HATE/BIAS CRIME Sector Two – Part Three

 

Note: This is Sector Two: Hate/Bias Crime, 1 of 5 sectors of The Qur’an Is Hate Propaganda. The Sectors will be ultimately amalgamated into one document and presented as body of information showing necessity for legal prosecution of Islam and Islamists within Canada.

Due to the immensity of the information being given, with amalgamation the document will be placed into pdf and available for easier sharing.

Because of the immensity of Sector Two I am publishing it in three parts. This is Sector Two – Part Three, pages 123 to end of the documentation.

Phinehas

 

Images, words and sarcastic content necessary to fully elucidate the gravity of this topical sector and the necessity of its immediate rectification.

 

 

Adil Charkaoui – A Primary Canadian Asshole of Islam

Born in Morocco in 1973, he moved to Montreal with his parents and sister in 1995. He is a MA graduate from the University of Montreal , is married and has three children being raised to his personal brand of evil.

Two statements from within the multiple court documents clearly define this man for what he thinks himself to be. He considers himself to be a special class of character, above established Canadian law and able to dictate the rights of others to enforce it. Further, he basically brags that no matter what conditions he is placed under he is unstoppable should he be a terrorist.

(2006-06-06 / 2006 FCA 206 / A-105-05) loses an appeal bid to get a judge to censure CSIS’

“It will be recalled, as my colleague notes, that the appellant argues that the judge who is determining the reasonableness of the security certificate may examine only the evidence that the Ministers cited at the time they signed the certificate.

As my colleague rightly noted, this position is not only absurd, it is contrary to the clear language of section 80 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, which defines the role of the judge, and to the language of section 78 pertaining to the admissibility of new evidence.

But in the same breath — and my colleague explicitly noted this — the appellant argues that he himself could introduce new exculpatory evidence while, on the other hand, the Ministers could not offer new incriminating evidence even if such evidence is recent, did not exist at the time the certificate was signed and establishes beyond any doubt the merits of the security certificate issued in regard to the appellant.

Contrary to what the appellant seems to think, as his position bespeaks it, procedural fairness is not a one-way street or a street that is exclusively reserved for him.”

Charkaoui Re – (2007 FC / 1037 / 2007-10-10)

“Once again, Mr. Charkaoui believes that the time has come to cancel the preventive conditions attached to his release because they are not necessary to meet the objectives of the Act or the Court.

Mr. Charkaoui is requesting that all these preventive conditions be abolished. During his testimony, Mr. Charkaoui offered his opinion, without specifically being asked, that the preventive conditions as established would not have prevented him from committing a terrorist act.”

This intelligent, but egotistical bozo, teaches the Arabic-language, is somewhat a karate adept and considered by some a competent backwoodsman. I hope we get to go ‘camping together’ soon, for he shall never find his way out from the place I will lead him to.

He claims and styles himself to be a sheik and an imam. But then, he claims many things while refusing to account for many events that brand him as a hard core Islamic terrorist. In 1998 Charkaoui flew to Pakistan on the pretext of studying religion for a book he hoped to write. By this time, he was a known associate of the hard-line Montreal Muslims who were being ‘spotted’ in the insurgent areas of Bosnia, the Sudan and Afghanistan.

And by May of 2003, under a security certificate, he was arrested and “Held as an alleged terrorist and facing deportation since 2003, the Moroccan immigrant has been fighting one of Canada’s most powerful and sweeping anti-terrorism laws. In a six-year battle of legal attrition, he outlasted dozens of spies, border guards, and government lawyers who aligned against him, scuttling their bid to keep him in thrall, and winning back his liberties one by one.” [11]

In September 2009 the restrictions on this animals’ ability to walk among us with increasing impunity were taken off by Federal judge Daniele Tremblay-Lamer: “There will be an order all conditions be revoked immediately.”

Many fools have glamorized and romanticized what took place during this period as a David and Goliath story, equating Charkaoui’s actions to the righteousness of Israel’s King David slaying the giant Goliath. Nothing could be further from the truth as there is nothing righteous in this lying, evasive Islamic dog. And to equate our government as being the enemy of righteousness that needs destruction by such a ‘giant killer’ as Chattering Charkaoui feeds right into Islamic jihad propaganda and brain cells of squirrely left and right-wing morons. This ‘bull shit backwoodsman’ is not on a path of ‘social justice’, transiting to become another ‘first’ amid the American folk heroes as was the ‘backwoodsman’ Daniel Boone. The only pathways this man was exploring were those that would enable the ensconcing of sharia. This is very obvious, but yet we read:

“Put aside the public-security implications, and the R. v. Charkaoui case becomes an almost irresistible David and Goliath story. Mr. Charkaoui has changed the way the country’s spies do business – lending his name to jurisprudence that has compelled the Canadian Security Intelligence Service out of the shadows and into courtrooms, making sure to bring secret notes, recordings, and explanations of its methods in tow.

This summer, CSIS said it has had enough. Having already come out on the losing end of two Supreme Court Charkaoui rulings, the spy service felt that pursuing its case would be more damaging to national security than ending it – even though it has branded Mr. Charkaoui a high-level threat.” [11]

Through a series of events he was able to succeed in side stepping justice and manipulate the Canadian political-legal system to where he went from facing deportation to being granted Canadian Citizenship in July of 2014 as Trudeau was full bore wooing the Islamic devout.

  Charkaoui went from branded suspected terrorist to Canadian Citizen because of people making such statements as: “Whether Mr. Charkaoui ever was a terrorist is a question Canadian courts may never resolve.”  

Not so is our case at hand for throughout the multiple Court dockets, hearings, appeals and filings of the R v Charkaoui issue clear evidence was filed establishing as common knowledge the proof of charges brought against him. This proof could not be utilized past the action of CSIS necessary to protect the entirety of our National Security in relationship to security certificates through withdrawal from the fray. CSIS did not withdraw because of any degree of innocence on the part of Charkaoui, but it allowed for his ‘out of jail passage’ as it left the Ministers ‘high and dry’, apparently without sufficient evidence legally admissible for them to enter in support of their issue of the original security certificate.

But, what allowed him out is also what has determined his clear passage back in, for the evidence is now on file as public knowledge that can be used without further threatening of National Security by Islamists attacking the system through the doorway of CSIS and legislative interpretations by judges capable of human error or damnable complicity. And, truthfully it does not matter which is the case respecting judges, but human error is the more desirable as new Canadian legal precedent is being established under the basics of Canadian Common Law v. Canadian Common Knowledge Law.

The documented proof shows it to be Common Knowledge that Adil Charkaoui is an Islamic terrorist bent on jihad and his methods of enacting it. And, like all other ‘short-horned’ Islamic jihad bulls’ the documented facts remain that he caused himself to be branded a high-level security threat through his actions and statements, both precedent and subsequent to his security certificate detention.

So, onward we go.

The person making the duh statement quoted above has probably been influenced by Dr. Sherene H. Razack. She has been a faculty member at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) at University of Toronto for the past 24 years. She was a Full Professor in the Department of Social Justice Education. According to Social Justice Education Chair, Professor Abigail Bakan, “Her work has had a profound impact on scholarship and policy – changing the way we understand race, gender and citizenship in Canada and globally.”

