Mahjoub Hearing, Friday, December 16, 2011

Throughout the day there were four supporters who attended this hearing. The witness who was ‘qualified’ yesterday as an expert witness was Professer Stéphane Leman-Langlois PHD, “Canada Research Chair in Surveillance and the Social Construction of Risk” of Laval University, Quebec City. Information on seven books he has written in areas of Criminology can be found (in French or English) at: http://www.cicc.umontreal.ca/recherche/chercheurs_reguliers/stephane_leman_langlois/stephane_leman_langlois.html

The essence of Professor Leman-Langlois’ testimony was his answers to examination questions posed by Public Counsel Yavar Hameed on the report Prof. Leman-Langlois wrote about the “Public Summary of a Threat Assessment” 2 November 2011, Produced by the Canadian Security Intelligence
Service on the Activities of Mr. Mohammed Zeki Mahjoub, and then a cross examination by Ministers’ Counsel ( I didn’t get his name)

Past witnesses for Mr. Mahjoub such as Professor Wesley Wark, Canadian expert on Security and Intelligene and Professor Fawaz A. Gerges of the London School of Economics and Middle East expert, have both testified that they consider Mr. Mahjoub to be a non-threat to Canada or any other country. However the following testimony contained perhaps the most powerful reasons I have heard yet, from the point of view of the most up-to-date criminology science, to release Mr. Mahjoub from all of his conditions.

Since I missed the first part of the testimony I am going to copy portions of the introduction of Professor Leman-Langlois’ report which covers some of what I missed:

Introduction:
‘Two separate questions -
- First, does the Threat Assessment include facts that may be of use in an evaluation of risk?
- Second, and more importantly, what do those facts, and the offered ‘interpretations’, allow us to conclude regarding the risk presented by Mr. Mahjoub?
- as is the case with any intelligence document, the facts presented have been interpreted, given meaning,
and made to fit together in a way consistent with the original interpretation by “filling the gaps” or
“connecting the dots” of mostly incomplete data.
- most claims made in the documents are qualified by the use of phrases such as “is believed to” or “may have.”
- the documents offer few hard facts pertaining to Mr. Mahjoub’s activities.
- many passages are extremely vague, to the point of offering nearly unfalsifiable statements. (For instance, a key claim made against Mr. Mahjoub, that he has not renounced his radical beliefs, is expressed in such a way that to oppose it one must attempt to prove a negative, a classic error in logic.)
- I have taken the facts in the reports at face value. Whether or not new, secret or exogenous information exists, known or unknown to me, I look at the reports as all the information deemed pertinent to Mr. Mahjoub’s case, as selected by the producers of the reports.
- On the second aspect, I have tried to approach the matter of the evaluation of risk in two ways.
- One is quite traditional: judging only from the facts presented that I have deemed to be
likely, on the whole the risk appears to be as low as possibly imaginable.
- The other is a thought experiment which consists in assuming that all the facts submitted in the reports are verified and have been properly interpreted. Even with such an evaluation, based on all merely possible facts, the only logical conclusion is that the risk is still not significant.
Two more general notes are in order before moving on to the details of the “Threat Assessment.”
- First, the point most strongly underlined in the document is the contacts Mr Mahjoub is purported to have had with other persons identified as members of terrorist listed entities.
- In keeping with my “thought experiment” approach explained above, thus assuming that all these contacts are genuine and that all persons deemed to be radicals were indeed radicals (there is no information showing that they still are), such associations are at the most what I would call a “network of subversives.” There are many reasons subversives, especially former subversives, might contact one another, besides subversion and plotting subversive acts.
- By contrast, the “subversive network” described in the Threat Assessment lacks a central element: a subversive network is a group of persons currently involved in subversion. Yet the Threat
Assessment submits no clue regarding the reasons why members of the purported network were
communicating.
- For stronger contrast yet, one might add that the subversion identified in the Threat Assessment is against the Egyptian regime, which both
- 1) was widely known to be a totalitarian, repressive government, opposed by most of its citizens and
- 2) was toppled recently.
- In short, if Mr. Mahjoub was ever truly a subversive, the target of his subversion no longer exists.
- Finally, one must ponder the strength of all claims made from decade-old, partial information about present and future probability.
- Many things change in a decade.
- This leads us to a few basic difficulties inherent to any attempt to evaluate individual risk or ‘dangerousness’.
- In criminology and in the thousands of routine criminological evaluations submitted to Canadian courts and Parole Boards every month, two basic means are used to evaluate the risk represented by offenders.
- First is actuarial and calculates individual risk based on offender categories identified by factors such as the type of crime committed, age, gender, schooling, job history, psychological characteristics, social context, criminal history, etc. This actuarial categorization rests on statistical analysis and large samples, and is therefore out of reach for crimes related to terrorism which, fortunately, continue to be extremely rare.
- Second is the clinical evaluation of individual cases. By and large, criminologists who use even the most rigorous methods of qualitative risk assessment are fully aware that their conclusions amount to a balance of probability.
- Certainty is known to be out of reach.
- What is certain, however, is that the facts laid out and used in the evaluation, whether they are meant to inform us about the individual’s biography, state of mind, future plans, present activities etc. must be complete, verified and, preferably, accepted by the individual being evaluated. Short of that, criminologists would be accused of guessing.’

