Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T07:21:07.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Subject to Exception : Security Certificates, National Security and Canada's Role in the “War on Terror”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2014

Colleen Bell
Colleen Bell
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, Ontario, M3J 1P3Canada, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the values ascribed to the lives of non-citizens by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act's security certificate process and its implications for state power and political freedom. Under the imperative of national security and the “war on terror,” the security certificate functions as a moment of legal exception for the assertion of sovereign power and legitimation. This compromises the rule of law and denies basic legal protection to non-citizen detainees. The first section of the article addresses the mechanisms and procedures of the security certificate. Special attention is paid to the use of detention and evidentiary standards in order to illustrate the manner in which the security certificate derogates the rule of law. The second section considers how eroding the rule of law opens a space of exception for the exercise of sovereign, unmitigated state power that is grounded in the discriminatory criteria of citizenship status so as to implicate foreignness in the production of danger. The final section addresses how the security certificate configures freedom as commensurate with the national security objectives of the “war on terror”, exposing the limitations of liberal freedom in relation to modern state power.

Résumé

Cet article examine les valeurs que la procédure de certificats de sécurité de la Loi sur l'immigration et la protection des réfugiés attache à la vie de non citoyens ainsi que ses conséquences sur le pouvoir étatique et la liberté politique. Sous l'impératif de la sécurité nationale et la «guerre au terrorisme», le certificat de sécurité constitue un moment d'exception du pouvoir souverain et légitime. Ceci met en cause l'État de droit alors que la protection légale fondamentale est déniée à des détenus qui ne sont pas citoyens canadiens. Dans une première partie, les mécanismes et procédures du certificat de sécurité sont présentés, avec une attention particulière portée à la détention et aux exigences de preuve qui illustrent la dérogation des garanties légales. L'article aborde ensuite comment cette érosion de l'État de droit ouvre un espace d'exception à l'exercice souverain du pouvoir étatique fondé sur des critères discriminatoires du statut de citoyenneté afin d'associer étrangeté et danger. La dernière partie enfin montre comment le certificat de sécurité conçoit la liberté dans le cadre des objectifs nationaux de la «guerre au terrorisme» et les limites de la liberté libérale en lien avec le pouvoir de l'État moderne.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 21 , Issue 1: Exceptions, Excuses, Norm(e)s , April 2006 , pp. 63 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, Anti-Terrorism and the Security Agenda: Impacts on Rights, Freedoms and Democracy (Report and Recommendations from a Public Forum held at Ottawa, 17 February 2004) at 9 [ICLMG]Google Scholar.

2 Marrocco, Frank N. & Goslett, Henry, eds., The Annotated Immigration Act of Canada (Carswell: Toronto, 1990) at 149Google Scholar.

3 S.C. 2001, c.27.

4 Starnes, Matthew & McNeil, Aiden “Security certificate process criticized” The Lawyers Weekly (11 June 2004) 16Google Scholar.

5 Currently detained under Canadian certificate provisions are: Mahmoud Jaballah who was first detained on a security certificate in 1999, which was quashed by the Federal Court. A second certificate was issued in 2001 and has been upheld. He is currently detained in Toronto and risks deportation to Egypt. Mohamed Harkat has been incarcerated in Ottawa since December 2002, and his certificate was legally upheld in March 2005. He faces possible deportation to Algeria. Mohammed Zeki Mahjoub has been detained in Toronto since June 2000. With his certificate approved he was ordered to be deported to Syria in 2003, but has won a temporary stay. Hassan Almrei held in Toronto since October 2001, has also been granted a stay due to a faulty assessment on his risk of torture if deported to Syria. Adil Charkaoui was detained in May 2003 in Montreal. After almost two years of incarceration, he was released and is living under house arrest with a number of conditions. Review of his certificate is ongoing.

6 Starnes & McNeil, supra note 4.

7 Waldman, Lorne, Immigration Law and Practice (Markham: LexisNexis Butterworths, 2004) at 7.292Google Scholar.

8 Starnes & McNeil, supra note 4.

9 Waldman, supra note 7 at 7.276.

10 Sherazee, Amina & Podur, Justin “Law, Repression, and Activism: Justin Podur interviews Amina Sherazee” Znet (24 April 2003), online: Znet <http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=3511>Google Scholar.

11 Letter from Neve, Alex, Secretary General of Amnesty International Canada “Letter to Deputy Prime Minister McLellan” (31 March 2004) online: Coalition Justice for Adil Charkaoui <http://www.adilinfo.org/appuis/amnestyletter.htm>Google Scholar.