She has focused on education for social change. Her work has particularly addressed sexual and racial violence, and the role such violence plays in maintaining white supremacist, patriarchal and capitalist social orders.

Both Bakan and Razak need their post-menopausal heads examined. As do you if you put up with the tripe espoused out of their ilk. Abigail Bakan glorifies Razak and Abigail Bakan is a ruddy anti-Semite and a Marxist.  In a protest held in Toronto on July 29, 2006, Bakan criticized the Government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper for supporting “Israel’s illegal action against the Lebanese and Palestinian people.”  During the Israeli-Hezbollah war in 2006 there was a demonstration against Israel on Bloor St. in Toronto in which there were 10,000 Arab supporters carrying Hezbollah flags and banners calling for “Death to the Jews”. Through the Universities it was persons like Bakan and company that fomented Islamic jihad terror tactics and the cries for annihilation of Israel in our street. As seen in a debate held at York University on May 11, 2009, Abigail Bakan and Ryerson University professor Alan Sears spoke in support of a boycott of Israeli academic institutions. Alan Sears is an activist in a variety of social justice organizations. His activist writing is published in the New Socialist webzine, the Bullet, Briarpatch and other places. One of his specialties is activating students to positions of protest. > Disagreements continue to spark over BDS vote at Ryerson University.  > Honorary degree sparks protests at Ryerson – Toronto – CBC News

And we know the present ‘protests’ taking place at both the University of Toronto and Ryerson surrounding ‘hate speech and Islamophobia’. These protests are special interest driven, well funded and orchestrated.

As to Sharene Razack, she is currently a Professor Emerita at the University of Toronto.

Emerita is the title given to a woman that has retired or has been honorably discharged from active professional duty, but retaining the title of one’s office or position. This West Indian Muslim original sinner is also the founding member of Researchers and Academics of Colour for Equality.

She is a prolific author and frequently discusses and denounces “race thinking,” a term she coined to refer to the ways in which white people deny people of color “a common humanity.”[10] The bulk of Razack’s work is rooted in the idea that Canada is a white-settler society that impedes on the land, bodies, and rights of Indigenous peoples, and that dehumanizes and enacts violence on minority groups.

You can listen to her justify attacking the white colonial system through using the law. > 5:21 Dr. Sherene Razack’s – YouTube

As well, a two-part journal conversation titled Think Before You Act – Upping the Anti took place with her in September 2008 and July 2009.  It will show you how this person thinks one needs to act like a two-headed serpent if they are to achieve their goals of societal transformation.

When Questioned: “Activists have sometimes used Canadian law as a resource in their fight against oppression and expulsion. What are the possibilities and dangers of using law to address the oppression of Muslims and other racialized communities?”

She Answered: “Aboriginal scholar Robert Williams said that “if you are denied a seat on the bus then you don’t really have a choice but to fight for a seat.” This doesn’t mean that we should fight only in law. If we do that, we will fail. The results we want to see will come about because there’s some kind of noise outside the courtroom. A legal strategy is never a legal strategy all by itself – it’s always connected to what’s happening outside.”

And what she is connected to most strongly gained its exposure as being the Islamic terrorism exhibited through Hamas. “In early August 2002, Razack, as the director of OISE’s Centre for Integrative Anti-racism Studies at the time, wrote a letter about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In it she denounced Israeli “atrocities beyond belief” enacted on the Palestinian people during the Battle of Jenin, and the ongoing Israeli military occupation of Palestine. The letter and a Pro-Palestine petition it introduced were emailed to the University of Toronto’s student body and faculty. The letter was signed by 15 professors from the U of T, and 22 professors not affiliated with the university. Simon Rosenblum, a spokesman for the Canadian Jewish congress, called the letter “a prejudicial, inflammatory and highly biased view” of the Israeli-Palestine conflict that “pays no attention to Israel’s attempts to achieve peace nor Israel’s legitimate need for self-defence.” B’nai Birth Canada took issue with the letter’s content’s because it created “a poisoned environment for Jewish students at U of T.” According to the organisation, the letter created an atmosphere in which Jewish students, associated to Israel because of their religion, were subject to anti-Semitic attitudes. The U of T defended Razack, as Jane Stirling, a spokeswoman for the university, declared to the press that “faculty at a university must be able to voice unpopular or controversial ideas.” Another spokeswoman echoed this idea, re-affirming that the “U of T does not muzzle its community when it comes to political discourse.”  The link to the letter and the petition were removed from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) website in late August 2002.”

So, what strategy was she employing or advising people to when we read Freeze stating: “Whether Mr. Charkaoui ever was a terrorist is a question Canadian courts may never resolve.”

THE COURSE OF THE ADIL CHARKAOUI CASE

We have two matters that need to be dealt with:

  1. The reality of threat level that Adil Charkaoui currently represents to Canadian national security.
  2. The reality to the statement made by Colin Freeze that “Adil Charkaoui persistently won back his liberties as Canada’s spies bemoaned they were falling victim to a “judicial jihad” on their sources and methods.”

Colin Freeze- as published by The Globe and Mail Thursday, Sep. 24, 2009 gave a ‘time line’ of Charkaoui court cases after being jailed and branded a national security threat in 2003; until Feb. 20, 2009 when Charkaoui wins a bid to lessen his surveillance regime given that a judge finds the threat has been “neutralized, in large part as a result of the passage of time.”

And, this quite bluntly is a camel crap ruling by Justice Daniele Tremblay-Lamer on February 20, 2009. If anything, the man had increased in threat level to Canadian national security by this date. To elucidate we shall be relating through Court dockets the information and events provided through “the dozens of decisions that judges made along the way”.

All docket information is direct linked to the Federal Court Decisions official web site and data base. Pursue them in entirety at your leisure.

 From the First Noel to our Last Charkaoui Yodel

To commence, on July 15, 2003 Charkaoui lost his bid to attain bail.   (Citation 203 FC 882 / File DES-3-03)

(Take note, the signing of the security certificate (May 16,2003) and subsequent arrest warrant issuing and incarceration that took place on May 21, 2003 was some 55 days’ precedent to this decision.  Within the July 15 docket is the following.)

“The ministers concluded that the respondent should be declared inadmissible because in their opinion he was or is a member of the Osama bin Laden network, an organization that engages, has engaged or will engage in acts of terrorism and that as such, the respondent is engaging, has engaged or will engage in terrorism and that consequently the respondent constitutes, has constituted or will constitute a danger to the security of Canada.”

The reasonableness of the certificate was to be assessed by a judge, but “However, the respondent’s counsel has already stated that she will be raising the issue of the constitutional validity of the entire procedure surrounding the certificate and the verification of its reasonableness, along with the continuation of the detention.”

(Take note, determination was reached before bail application that the eradication of security certificates through constitutional means was the projected goal.)