During the examination, Professor Leman-Langlois made other statements to support his thesis that Mr. Mahjoub does not constitute a threat to Canada and that the CSIS Threat Assessment has no validity when examined throught the scientific lens of modern Criminology theory.
Some of these are: “people change over time – M. in his twenties is not the same person he is now; conclusions from 20 years ago are completely invalid now; old (criminal or terror networks no longer exist); there is little new information (on Mr. Mahjoub) since the year 2000; CSIS’ evaluation is static – they need to evaluate a suspect (contacts and content of those contacts) every year or more often; on a graph or matrix of risk assessment – probability of doing something vs. consequences (low to severe), Mr. Mahjoub cannot even be plotted on the matrix; M.s’ threat to Canada is about the same as for the average Canadian (example used is to ask a person what laws they have broken this year – jaywalking, speeding, cheating etc.); the connecting of the dots mentioned above requires the imagination of the analyst to fill in the gaps – might as well go all the way and use complete imagination; it is impossible that M. has taken an active current part in any previous Egyptian group he is alleged to have been a member of while he has been detained in Canada for eleven years – there is no connection at all – there is nothing to be restarted if M. is set free; terror networks are dark networks (little known about) with members who don’t know of the activities of other members – therefore one cannot impute a connection to the activities of others; there are many reasons – political, family, personal - to belong to or sympathize with a group or network; the CSIS Threat Assessment has no internal logic, chronology is disregarded, it makes no sense at all; this CSIS T. A. if evaluated in a Criminology class would receive a mark of zero; the first diagnosis of terrorist activity keeps colouring the present, (with no new facts presented); CSIS T.A. asserts that incarceration of M. has mitigated his threat – is false - because they didn’t measure his threat at the beginning – they have no baseline, therefore they have no idea how incarceration has affected his threat – in fact he was free in Canada for four years, from 1996 to 2000 so apparently did not constitute a threat; observations of contacts with others by itself without knowing the content of the contact is meaningless – eg. M. spent an extra half hour at Mosque, but no one knows what he was doing – imputed by CSIS as dangerous activity when it may have been harmless ssocializing.

The cross examination by Ministers’ Counsel disputed these statements of Professor Leman-Langlois by saying that anyone who is alleged to have once had contacts with Egyptian anti-government groups, must still be a threat to Canada.

There are still two days of hearings to wrap up this ‘Detention Review’ – Monday and Tuesday, December 19 and 21. Monday’s hearing begins at 10 am at Federal Court, 180 Queen st. W., 6th floor.

