especially for Muslims.

Ahmad Jaballah picks up the megaphone. Again, it is his leadership and eloquence which point us forward. "We have demonstrated before, and we know we will have to demonstrate again, and come back to Ottawa again and again until everyone is free and we can return Canada to a land of peace and justice," he says.

We close the gathering by hoping that Chretien will one day soon have a chance to look into the eyes of the children and tell them face to face why their fathers are still not coming home. The group retires to a local community centre for lunch, for reflection, and for dedication to working together in the future.

It comes with a cautionary note, however. We remind one another that now that we are together, we are stronger. But CSIS and the RCMP will view that as a threat, and are likely to engage in more surveillance, more harassment, more rumour-mongering, more wiretapping, and more arrests.

With that caveat in mind, we announce that the Campaign to Stop Secret Trials in Canada will return to Ottawa for Halloween and a mass trick-or-treat for sealed evidence at CSIS national headquarters on Friday, October 31. Couches will be set up at the entrances of CSIS to offer free psychological counseling to CSIS agents to help them overcome their irrational fear of Arabs and Muslims. Great detectives from history will be there to help CSIS learn the art of the trade, and many will wear masks with the faces of Canada’s disappeared, the Secret Trial 5, a number which, unfortunately, may be higher by the time we gather again in two months time.

As we climb back into our vehicles to head home, we get a call on the cell phone. It’s from the prime minister’s office. They want us to know that the file is still "open." We explain our disappointment at today’s turn of events, but say we are free again to meet in late October, and that hopefully a bit more respect will be shown to the families. The voice on the other end thanks us for our concerns.

For more information, contact us at [email protected]. Additional information on secret trials is available on the following websites:

www.homesnotbombs.ca

www.adilinfo.org

www.geocities.com/mohamedharkat/info.htm

WHAT YOU CAN DO.

1. Show Hassan you support his just demand for heat, in the interim, and for a hearing in which there is no secret "evidence," over the longer term. Postcards or short letters of support can be sent to Hassan Almrei, Metro West Detention Centre, 111 Disco Road, Rexdale, ON M9W 5L6. Please notify us at [email protected] if you do write, so we can make sure he is getting his mail. Letters from outside of Canada welcomed as well.

2. Join in the chain fast in support of Hassan. Take a day or two when you will fast in support of Hassan’s demand for heat and for an end to secret trials. Please let us know at [email protected] if you would want your name listed as part of the chain fast and when you are fasting. Notify your local media of what you are doing, and use the enclosed press release for background information. Hassan has said he will fast until he gets heat, and that could still be some time in the future.

3. Come to the Metro West Detention Centre on Sunday, October 19, the second anniversary of Hassan’s arrest, for a vigil from 12 noon to 2 pm. To get a ride or if you can offer your vehicle to take others up to the jail, call us at (416) 651-5800 or at [email protected]

3. Contact the new Ontario Minister of "Public Safety and Security" (as yet not announced) and demand that people like Hassan be given their right to the Minimum Standards for Prisoners as agreed to by Canada at the U.N (see below). Official Ontario policy states prison temperatures in winter must be no lower than 22 degrees Celsius, give or take one degree. That individual (Minister for now) can be reached at:

Minister of "Public Safety and Security"

25 Grosvenor St., 18th Flr., Toronto, ON M7A 1Y6

(416) 325-0408, fax: (416) 325-6067

please cc us at [email protected] if you can or at the PO Box listed at the top of the news release

4. Take part in the National Day of Action to Stop Secret Trials, Friday, October 31. In Ottawa, there will be a large gathering at CSIS. If something is not planned in your community already, get in touch and we can discuss setting up a local vigil with flyers (or visit our website at www.homesnotbombs.ca for details)

5. Contact Immigration Minister Denis Coderre and demand that such punishment meted out against immigrants and refugees be stopped immediately. Demand as well that secret trials under the CSIS security certificate be stopped. Coderre can be reached at:

Denis Coderre, Immigration Minister

House of Commons

Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6

(613) 995-6108

Fax: (613) 995-9755

[email protected]

[email protected]

In a case that calls into serious question Canada’s stated commitment to human rights, Hassan Almrei – a 29-year-old Syrian refugee claimant held in solitary confinement since October 19, 2001 without charge or bail on secret "evidence" neither he nor his lawyer is allowed to see – is dreading the prospect of a third winter at Metro West Detention Centre, where he is constantly shivering from the cold and has no access to shoes, a sweater or jacket.

