Stop the Secrecy! Pack the Courts!

Mohammad Mahjoub, a Torontonian, detained without charge for over 11 years, is going to court to have all charges against him quashed on April 23 - 25, and the proceedings are open to the public. Sign up for a morning or afternoon shift by clicking here: http://www.doodle.com/244bzmq2x9m6asdt (Federal Court, 180 Queen Street, 6th floor, Toronto)

In the summer of 2011, government officials entered Mr. Mahjoub's lawyers' room in the Federal Court, seized boxes of documents, viewed and read the materials and then mixed them up (commingled) with their own government documents. This represents a serious breach of attorney-client privilege, an essential part of a fair trial.

This latest, entirely illegal and unprecedented access to confidential defense documents by government officials representing the Department of Justice, proves yet again that no legal, fair or just processes are being followed in Security Certificate detentions and hearings.

Earlier, CSIS officials admitted in court that, from about 1996 to 2006, CSIS and/or Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) listened to, recorded, analysed and used Mr. Mahjoub's conversations with his lawyers (as well as his family members and friends) against him. In December 2010, the court found that, despite an order to cease doing so, CSIS continued the practice of listening to his conversations with his lawyers for two more years.

Stop the Secrecy! Pack the Courts! End the Security Certificates!
Mon – Wed, April 23 - 25, 9:30am - 5:00pm.
Federal Court, 180 Queen Street, 6th floor, Toronto

Mohammad Zeki Mahjoub was arrested under a "security certificate" in June 2000, over 11 years ago. Under this “security certificate” Mohammad Mahjoub has spent the last 11 years without any charges being laid against him or having access to the "evidence" against him. For over 11 years, Mr. Mahjoub has remained either in jail or on draconian bail conditions without going through a trial or being found guilty. For 11 years, Mr. Mahjoub has lived with the threat of deportation to death or violence looming over his head without access to justice. Security Certificates can only be used against non-citizens, who are given lesser rights to justice, simply on the basis of citizenship.

Currently, three men are being held under security certificates: Mohammad Mahjoub (since 2000), Mahmoud Jaballah (since 2001), and Mohamed Harkat (since 2003). In 2009, security certificates against Adil Charkaoui and against Hassan Almrei were thrown out; both are now suing the government.

SECURITY CERTIFICATES:
* Only apply to immigrants, not citizens
* No charges are laid; only general allegations of potential danger, often based on profile and association
* Federal Court has ruled that presumption of innocence does not apply
* Evidence is not disclosed to the person arrested nor to his lawyer
* Evidence thought to have been obtained under torture is supposed to be excluded; in practice, CSIS admitted in 2008 that all current cases would fall apart without recourse to evidence likely resulting from torture
* Standard of proof is "reasonable grounds to believe" - far lower than in criminal courts
* Any information is accepted as evidence; including hearsay, newspaper clippings, unsourced intelligence, etc.
* Until 2008, CSIS systematically destroyed evidence (all current cases predate 2008)
* In practice, people arrested under security certificates are subject to indefinite detention
* If upheld, a security certificate results in deportation, even if there is an acknowledged risk of death or torture

Please Like: www.facebook.com/SupportMahjoub
For more information: http://www.peoplescommission.org/en/mahjoub/

To contact the Justice for Mahjoub Network: justiceformahjoub@gmail.com

Our Demands: 1) Immediately free Mahjoub, Harkat and Jaballah; 2. Apology, reparations and citizenship for all five security certificate detainees; and 3. Accountability for all officials responsible for their arbitrary, indefinite detention.

Mohammad Mahjoub's First Speech

Friday evening , March 16, Mohammad Mahjoub spoke to an audience for the first time in 12 years at the No One Is Illegal film night Whose Borders? at the Palmerston Library, 560 Palmerston, near Bloor and Bathurst. He spoke at the end of two films, the first, "Kanawayandan D'aaki - Protecting Our Land" (Praxis Pictures, 12 mins) a short one about the KI's with beautiful photos from their traditional lands (KI is a campaign of NOII) and the longer film "Enemy Alien" (dir. Konrad Aderer, 81 mins) http://cinespect.com/?p=1979- about a Palestinian-American activist Farouk Abdel-Muhti http://rwor.org/a/1257/farouk.htm who was incarcerated after 911 along with thousands of other Muslim and south Asian people. It is the story of his 2 years in many prisons including long terms in solitary confinement, as friends tried to get him out - with protests and legal measures. He had health problems that were not allowed to be dealt with and he died 3 months after his release. One lawyer said that the two year incarceration was a deliberate death sentence. Film-maker Konrad Aderer is the grandson of Japanese-Americans who were interned during WW2 just for being of Japanese ancestry and Konrad's persistence at making this film came largely from his sense of injustice at how immigrant peoples have been badly treated in the U.S. There were a lot of parallels to Mahjoub's case.