Counsel for the respondent stated that she considered her evidence incomplete since the immigration file on the respondent had been delivered to her with several exclusions. On behalf of the respondent, she has filed a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner concerning these exclusions and she is awaiting the results. She also stated that she would have liked to have called the investigators of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (the “CSIS”) to testify concerning certain interviews with the respondent but that she did not know their names. It is common knowledge that the names of CSIS employees may be protected by section 18 and the oath of secrecy of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-23 (the “CSIS Act”), unless these names become public or other circumstances so warrant. I suggested to the respondent’s counsel that if the respondent could identify these individuals by their names through an affidavit, I would then see to it that the necessary steps were taken if applicable, subject to the submissions by the ministers. The respondent’s counsel declined the offer and asked me to decide as to the continued detention on the basis of the evidence as presented.

(Take note, the Charkaoui legal team declined to utilize common knowledge and established legal precedent to pursue ‘justice’ surrounding the issues at hand.)

 The only issue to be determined at this stage is the following: “Should the respondent continue to be detained, under sections 7, 11 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,

Taking into account the limitations imposed on me, I therefore identify, inter alia, three significant concerns that have not been satisfactorily addressed in the respondent’s evidence:

–  the respondent’s life from 1992 to 1995 (in Morocco) and from 1995 to 2000 (in Canada), including the trips;

–  the respondent’s trip to Pakistan from February to July, 1998;

–  the respondent’s contact with, inter alia, Abousfiane Abdelrazik, Samir Ait Mohamed, Karim Saïd Atmani, Raouf Hannachi and Abdellah Ouzghar;

Having clearly identified three concerns, I must note that I am unable, from the respondent’s evidence, to neutralize or alleviate them. The evidence as presented is incomplete, insufficient, and does not answer all of the findings made by the ministers in concluding that the respondent, at the time the warrant was signed, was a danger to national security or the safety of anyone or that he would attempt to avoid the proceedings and/or removal.

Having carefully reviewed the evidence of each party and having found that at the time the warrant of arrest was signed, the ministers had reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent was a danger to national security or the safety of any person or that he would attempt to avoid the proceedings and/or removal, I consider that he still remains a danger for the reasons given above and that the detention continues to be justified.

(Take note, Justice Noel gives further information in the document surrounding evidence presented to him to elucidate his reasons for denial. Take note that his three main areas of concern about the lack of defence evidence are nothing more than the same reasons that the Ministers issued the security certificate to begin with. Adil Charkaoui’s’ associations, conduct and refusal to provide logical accountability clearly left him with the appearance of a national security threat due to terrorist proclivities and actions. As Justice Noel stated: “There is therefore a period of life from about 1992 to the end of the nineties that is unexplained in part.”

(Note: Justice Noel identifies three significant areas of concern which I shall enter into through a few doorways, to conglomerate specific evidence packages which I believe should place Charkaoui immediately back into confinement with all access privileges abrogated.

From its onset, the actions of Adil Charkaoui have been designed to disrupt the Canadian political and legal system to permit unrestricted access of identifiable jihadi warriors about the nation. The relentless attack upon Canada’s security certificates was deployed because it allowed for their immediate removal and detention based upon reasonable suspicion as to fullness of their threat of terrorist activity. To the Muslims this was essentially a knock-out punch to their advancement of sharia that had to be eliminated through their political-legal jihad. Thus, they undertook every means available to try to eradicate the use of security certificates and to disrupt the ability of CSIS to monitor them and the RCMP to police them. CSIS was astute in their claim that as an organization “they were falling victim to a ‘judicial jihad’ on their sources and methods.”)

 Deception Before and After – The Respondents Life from 1990 to 2000

Deception has been a major factor of this mans life in its entirety. We shall be doing a synopsis of some salient events that took place showing Charkaoui uses religious studies and pursuit of education as a pretext for conducting his terrorist activities. Such was the case during the time of 1992 to 1995, when under pretext of travel for religious studies he went to Morocco where he met the French teacher, who became his wife.

Movement was easy for Charkaoui uses an alias in travels, but his identification transgressions were red flagged as they became apparent to CSIS and the RCMP.  During his trip to Pakistan from February to July of 1998 he crossed into Afghanistan under the name of Zubeir Al-Maghrebi and was identified as being there at an Al-Qaeda training camp by Ahmed Ressam and Abou Zubaida.

In such out of country forays he employed identification easily attained through such document forgers as Karim Said Atmani who shared a Montreal apartment with Ahmed Ressam and was  Fateh Kamel‘s “right hand man”. Adil Charkaoui knew and had contacts with this man. A second source for his forged documents was Abdellah Ouzghar:  According to Canadian Immigration Reports in May 11, 2010 Ouzghar has been convicted of supplying false passports to terrorists. He was promoting jihad at mosque prayer sessions frequented by Adil Charkaoui who is on record stating he came to know Abdellah Ouzghar. See the ‘Bad Boys List’ ahead  for expanded information surrounding these two.

It was from 2001 to 2003, that Charkaoui operated a Montreal pizzeria, and where the CSIS first approached him in the wake of 9/11. He refused to account for his whereabouts or reason for travel to Pakistan. But Moroccan authorities have stated that Charkaoui provided funds and resources to an Islamic insurgent group.

When arrested under the security certificate in 2003, Charkaoui immediately began a legal battle to avoid deportation. He fought to eliminate security certificates in every manner he could devise over a period of some six years. During this time of numerous court hearings, the judges continued to back up Ottawa’s core contentions that Charkaoui remained a threat to national security and that the security-certificate law was fundamentally sound.

But, as witnessed, a sequence of events ultimately left Charkaoui free to carry on his jihadi designs and the legal system surrounding policing of terrorism somewhat dishevelled. In arriving at such juncture, we see one of the major concerns about Charkaoui was lack of accountability for the trip he made to Pakistan that will be highlighted a bit later.

But first we see on Jan. 23, 2004, that among other things Charkaoui’s loses another bid for release under bail.  (2004-01-23 / 2004 FC 107 / DES-3-03)

“The respondent, through his counsel, asked that I release him on conditions and bail. Since I have reached the conclusion that the danger still remains, which in itself is just cause, I need not contemplate this possibility at this stage of the proceedings. The danger remains and it is not a conditional release and bail that will eliminate this danger at this time. (Charkaoui, July 15, 2003, paragraph 66)

By avoiding an answer to the concerns raised by the Court, Mr. Charkaoui is asking that he be released irrespective of the danger that the Ministers associate with his person.

On January 12, 2004, at the second review of the continued detention, Mr. Charkaoui filed ten affidavits, some of which included documentation (specifically, some newspaper articles discussing the reliability and credibility of Ahmed Ressam and Abou Zubaida, two persons who identified Mr. Charkaoui as an individual they had met in Afghanistan in 1998 in a training camp of the al-Qaeda movement and whom they knew under the name of “Zubeir Al Maghrebi”).

All of the affidavits submitted by Mr. Charkaoui have in common the fact that each of the affiants offers a monetary contribution toward bail for his conditional release (totalling $25,000 on the first review and $50,000 on this one). Should he be released from detention on bail, some of these affiants explain, they will supervise Mr. Charkaoui to ensure that he complies with the conditions of his release.