Mahjoub Hearing, Thursday, December 15, 2011

There was a media scrum held this morning just after 8:30 pm outside the Federal Court at 180 Queen St. W. I held a sign in wind and rain that read, from top to bottom - JUSTICE, FREEDOM, MAHJOUB. Paul Slansky and Mr. Mahjoub spoke to reporters who attended. These included CBC Radio’s Joan Leishman who did a piece on Security certificates a while ago, CBC French Radio OMNI TV, Colin Perkel of Canadian Press (I think), Newstalk 1010, Tom Godfrey of the Toronto Sun, Amar, Noah and Catherine – filmakers. Paul commented on the nature of the hearings – the secret evidence that Mr. Mahjoub and his lawyers are never allowed to see and the likelihood that much of the secret evidence is based on torture while the real source of other evidence is not likely known even by CSIS. Mr. Mahjoub spoke of how eleven years of incarceration and near house arrest have ruined his life and that of his family. You can see and hear his emotions boil up if you go to the the Sun article (#3) below – with video of Mr. Mahjoub speaking.

(please copy these urls into your browser)

1. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/detained-toronto-man-accused-of-terrorism-links-makes-plea-for-freedom/article2272164/

2. http://www.newstalk1010.com/News/localnews/blogentry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10327330

3. http://www.torontosun.com/2011/12/15/egyptian-man-fights-terrorism-charges-in-canada-for-11-years with video

4. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/12/15/mahjoub-.html

Today was one of the best court support days we've had in a long time. At one point just before lunch break there were nine of us - Amar, Noah, Catherine (who is on the film team), Brooke, John, Jean, Brydon, Elizabeth and myself.

The new witness today is Professor Leman-Langlois of Laval University in Quebec City. He is the Canada Research Chair in Criminology. Public Counsel Yavar Hameed took the witness through his Curriculum Vitae (CV) in order to show to the court that the witness is qualified to be an expert witness in this case. His education, research, articles and books written and his supervision of graduate students up to the PHD level indicated his expertise and intelligence and he is a young man with a quick mind. He is prepared to comment on surveillance, risk, terrorism, counter-terrorism, open and dark networks and more.

Ministers’ Counsel with their questioning tried to portray this witness as not having expertise in Al Qaeda; Al Jihad in Sudan and other items. This line of questioning ended the morning. I was not at court in the afternoon. Judge Blanchard still must rule on whether the witness is qualified but I think he will and I believe Professor Leman-Langlois will still be on the witness stand tomorrow morning (Friday) beginning at 9:30 am. Just listening to him today made me feel like I was in a course on Criminology. Please attend – I believe it will be very informative and helpful.

Please come to Federal Court, 180 Queen St. W., 6th floor, Friday, Dec. 16, 9:30 am.

Mahjoub Hearing, Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Today’s hearing heard from two witnesses, Dr. Payne a psychiatrist who has examined Mr. Mahjoub in the past and as late as June 2011. The second was Murray Lumley who is one of M.’s sureties and a court appointed supervisor of M. whenever he needs to travel out of his geographical zone as defined by his bail conditions.

Dr. Payne said he has treated about 1500 refugee cases and several thousand more other cases. What I heard of Dr. Payne’s testimony – indicated that M. exhibits ‘psychosocial’ depression brought on by the restrictive conditions he has had to live under for more than eleven years. Dr. Payne described M. as having a particular personality style of liking orderliness and perfection and structure, attributes that fit him well for being an accountant or a manager but not so well for being incarcerated and having most decisions made for him by others. Dr. Payne described M. as being preoccupied with his case, spending much time writing and thinking about it. He described M. as one whose response to the intrusive and restrictive conditions is one of repressing the feelings about it rather than resort to any kind of violence. His irritability and anger at how he and his family have been treated by CBSA is expressed in words, not actions. Dr. Payne said that M. exhibits typical ‘post traumatic stress syndrome’ that he has seen in other patients who have been tortured – where they can talk about the most horrific things that should cause extreme emotions, but not show the emotions – ‘emotional numbing’, the emotions being repressed. Dr. Payne spoke of other things in this vein and did suggest that it might take some time for M. to heal and expand his orbit of associations and interests once given his freedom. Dr. Payne described M. as a person who does self-therapy. M. describes himself as one who has suffered hardships for quite a while and he feels like he is able to continue to do that. Dr. Payne thought that this attitude was a successful survival technique for M.