Mohammad spoke powerfully and passionately for about ten minutes. He talked about the similarity of the injustice of his case to that of Farouk Abdel-Muhti, and encouraged the audience of about fifty people to fight for justice for those who don't have it and to expect strong resistance from governments for doing so.

Mohammad also told some of us afterward that this was the first time in 12 years he had ever been out of prison or his apartment at 10 pm. I needed to be there to accompany him home because his curfew is still 8 pm, but won't be after March 20 when the new conditions begin - with no curfew!

Noah Bingham, one of the film-makers of the planned documentary "Secret Trial Five" http://secrettrial5.com/ was there and did some filming of Mohammad's speech.

Mohammad's new conditions begin on March 20 and his birthday is March 21.

MAHJOUB HEARINGS POSTPONED

The hearings in the Mahjoub so called "security certificate" case that were scheduled for 20-21 February 2012 have been postponed.

Stay tuned for announcement of new date next week. In the meantime: please ask your organizations to sign our statement in support of Mahjoub:

www.peoplescommission.org/en/mahjoub/feb2012.php;

join the Support Mahjoub facebook group http://www.facebook.com/SupportMahjoub &

http://www.facebook.com/events/242809372471603/

and check out other things you can do at: www.peoplescommission.org/en/mahjoub.

Pack the Court! End "Secret Trials"! Support Mohammad Mahjoub!

http://www.facebook.com/events/242809372471603/ (please share!)

Monday, Tuesday, Feb. 20 - 21, 2012, 9:30am - 4:30pm, Mohammad Mahjoub Court Hearing, Federal Court, 180 Queen Street, 6th floor, Toronto (near Osgoode station)

http://www.peoplescommission.org/en/mahjoub/

On Feb 20, 2012, lawyers for Mohammad Mahjoub - a Torontonian who has been in jail or on house arrest for more than 11 and a half years without charges or trial, on secret evidence obtained under torture - will appear in Court to ask that all proceedings against him be tossed out. In the summer, government officials entered Mr. Mahjoub's lawyers' room in the Federal Court, seized boxes of documents, viewed and read the materials and then mixed them up (commingled) with their own government documents. This represents a serious breach of solicitor-client privilege, an essential part of a fair trial.

*Please attend the court house in support anytime between 9:30am and 4:30pm on Feb 20-21*

WHAT IS A SECURITY CERTIFICATE?
Mohammad Zeki Mahjoub was arrested under a "security certificate" in June 2000, over 11 years ago. Under this “security certificate” Mohammad Mahjoub has spent the last 11 years without any charges being laid against him or having access to the "evidence" against him. For over 11 years, Mr. Mahjoub has remained either in jail or on draconian bail conditions without going through a trial or being found guilty. For 11 years, Mr. Mahjoub has lived with the threat of deportation to death or violence looming over his head without access to justice. Security Certificates can only be used against non-citizens, who are given lesser rights to justice, simply on the basis of citizenship.

CONTINUED ILLEGAL ACTIONS BY THE CANADIAN GOVT.
This latest, entirely illegal, and unprecedented access to confidential defense documents by government officials, representing the Department of Justice, proves yet again that no legal, fair or just processes are being followed in Security Certificate detentions and hearings.

Earlier, CSIS officials admitted in court that, from about 1996 to 2006, CSIS and/or Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) listened to, recorded, analysed and used Mr. Mahjoub's conversations with his lawyers (as well as his family members and friends) against him. In December 2010, the court found that, despite an order to cease doing so, CSIS continued the practice of listening to his conversations with his lawyers for two more years.

*Please also read and sign the statement in support of Mr. Mahjoub here
(organizations only!): http://www.peoplescommission.org/en/mahjoub/feb2012.php

*Please also view and sign this general statement on and against security certificates: www.harkatstatement.com *Sophie Harkat has just released an appeal to ask us and our friends to sign this important statement

BRIEF SUMMARY OF MR. MAHJOUB'S TRIBULATIONS IN CANADA

Mohammad Zeki Mahjoub came to Canada in 1995 from Egypt, where he had been detained without charge and tortured. He was accepted as a refugee in 1996, settled in Toronto, got married, and had two young sons. However, back in Egypt, a year and a half after his arrival in Canada, his three brothers were arrested and held without charge for eight years. They were all released in 2005, never having been charged or tried.

In June 2000, Mr. Mahjoub was arrested on a security certificate. He began a hungerstrike in 2002, after he was sexually assaulted by a guard. His complaints led nowhere. This was the first of several hunger-strikes. In 2005, after being imprisoned for five years without a trial, Mr. Mahjoub began a hunger strike to protest prison conditions, consuming water, juice and occasional broth, lasting 76 days and losing 110lb before he was hospitalized.

In April 2006, Mr. Mahjoub, along with three other security certificate detainees, was transferred to the "Kingston Immigration Holding Centre", a six-cell facility opened specifically to detain Muslims held on security certificates, which was soon dubbed "Guantanamo North". The facility, which now stands empty, cost tax-payers $3.2 million to build, and two million a year to operate with one inmate, according to CBC.