However, I note that some four of the ten affiants do not know Mr. Charkaoui and that five of these ten affiants have previously signed affidavits or testified during the first review.

These affidavits do not address any of the three concerns (mentioned in paragraph 5 of this judgment) that could enlighten the Court concerning the danger that Mr. Charkaoui might constitute to national security or to the safety of any person, or the risk that he might fail to appear at a proceeding.

(Take note, the key persons who will supervise Mr. Charkaoui to ensure that he complies with the conditions of his proposed release are the immediate members of his own family. His father is the same person that raised him to be the threat he represents. The expectation created is that you can rely upon an older rabid pit bull to guard you from being bitten by a younger ‘more agile’ pit bull.)

Mr. Charkaoui alleges that under Division 6 of the IRPA and sections 244 et seq. of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR), the judge must consider release (albeit on bail and subject to stringent conditions) with a view to neutralizing the risk of danger to the greatest possible degree.

On a review of detention, section 85 of the IRPA stipulates that sections 82 to 84 prevail over the provisions of Division 6. Subsection 83(3) of the IRPA is clear: the person concerned shall remain in detention if there is evidence that he continues to be a danger to national security or to the safety of any person, or is unlikely to appear at a proceeding or for removal.

Considering the additional evidence adduced on January 12, 2004, I am of the opinion that the danger must be assessed and that conditional release cannot be contemplated unless there is sufficient evidence that the danger is reduced or does not exist, and that Mr. Charkaoui will continue to submit to the proceeding.

The explanation of the Court of Appeal applies equally on a review of detention under subsections 83(2) and 83(3) of the IRPA, when assessing whether there is a danger or not and the possibility of a conditional release on bail.

In order to facilitate the task for Mr. Charkaoui, I indicated in Charkaoui, July 15, 2003 the Court’s concerns about the danger to national security. However, the additional evidence presented to the Court does not address these concerns and essentially includes an increase in the amount of the bail, an undertaking by some affiants to ensure that Mr. Charkaoui complies with the conditions of release, and a questioning of the reliability of the information communicated to the Ministers by Mr. Ressam and Mr. Zubaida.

Mr. Charkaoui’s counsel explained the decision not to adduce evidence pertaining to these concerns; such evidence, they said, would go to the very substance of the litigation, i.e. would affect the issue of the reasonableness of the certificate, and should not be presented at the stage of a review of the detention. They also argued that there had been an appeal of Charkaoui, July 15, 2003, and since the appeal was dismissed (on the ground that there is no appeal from a decision concerning detention), an application for leave had been submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada.

(Take note, they have already lost an appeal for release under bail, but are repeating the request for release because the bail was denied, and thus it should now take place with a view to neutralizing the risk of danger to the greatest possible degree as stipulated by Charkaoui. Judge Noel politely but effectively commented on the stupidity of such tact. But, it did serve to keep the hunt for means to destroy security certificates front and centre.)

Given the presumption of validity of legislation, the scope of the allegations and the importance to Mr. Charkaoui of regaining his freedom, I am surprised at this approach. The danger to national security cannot be assessed in a factual vacuum. By avoiding an answer to the concerns raised by the Court, Mr. Charkaoui is asking that he be released irrespective of the danger that the Ministers associate with his person. When the issue is one of national security or the safety of Canadians, the designated judge has a duty to assess the danger that is posed by a person concerned in light of all the available evidence.

In the case at bar, this task involves assessing, pursuant to subsection 83(3) of the IRPA, whether the person concerned still constitutes a danger to national security or to the safety of any person or is unlikely to appear at a proceeding or for removal. No decision to release on bail and subject to conditions can be made without answering the allegations of the Ministers that the person concerned is a danger.

In light of the evidence presented by both parties, and even if I were to consider such conditions for Mr. Charkaoui’s release as surrender of a passport, curfews, predetermined meetings, restrictions on his personal relations, a monitor indicating his whereabouts, etc., it is not my opinion at this point that these measures would be adequate to neutralize the danger to national security or to the safety of any person, or the unlikelihood that he would appear at a proceeding or for removal.

I note that this case pertains to immigration law and not the area of criminal law. The appropriate approach, when the Ministers present serious evidence that the person concerned is a danger to national security or to the safety of any person, or that he is unlikely to appear at a proceeding or for removal, is to adduce any possible evidence that would allow the Court to question the Ministers’ conclusion. I am unable, from the evidence adduced, to reach any conclusion other than that Mr. Charkaoui still constitutes a danger to national security or to the safety of any person, or that he is unlikely to appear at a proceeding or for removal.

As to the disposition as to costs, Mr. Charkaoui’s counsel has asked that I postpone it to a later date. So, I am giving the parties ten days following the receipt of this decision to make their submissions to me on this matter, failing which there will be no award as to costs.

The Court orders that Mr. Charkaoui’s detention be continued, in accordance with subsection 83(3) of the IRPA until the designated judge again rules in regard to the continuation of the detention.”

(Take note, within three months on April 28, 2004 (2004-04-28 / 2004 FC 624 / DES-3-03) Charkaoui was trying to have Justice Noel removed on the basis of being biased. This is tabled in at discussion surrounding the ‘problematic trip to Pakistan’.)

 The Respondent’s Life in Canada.

Charkaoui, upon returning from Morocco had an enhanced status amid the Montreal terror mosque community and even more so after his visit to Pakistan-Afghanistan. But this was not the case with CSIS and the RCMP.

When pulled over on what he thought was a routine traffic stop in 2003, Charkaoui was taken into custody by 10 officers representing a variety of federal agencies. Yet within days of his arrest, Charkaoui launched a public-relations offensive I like to title: ‘If you can’t baffle them with brains, then baffle them with Bull Shit.”

“It’s always just suspicions,” he told TVA in telephone interview from prison. “It’s the new form of McCarthyism. It’s a witch hunt. If there’s proof, show it.”

“If there’s proof, show it.” became the mantra Charkaoui espoused for his legal team and associates. He knew the conditions under which CSIS functioned and needed to find a route through the legal morass to eradication of the security certificates through their built-in secrecy provisions.

Almost immediately his goof troop flooded the courts with motions invoking his Charter rights as they chipped away at the security certificate’s legal enactments. The crying out for ‘release and bail’ was not forefront with Charkaoui, it was but a smokescreen as he manoeuvred about. He could have been released under bail with the first attempt if he had provided reasonable explanation for the timeframes as requested. He ultimately did so, much later at the time conditions were right for him to take such a measure. This all evidences itself through the docket information and will be displayed as to its occasioning.

So, with arrest Charkaoui now simply carried onward with his implementation of ‘educational goals’ as a means for achieving his jihad intents. The matter of Adil Charkaoui and his manipulative use of ‘student associations’ shows up a pattern that predates his initial detention and arrest.