Ministers Counsel David Payne attacked Dr. Payne’s testimony in four ways – 1. M. may be lying about his past and the pressure of doing this may account for his depression and anger; 2. the two marriage separations with his wife since 2000 and the separation from his family may account for the depression and other symptoms; 3. M. has an Obsessive-Compulsive disorder that may account for his depression and symptoms; 4. M. could be prescribed drugs and/or therapy to deal with his depression and symptoms.

Dr. Payne countered all of these possibilities – for example drugs and therapy may help a ‘biological depression’ but M. is depressed only because of the lengthy house arrest he finds himself in. In fact therapy may have the adverse effect of exposing the angry feelings that would then have to be dealt with. Dr. Payne when accused of ‘believing’ M. said that part is only the ‘history’ of the patient. Dr. Payne also watches the demeanor and other reactions of the patient to determine if these are consistent with the story the patient is telling.

In the afternoon Murray Lumley was the witness for about a half hour. He spoke from the affidavit prepared earlier regarding his outings with M. to shop for items and visit the doctor. The emphasis was that M. has always done his part to secure permission from CBSA the required time ahead, and when out Mr. Lumley has never seen any attempt on the part of M. to violate any conditions such as trying to speak to someone or use a cell phone or computer. In fact M. reminds Mr. Lumley of any conditions that need to be adhered to. M. is seen to be fastidious in his adherence to his conditions. Mr. Lumley also refererred to a letter written by himself, M. Jaballah and H. Almrei dated December 2005 – in support of James Loney and the other Christian Peacemaker Teams people who were kidnapped in Iraq. The letter asked the kidnappers to show gratitude for the support given by James and others to the detained in Canada by showing mercy to those kidnapped in Iraq. It was a letter of ‘peace’, not violence. The letter was entered as an court exhibit.

Please come to Rally and Press Scrum – outside Federal Court – 180 Queen St. W. (near Osgoode subway station). Thurs. Dec. 15, 8:30 am and then come to the courtroom on 6th floor.

Mahjoub Hearing, Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Today at Federal Court, 180 Queen St. W., Toronto, the witness was Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) agent ‘Alison’ who works out of the Toronto office and is directly in contact with Mr. Mahjoub (M.)whenever he seeks permissions related to his conditions. Three of us – the two film-makers and myself were there for parts of the day. There was also a mid-day two hour conference meeting with Judge Aalto regarding how progress is being made in separating the Ministers Counsel (MC) and Public Counsel (PC) documents that were ‘commingled’ last summer. One of the film-makers accompanied Mr. Mahjoub to the ‘conference’ with Judge Aalto.

The topics covered with the CBSA agent-Alison had to do with some CBSA allegations that Mr. Mahjoub has vilolated his bail conditions in about three different incidents. Public Counsel Paul Slansky also brought up some examples of CBSA not adhering to its conditions out of neglect of its duty or just incompetence.

The main issue for CBSA was the purchase by M. of a used laptop computer at a Goodwill store. He has asked for a computer to begin keeping his large number of court files on, instead of on the piles of paper they now exist on. M. is not allowed to connect with the internet so any computer would have to have its modem removed. M. bought the computer without knowing if it worked and then asked CBSA to take it to see if it worked and if the modem could be removed. Instead, CBSA has charged M. with violating his bail conditions by not getting permission first before purchasing. Public Counsel Paul Slansky tried to point out the M. had complied by informing CBSA right away about the computer and saying that he did not know how to use it nor had any access to an internet company (Since CBSA monitors M.’s phone and mail they would know immediately if he tried to make a contact). CBSA’s alleged non-compliances had to do with some mail being delivered directly to M. rather than being funneled through CBSA first which is supposed to happen. M. immediately informed his lawyers of this breach. The MC lawyer said that CBSA’s breach was just an innocent oversight while M.’s breach was a violation of his conditions. Mr. Slansky tried to show the hypocrisy of this approach by MC by calling it a ‘double standard’. There were other instances of what appears to be either lack of response or very delayed response by CBSA to M.’s request for them to come and inspect a package that had been delivered to him by his apartment superintendent – a carbon monoxide monitor. There was lengthy examination of the witness over these matters that I won’t go into further detail on.