Almrei is in day five of a hunger strike demanding some basic civil rights which, he feels, he would be accorded if he were in a federal prison, and not on an immigration hold at Metro West. He says that he can barely get sleep because he is so cold at night. While Ontario law requires that heat of at least 21 degrees Celsius be provided for tenants as of October 1, Almrei says at the warmest point of the day on Thursday, the temperature in his cell was only 16 degrees Celsius, and got much colder at night.

"Solitary confinement is both physical and mental torture, especially over a two-year period" says Almrei friend Matthew Behrens. "Add to this torture the fact that you can never get ‘comfortable’ because it it too cold, and we have a serious human rights violation on our hands. Hassan needs a heater to survive in there."

Almrei, who began a bail hearing in late June, suffered a major setback when the expected September continuation date for that hearing was carelessly bumped to the end of November by the Federal Court of Canada, forcing him to spend even more time in solitary. At the June hearing, immigration officials had no good reason why Almrei might not be transferred to a federal prison, where educational programs, better food, and access to a library would be a much improved place to await the outcomes of his judicial proceedings.

"It’s remarkable that the court can blithely add another two months to the two years Hassan has already spent in solitary confinement, a condition which human rights organizations have condemned as cruel and unusual punishment," says Diana Ralph, a friend and bail surety for Almrei, and a member of Toronto’s Jewish community whose father was a lawyer at the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal.

"It’s not Hassan’s fault that he is in solitary. Given the media hysteria surrounding his arrest, it was not safe for him to be with other prisoners, an experience echoed by the Pakistani victims of the RCMP’s Project Thread," Ralph says. "But that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have the same rights as other prisoners."

In the past 23 1/2 months, Almrei has been out of solitary confinement for a total of five days. For the rest of the time, Almrei, who arrived in Canada in 1999 seeking a peaceful life, has been locked in the hole for 23 hours a day. He has never been charged, nor convicted, of any offence anywhere in the world. He is not "wanted" for extradition by any government.

But like fellow Muslims Mahmoud Jaballah (held since August 2001), Mohammad Mahjoub (held since June, 2000), Mohamed Harkat (held since December 10, 2002) and now Adil Charkaoui (held since May), Almrei has been targetted by the CSIS secret trial security certificate. Neither he nor his lawyer, Barbara Jackman, is allowed to know the substance of the alleged evidence and, as has been the case with his fellow long-term detainees, Amnesty International has concluded Almrei’s life is at risk if deported from Canada.

Jackman notes that Almrei was not accorded due process in his security certificate hearing because the court refused Almrei’s right to testify "in camera" -- behind closed doors -- because his testimony might endanger his life if deported, or endanger loved ones in Syria. Jackman has been denied access to Almrei on numerous occasions, and his whole judicial ordeal has also included attempts by Immigration Canada to close his deportation hearing to the public.

"To know Almrei is to know a gentle human being who has been unfairly targetted in the post 9/11 crackdown on civil rights," says Almrei friend and bail supporter Behrens. "I have been inspired by his patience, his lack of hatred for those who have done this to him, and his hope that he will one day be released so he can get on with his life and open what he will call his Freedom Restaurant."

Almrei, who was working to get a pita business running, was picked up in the RCMP/CSIS sweeps of the Arabic and Middle Eastern communities after September 11, 2001.

In the public summary of allegations which CSIS has to disclose, it is claimed that Almrei is a threat based on his past involvement in the honey business in Saudi Arabia. CSIS says the bin Laden network funnels funds through honey businesses, so Almrei MIGHT be associated with support for terrorism. (Of course, by the same token,

...3

the makers of Billy Bee Honey in Canada MIGHT also be secretly up to no good, but they are not Muslim, and thus not likely to be surveilled by CSIS. Or to extend the logic, anyone who owns a Harley MIGHT be associated with the Hell’s Angels. You see how it goes...).

As with other security certificate cases, it’s all about guilt by alleged association, and a Federal Court judge (who must be approved by CSIS) is not bound to ensure that facts are confirmed, only that there are "reasonable grounds" to believe that such facts might possibly be true.

The other allegation CSIS has made is that Almrei was associated with Nabil Al-Marabh, who post-9/11 was deemed a major terrorist in banner North American headlines. The fact that Almrei readily admitted to CSIS that he knew Al-Marabh socially was seen by the judge who upheld the certificate as crucial to the case.

Yet a year later, after Almrei’s certificate was upheld, anyone who reads the tiny follow-up articles that sometimes report the truth would have found that Al Marabh was not in fact the "terrorist threat" he was made out to be, and instead he was quickly convicted of a minor immigration infraction and faces a deportation hearing from the U.S. next week. If sent back to Syria, his liberty, indeed his life, is in question. The fact that Al-Marabh was not who he was made out to be should call into question the decision of the judge who upheld the certificate against Almrei.