Mr. Mahjoub, with two of the other detainees at Guatanamo North, went on hungerstrike again in winter of 2006 for 93 days. He was finally ordered transferred to house arrest on February 15th 2007.

It took months for Mr Mahjoub to be transferred from prison after the federal court ruling, and when he was, it was under conditions that in practice turned his home into a prison and his family into his prison guards.

In February 2007, the Supreme Court struck down Security Certificates as unconstitutional but gave the government a year to respond. Significantly, the court refused to accept that the regime was unfair since it only applied to refugees and permanent residents, and therefore afforded them a far lower standard than that accorded to Canadian citizens facing similar allegations.

In February 2008, Security Certificate laws expired but the Canadian government passed a new Security Certificate law which remained essentially the same. New certificates were issued against Mr. Mahjoub, Mahmoud Jaballah, Hassan Almrei, Mohamed Harkat and Adil Charkaoui. All five men remained in prison or under house arrest and had to begin the process all over again.

On 18 March 2009, Mr. Mahjoub returned to prison at Guantanamo North in Kingston. He could no longer subject his family to the intolerable and humiliating invasions of their privacy that the conditions of his house arrest required. On 01 June 2009, Mr. Mahjoub began another hunger strike to protest conditions in prison. He remained on hunger strike for six months.

On 30 November 2009, Mohammad Mahjoub, then the sole prisoner at “Guantanamo North”, was again ordered transferred to house arrest in Toronto.

In summer 2010, in a significant court victory, the Federal Court ruled that part of the "case" against Mr. Mahjoub was probably gleaned from torture, and could not be accepted by the Court. The extent of that finding, however, is still subject to closed door proceedings that Mr. Mahjoub cannot attend.

From about 1996 to 2006, CSIS and/or CBSA listened to, recorded, analysed and used Mr. Mahjoub's conversations with his lawyers against him. In December 2010, the Federal Court found that, despite a court order prohibiting this practice, CSIS continued to violate solicitor client privilege in this way for two more years.

In October 2011, the court reviewed Mr. Mahjoub's bail conditions, as it is required to do every six months. On February 03, 2012, the Federal Court ruled that the government failed to show that it is reasonable to maintain intrusive conditions of control and surveillance on Mohammad Mahjoub.

For the first time since 2000, Mr Mahjoub will be able to go anywhere in Toronto without supervision or notifying the CBSA; in addition, his curfew will be lifted and a camera in front of his house removed; and he will be able to travel anywhere in Canada. Many intrusive conditions nevertheless remain, such as a prohibition on use of internet and cell phone, phone tapping, and supervision outside Toronto. These conditions were imposed with sole reference to the government's arguments; the court ruled that it could not take Mr. Mahjoub's responses to the allegations into account.

Until the question of the commingled documents is decided, ongoing hearings on the certificate itself - unconstitutionality, illegality, "reasonability" - have been suspended. Depending on the outcome of the February hearings, these could continue in March with key witnesses like Stockwell Day.

Mahjoub 'Detention Review' Decision Comes Down

First of all this is a brief report of the last day of the Mahjoub Detention Review hearing which took place on Tuesday, December 20. Both Monday Dec. 19 and Tuesday Dec. 20 were given over to ‘Final Submissions’ by both Ministers’ Counsel (M.C.) David Tyndale and Public Counsel (P.C.) Paul Slansky. I was not in attendance on Monday but several people did attend including Alison Jean from Kitchener-Waterloo and Frank Barningham from Durham. There were five people who were present for at least some of the day on Tuesday. Without going into detail, the submissions just maintained the positions held throughout by M.C. and P.C. M.C. said that Mr. Mahjoub must continue to be considered a threat and therefore there should be no change in his detention conditions. M.C. held that the considerable evidence brought by Criminologist Professor Stéphane Leman-Langlois that Mr. Mahjoub could no longer be considered a threat to anyone according to criminology theory and therefore his Charter rights were being violated by continued punitive bail conditions. P.C. also reviewed the findings of psychiatric witness Dr. Payne whose evidence suggested that continuing the isolating conditions on Mr. Mahjoub were just making him more and more unhealthy. Judge Blanchard at one point asked M.C. if they could imagine a way of doing surveillance monitoring of Mr. Mahjoub – ‘differently’. M. C. also brought up a minor issue with a used laptop that Mr. Mahjoub had purchased at Goodwill and then sent to CBSA to see if it could have any internet capacity disabled so he could use it to store his voluminous court filings. CBSA then sent a letter to the court accusing M. of purchasing the laptop without permission. P.C. pointed out the absurdity of M. ever being able to use the internet while having no internet connection and not being able to visit a library or internet café.