This is exemplified in the information provided to Justice Noel by Kamal Benkirane, (Behhirane) a native of Morocco and permanent resident in Canada since April 1, 2001 and a university colleague of Charkaoui.  Benkirane told the Court that Charkaoui telephoned him from prison to ask him to get students at the university to sign petitions emphasizing their disagreement with his arrest. Without inquiring further about the scope and truthfulness of the allegations against Charkaoui, Benkirane agreed to help him and to circulate the petitions.

Such was his status as a student activist at that time. Perhaps he was simply implementing ‘singing lessons’ from the Sheer, Bakan, Razak University Trio or vise-versa. Whatever the situation, Charkaoui was intent on launching his sharia showboat with every legal oar in the water he could envision.

The matter of Charkaoui and the Educational System provides but another window on the world-wide move of Islam to penetrate the Western democracies and destroy them from within. There was nothing ‘famous Amos’ or brilliant in the tactics employed by Charkaoui, he was simply enacting basic Islamic jihad math. From preschool to university the Islamic thrust to destruct through education has displayed itself worldwide and in Canada it shows up the educational mess we see prevalent. A brief glimpse at the current situation will elucidate both the secularist demands of Islam and the corruption of Muslims within our educational system where political correctness has truly gone crazy-The P.C. Police

Hell bent for sharia as Canada appears to be you better give serious attention to the state of these nations shown in: Before and After Sharia Law: A cautionary tale As you’ll see, the contrast of then and now is stunning, and tragic. Slowly, the line moves then one day – maybe a few years from now, maybe a few decades, you look out the window and say, “What the hell happened to my country?”

Well, in Canada or Europe we have the same political party linked to such changing conditions you just video witnessed. Former Canadian Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff is the president of Central European University (CEU) in Hungary that is erupting in protests due to its links with George Soros.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/hungary-university-protests-george-soros-micheal-ignatieff-viktor-orban-1.4071949

Well, the networking and ties within the educational system are insidious. It does not matter whether you are watching the protests at Ryerson University that were presented to you prior, or you watch

Muslim students in London talk about “Israel Apartheid Week,” in support of Hamas. It is the same Muslim induced insanity behind it all.

More than one individual needs the jolting reality of the Islamic insanity that had this young Arabic speaking man from New York actively supporting terrorism. He painfully reports that worldwide Students for Justice in Palestine support terrorism.

I have dealt at length prior as to the Corruption of the educational system by people taught to do so through their corrupt Islamic beliefs. So, simply give some thought to the University of Regina engineering professor found guilty of plagiarizing his student’s work. Islam and ethics simply do not sleep in the same bed.

Anti-Muslim threats are being fabricated as shown by this Muslim professor at Indiana state university.     Azhar Hussain has been arrested and charged with obstruction of justice and harassment, for making false claims of Anti-Muslim threats against himself and reporting a made-up attack. So what makes you think the ‘hate mail’ received by Iqra Khalid was not fabricated in par or parcel?

So, anyone with common sense can grasp why we are currently viewing such visible educational disarray about our nation. In Toronto we have a Muslim professor stating there is “nothing radical” about wanting Sharia and a caliphate.

Young children are being told God only loves Muslims in the Peel School District > 3:22 https://youtu.be/oZzAnnxpuls

It is obvious that the fight over Islamic prayers in public schools is dividing Canadians. Brampton, Ontario Mayor Linda Jeffrey calls criticism of Muslim prayers in school ‘Hate Speech’. She is dismissing critics who object to Muslim students having Friday prayer sessions in public schools.

The Muslim Mississauga school mess underway can be video linked here > http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/muslim-students-praying-video-peel-1.4048991

But, trying for more Muslim special status is being somewhat thwarted in Quebec where MLA Nadeau-Dubois denies Islamic groups the “right” to separate child services for Muslims. (English translation here.) “We do not intend to create a parallel DPJ, (a separate Muslim Youth Protection Directorate (DPJM),” wrote the cabinet Minister for Youth Protection, Lucie Charlebois, in response to an email sent by QMI Agency.[Canadian media company]

The Government of Quebec does not intend to establish a Muslim Youth Protection Directorate (DPJ), despite what the president of a community association in Montreal wishes.”

“Public services must be non-denominational. End of the story,” wrote MLA Nadeau-Dubois on Twitter, Wednesday morning.”

And we find humor on McGill University campus being expressed as ‘Punch a Zionist’ > Jerusalem Post

In turn, our International students remain a source of contention.    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/racialized-international-students-targeted-by-quebec-government-language-probe-group-says-1.4075012

And as a source for terrorists the students and universities need to be fully examined. Former Calgary man Farah Mohamed Shirdon 1 of 2 Canadians added to U.S. terrorist list.

And, as to Our College Boy Charkaoui? He was a terrorist from the beginning and will remain so until we bring him to an abrupt end.  We know that before his arrest in 2003 Charkaoui prayed at several mosques as he was cementing his relationships and reputation with the Montreal area hard core terrorists. He was also ingraining himself within the ‘Educational System’.

 

 Adil ‘Coming Out’ Antics

When first bailed, immediately the Charkaoui Beat Goes On.      

Even while he was simply on Bail Release he was pushing his agenda to the limit through letting the Liberals know there was a new kid on the block.

Not long after his release, Charkaoui unsuccessfully tried to help Bloc Quebecois candidate Apraham Niziblian defeat Coderre in the Canadian 2006 federal election, saying “It’s not a question of being anti-Coderre. We are citizens before anything, we have the right to have political ideas and to have choice. Gone is the time when the Liberals could take the ethnic vote for granted.” Bloc targeting ethnic vote – Canada – CBC News For certain Charkaoui did not know that his boy was a closet queer who would only emerge many years later. He knew him as Apraham (Apo) Niziblian, a student-at-law at McGill University in Montreal and Government Affairs Director at Armenian National Committee of America.  Coming Out: On Being Gay in the ARF  Charkaoui is quite vehemently opposed to homosexuality as espoused in Qur’an and hadith.

Whatever, we will be looking at Adil’s’ public politics and numerous dockets and documents surrounding the same.  But, Denis Coderre was the Immigration Minister that signed the security certificate authorizing Charkaoui’s arrest and detention and thus a marked enemy of ‘the angriest man in Montreal’.

We are now going to examine how he displayed a public persona through his ‘educational pursuits’.

Released on bail, one of his priorities from the start was his efforts toward the indoctrination of youth into the Muslim mindset of the jihadist. On Nov. 9, 2007 Charkaoui lost in an attempt to leave Montreal to speak to an Amnesty International Youth conference . (2007-11-09 / 2007 FC 1163 /DES-3-03)

This is a short but important docket which you can easily read through. Do so and give consideration to the following factors.

The stated purpose for “this proceeding is a temporary application to revise the conditions of a parole order regarding Mr. Charkaoui filed in the Court on Friday, November 2, 2007, pursuant to the written motions procedure of Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules. The motion at bar seeks to amend preventive condition 9 to authorize Mr. Charkaoui to leave the Island of Montréal to attend the meeting of the youth wing of Amnesty International on Saturday, November 10, 2007, to be held at the Pointe-Levis high school in Levis, so he can address it (topic: [translation] “use of security certificates in Canada: Adil Charkaoui’s experience”) and answer questions for a total of 30 minutes.”