Almrei, frustrated by the delay in getting access to a court hearing, as well as by the continued mental and physical torture of two years in solitary confinement, is seeking a transfer to a federal prison. Short of that, he wants a cell where he is not shivering day and night during the fall, winter and spring.

Campaign members point out that the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, adopted by the United Nations in 1955 and re-affirmed in 1977, declare that "all accommodation provided for the use of prisoners and in particular all sleeping accommodation shall meet all requirements of health, due regard being paid to climatic conditions and particularly to cubic content of air, minimum floor space, lighting, heating and ventilation." They also state that "Every prisoner who is not allowed to wear his own clothing shall be provided with an outfit of clothing suitable for the climate and adequate to keep him in good health...Every prisoner who is not employed in outdoor work shall have at least one hour of suitable exercise in the open air daily if the weather permits."

For more information, call (416) 651-5800.

Campaign to Stop Secret Trials in Canada

PO Box 73620, 509 St. Clair Ave. West

Toronto, ON M6C 1C0

(416) 651-5800, [email protected], www.homesnotbombs.ca

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 7, 2003

page 1 of 2

Hungering For Justice: From Solitary Confinement to the Streets of Toronto

The Case of a Syrian Refugee Held Two Years in Solitary Confinement in Toronto is very much Linked to the Campaign to Transform Moss Park Armoury into Non-Profit, Affoirdable Housing

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, TORONTO -- We were on our way to the weekly Homes not Bombs/Food not Bombs/Clothes not Bombs weekly vigil at Moss Park Armoury when the familiar collect call came from solitary confinement at 5:45 last night. The voice belonged to our friend Hassan Almrei, a 29-year-old Syrian refugee held in solitary confinement for the past two years at Metro West Detention Centre. He was just completing his 9th day of an open-ended hunger strike, demanding heat in his freezing cell, where he has shivered through two long, miserable, lonely winters.

His spirits are high for someone who has been through this torture and who has not had a morsel of solid food in well over a week. The public pressure to get heat for Almrei has been drawing attention, as an immigration official finally pays him a visit to see why people have been calling his department in Ottawa to rally on Hassan’s behalf. It is the same department which is trying to send Hassan back to Syria despite the fact his life would be in jeopardy there.

We discuss the good news that Canadian Maher Arar has been released by Syria. Arar was held over one year in a Syrian prison on secret "evidence" neither he nor his lawyer was allowed to see. We wonder when the Canadian government will free Almrei, who is also held on secret "evidence" neither he nor his attorney, Barbara Jackman, is allowed to see.

As we campaign for Hassan’s freedom, as well as for the freedom of four other Muslim men who, all told, have been held a collective 104 months without charge or bail, we are often asked why these gentlemen are being held. Surely, we are told by shocked individuals, there must be SOME reason.

One can hear the echoes through history of similar rationalizations. As thousands of Japanese Canadians and Italo-Canadians are rounded up and interned during World War II, we are told that SURELY there must be SOME reason they are being held. Ditto for Germans and Ukrainians interned in World War I. And double ditto, as so many tend to forget, the largest mass internment in Canadian history, one which continues to this day through the reserve system, massive poverty and disproportionately high incarceration rates, the First Nations of this land.

In those three examples, and in the most contemporary one, the Project Thread of the RCMP which continues to hold South Asian students in detention despite admitting there are no security concerns, the reasons can be boiled down to fear and racism playing out their dual purposes.

In the case of Canada’s Secret Trial Five -- Almrei, Mahmoud Jaballah, held since August 2001, Mohammad Mahjoub, since June, 2000, Mohamed Harkat, since International Human Rights Day, December 10, 2001, and Adil Charkoui, since May) -- there is no difference. None has actually been accused of committing any illegal act. All have been clear: if there is evidence against them, bring it forward, charge them as you would in any criminal case, and let them answer to it. Otherwise, end this torturous charade for the men and their families (11 children altogether).

But Canada continues to be a country where racism and fear stitch every sharp edge of the maple leaf flag. That racism and fear allows for secret trials of Muslim men, as it allows a federal government to justify its ever-growing military budget (which, while social programs have been slashed, continues to remain the largest use of "discretionary" funding).

Shortly after we end our conversation with Hassan, members of Homes not Bombs gather at the entrance to the Moss Park Armoury, where we distribute warm, nutritious food and clothing. For the past 18 months, we have gathered very Tuesday in the little-used armoury, handed out flyers, fed people, and provided some of the basic protections against the bitter cold that’s a life and death issue for folks who, like Almrei, have little control over their current destinies.