The next hearings will have to do with the ‘Stay of Proceedings Motion’ which Judge Blanchard has allowed Mr. Mahjoub since the commingling of M.C. and P.C. documents last summer. These documents are slowly being separated – with great difficulty and delay under the supervision of Protonary Judge Aalto as a separate procedure since the fall of 2011. Right now the ‘Stay of Proceedings Motion’ hearings are scheduled to begin around February 20, 2012.

The press release below is by Mary Foster of the ‘People’s Commission Network’ of Montreal regarding the ‘Detention Review Decision’ - http://www.peoplescommission.org/en/mahjoub/

There is some cautious reason to rejoice!

Press Release:

Court: Government fails to show that it is reasonable to keep Mahjoub under conditions.

Detained without charge for almost 12 years, Toronto man gains significant freedoms.

Toronto, 3 February 2012 -- A Federal Court decision says the government failed to show that it is reasonable to maintain intrusive conditions of control and surveillance on Mohammad Mahjoub, arrested under a security certificate almost twelve years ago. The decision is the outcome of detention review hearings that took place in late 2011.

"People who care about justice and are not frightened by vague, unproven and unconvincing allegations must call for Mr. Mahjoub's immediate release from ALL conditions. The court is clear: the government has failed to show that he should be kept under his current conditions. The question is then why are any conditions maintained? His full liberty must be restored to him immediately," said Mary Foster, an activist with the People's Commission Network.

While the decision does not free Mr. Mahjoub entirely, he has nevertheless won considerable concessions. For the first time since 2000, he will be able to go anywhere in Toronto without supervision or notifying the CBSA; in addition, his curfew will be lifted and a camera in front of his house removed; and he will be able to travel anywhere in Canada.

"I am looking forward to enjoying more freedom," said Mr. Mahjoub, "Maybe for others it doesn't seem like much, but to someone who has been denied the right to walk about or travel freely for twelve years it is very precious. It gives me a foretaste of the day when this nightmare will be behind me entirely and my name will be cleared from false allegations and malicious labels."

Many intrusive conditions nevertheless remain, such as a prohibition on use of internet and cell phone, phone tapping, and supervision outside Toronto.

"It is very disturbing that the Court says the presumption of innocence does not apply in security certificate cases because there are no charges," added Foster. "That is a very dangerous logic. Where are we headed with this?"

A series of scandals rocked Mr. Mahjoub's case over the last year. In December 2011, media reports revealed the existence of a secret CSIS memo in which the spy agency admitted that "the bulk of information" in Mr. Mahjoub's security certificate file was tainted by torture. During the summer, Department of Justice staff seized confidential documents belonging to Mr. Mahjoub and his lawyers from the Federal Court, mingling it with their own. Mr. Mahjoub has applied for a permanent stay because of the serious and ongoing breach of client-solicitor privilege. Neither of these issues were considered in this week's decision.

Mr. Mahjoub is a torture survivor who was accepted as a refugee in Canada in 1996. The 51-year old father of two was arrested under an immigration "security certificate" on the request of CSIS in June 2000. After his release from prison, he was placed under intrusive house arrest conditions, pending the final outcome of his case.

Two other men remain under security certificates in Canada: Mohamed Harkat in Ottawa, an Algerian refugee who has been fighting a security certificate for nine years, and Mahmoud Jaballah in Toronto, a torture survivor from Egypt who was arrested in 1999, released, and then re-arrested on the same information in 2001. Certificates against Hassan Almrei and Adil Charkaoui were thrown out in 2009; both men are now suing the government for reparations.

-30-

For interviews:
514 222 0205

Source:
People's Commission Network
www.peoplescommission.org/en/mahjoub
https://twitter.com/#!/peepcomm

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

Appeal for Mohamed Harkat

Hello:

I am sharing this message from Sophie Harkat with you because of the urgency for Mohamed Harkat who is in the same situation as Mohamed Mahjoub - held on a security certificate for many years and awaiting deportation to torture or worse at any time. Sophie expresses the need for both financial help and for the signing of the 'Harkat statement' online. There is an English and a French 'paper' petition in the right margin of www.harkatstatement.com that can be downloaded. Just be sure to copy the 'prayer' to the top of each petition sheet. Petition regulations require that the signer see the petition on the page they are signing. You can actually take 25 or more signatures (with addresses) to your own MP and ask them to present the petition to Parliament. I just did that for the three Muslim Canadians who were tortured in Syria. Thanks for your help. Murray

Dear Friend,

December 10th, 2011 will mark the 9th anniversary of Moe's arrest under a Security Certificate which allows for detention without charge, without access to the evidence under the presumed rationale of "national security." Moe spent 43 months in jail and was finally released in June of 2006, but upon release he was forced to bear the burden of the toughest bail conditions in Canadian history Today, he still wears a GPS device on his ankle at all times and has numerous restrictions on his movements. Because of the unjust decision to uphold Moe's security certificate in December 2010, he now faces deportation to Algeria where he's at great risk of imprisonment, torture or death.

