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., 6th floor (near Osgoode station on the University line)
Some media coverage of today’s hearing:
No comments:
Post a Comment