Tomorrow, Wednesday, December 14, two witnesses are to appear, Doctor Payne, a psychiatrist who will testify about his recent examination (in June) of Mr. Mahjoub. The second witness is Murray Lumley who will testify about his observations of Mr. Mahjoub as he has acted as a supervisor on various outings with Mr. Mahjoub.

Please come out to hear these witnesses and support Mr. Mahjoub at Federal Court, 180 Queen St. W., 6^th floor (near Osgoode subway station), Wednesday, December 14, 9:30 am.

*Additionally there are plans for a rally and news conference outside 180 Queen Street on Thursday, Dec. 15 at 8:30 am. Public attention to Mr. Mahjoub’s case can only speed up the day when he will be set free!

Mahjoub Hearing, Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Today’s hearing was characterized by many objections from the Ministers’ Counsel (MC) which led to delays for ‘in camera’ hearings. There were five Mahjoub supporters there for most of the day. Because so much time is being used up by objections and delays, court was extended until 6 pm and will resume tomorrow morning at 9:30 am but should be over by noon.

The same witness is being cross-examined; a CSIS agent known as witness #4 who was the author of the latest CSIS ‘threat assessment’ of Mohamed Mahjoub. He has decided in his report that the present restrictive and invasive conditions placed on Mr. Mahjoub, should continue unchanged despite the passage of time and no record of violations by Mr. Mahjoub.

Paul Slansky, Public Counsel (PC) continued as the lawyer leading the charge for Mr. Mahjoub. He was continually frustrated by Ministers’ Counsel (MC) objections on the basis of national security even to a document that was already public. It has been an uphill battle for Mr. Slansky to try to get the witness to actually answer his questions directly without just talking around the issue and without answering. Then MC objects and says that PC has had his answer just because the witness has said something.

Mr. Slansky is trying his best to show that witness #4 has prepared his threat assessment using information, some 15 years old from a Security Intelligence Report (SIR) and from ‘unsourced’ documents treated as if they were the ‘unvarnished’ truth. Mr. Slansky got the witness to say that he respects the work of his CSIS colleagues to the point that he needn’t do his own checking or research. There also seems to be much reliance on old information about Egyptian organizations like the ‘Vanguards of Conquest’, ‘Al Jihad’ and ‘Al Quaeda’ regarding who belonged and when and when some of these organizations ceased to exist and whether Mr. Mahjoub had any connection to them. Yet the ‘Threat Report’ relies unwaveringly on this old and incomplete information and implies that even though old networks may have been disrupted long ago, that Mr. Mahjoub, if given his freedom would somehow restart these even though he has shown no signs of attempting to do so. The impression left by testimony of witness #4 is that Mr. Mahjoub can never be freed because his ‘threat status’ can never be seen to be diminishing with time. Therefore Mr. Mahjoub will always be seen as a threat in an absolute sense by CSIS and must always remain under restrictive and invasive conditions.

Mr. Slansky was able to expose two organization culture characteristics that would colour witness #4's assessment of Mr. Mahjoub. One was that witness #4 says he believes that any Muslim man who went to Afghanistan to fight the Soviet invasion in the ‘80’s in a ‘legitimate defensive role’ was a Mujahideen who must return from that experience as a pro-jihadist, anti-infidel, anti-western terrorist. At the same time, American government institutions and individuals who supported the Mujahideen were not affected in this way. Mr. Slansky used an analogy of some Canadians going to Israel to defend it against some enemies. Witness #4 admitted that these returning veterans would not be looked upon as terrorists upon their return unless they acted in a violent way. Mr. Slansky, without casting aspertions upon the witness, said the only conclusion to be drawn is that there is a racial attitude at work – meaning that the witness believes that all returning Mujahideen are terrorists, but not returning veterans of other wars. This affects his threat assessment of Mr. Mahjoub because if Mr. Mahjoub went to Afghanistan as he is accused of doing in the ‘90’s then he must be a terrorist.