After nine long years of fighting for justice, it gets harder and harder to fundraise and gather support every year. Many think the case is over and done with. That is so far from the truth ! We are heading back to the Federal Court of Appeal on February 21st, 2012 and hopefully, with your support, back to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I'm writing to you because we need your financial support, but I know there are many good causes out there that also need your help ! If you have already donated, THANK YOU for your generosity and solidarity.

Please support our work. Help with our campaign expenses, support our legal and political research, consider making a small donation to support travel and other related expenses. Our work is not done yet. Donations are always needed.

Please send your cheque/money order or donation to:
The Justice for Mohamed Harkat Committee
14 Perkins Street
Ottawa, ON, K1R 7G5

Also, since my last email asking you to forward our petition far and wide, only 400 new supporters have endorsed our statement. That is NOT enough considering the amount of individuals that oppose Secret Trials in Canada. I hope we can reach at least 5000 signatures by Moe's 9th anniversary. With your help, I know we can do it. Public pressure is essential to our fight.

Please ask everyone you know to visit www.harkatstatement.com and sign our Statement Against Security Certificates.

Pass on this email to all of your online contacts - email, Facebook, Twitter, etc.
If you have a blog or a web site please consider writing about our campaign and spreading the word.
Ask your family, friends, co-workers, local, group, committee, others to endorse.

Don't stop it here, please forward to others !

Thank you for your continued support and time.

May justice prevail !

Sincerely,
Sophie Harkat
Wife of Mohamed Harkat

Mahjoub ‘Conference’ – Wednesday, October 12, 2011, Federal Court, 180 Queen Street, 7th floor

I got there just before they adjourned at 11:10 am. However I did speak with Mohamed, his lawyer Paul Slansky and another lawyer who attended as an observer. The 'Conference' was under the direction of Judge Aalto and the Justice Dept. had their 'Separation of documents Team' there, consisting of former lawyer on the case Rhonda Marquis (who has been bumped up to an administrative position with 'Justice' and will no longer be on this case in any event but who is familiar with the case) and the other person - a lawyer who I have seen three times now - she was present in court last Monday during the full day hearing under Judge Blanchard. She sat in the gallery with the rest of us. She was also one of the 'Justice' people at last Wednesday's 'Conference'. I didn't get her name.

Paul Slansky, Mohamed, and Mohamed's interpreter were there yesterday and Mme. Doyon was present by video.

I don't know for sure but I don't think 'Public Counsel' has yet chosen their 'Team'. Judge Aalto expressed his happiness with the speed of things - I know that he had discussed previously being able to get funding for the procedures to follow. P.C. expressed some doubt at last week's 'Conference' about getting Legal Aid to pay for the procedures.

After the 'Conference' while speaking with Mohamed, Paul and the other lawyer, Paul explained to me that there is still an order by Judge Blanchard that court appointed officers to the 'Separation Team' can no longer be 'on the record' with M.'s case and perhaps any other security/immigration case. I think there is still some disagreement on how far this would go - I think I heard that expressed during the few minutes I was at the 'Conference'. They also talked about the 'Chinese Wall' - that was mentioned by the lawyers in court last Monday - meaning that any lawyer appointed to a team like this cannot discuss their findings or opinions with anyone at their law firm, which is very difficult to confirm happens.

The next 'Conference' is by phone, next Wednesday, Oct. 19 and won't be public.

Mahjoub 'Conference' Hearing, Wednesday, October 5, 2011

I was at the 'Conference' at court today only for a short time and much of it was during their recess's. I was the only observer there. I had another afternoon meeting so didn't stay past noon.

As indicated they met in a conference room on the 7th floor, presided over by Judge Aalto. A Mr. Todd and another female lawyer were on one side of the table, representing the government and Paul Slansky, Mme. Doyon, Mohamed and his interpreter sat on the other. They were basically trying to work out a plan for separating the commingled doucuments that would be to both teams' satisfactions. The judge is still going to allow Public Counsel to still argue 'Prejudice' issue, but mostly they are going to work on this plan. They spoke about how it is going to be paid for, since Paul said there were some issues with legal aid continuing to pay them. Paul also wondered about how much training would be reqired of the 'separation teams'. Judge Aalto said he had some authority in the money matter and he didn't want this task to go on any back burner. Judge Aalto asked both sides to think of and bring forward names of people who they thought could do the task of separating and to share those names with the other side. Judge Aalto said he didn't feel it was necessary to get a handwriting expert. Judge Aalto said if the two sides could not achieve clarity on their choices for their 'separation teams' then he would make the decision. Mr. Todd immediately proposed Rhonda Marquis who was on the government legal team in this case but who has been promoted to a deputy director of the Immigration division of the Dept. of Justice, Toronto region. She is no longer on the team but is very familiar with the case. Paul and Mme. Doyon didn't propose anyone yet. Judge Aalto wanted to get started in 24 hours, but Paul and Mme. Doyon said they had some other commitments and Monday is a holiday so they set the next meeting for Wednesday, Oct. 12 at 9:30 and if possible to have their 'separation teams' there, I beleive. They didn't name the meeting place but I assume it would be the same. Judge Aalto also proposed for the sake of expediting things quicker - to have all the documents moved to the Federal Court building from where they are. Paul and Mme. Doyon had concerns about who would have access during the move. Paul said he trusted court officers but he said, "I don't trust some CSIS officers as far as I could throw them". Judge Aalto agreed with this concern and said the only people touching the documents would be responsible to the court. He also said he would have everything videotaped in clear pictures. He showed a still photo of the documents in their present location and said it wasn't good quality.