12 Waldman, supra note 7 at 7.274.

13 Ibid. at 7.257.

14 R.S.C. 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 29.

15 Waldman, supra note 7 at 7.248.

16 Thompson, Susan, “New CSIS Security Certificate Issued Against Montrealer Adil Charkaoui” Vive le Canada (26 May 2003), online: Vive le Canada <http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20030526113744171>Google Scholar.

17 Agamben, Giorgio, State of Exception, trans. by Attell, Kevin (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Butler, Judith, Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence (London: Verso, 2004)Google Scholar; Huysmans, Jef, “Minding Exceptions: The Politics of Insecurity and Liberal Democracy” (2004) 3 Contemporary Political Theory 321CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Butler, Ibid. at 53.

19 IRPA, supra note 3, s.34.

20 Waldman, supra note 7 at 7.251.

21 Al Yamani v. Solicitor General of Canada, [1996] 1 F.C. 174 (T.D.).

22 Suresh v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3

23 Waldman, supra note 7 at 7.252.

24 Ibid. at 7.255.

25 Ibid. at 7.260.

26 Rasmussen, Mikkel Vedby, “‘It Sounds like a Riddle’: Security Studies, the War on Terror and Risk” (2004) 33: 2Millenium: Journal of International Studies 381 at 385Google Scholar.

27 Dyzenhaus, David, “The Permanence of the Temporary: Can Emergency Powers Be Normalized?” in Daniels, R.J., Macklem, P., & Roach, K., eds., The Security of Freedom: Essays on Canada's Anti-Terrorism Bill (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001) 21 at 28Google Scholar.

28 Ibid.

29 Starnes & McNeil, supra note 4 at 16.

30 Waldman, supra note 7 at 7.262.

31 Ibid. at 7.319.

32 Amnesty International issued a letter to former P.M. Martin detailing serious concerns that Canadian law enforcement and security agencies may in fact be implicated in the detention and torture of Canadian citizens abroad (and of course there is also the ongoing Maher Arar Inquiry to access the role of Canadian officials in his deportation to and consequent torture in Syria). See Letter from Neve, Alex, Secretary General of Amnesty International Canada “Letter to Prime Minister Martin on Pattern of Canadian Citizens Detained Abroad” (7 June 2005), online: Amnesty International Canada <http://www.amnesty.ca/resource_centre/reports/view.php?load=arcview&article=2780&c=Resource+Centre+Reports>Google Scholar.

33 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 10 December 1984, GA Res. 39/46Google Scholar (entered into force 26 June 1987).

34 Canada, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, Striking a balance to protect Canadians, online: <http://www.psepc.gc.ca/publications/national_security/securitycertificate_e.asp>. This specific argument has also been made by former deputy McLellan, P.M. Anne, see CBC News Online, “Indepth: Canadian Security: Security Certificates and Secret Evidence” (22 February 2005), online: CBC <http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnsecurity/securitycertificates_secretevidence.html>Google Scholar [CBC News Online, “Indepth”].

35 Jaballah Re, [2005] 4 F.C.R. 359Google Scholar.

36 CBC News Online, “Indepth”, supra note 34.

37 Waldman, supra note 7 at 7.267.

38 Ibid. at 7.266, 7.267.

39 Marrocco, Frank N. & Goslett, Henry, eds., The 2005 Annotated Immigration and Refugee Protection Act of Canada (Toronto: Carswell, 2005) at 68Google Scholar [Marrocco & Goslett, 2005 IRPA].

40 Waldman, supra note 7 at 7.265.

41 Ibid. at 7.264; IRAP, supra note 3, c.27, s.83 (3).

42 Marrocco & Goslett, 2005 IRPA, supra note 39 at 84.

43 Waldman, supra note 7 at 7.264.

44 Ibid. at 7.263.

45 Ibid. at 7.277.

46 Marrocco & Goslett, 2005 IRPA, supra note 39 at 78.

47 Waldman, supra note 7 at 7.264.

48 CBC News Online, “Indepth”, supra note 34.

49 Butler, supra note 17 at 59.

50 Ibid. at 67.

51 Ibid. at 75.

52 Canadian Arab Federation and the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-CAN), Subcommittee on Public Safety and National Security, Brief on the Review of the Anti-terrorism Act: Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (September 2005) at 8Google Scholar.

53 Waldman, supra note 7 at 7.309.

54 Ibid. at 7.270, 7.267.

55 Charkaoui v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 2004 F.C.A. 421; [2004] F.C.J. No. 2060, leave to appeal to S.C.C. granted 25 August 2005.