The other organizational culture of CSIS seems to be implicit respect and trust in whatever other agents seem to have found out and believe, written in the SIR and often not independently checked. Mr. Slansky even suggested to the witness that with this kind of respect and trust in colleagues work, one person’s research and report may be repeated over and over by other agents.

Another topic had to do with confusion about a possible Egyptian colleague of Mr. Mahjoub who happens to be in an Egyptian prison right now and whose name is Sagr. Mr. Mahjoub has been described as having an alias that was Shakar. When witness #4 was asked by Mr. Slansky whether there was any possibilty that CSIS intelligence had mixed Sagr up with Mr. Mahjoub, the witness answered yes there was a possibility but “I trust my colleagues” not to have done this.

Court tomorrow will begin at 9:30 am and will likley be over by noon. Located at Federal Courthouse, 180 Queen St. W., 6^th floor (near Osgoode subway station)

Court then resumes next week, Tuesday, December 13, 9:30 am, same location, with a witness from Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA)

Mahjoub Hearing, Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Three Mahjoub supporters attended today’s hearing at Federal Court, 180 Queen St. West. Two were Amar and Noah, film-makers who are making a film about the families affected by the Security Certificate regime in Canada. See http://secrettrial5.com/

The CSIS witness known as Witness #4 was still being examined by lawyer Paul Slansky in an Ottawa courtroom with video transmission to the Toronto courtroom and with the witness concealed from view. Mr. Slansky tried his best to get the witness to admit that CSIS has routinely used evidence obtained by torture in countries like Egypt to place restrictive and invasive conditions on Mr. Mahjoub for more than eleven years. Witness #4 is the author of the latest ‘threat assessment’ of Mr. Mahjoub, written this fall and using data that goes back fifteen years. From this, CSIS recommendations are that present restrictive conditions placed on Mr. Mahjoub should not be relieved because he would still constitute a threat to Canada if he were set completely free. Mr. Slansky presented a couple of documents to the witness; one was written by former CSIS head Jim Judd in which Mr. Judd said it was very difficult to determine whether any evidence that came from foreign countries was or was not obtained by torture. The other document was a 2009 letter from then Public Safety Minister Toews to CSIS head Fadden in which Toews instructs CSIS to stop using evidence that has been obtained from torture. Then the games began with Ministers Counsel raising objections and witness #4 behaving like ‘snakes in oil’. With Mr. Slansky trying to get witness #4 to admit that the Toews letter implied that CSIS had been using ‘torture evidence’ up to then and had used at least some ‘pieces’ of this ‘torture evidence’ in their threat assessment of Mr. Mahjoub, witness #4 kept saying that CSIS always had taken ‘torture evidence’ with a grain of salt, even prior to the directive to stop using it. Mr. Slansky was doing his best in a court that seems to be unfriendly to questioning government actions via CSIS that have used doubtful, ‘torture obtained’, low threshold evidence such as ‘suspicion’ and ‘reason to believe’ – to remove the rights to a private life of an individual for more than eleven years.

The examination of witness #4 continues tomorrow – Wednesday, December 7. Please come to court to support Mr. Mahjoub at 180 Queen St. W., 6^th floor (near Osgoode subway station)

Mahjoub Hearing, Monday, December 5, 2011

Two Mahjoub supporters attended today’s Detention Review hearing at Federal Court in Toronto along with four media representatives – from the Toronto Star, the National Post, Canadian Press and CBC French network. The actual hearing was held in Ottawa and seen and heard on television in the Toronto courtroom. The video and sound are clear so there is no trouble following the proceedings. Judge Blanchard presided.

I arrived awhile after court had begun to hear a CSIS witness identified only as #4 and hidden from view being gently treated by the Ministers’ Counsel. This witness said he was the author of the ‘threat assessment’ report about Mr. Mahjoub. He was saying that he approved of the present terms and conditions of release under which Mr. Mahjoub is being held and surveilled under house arrest - as mitigators of of M. as a threat to Canada. He warned that “out of the watchful eye of the state, M. might re-engage in threatening activities, either directly or indirectly – to counsel others in their involvement as threats to Canada.” He even said that M. had ‘street-cred” and was “attractive” to those who migh wish to do Canada harm. He accused M. of still being a possible danger even in the rapidly changing, tumultuous environment of the Egyptian Arab Spring. He said that M. needed to be held because he “might possibly” be a threat.