At that point Paul asked for a recess for he, Mme. Doyon and Mohamed to discuss these matters. At that point I left. They were going to continue the meeting to hash out the parameters of how to separate these mixed documents.

Next meeting – Wednesday, October 12, 2011, 9:30 am, 180 Queen Street West (near Osgoode station), Floor 7, a Conference room (just ask the guard on the floor)

Mohamed Mahjoub asks for Stay of Proceedings due to gross violations of his Solicitor- Client Privilege

Mahjoub Hearing, Monday, October 3, 2011

The background to today's hearing is that around July 20, 2011, Department of Justice staff picked up all of Mr. Mahjoub's legal team's materials, including confidential and strategically sensitive materials, described as such in M.’s lawyer Yavar Hameed’s affidavit, which were left in a 'breakout' room in the Federal Court. They had been requested by emails from the Federal Court – which are part of the evidence - to clean up the courtroom and inexplicably both of the ‘breakout’ rooms. They moved materials from one room to the other and then moved all the material (about 12 boxes) together to the Department of Justice offices on King Street without apparently realizing that they had both Public Counsel’s - Mahjoub’s lawyers - materials collected together with Ministers Counsels’ – Government lawyers – materials. They then went through it and began to sort it with their own materials, mixing all the materials together (legal term is ‘commingling’). Even after it was discovered that the material was mixed up, they continued to have access to the material for another 8 days. They actually had the papers from July 20 to September 1. Only once Mahjoub's lawyers realized the extent to which they had gone through their materials and informed the Dept. of Justice that they thought it was a very serious breach, did they lock the door to the room where the materials were kept. Actually Madame Doyon, one of M.’s lawyers, when she went to Dept. of Justice to see for herself, discovered that the papers, some of which were spread out on a table and desk were in a room which was unable to be locked, and supposedly had been available to anyone at Dept. of Justice for 1.5 months. Mahjoub's lawyers consider it a very serious breach of right to confidential communication with lawyers and that there is really no way to unsort all the material without each party reading each others' notes. This is a very important legal point, the consequences of which are the ‘removal from record’ – legaleze for removal of all of the present lawyers from this case – on both sides.

There were four observers at court for the morning and myself for the afternoon. Court went to 5 pm. Arguments and replies went back and forth all day, with Public Counsel (PC) being well handled by Paul Slansky (Counsel Mr. Yavar Hameed was not there – he has provided evidence – affidavit - regarding the significance of the seized documents to future PC plans) and Ministers’ Counsel by Mr. Donald MacIntosh. (maybe the David Tyndale team was relieved for being so close to what happened. One member Rhonda Marquis, provided an affidavit regarding her connection to the commingled materials)

The basics of Mr. Slansky’s argument was that Mr. Mahjoub’s Charter rights – Section 7. “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice,” and Section 8. “Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.” - have been violated by this event and that there is no way to set them right except to stay any further proceedings against Mr. Mahjoub.

Mr. Slansky maintained that Mr. Mahjoub’s right to solicitor-client privilege has been violated and he has not been provided with ‘fundamental justice’ in this matter. The only remedy for Mr. Mahjoub is a Stay of Proceedings.

Mr. Slansky also described the collection and commingling of documents by the Dept. of Justice as a ‘search and seizure’ but stopped short of saying that it was done in ‘bad faith’. Rather he put the events down to negligence and carelessness on the part of several Dept. of Justice employees. For example, why in the several emails provided in evidence did someone not notice that there were two breakout rooms being cleaned out and that one of these rooms must surely belong to the PC lawyers?

