A Sensible Ruling On The Security Certificates
Last week, I spoke with Alan Borovoy about his new book, Categorically Incorrect: Ethical Fallacies in Canada's War on Terror, and about that ongoing civil-rights dilemma that has been especially clouded by activist hyperventilation - security certificates.
"Security certificates authorize the deportation of would-be immigrants regarded as threats to national security. But they’ve resulted in a kind of detention without trial for individuals who choose to fight deportation. A key problem is the reluctance of intelligence agencies to fully reveal the evidence that triggered the certificate. Borovoy proposes a system of security-cleared lawyers, fully informed of the evidence, who can then fairly and effectively argue their clients’ case."
And that's pretty well what the Supreme Court of Canada proposes in its long-awaited ruling on the law today. But just like last week's craziness, the news media is all over the map, as the National Post, sensibly for once, points out.
Get a grip, people.
"Security certificates authorize the deportation of would-be immigrants regarded as threats to national security. But they’ve resulted in a kind of detention without trial for individuals who choose to fight deportation. A key problem is the reluctance of intelligence agencies to fully reveal the evidence that triggered the certificate. Borovoy proposes a system of security-cleared lawyers, fully informed of the evidence, who can then fairly and effectively argue their clients’ case."
And that's pretty well what the Supreme Court of Canada proposes in its long-awaited ruling on the law today. But just like last week's craziness, the news media is all over the map, as the National Post, sensibly for once, points out.
Get a grip, people.
posted by Terry Glavin at 3:28 PM
2 Comments:
Yeah, from my layman's understanding of the ruling, it's not an objection to the Security Certificate per se. The goal was to ensure the rights of the claimant/defendant within more-or-less the existing framework.
Robert:
Yep, that's about it. Here's how screwed up I am: I actually read the thing. It's pretty straightforward, as SCOC decisions on clear legal issues usually are. The judges gave the government a year to come up with a couple of necessary amendments, and offered suggestions about what those amendments could be. They went for Borovoy's option on the main issue of disclosing evidence.
And the flags are still flying on government buildings, I see.
Post a Comment
<< Home