His flippant attitude toward our authorities, societal rules and legal conditions imposed and required of him are displayed here and there are several facts to take note of while reading through.

The purpose is to address ‘youth/students/mostly teenagers’ at a high school location on the use of security certificates and his experience.

From the date of his invitation he lets a month pass, then hits them with an application eight days’ precedent to the scheduled event. The Ministers had not been approached for consent to his application to temporarily alter condition 9 of his bail terms, necessary for allowing this requested change.

He gives no explanation for his application except to mention the role of his parents as supervisors and that “the facts alleged in this affidavit are true”. He was totally aware of the conditions he was under and gives no justification for making his application. Justice Noel stresses this fact and it is pointed out again that exceptions had been made and could be made for such reasons as “allowing family trips outside the Island, it stated that the purpose of the preventive conditions was to neutralize the risk to national security, taking into account “his day-to-day needs and obligations”.

Charkaoui has already been granted exceptions which Justice Noel refers to in which ‘all the preventive conditions’ of his release remained, except for the temporary exception created for condition 9 of the original Court order. Take particular note that “Although the Ministers are of the view that the visits to the Granby Zoo and to Parc Safari do not have the same importance as those to which they already agreed (Mr. Charkaoui’s presence at the Supreme Court hearing, etc.), this type of family outing including his relatives is acceptable, taking into consideration the special circumstances of the request.”

Charkaoui was granted exception to condition 9 to travel outside the Montréal area “to, inter alia, spend more time with his family.” “In my humble opinion, considering the request and the limits I am placing on it, there is a balance between the goal of neutralizing the danger to national security and to other persons on the one hand and the day‑to‑day needs and obligations of Mr. Charkaoui on the other.”

On the other hand, in the application at bar there is nothing to explain how such a trip outside the Island of Montréal (a return journey of some 500 kilometres outside the prescribed area) for several hours is justifiable in terms of Mr. Charkaoui’s day-to-day needs and obligations. Mr. Charkaoui’s motion and affidavit in support of the said motion maintain complete silence on this point.

However, even more significant is the fact that the procedure does not discuss why alternative solutions to physical presence could not be considered.”

Charkaoui has his bid denied but “The result of this is not to prevent Mr. Charkaoui speaking to any particular group. The preventive conditions were not designed with such a purpose in mind. Since February 2005 Mr. Charkaoui has attended several meetings without the Court stopping him. He can still do so on Saturday, November 10, 2007, by using the appropriate means without leaving the Island of Montréal.

As worded, his application does not allow the Court to assess the situation on the basis of the particular facts of the case at bar and “his day-to-day needs and obligations”. The Court cannot make a decision in such circumstances. The Court has no choice but to deny the temporary application as made. The temporary application to amend condition 9 is dismissed.

(Take note, through all this Charkaoui has inadvertently revealed the first of two flaws in Justice Noels ability to maintain complete judicial neutrality. He equates normal Canadian family relationships as being somehow the same as that of the Muslim, which is absolutely erroneous. A such he will erroneously rule in favor of those factors he believes promotes the family in a healthy relationship. We shall expound later on Our Two Flaws of Noel: ‘The Sudden Songbird’)

Charkaoui has clearly been seen as an agent of student radicalization to the jihad designs of Islam. Controversy has surrounded him in this arena, which highlighted itself in 2015 surrounding his activities at the francophone public pre-university and technical Collège de Maisonneuve (Cégep) located in Montreal.

For a time prior to 2015, Charkaoui rented classroom space every Sunday from the Collège de Maisonneuve, a Cegep near the Olympic Stadium, for Muslim indoctrination and studies in the Arab language, which he called l’École des Companions.  He also rented classroom space at the nearby Rosemont College, also a Cegep. It was reported in February 2015 that six of his young students had absconded to Syria, allegedly with intent to join an Islamic terrorist group, either ISIS or the Nusra Front. Of these, four students were following his guidance at the de Maisonneuve location, and at least one teenager, Mohammed Rifatt, he knew through the Rosemont location. > Collège de Maisonneuve suspends Adil Charkaoui courses – Montreal…    > Collège de Rosemont severs ties with Adil Charkaoui group

With the release of the news about his ‘radicalized students’, Charkaoui was soon threatening to sue both Colleges because they had terminated the arrangements under which he leased the classroom spaces. At a press conference, he deemed it was unacceptable and dishonest for them to enact the termination. What is unacceptable about terminating his ability to utilize public educational space to promulgate his hatred against our Canadian culture and democratic Western values? The genuine nature of the man was being exposed, and in typical Muslim fashion Adil tried to present himself as being victimized.

Often referred to as the Angriest Man in Montreal, Charkaoui completed exposing himself in public the following week in his controversial interview by CBC‘s Anne-Marie Dussault. Dressed in a djellaba, Charkaoui rejected all calls for him to condemn violent jihadism and the Islamist project. Instead he accused occidental (Western) politicians of promoting violence against Muslims everywhere in their degenerate, Islamophobic culture. Charkaoui maintained that ISIS was a creature of the US government, and on his website, he had hyperlinks in praise of Osama bin Laden. Charkaoui also rejected any interference of the wider community in which he lives on his religious rights. One commentator was shocked because of what his position meant in the context of his pursuing the path of a spiritual teacher and teacher of youth.

Why should there be shock? In August 2013, Charkaoui had defended the right of two foreign Islamic hate-preachers to spread their message in Montreal, even if they held typical Islamic sexist and misogynist views of women in society. Officials cited security concerns and the event was cancelled by the convention center where it was supposed to be held. Charkaoui maintained that it was Islamophobia to ban their visit to Canada. By this time our boy Adil was highly active in pursuing and pounding the Islamaphobia drumbeat so loved by the Muslim Brotherhood and Baby Trudeau crew.

But, even with his true colors shining brightly, on July 24, 2014 Adil Charkaoui became a citizen of Canada. The NB Media Co-op published a write up by The Coalition Justice for Adil Charkaoui surrounding the event. Charkaoui became a Canadian citizen after 19 years | NB Media…

The article states, “The Coalition Justice for Adil Charkaoui considers the government’s decision to grant Canadian citizenship to Charkaoui a final admission by Canada that it was profoundly wrong to have pursued Charkaoui through the fundamentally unjust, racist and Islamophobic “security certificate” process.”

The claimed ‘unjust, racist and Islamophobic security certificate process’ was not the primary concern of Charkaoui. It was the ability of the security certificates to hinder and dramatically curb the activities of Islamic extremists and terrorists such as himself. This was his driving force from the beginning. It was the key factor behind his ongoing barrage of Court challenges to security certificate use. This was in fact the core motivation to all he did.

 The Scary Mary Group – The Coalition Justice for Adil Charkaoui

In  May 2003 Charkaoui was arrested under a security certificate which was co-signed by Solicitor General Wayne Easter and then Immigration Minister Denis Coderre  who was elected Mayor of Montreal in 2013.

