Hi all:
Today’s hearing was about the ‘Detention Review’ for Mr. Mahjoub, which has been considerably delayed since it is supposed to happen every six months for Immigration detainees who have not been charged with anything. I arrived about two hours after the hearing began and heard the continuation of Public Counsel Yavar Hameed’s arguments. I understood that the part I missed had to do with P.C.’s argument that using any evidence or material prior to the Charkaoui decision which resulted in the Security Certificate legislation being struck down by the Supreme Court in February 2007, and rewritten a year later with Special Advocates added, is inadmissable. It is also true that any testimony obtained by torture has since been removed from the case against Mr. Mahjoub.
Mr. Hameed continued with what I thought was a very strong statement of support for Mr. Mahjoub – that the public allegations against him are very weak and that the case for Mr. M. being a danger to national security has not been established. P.C. also brought up the recent regime change in Egypt as a sign that some of the principals such as former Vice President Suleimani have definitely been linked to torture. He continued that there is a presumption of innocence for Mr. Mahjoub and that the onus is on the the Ministers to establish guilt. (Later during the Ministers Counsel argument I heard Counsel Mr. Tyndale say that presumption of innocence does not apply in an Immigration case as long as there is a regular detention review!)
Most of the witnesses brought to testify over past months such as Professer Wark and Professer Gerges have concluded that Mr. Mahjoub is likely innocent of the allegations against him and Mr. Hameed even said that “the allegations are theories and it is the case that hypotheses against Mr. Mahjoub are built on other hypotheses”. Mr. Hameed pointed to the ‘absurd testimony’ of CSIS witness, a Mr. Michel Gay who said that Mr. Mahjoub would “pose a threat to national security notwithstanding the passage of time.” Mr. Hameed said this means that Mr. Mahjoub is “damned if if he does and damned if he doesn’t” (get free), meaning that the longer Mr. Mahjoub is held incommunicado, the more notoriety he achieves with possible young jihadists who may wish to speak to him. What becomes clear to anyone listening to Ministers’ Counsel is that this is what CSIS and the Ministers are most afraid of – that Mr. Mahjoub might at some time be a negative influence on some young person. And that is why they have taken away his freedom and particularly his right of communication with anyone he feels like as the rest of us take for granted, for more than a decade.
Public Counsel went on to demonstrate the absurdity of, on the one hand Mr. Mahjoub being considered a dangerous risk to national security, while at the same time a Federal Judge has decided that Mr. Mahjoub should have four hours per day of unsupervised outings within a defined area near his Toronto apartment, carrying a GPS unit by which CBSA can track his movements. However, as Mr. Hameed pointed out nothing actually prevents Mr. Mahjoub from speaking with someone on his daily outings. And the evidence given by the written ‘Risk Assessment’ which CBSA/CSIS had provided for this hearing says that Mr. Mahjoub strictly adheres to all of his conditions. There is no evidence at all that he has ever tried to communicate with anyone. If he needs to go to an appointment outside his allowed zone he always calls CBSA and arranges for one of his two supervisors to accompany him. The two supervisors were also described in the ‘Risk Assessmen’ as being completely reliable. There was also a Dr. Byman mentioned who has given testimony earlier that Mr. Mahjoub would always be a threat if freed and Mr. Hameed countered this testimony as well.
I won’t go into detail with the testimony of the Ministers’ lawyer Mr. Tyndale except to point out that for him, nothing has changed due to the ‘new regime’ of legislation since 2007. He said that all the facts of the allegations are the same. He reviewed the SIRC document to list these that go back to the time before Mr. Mahjoub came to Canada. He saw some differences between Mr. Charkaoui being a permanent resident while Mr. Mahjoub is not etc. Ministers’ Counsel recommended that none of Mr. Mahjoub’s conditions be reduced now, while the ‘Reasonableness of the Security Certificate’ hearing is ongoing; that any changes could wait.
Mr. Hameed’s final reponse to the Ministers’ Counsel recommendations was, “stop looking backwards and look forward.” Many of Mr. Mahjoub’s alleged connections are dead or in prison somewhere so there is no possibilty of communication with the past anyway.
The conditions the Public Counsel is asking be removed or lightened are: 1. the GPS tracking device; 2. the 24 hour video surveillance at M.’s door – which captures anyone including his family members, meaning young children; 3. the two-way monitoring device – which has never been used; 4. the two supervising sureties which have been already described as being necessary for travel outside the proscribed zone; 5. removal of the 4 hour limit for daily outings and Mosque visits.
Judge Blanchard will give a ruling on the ‘Detention Review’ as well as on the previous hearing this week, as soon as possible.
The next hearing was scheduled to hear the “CSIS listening in on ‘Solicitor-Client conversations’ matter”. It is scheduled for Thursday, March 31, 2011 at 10 am, in Federal Court, 180 Queen St., West, 6th floor.
A good turnout of observers would be welcome.
