Coalition Justice for Adil Charkaoui, 22 March 2007

Campaign to Close Guantanamo North

On 17 February 2007, the Coalition Justice for Adil organized a rally under the slogan "Close Guantanamo North". Hundreds of people took to the streets and seventy-five organizations - a broad spectrum of networks such as Échec à la guerre, Solidarity across Borders, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, TCRI, AQOCI and NEFAC as well as major unions such as the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), the Postal Workers Union (CUPW) and the Canadian Auto Workers union (CAW), student organizations, feminist groups, radical collectives, church-based organizations, community organizations, federal politicians, political parties, human rights organizations such as the Ligue des droits, Centre for Constitutional Rights, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and many more - supported the rally, with its five demands: close "Guantanamo North"; abolish security certificates; free the security certificate detainees or provide them with a fair trial; end deportation proceedings against the five; and end deportations to torture.

The rally took place on the second anniversary of the release from prison of Adil Charkaoui, who was subject to almost two years of arbitrary detention, and is now indefinitely subject to severe conditions in the name of "national security".

A photo essay of the march is available here.

What is Guantanamo North?

Canada's Guantanamo took on physical form when a new prison opened in Kingston, Ontario in April 2006. A six-cell portable set up in the parking lot of the high security Millhaven Penitentiary, the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre (KIHC) was built specifically for security certificate detainees. Four non-citizens detained indefinitely without charge or trial on secret information were moved into this Guantanamo North in April 2006:

• Mohammad Mahjoub, an Egyptian refugee and father of two, detained without charge since June 2000. Moved to house arrest in spring 2007.
• Mahmoud Jaballah, an Egyptian refugee and father of six, who was held 9 months in 1999, released, re-arrested in August 2001 on the same basis and held without charge ever since. Moved to house arrest in spring 2007.
• Hassan Almrei, a Syrian refugee held without charge since October 2001.
• Mohamed Harkat, an Algerian refugee and married man, held without charge since December 2002. Moved to house arrest in July 2006.

Guantanamo North represents a multi-million dollar investment into a legal black hole for immigrants; it is the physical embodiment of unjust immigration security measures. The security certificate process violates principles that are supposed to be basic to Canada's political system: presumption of innocence, right to a fair trial, right to liberty, right to protection from torture, and the right to equal treatment. Whether it consigns them to the Kingston prison or to house arrest, the security certificate process tramples on the humanity, dignity and liberty of the detainees and their families, keeping them in a nightmare of uncertainty and irrationality, subjecting them to highly publicized, vague allegations they are left powerless to challenge, indefinitely.

Supreme Court Victory

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled on 23 February 2007 that the security certificate process was unconstitutional, re-affirming that the right to a fair trial applies to everyone in Canada. This was a real victory and attests to the power of public mobilization to create a climate in which courts - which had previously upheld the legislation - cannot ignore injustices.

However, the Supreme Court gave the government another year before the law (sections 33 and 77 to 85 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)) falls. Thus, for at least one more year, the "secret trial five" and their families will be in the position of having to remain in prison or under house arrest, by virtue of a law that has now been recognized by Canada's own court system as illegal! It is more true than ever to say that the detainees and their families are trapped in a place with no law.

The Harper government's response to the victory was predictable: they announced plans to introduce new security certificate legislation. The most likely scenario is that they will try to push through a new law modelled on a system in place in the UK. In this system, a security-cleared lawyer, known as a “special advocate”, has access to the secret evidence and is mandated to act as an advocate on behalf of the detainee. This special advocate system is very far from abolition, and it is very far from a fair trial.

In fact, the special advocate model fails entirely to address several core problems with the security certificate process. The special advocate model:

• continues a two-tier system of justice in which the freedom of non-citizens (a fundamental human right, which does not belong to citizenship) can be infringed more easily than that of citizens;
• doesn't address the fact certificates are based on undefined, broad allegations aimed at capturing people on the basis of their profiles rather than any tangible acts that they may have committed or planned to commit;
• does nothing to reverse the burden of proof, which falls squarely on the shoulders of the detainee; and
• doesn’t address the fact that the detainees are in indefinite detention or house arrest, under threat of deportation to torture.

Furthermore, the proposed reform does not even adequately resolve the one aspect of the security certificate regime that it purports to address - the secrecy of the evidence - because it:

• does not allow for a proper defence, as the advocates are not allowed to divulge the secret information to the detainees;
• does not permit legal counsel of one's choice - instead, the advocate is appointed by the government, which is not even neutral, but one of the parties in the case; and
• prevents the advocates from speaking out if they become aware that secret evidence was unlawfully obtained (for example, obtained under torture).

In many ways, the introduction of a special advocate would only worsen the situation by providing a veneer of legality to a process that remains fundamentally unjust.

House arrest: the new Guantanamo

A week before the Supreme court victory, a Federal Court ordered that Mohammad Mahjoub should be transferred to house arrest. The conditions that are imposed on him and his family are horrific. Mahjoub, Mona El Fouli (his wife), and their two children will be under constant, intrusive surveillance by the state. Mahjoub will never be allowed to be alone. At home El Fouli or her oldest son will be forced to play jail guard. All visitors will have to be screened and approved by the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA). Police are to be allowed access at any time, without warrant. No internet, no cell phone, no telephone except a specially installed line under surveillance. Mahjoub will only be allowed to go out three times a week, with prior approval by the CBSA, for a maximum of four hours at a time. The crowning humiliation is the GPS-tracking bracelet. In effect, Mahjoub and El Fouli's home is being transformed into a prison, and El Fouli is forced to become a prison guard, while herself placed under scrutiny and surveillance.

Two weeks after the Supreme court decision, Mahmoud Jaballah was ordered released under a similar package of conditions. Mahjoub and Jaballah were transferred to house arrest in spring 2007. Almrei, without family in Canada, remains in Guantanamo North. Mohamed Harkat and Sophie Lamarche have already been living this situation since July 2006.

The Charkaoui family find the conditions under which Adil was released to be humiliating; a constant, wearying source of stress and fear; an enormous constraint on their ability to enjoy their leisure time, to work, to practice their religion, to live and flourish. How much more impossible the restrictions which have been imposed on the other families. The danger is that this new form of detention - with its intrusive surveillance, arbitrary constraints on liberty, and indefinite nature – may become normalized in Canadian society.