Charkaoui was detained without charge or trial in Rivière des prairies Detention Centre. The Coalition Justice for Adil Charkaoui was formed in a matter of a few days subsequent to his arrest with the group fighting for their favorite fool under the guise of Human Rights and Equal Rights violations.

The Coalition campaign for his release was largely ‘championed’ by Mouthy Mary Foster. She and Coalition Justice for Adil Charkaoui were an integral part in forward movement of Adil Charkaoui’s desires to advance sharia in our nation.

 One of the first places Mary showed herself to be a Spokesperson for Charkaoui was at the initial Public Safety and National Security Committee established by the Conservative Government to investigate all the thorny issues surrounding ‘security certificates’ and detention.  For members of the Committee on Citizenship and Immigration there was a priority upon security certificates and conditions of detention and possible necessary reforms. House of Commons Committees – CIMM (39-1) – Evidence – Number 024

However, Smiling Bill Komarnicki to our left, seemed taken back when the initial parliamentary committee was bluntly informed that Scary Mary and Crew had no desire to have security certificates amended. Their intent was to see them completely abolished as desired by Adil and other radical Islamists.

Ed Komarnicki – Conservative Caucus:  “Am I reading this right, that the Coalition for Justice for Adil Charkaoui is actually asking that the security certificate process be abolished altogether?”

Scary Mary: “Yes, we’ve taken that position. As I said, central to us is that there’s an equality of treatment between citizens and non-citizens. Whatever the model it comes up with that meets that I think is left to experts who work on legal issues. But whatever that looks like, it needs to separate national security concerns specifically around non-citizens as opposed to citizens. There should be an equal treatment on the basis of fundamental human rights between citizens and non-citizens. That is our position.”

Mary Foster is one of the key persons presenting information to the Committee that you need pay attention to. Ms. Mary Foster (Member, Coalition for Justice for Adil Charkaoui)  She lays claim that her group fully represents the community. “I would characterize our group and the network surrounding it as the community response to the security certificate process.” Herself and group would have to be referring largely to the Islamic community and parts of ethnic minority groups for they certainly did not represent the broader Canadian community.

In her opinion: “The core of the question that we believe needs to be addressed is the issue of equality. The security certificate process is being applied only to people without legal status and full citizenship in Canada–permanent residents, refugees, and people who are applying for refugee status. This constitutes a situation of discrimination where people, on the basis of their legal status, are being subject to violations of their fundamental human rights to life, liberty, and security of the person.”

But, everyone has both a defined legal and citizenship standing in Canada. Thus, the legal status is applicable to one and all, for the laws of Canada apply to one and all. The individual citizenship standing is directly related to the degree to which a person has qualified themselves either through birth or immigration -citizenship procedures. The persons to whom the use of security certificates are most prevalent are from the known and well documented groupings of refugees and immigrants that have manifested the greatest security threat. There was no inequality of application, the certificates were being applied where the perceived reasonable grounds of believing the greatest threat was emanating from. It is from the area of application that over 90% of the violent terrorist activity has taken place.

Mary claims “the security certificate review process fails to meet international standards for a fair trial.” The reality is that ‘security certificates’ are not part of the court or trial proceedings that an individual may have to undergo in any criminal case where they are accused of violating our national security laws. Security certificates are simply a tool employed by law enforcement agencies to gather potential evidence where there is “reasonable grounds to believe” that evidence suitable for Criminal Court presentation and successful prosecution is available. All individuals must be held, for whatever length of time is necessary to ensure National Security is intact while gathering of evidence that is “beyond reasonable doubt”. The matter of length of incarceration is a very low price to be paid by the individual no matter what facet of our society they may be residing within.

Standards of evidence are all the same. Legislation to modify or provide adequate safeguards where there appears to be too much room for error on the part of the Canadian intelligence services is easily ascertained and passed into law. But, to be manipulated into the removal of security certificates from the legal investigative system of Canada by special interest groups such as Scary Mary and Islamists like Charkaoui and the Muslim Brotherhood must be immediately rectified.

At the first Committee Hearing we hear Alex Neve, the Secretary General of Amnesty International Canada’s English branch try to equate the use of Security Certificates as to the condoning of torture. He states: Canada’s position is a setback in the crucial global struggle to eradicate torture, a concern that has become of increasing concern, I would say, to Canadians in the wake of cases such as that of Maher Arar.

Last month there was an important ruling from the Federal Court in the case of Mahmoud Jaballah, in which the judge very importantly affirmed and recognized the importance of the absolute ban on torture and took a decision that, given that there is a serious risk that he would face torture if returned to Egypt, his deportation cannot go ahead.

That is what sharply brings the human rights concerns into focus: no deportation to torture. So, what is to happen? Detention without charge or trial simply still cannot be an option.”

How does any of this fit the Charkaoui scenario? If he and his entire clan were deported back to Morocco, the land of his birth, there would not be a one of them tortured for any ‘publicly known’ reason. The ‘fear of being tortured’ card was just one more Charkaoui deception. This man tied himself into all the ‘Islamic issues’ of his day as if he was a central character in them all. He did it with the torture boys, he did it with the we are unfairly held to long boys and he did it with the going to sue your ass off for not looking after MY RIGHTS boys.

We know we traveled through a process of Court Cases and public demonstrations until we seen Charkaoui released on bail. And guess what? He had his case tied in with the release of Mohamad Harkat by Mouthy Mary at her Testimony to the Committee after his release on bail. She hits the drum beat of bad intelligence agencies, bad security certificates and bad conditions of release are one and the same. Charkaoui and Harkat have some items in common but their bail, detention and handling conditions are not on the same playing field. Charkaoui’s ‘jihadi drive’ is not strong enough to survive the pathway that Harkat has. Content / Mohamed Harkat / About – Justice for Mohamed Harkat

But, as Contrary Mary says: “Tolerating abuse and error on the part of intelligence agencies under this security certificate process serves the security of no one–on the contrary. Without a fair trial, the imprisonment and detention we’re talking about today is arbitrary. The same can be said of the conditions under which Mr. Charkaoui and Mr. Harkat have been released. If there is no fair trial, the loss of liberty they are subjected to is an arbitrary one. Mr. Charkaoui was released in February 2005 under conditions that Amnesty International has described as among the most restrictive ever imposed in Canada–and Mr. Harkat more so.

I believe that the committee will be given an opportunity to meet with Mr. Charkaoui on November 23 in Montreal. He will be able to describe in more detail the ways in which these conditions have impeded his and his family’s right to work, enjoy leisure time, and freely practise their religion.

Detention under a security certificate is arbitrary and indefinite. It’s being done under threat of being sent to a place where people risk torture or death. In the case of Mr. Charkaoui, in August 2003 it was assessed that if he were deported he would be at risk of torture, threat to life, and cruel and unusual punishment. This creates a situation that I can personally tell you is torture for him and his family every day.”

The deportation that he potentially faced was to Morocco and the deportation that will be enacted upon his clan will be to Morocco.

  The Sudden Songbird and Our Flaws of Noel

Take note: Justice Noel has a judgmental weakness evidenced through decisions based on personal feelings of family which have no relevance to the Islamic view of family life.

