The History of Security Certificates from 2001-2008:
Security Certificates used to be used towards suspected spies, but now they are being used on suspected terrorists. Do they need to have enough information before they detain you? No, but they’ll hold you down while they’re in the months-long process of searching for more information to decide whether you are truly a threat or not.
Naturally, once the 2001 attacks happened in New York City, Security Certificates came into the forefront of the Canadian public’s attention; which is odd that we would need such a thing, given that we do not often hear of any pending attacks from Anti-Canadian foreigners.
After the attacks on The World Trade Centre, Bush has quoted, “America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people” (i.e. we don’t care for your opinion), “I will never relent in defending America - whatever it takes” and “I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people. If America shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch.” Clearly he thinks American citizens are feeble minded and helpless. According to him, we need to surrender our protection and security to ‘daddy’ and have him make decisions on our behalf, even if we’re forcibly handing over our rights under the guise of ‘National Security’.
Why quote what Bush says? Well it’s no surprise that Canada is following in America’s footsteps. They invade Afghanistan, we send troops. They feel their security is threatened and they need to take measures without boundaries, the same happens over here.
So what does Harper say about suspected terrorists and Security Certificates? “Whether the best thing is to send them right out of the country or simply detain them until we get full information, we can look at either; but know this is a problem that does need to be fixed. Particularly post 9/11, we can’t take these kinds of security risks." (Feb 2004). And I once again quote "SIMPLY" detain them UNTIL WE GET FULL INFO. To them it is simple to take someone out of their home and family life and throw them in a cell for months on end. Let's take this quote to heart.
Once again, just like Bush, “by any means necessary”. If it means detaining you for months with lack of sufficient information, then that’s what has to be done.
Question: what happened to the whole ‘warrant’ idea… having enough proof in order to obtain a warrant before searching someone’s personal space and arresting them? In this case it’s more like, “We have an inkling…but will arrest you until sufficient information may or may not be found”.
The quote by Harper above about Security Certificates was in 2004. Let’s fast forward to 2007. They've decided they can't just decide to send a 'National Threat' 'back home' IF that person will face death or torture. So instead, they'll SIMPLY be detained.
Whereas before the detained did not have a right to a lawyer, The Supreme Court decided (more like suddenly became enlightened with a dose of common sense) that detaining individuals without allowing someone to advocate on their behalf is a violation of human rights. Yet still, while the lawyers are exposed to the ‘evidence’ – the detained, their family nor the public can know what that terrorist-related ‘evidence’ is.
A summary is given to the individual, but the “summary must include sufficient information to enable the individual to be reasonably informed of the circumstances giving rise to the certificate, but it does not include anything, in the opinion of the judge, that would be dangerous to national security or the safety of any person if disclosed”. Adil C. claimed that his 400 page report that he was given while detained, cited nothing in relation to him and Al-Qaeda.
Source for more info: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/ns/seccert-eng.aspx