The laws surrounding Security Certificates have changed over time to adapt to the different security concerns Canada has had to face. While Security Certificates have been a part of Canadian policy since 1977, they were adapted into Canadian immigration law in 1991. It was at this point that the Security Certificates found their current form. During the ten years between 1991 and 2001, ten Security Certificates were issued against individuals in Canada. During this period the Security Intelligence Review Committee reported concerns about Security Certificates. It reflected on the fact that the manner in which evidence was gather was unprofessional and did not follow adequate standards.
Prior to 1991 it was the Security Intelligence Review Committee that heard the cases about Security Certificates. In this court decisions were made on a high probability standard. This meant that there had to be a more than 50% chance that the allegations were true. After 1991 though it was the Federal Court that began hearing cases about Security Certificates. This court basis its decisions on reasonable grounds which means there can be a less that 50% chance that the allegations are true. So even if it seems quite unlikely that the individual is guilty the security certificate will still be upheld. Apparently credibility is not that important when it comes to these types of cases.
Also prior to 1991 the Canadian Security Intelligence Service officer who made the reports could be questioned. This meant that if there were any questions about the report or investigation, the officer could be brought in for clarification. A third party lawyer would be invited to the proceedings and the Security Intelligence Review Committee could ask for a more detailed report.
The Security Certificates allow officials to treat these individuals in a manner that differs from the way they treat Canadians. These are people who do not have a legal right to be in Canada and the Security Certificates pick up on this point and places great emphasis on it. By doing so, they subject these individuals to certain acts and types of treatment that would be unacceptable on the rest of society. For example, it would be expected that the officer who wrote the investigation report for your case, would be present at the court. That way any ambiguity about the report could be explained. With the changes to Security Certificates after 1991 however, this was no longer the case for these individuals.
The act seems to be saying that it is acceptable to treat people unequally. If you are Canadian then you are allowed to be treated with a certain level of respect and with regard to your personal safety and well being. Unfortunately if you are an individual who is simply visiting the country of living here without citizenship, then you will not be accorded these things.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I thought you were being sarcastic at first. What random bullshit. Just racist, xenophobic crap. So simplistic though that I have to think you don't really believe it. Who is "they" - anyone who wasn't born in this country? Who is Canadian and what shared "values and approaches to conflict" are there? These huge generalizations don't work and are really harmful and hurtful.
I can see how my comment could have come off as anti-all foreigners.
Let me clarify: The ones that don't have offenses against them are just fine, I'm talking about the ones that come here and cause trouble and are a safety threat.
I said that people who dont appreciate our values and ideologies and want to bomb us should be shipped back to where they came from.
These people are obviously being held because there's evidence against them.
a few things about the comments, but first a comment on the piece.
the piece states "These are people who do not have a legal right to be in Canada and the Security Certificates pick up on this point and places great emphasis on it. "
this is incorrect. they are people who do not have CITIZENSHIP. this does not mean they are here illegally. there are many forms of status and visas that allow people that are not canadian citizens to LEGALLY be in canada.
as for "anti-"'s comments, they just are kinda confusing.
you say:
"So yah, if you wanna bomb people whose ideology you dont like, of course, go back to the country where thats ok."
im not sure if im an idiot or not, but im pretty sure that based on George Bush's foreign policy, this overwhelmingly applies best to the USA, and i guess canada if you consider the war in afghanistan. so if anything, this sounds anti-western, not anti-immigrant.
"The ones that don't have offenses against them are just fine, I'm talking about the ones that come here and cause trouble and are a safety threat."
so, theres this category of immigrants called "refugees". you know, folks that are fleeing dangerous situations, tyrannies, etc. how can you possibly use criminal charges to justify not allowing someone in, if those charges come out of a particular politically charged circumstance.
basically your not making sense, you sound like a grade 9 repeating bullshit from their parents.
it sounds like you have nothing intelligent to say. i mean, atleast come up with something clever, argue that the evidence can't be shown because it will disclose information that puts national security at risk. all you have is offensive rhetoric.
how can you possibly use criminal charges to justify not allowing someone in, if those charges come out of a particular politically charged circumstance.
i never said anything relevant to your comment there.
i said if they come in to our country and cause trouble here or intend to, then we should detain them and send them back. if they're murdered over there, oh well - they brought it on themselves.
as for anti-west, i also dont agree with america and canada going into other countries. but thats a whole different conversation. we're talking about domestic security from external sources planting their seed of violence here.
"i said if they come in to our country and cause trouble here or intend to, then we should detain them and send them back. if they're murdered over there, oh well - they brought it on themselves."
please define cause trouble. please also define what occurrs during detention.
actually, why don't you just read the geneva conventions. you see, you don't just get to make up laws based on what one person feels is common sense, we have these things called international treaties, like the geneva convention i suggested you read.
if canada deports someone to definite harm that breaks internaitonal treaties.
"we're talking about domestic security from external sources planting their seed of violence here."
so, if you break international treaties, does that sound like its going to shore up your domestic security. i doubt it. sounds more like some of the "rights" that "Canadians" feel they have may no longer exist when they travel abroad.
if "canadian citizens" condone torture and human rights abuses against foreigners, and then the same will come to your citizens. hence the reason we have international treaties like the geneva convention. hell, even john mccain in his words disagrees with you.
another good topic to read is mccarthyism. that time when all those foreigner eastern european commies were going to come after all the citizens of north america, and they had to be rounded up for domestic security.
theres also the jews. remember in 1938, how supposedly the jews were sneaking in the shadows, destabilizing europe. hell that whole great depression thing musta been their fault. hitler suggested that for domestic security new laws been enacted to keep the jews in line. this seems like another example of domestic security against people percieved as being "outsiders" resulting in mass oppression and in this case genocide.
how many iraqi civilians have been killed? ive lost count. i know its up around a million. and how many afghani civilians? but ill forget about all that, because foreigners are in canada trying to blow me up and if i dont watch out they might so we need secret police to round em up. the two issues are connected as one is the propaganda to justify the other.
wake up and smell the roses
your arguments are not parallel.
you're talking about mass bombings and genocides.
im talking about detaining people who have been suspected of terrorism.
sometimes i think people like you dont know how real the threat is. if you heard someone is coming to ur house with a gun, you're gonna wanna tell the police to hold that person in a cell and find out what the hell is going on.
Post a Comment