Mr. Slansky also argued from several examples of case law, including Supreme Court cases, that the onus is on the violater to ‘rebut the claims’ of the plaintiff. If they are not able to do that the case law decisions have allowed a Stay of Proceedings. One remedy proposed is to have both sets of lawyers look at the documents and separate them by recognition of handwriting etc. (according to affidavits some typed documents are annotated, underlined and have ‘sticky note’ comments attached). However this method has grave consequences to both parties due to the adversarial nature of the Law. Both sides, having seen the other side’s future arguments would have to ‘be removed from the record’, meaning that Mr. Mahjoub would lose his lawyers and have to find other counsel, violating his Section 7 rights. The same would happen to the government side which Mr. McIntosh said was a violation of government rights. Mr. Slansky’s reply was obvious but brilliant nevertheless – the government does not have Charter Rights – Charter Rights are there to protect the individual from government! Mr. Slansky also made an important point that this current violation of Mr. Mahjoub’s solicitor-client privilege is within the context of a series of violations such as the admitted CSIS/CBSA intercepts of solicitor-client phone conversations that go back several years and for which the penalty to these agencies was – ‘just stop doing it’. Mr.Slansky also pointed out that Mr. Mahjoub has been in litigation since 2008 (Judge Blanchard also mentioned this in earlier hearings this year while he was rebuking both sets of lawyers for delays in bringing witnesses forward etc.) Mr. Slansky continued that abuse by ‘Delay’ is now a major factor (in violating Mr. Mahjoub’s Section 7 rights - right to life, liberty and security of the person.)

Mr. MacIntosh’s arguments were based on avoiding having to deal with a rebuttal by saying that maybe the materials taken from PC are mostly innocuous, not significant and perhaps not of much quantity and that a Stay of Proceedings decision is punitive to the violator and should only be reserved as a last resort. He said that the evidence in this case does not meet the standard for a ‘Stay’ according to case law he cited. He and another lawyer, Mr. Todd, proposed that a neutral court officer could be appointed to examine the documents and with the help of a handwriting expert could come to a conclusion regarding the number of and significance or innocuousness of any documents. In reply to this Mr. Slansky pointed out that it is not the ‘quantum of documents’ that is the issue but the ‘violation of privilege’ of Mr. Mahjoub. In any case he doubted that a court appointed officer would have the ability to interpret the significance or lines of thinking in any notes or annotations found. He also said that he did not trust any handwriting expert would be able to work in isolation to identify handwriting of different sizes that may occur in annotations and sticky notes. Any conclusions seen to be incorrect would certainly be challenged by the plaintiff.

Mr. MacIntosh also used the ‘terrorist card’, pointing out that the court has a responsibility to Canada when dealing with a potential terrorist – even though Mr. Mahjoub has never been charged with any crime.

Judge Blanchard asked two questions of Mr. MacIntosh that were revealing of the problems for MC. 1. He said that despite Mr. MacIntosh’s assurances that affidavits of most, but not all, Justice Dept. employees said that they only looked at titles etc. of documents but didn’t read them, there is still “a vacuum (of knowledge) as to who had access to the unlocked room over 8 days.” 2. “There is no evidence presented regarding who these same people may have spoken to about the documents” (in the unlocked room).

Madame Doyon also posed the question of whether any seized documents may have been removed from the original documents now locked up at Dept. of Justice.

Next step: On Wednesday, October 5, Judge Blanchard said he would be meeting in-camera in Ottawa with the two Special Advocate lawyers (who are always sitting in court) to deal with the ‘secret evidence’ which is not allowed to be heard in public court.

Judge Blanchard did not say anything about when he will make a decision regarding the Motion for a Stay of Proceedings or what will be done about the commingled documents.

Special Mahjoub hearing, Monday, October 3, 2011

Mohamed Mahjoub Court Hearing

Dear friends:

I only saw this announcement late Sunday evening. I am hoping that some may still be able to come to the Federal Courthouse in Toronto at the address and time given below:

Federal Court, 180 Queen Street, 6th floor (Toronto)

Monday, October 3rd at 9:30am

Mr. Mahjoub was arrested in June 2000 under an immigration security certificate. He has remained in jail and under house arrest, without charge or trial and under threat of deportation, ever since. Mr. Mahjoub was accepted as a refugee in Canada in 1996 after it was recognized that he had been subjected to torture in Egypt.

At the hearing tomorrow, Mr. Mahjoub's legal team will ask the Court to suspend proceedings against Mr. Mahjoub. In July 2011, Department of Justice staff took privileged and confidential documents belonging to Mr. Mahjoub's legal team, which were in a break out room at the Federal Court in Toronto. The "mistake" was not noticed until one month later, after staff had gone through the material and mingled it with their own. This has violated Mr. Mahjoub's right to communicate in privacy with his lawyers. Coming on top of CSIS and CBSA's systematic violation of solicitor-client privilege for years (through listening, recording and analysing Mr. Mahjoub's conversations with his lawyers, according to a CSIS operational policy), it has caused irreparable harm that can only be set right by stopping this process and freeing Mr. Mahjoub from this interminable nightmare.

Please come out to show your support for Mr. Mahjoub and your complete rejection of racist security certificates.

Background:

http://rabble.ca/news/2011/06/mohammad-mahjoub-life-security-certificate-detainee

www.peoplescommission.org/en/mahjoub

Mahjoub Hearing report, Thursday, July 14/'11 - Ex-CSIS chief feared ‘alienating’ allies on security-certificate cases

Hi all:

I have been away from court for three weeks - busy with family trips etc., but here is a link to Colin Freeze's article in the Globe and Mail regarding Wednesday's (July 13) high level witness, former CSIS head Jim Judd. Colin said that the hearing with Mr. Judd as witness was continuing today (Thursday). Maybe there is a Toronto Star report too but I haven't located it.