56 Waldman, supra note 7 at 7.270-7.271.

57 Ibid. at 7.273.

58 Ibid. at 7.273.

59 Ibid.

60 Rafeedie v. INS, 880 F.2d 506 (D.C. Cir. 1989).

61 Ibid. at 516.

62 U.S. ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 at 551 (Jackson J., dissenting).

63 Waldman, supra note 7 at 7.292. The standard of proof applied is simply that “the evidence must disclose reasonable grounds that the person falls within the inadmissible section” (sections 76-78 of the IRPA); Ibid. at 7.274; Re. Farahi-Mahdavieh 63 F.T.R. 120 (T.D. 1993).

64 Waldman, Ibid. at 7.290.

65 Ibid. at 7.289.

66 Mahjoub v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, [2005] F.C. 156.

67 Waldman, supra note 7 at 7.299.

68 Hon. Cotler, Irwin, “Speech by the Hon. Irwin Cotler, Minster of Justice and Attorney General of Canada on the Occasion of an Appearance Before the Special Committee of the Senate on the Anti-Terrorism Act” (21 February 2005), online: Department of Justice, Canada <http://www.canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/sp/2005/doc_31398.html>Google Scholar.

69 Waldman, supra note 7 at 7.283.

70 Ibid.

71 Jammat-E-Islami Hind. v. Union of India et al., [1995], cited in Waldman, supra note 7 at 7.283.

72 R. v. Hadju (1984), 14 C.C.C. (3d) 563 (H.C.J.).

73 Ibid. at 571; Waldman, supra note 7 at 7.284.

74 Hugessen, James K., “Watching the Watchers: Democratic Oversight” in Daubney, David et al. , eds., Terrorism, Law and Democracy: How is Canada changing following September 11? (Montreal: Éditions Thémis, 2002) at 384–85Google Scholar.

75 Butler, supra note 17 at 60.

76 Ibid., at 55.

77 Agamben, supra note 17 at 50.

78 Schmitt, Carl, Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1985) at 12Google Scholar [Schmitt, Political Theology].

79 Agamben, Giorgio, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, trans. by Heller-Roazen, Daniel (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998) at 18Google Scholar [Agamben, Homo Sacer].

80 Schmitt, Political Theology, supra note 78 at 8.

81 Butler, supra note 17 at 69.

82 Ibid. at 94.

83 Ibid. at 65.

84 Schmitt, Carl, The Concept of the Political, trans. by Schwab, George (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1996) at 27Google Scholar.

85 Ibid. at 34.

86 Sherazee & Podur, supra note 10.

87 Ceric, Irina, “The Contingent Charter: National Security, Rights and the Politics of Non-Citizens” in Bell, Colleen & Managhan, Tina, eds., Exceptional Measures for Exceptional Times: The State of Security Post 9/11 (Toronto: Centre for International and Security Studies, York University)Google Scholar [forthcoming in 2006].

88 Butler, supra note 17 at 76, 77.

89 Such concerns are clearly relayed in the IRPA, supra note 3, c.27, s.3.

90 Behdad, Ali, “Nationalism and Immigration to the United States” (1997) 6: 2Diaspora 155 at 175CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

91 Butler, supra note 17 at 76.

92 Hoing, Bonnie, Democracy and the Foreigner (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2001) at 77Google Scholar.

93 Schmitt, Political Theology, supra note 78 at 15.

94 Ibid. at 15; Agamben, Homo Sacer, supra note 79 at 19.

95 Hindess, Barry, “The Liberal Government of Unfreedom” (2001) 26: 2Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 93 at 94CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

96 Ibid. at 94.

97 Hon. Irwin Cotler, supra note 68.

98 Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11Google Scholar.

99 19 December 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171, Can. T.S. 1976 No. 47, 6 I.L.M 368 (entered into force 23 March 1976, accession by Canada 19 May 1976).

100 Supra note 11.

101 Supra note 11.

102 Starnes & McNeil, supra note 4 at 16.

103 Thompson, supra note 16.

104 Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association, Subcommittee on Public Safety and National Security, Review of the Anti-terrorism Act (20 September 2005) at 10–12Google Scholar.

105 Supra note 52 at 3-4.

106 Re. Baroud (1995), 98 F.T.R. 99 (F.C.T.D.)Google Scholar; Suresh v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3; Waldman, supra note 7 at 7.275.

107 Starnes & McNeil, supra note 4 at 16 (in 1995 and 2003).

108 Supra note 55.

109 Ahani v. Canada, [1995] 3 F.C. 669 (T.D.), aff'd [1996] F.C.J. No. 937 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [1996] S.C.C.A. No. 496.

110 Waldman, supra note 7 at 7.318.

111 Ceric, supra note 87.

112 ICLMG, supra note 1 at 78.

113 Dyzenhaus, supra note 27 at 29.

114 Ibid.

115 Huysmans, supra note 17 at 325.

116 ICLMG, supra note 1 at 82.