Last night, three massive pots of soup and chili, a casserole, dozens of juice boxes, two huge bowls of fresh organic fruit, and a large selection of coats, sweaters, socks and hats disappear within a 90 minute span as scores of hungry people stop by, share their stories, and move on. Some will sleep against the walls of the empty armoury tonight, only to be harassed by Metro Police, who rudely awaken them in the night and force them to move on.

Inside this massive structure, which visitors can see stands empty this evening, is enough space, without altering the height of the current structure, to house 375 people. We can say this with a certain assurance because we commissioned architects to come up with plans for what will hopefully someday be the Non-Profit Moss Park Community Housing Cooperative. Toronto City Council has even called on the federal government to turn this old dinosaur--which was built in the early 1960s by levelling a massive city block of housing--back to the city for housing. A case of bombs, not homes.

The War Dept. has told us that the armoury is needed for that vague notion of "national security," a term whose definition continues to defy reality. Indeed. for 5 million Canadians struggling below the poverty line, there is no such thing as national security.

. More recently, we are told Moss Park Armoury is a key part of Canada’s "homeland security."

But against what??? In the absence of any tangible threat, we must, as we have in the past, create one. And so it is that we see the demonizing of people like Hassan Almrei to justify what is, essentially, unjustifiable. Just as in the cold war, when the threat of reds under every bed justified massive expansion of military spending, so we use the current enemy-du-jour, Muslim men, as the bogeyman to ensure fattened coffers for the war industry and a more acceptable climate for restrictions on civil liberties.

Indeed, in 1944, at a time before spin doctors were able to micromanage every mis-statement of the wealthy and powerful, then General Electric President Charles Wilson, presiding over a massive war manufacturing capacity inherited during World War II, unashamedly called for a permanent war economy, calling disarmament a "thoroughly discredited doctrine" and stating the US "should henceforth mount a national policy upon the solid fact of an industrial capacity for war, and a research capacity for war...The revulsion against war not too long hence will be an almost insuperable obstacle for us to overcome in establishing a preparedness program, and for that reason I am convinced that we must begin now to set the machinery in motion."

Part of that machinery was, of course, the fabricated Communist scare of the 40s and 50s, commonly given the term McCarthyism (though it was exercised long before McCarthy gained the spotlight). Speaking 6 years later in 1950, Wilson made this painfully obvious in an address to newspaper publishers in which he urged them to continue convincing Americans that "the free world is in mortal danger...if the people were not convinced of that, it would be impossible for Congress to vote the vast sums now being spent to avert that danger...with the support of public opinion, as marshalled by the press, we are off to a good start. But the mobilization job cannot be completed unless such support is continuous...It is our job, yours and mine, to keep our people convinced that the only way to keep disaster away from our shores is to build America’s might."

Canada is in the unique position of maintaining its peacekeeper myth as it spends some 800% more on war and the armed enforcement of injustice than it does on affordable housing. When people ask what threatens us, the government defers to the thoroughly discredited spies at CSIS and the RCMP who, desperate to find somebody (the RCMP motto that "they always get their man" has literally become "they always get, er, well SOME guy"), picks on people in the Arabic, Middle Eastern, South Asian and Muslim communities for their easy prey. After all, when you don’t have to publicly produce any evidence, it’s a pretty cushy job.

And so last night, as Almrei cannot sleep in his solitary cell because it is too cold to get comfortable, thousands of people across Toronto who are victims of this country’s war economy will also likely be up much of the night as they struggle to find a little bit of warmth on the streets in a city where shelters, some of which do not meet the UN standards for refugee camps, are filled to capacity.

As Hassan ends our conversation, he reminds me that his wardrobe is no longer of use to him, as he has lost well over 100 pounds during his time in solitary. In a request all too typical of Almrei’s humble selflessness, he asks that his clothing all be donated to help keep folks on the street a little bit warmer this winter.

If you would like to help secure justice for Canada’s Secret Trial Five and assist in the campaign to get heat for Hassan, contact us at (416) 651-5800, [email protected], www.homesnotbombs.ca

It is vital that people continue writing letters and making phone calls to ensure that this issue remains in the public spotlight. On Sunday, October 19, there will be a vigil at Metro West Detention Centre at 12 noon. On October 31, there will be actions in different parts of Canada protesting secret trials, including a direct action trick-or-treat for secret evidence at CSIS Ottawa headquarters.

(report from Matthew Behrens of Homes not Bombs and the Campaign to Stop Secret Trials in Canada)

IF YOU CAN HELP HOMES NOT BOMBS AT OUR WEEKLY VIGILS, WE ARE DESPERATELY IN NEED OF YOGURT CONTAINERS AND MARGARINE CONTAINERS, AS PEOPLE OFT7EN TAKE FOOD WITH THEM DURING THE SERVINGS. THANKS!