Not having been at the hearing I cannot comment on Colin's report but it does have something to say about Canada's intelligence sharing deals with shady countries who torture. I think holding a man incommunicado on no charges for eleven years is also torture.

Have a look at the comments - many are quite critical of Canada and CSIS. I wrote one too - see if you can figure out which one.

Murray

http://tinyurl.com/6fmj6zj (You may need to copy this link into your browser)

Mahjoub Hearing, Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Hello:

Mary Foster wrote on Monday June 20: ‘was anyone able to go today? how did it go? Very important witnesses from CSIS and CBSA will be on the stand to testify about their complicity in re-isssuing a security certificate that is mostly (entirely?) based on information derived from torture.’

I was unable to go Monday and don’t know if anyone else went, but I did attend today - Tuesday for a few hours. Mary is correct. There are some supposedly high ranking witnesses being heard this week and next week. Yesterday – Monday, the witness was the present Director of CSIS, Richard Fadden. All that I heard about him was that he was ‘all over the place’ perhaps meaning evasive, but I wasn’t there to hear him. If any of you were, I would appreciate a brief report.

I actually attended two court hearings today; the first was at Old City Hall Court for the sentencing hearing of Jaggi Singh of Montreal who was charged with encouraging people to take down the fence at last June’s G20 event. The judge read his various options and mentioned about 200 or so letters that people had written to the court in support of Jaggi. The courtroom was packed. The crown was asking for a six month sentence, but perhaps due to public interest, Jaggi was placed on probation for one year with conditions, but was given ‘time served’ and no further jail time. His supporters were very pleased and Jaggi spoke at an impromptu press conference outside the court house. He spoke not only about himself but about the rights of communities to decide what their streets will be like – not governments and not the courts.

This kind of interest may be a lesson to those of us trying to support Mr. Mahjoub.

At about 11:30 am I walked over to Federal Court and stayed until 3 pm (with a one hour lunch break). One other supporter came for about ¾ hour. I saw and heard Public Counsel Paul Slansky cross-examine Mr. Flanagan, a retired manager for CSIS. The questioning had to do with an agreement in 2006 between CSIS and CBSA to have a CSIS Collector Agent (CA), I think, work in what was referred to as a ‘bubble’ because this agent had the task of intercepting (listening in) phone messages of Mr. Mahjoub and Mr. Jaballah, both of Toronto. These messages were supposed to be copied to a CD and passed on to CBSA. The problem that is being probed by the cross-examination is – what did they do with calls that were between Mr. Mahjoub and his lawyers. A CSIS agent in a previous hearing admitted that CSIS did indeed record solicitor-client conversations. Public Counsel asked questions of witness Mr. Flanagan who was apparently responsible for CSIS policy in this matter. However Mr. Flanagan was not very cooperative, launching into long vague, contradictory answers that finally caused Mr. Slansky to lose his patience and ask the witness to just answer the questions with a short answer or a yes or no. At least a couple of questions were objected to on the basis of answers being ‘secret evidence’ and therefore of national security importance. One of these questions simply asked for a point of policy that should be public. At one point Public Counsel pointed out to the witness that he had contradicted an earlier answer and asked for and had the court reporter read back the previous question and answer which was indeed a contradiction. Some of the vagueness was the witness’s inability to say conclusively if the CA was indeed operating in a bubble (strictly as an agent for CBSA and not for CSIS). One word that the witness decided had more than one meaning was ‘relevancy’. Relevancy at first was supposed to mean – any intercepts that would indicate a threat to Canadian security – these would have to be reported to CSIS. However, the witness then added the meaning – ‘intelligence value’, meaning that an intercept, even one between a client and his lawyer – would have relevancy if it had intelligence value. At the point just before Judge Blanchard called the lunch break, the witness was so confused that he said he could no longer answer Public Counsel’s questions. The hearing did of course continue in the afternoon.

What I think is being revealed by the very strong probing of Mr. Slansky is that CSIS policies on intercepting solicitor-client conversations are and have been woefully wanting. We are hoping that the judge sees this as well.

I will be away for most of the next three weeks – accompanying my brother to a family wedding in B.C. and then some other responsibilities and family events. Mr. Mahjoub thought these hearings will end by mid-July.

Court will go on tomorrow – Wednesday, June 22, 9:30 am but not Thursday or Friday so if anyone can attend tomorrow – Wednesday that would be good.

For the week of June 27, hearings are scheduled for Monday June 27 through Thursday June 30, with hearings beginning at 9:30 am.

Please attend even if for a short time. It looks so much better if interest is shown – as it was in the Jaggi Singh case.

Hearings are at Federal Court, 180 Queen St. W., 6^th floor, near Osgoode station on the University line.