About 20 minutes later Public Counsel Paul Slansky began his cross-examination of the CSIS witness which lasted until 5:15 pm with about a 2 hour lunch break. Mr. Slansky attacked the CSIS witness and CSIS itself with a ferocity that I had not previously witnessed. My understanding of the line of reasoning was that Mr. Slansky was trying to establish that CSIS has no legal standards for applying Section 21 and some other sections of the CSIS Act to any individual. Therefore the arrest and detention of anyone they deem a threat to Canada is arbitrary and not according to any law.

Mr. Slansky described that witness #4 used terms in his report such as M. “possibly may” – pose a threat. PC tried to get the witness to admit to what CSIS uses as its criteria - “suspicion” or “reasonable grounds to believe” and other fine points – to identify a person as a threat. PC accused CSIS of only being interested in the effectiveness of the conditions on M. and no interest in what has happened to the human rights of M. who has been subjected, as PC described - to the greatest intrusion into the privacy of an individual in Canadian history. Witness #4 was asked if he had seen any additional “potential” for M. to commit a crime over the past year. The witness said he hadn’t. PC also asked if CSIS engaged in any quality control which led to a discussion of what that may mean for CSIS. The witness admitted that violation of an individual’s human rights is not the concern of CSIS since they know that human rights reduction “comes with the territory” of identifying someone as a threat to the state. PC described with some derision from MC the potential of a hydrogen atom to become an atomic bomb. Did that mean that all hydrogen atoms and therefore all water molecules should be placed under “conditions?”

Witness #4 mentioned M.’s associations with others after he came to Canada. PC wondered if M. was under suspicion for attending Mosque and speaking to acquaintances about “those Blue-Jays”.

PC cast doubt on testimony of foreign sources who made accusations against M. as having been obtained by torture and that “there is no guarantee of corroboration”; accusers may just be using the same source whose reliability is in question. There were many objections from Ministers’ Counsel regarding the approach taken by Public Counsel.

The hearing resumes tomorrow – Tuesday December 6, 2011 at 9:30 am.

More supporters are needed to be seen at Federal Court, 180 Queen St. W., 6^th floor (near Osgoode station on the University line)

Some media coverage of today’s hearing:

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20111205/mohamed-zeki-mahjoub-security-certificate-court-challenge-111205/

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1097232--terrorism-suspect-remains-a-threat-csis-agent-testifies

End Canada's cruel and unusual punishment of Mohamed Mahjoub - more than eleven years under a security certificate

Call for court support! Please attend, even if it is for just a couple of hours. The court takes note of public interest.

Mon. Dec. 5th to Wed. Dec. 7th, plus Wed. Dec. 14 to Fri. Dec. 16th and Mon. Dec. 19 & Tues. Dec. 20th

Every day from 9:30 to noon and 2 til 4:30 (approximate times*)

Federal Court, 180 Queen Street, 6th floor, Toronto (near Osgoode Station on University subway line)

**Court schedule is subject to last minute change, plus there is a lunch break, so check in before heading to court.

Updates will be posted at https://twitter.com/#!/peepcomm

Mohamed Mahjoub will be in court to argue that ALL the conditions that are imposed on him should be lifted immediately. He currently lives under a form of house arrest that allows the state to micro-manage and invade every aspect of his life.

His lawyers will be arguing that the court can no longer maintain conditions because CSIS itself no longer claims to have reasonable grounds to believe Mr. Mahjoub to be a threat. His lawyers will also argue that his treatment amounts to unusual punishment in the sense of the charter. They're also pointing out that the conditions imposed on him are irrational and disproportionate, and that they are a form of cruel and unusual punishment.

Recent media articles relating to his case:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/spy-agency-branding-of-egyptian-as-security-risk-to-canada-not-reasonable-134923888.html

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/CSIS+head+urged+government+fight+information+obtained+through+torture/5805186/story.html

Background

www.peoplescommission.org/en/mahjoub

justiceformahjoub@gmail.com