Security Certificates Struck Down by Supreme Court

This decision is certainly long overdue. The supreme court has unanimously ruled that security certificates are unconstitutional because suspects and their lawyers were unable to access classified information used against them that would force their deportation. The court also said that indefinite detention violates charter rights and has called for parliament to rewrite the rules, suspending the judgment for one year in which to do so.

You can read the supreme court's decision here and a fact sheet about security certificates can be found here.

The Liberals and Bloc Québécois said they would wait to see what the government introduces, but in theory support a new security certificate system. However, the NDP says it believes the court didn’t go far enough, and that people suspected of terrorist ties should be charged under criminal law, not detained without charge under immigration law.
link

I agree with the NDP's position on this one. If there is evidence to support detaining suspects, that ought to be enough to charge them criminally. It doesn't make sense to deport someone simply based on suspicions of their possible involvement in criminal activities.

Amnesty International supports the court's decision and highlights this:

The decision affirms that counter terrorism measures can never be used to undermine human rights. The court made clear that the security certificate process and detention regime are unacceptably flawed and thus violate the Charter of Rights, violations that cannot in any way be excused or justified. In the words of Chief Justice McLachlin, “security concerns cannot be used to excuse procedures that do not conform to fundamental justice”.

The court acknowledged the serious impact of ongoing detention without charge, and its potential to result in cruel and unusual treatment. “[I]ndefinite detention in circumstances where the detainee has no hope of release or recourse to a legal process to procure his or her release may cause psychological stress and therefore constitute cruel and unusual treatment.”

Exactly.

Update: There are criticisms of the court's decision by those who oppose security certificates ie. the refusal of a right to appeal, the deportation of detainees to countries that use torture, the issue of discrimination (racial profiling) and the use of "reasonableness" as a standard of the burden of proof required for issuing a security certificate. There is also opposition to the court deciding to give the government one year to address this issue citing the "draconian" conditions set for those who are not only detained, but have been released under house arrest.

Those concerns were raised during a press conference today by a member of Coalition for Justice for Adil Charkaoui. Mr Charkaoui also spoke and praised the decision against "Guantanamo North". He said he fears that the Conservative government will not respect this decision because they don't support the independence of the judiciary. Warren Allmand of the "International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group expressed the same concerns and referred to the "hateful" notwithstanding clause which could be used by the government to override the charter although he could not see that happening with a minority government situation.

It's as simple as this, as Mr Charkaoui said when responding to questions at the press conference: "If you have anything against me, charge me."

More as it comes in...

Update: Canadian Cynic has a roundup of (predictable) right-wing reactions to this news.