  1. Justice Noel’s knowledge with respect to Islamic doctrine surrounding ‘passage of time’ as being somehow an agency of ‘reduction of terrorist threat’ is forlornly askew. Such idea is an intrinsic Western philosophical concept embedded within his persona that has no applicability to the devout followers of Allah and Muhammad. Lame Brain Lamer has a major mental flaw in this area as well.

At one-point Charkaoui tried to circumvent justice and the legal process by attacking Noel as being biased and prejudiced against him. Noel masterfully handled this with the rendering in 2004-04-28 / 2004 FC 624 / DES-3-03  Justice Noel: “If I may be permitted to say so, it seems to me that the real apprehension is that the judge who hears a case in which the same issues of fact arise as have recently been decided in the same court can hardly ignore the existence of the earlier decision for he cannot be unconscious of the possibility of apparently conflicting decisions creating an atmosphere of lack of confidence in the administration of justice. I should have thought, however, that a judge who participates in both of two such matters is more likely to appreciate and explain different results flowing from different bodies of evidence or differences in presentation and argument than a judge who had no part in the earlier case. I do not say this to indicate that I have a view that the same judge should always try two such cases, but to indicate that, in my view, it is not necessarily prejudicial to the party who assumes the burden of producing a result in the second case that is apparently in conflict with the earlier decision.” 

But, what if the earlier decision of a justice, which is obviously wrong is basis for their additional decision in the second case? And, what if their personal characteristics which prejudiced their initial decision were still cemented in their persona? This circumstance surrounds both Justice Noel and Justice Tremblay. In particular, the pair separately declare that National Security is a special area requiring a special approach. Such in essence is the necessary approach to Security Certificates that must be employed to ensure national security in the light of Islamic extremism underway.

The Justices know this and yet they set aside their own renderings and logic in such manner that it allows Charkaoui to slither out through their legal doorway. The morons simply forgot that the legally entered docket information over the course of time unequivocally branded him a terrorist and the legitimate threat he was being held for.

2004-01-23 / 2004 FC 107 / DES-3-03:  Justice Noel states that “National security is a special area that requires a particular approach: Parliament has chosen standards other than the preponderance of evidence standard because this is what national security demands. Cases involving national security must be approached differently from others. In this case, the security of Canada, the safety of its citizens and the protection of its democratic system are at stake. The state must therefore use extraordinary methods of protection and inquiry, as illustrated by the schemes established by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other statutes. Situations and entities that pose a threat to national security are often difficult to detect and are designed to strike where society is most vulnerable. Attacks against national security can have tragic consequences. People who pose a danger to national security are often on a “mission” for which they are prepared to die. They are difficult to identify and their borderless networks are often difficult to infiltrate. They strike when least expected. Where national security is involved, we must do everything possible to avert catastrophe. The emphasis must be on prevention. After all, the security of the state and the public are at stake. Once certain acts are perpetrated, it could be too late. In my opinion, national security is such an important interest that its protection warrants the use of standards other than the preponderance of evidence standard. Having said this, we will see that the “reasonableness” and “reasonable grounds to believe” standards comport requirements that come close to the preponderance of evidence standard. (Charkaoui (Re), [2003], December 5, 2003, FC 1419, para. 126)

Further note from this docket:  The explanation of the Court of Appeal applies equally on a review of detention under subsections 83(2) and 83(3) of the IRPA, when assessing whether there is a danger or not and the possibility of a conditional release on bail.

In order to facilitate the task for Mr. Charkaoui, I indicated in Charkaoui, July 15, 2003 the Court’s concerns about the danger to national security. However, the additional evidence presented to the Court does not address these concerns and essentially includes an increase in the amount of the bail, an undertaking by some affiants to ensure that Mr. Charkaoui complies with the conditions of release, and a questioning of the reliability of the information communicated to the Ministers by Mr. Ressam and Mr. Zubaida.

Mr. Charkaoui’s counsel explained the decision not to adduce evidence pertaining to these concerns; such evidence, they said, would go to the very substance of the litigation, i.e. would affect the issue of the reasonableness of the certificate, and should not be presented at the stage of a review of the detention. They also argued that there had been an appeal of Charkaoui, July 15, 2003, and since the appeal was dismissed (on the ground that there is no appeal from a decision concerning detention), an application for leave had been submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada.

(Take note, they have already lost an appeal for release under bail, but are repeating the request for release because the bail was denied, and thus it should now take place with a view to neutralizing the risk of danger to the greatest possible degree as stipulated by Charkaoui. Judge Noel politely but effectively commented on the stupidity of such tact. But, it did serve to keep the Charkaoui hunt for means to destroy security certificates front and centre.)

Given the presumption of validity of legislation, the scope of the allegations and the importance to Mr. Charkaoui of regaining his freedom, I am surprised at this approach. The danger to national security cannot be assessed in a factual vacuum. By avoiding an answer to the concerns raised by the Court, Mr. Charkaoui is asking that he be released irrespective of the danger that the Ministers associate with his person. When the issue is one of national security or the safety of Canadians, the designated judge has a duty to assess the danger that is posed by a person concerned in light of all the available evidence.

In the case at bar, this task involves assessing, pursuant to subsection 83(3) of the IRPA, whether the person concerned still constitutes a danger to national security or to the safety of any person or is unlikely to appear at a proceeding or for removal. No decision to release on bail and subject to conditions can be made without answering the allegations of the Ministers that the person concerned is a danger.

In light of the evidence presented by both parties, and even if I were to consider such conditions for Mr. Charkaoui’s release as surrender of a passport, curfews, predetermined meetings, restrictions on his personal relations, a monitor indicating his whereabouts, etc., it is not my opinion at this point that these measures would be adequate to neutralize the danger to national security or to the safety of any person, or the unlikelihood that he would appear at a proceeding or for removal.

I note that this case pertains to immigration law and not the area of criminal law. The appropriate approach, when the Ministers present serious evidence that the person concerned is a danger to national security or to the safety of any person, or that he is unlikely to appear at a proceeding or for removal, is to adduce any possible evidence that would allow the Court to question the Ministers’ conclusion. I am unable, from the evidence adduced, to reach any conclusion other than that Mr. Charkaoui still constitutes a danger to national security or to the safety of any person, or that he is unlikely to appear at a proceeding or for removal.

As to the disposition as to costs, Mr. Charkaoui’s counsel has asked that I postpone it to a later date. So, I am giving the parties ten days following the receipt of this decision to make their submissions to me on this matter, failing which there will be no award as to costs.”

Take note: At this time Justice Noel clearly stated that ‘Charkaoui still constitutes a danger to national security’.  Noel cited three areas of reference that required Charkaoui give explanations for. No matter the repeated admonishments to do so our Mr. ‘you are not the boss of me’ Adil would never comply. Then suddenly on 2005-02-17 / 2005 FC 248 / DES-3-03 Charkaoui wins his release from jail on strict surveillance conditions. These conditions of release were basically nothing more than what Justice Noel stated in DES-3-03 were totally incapable of reducing the threat to National Security that Charkaoui entailed. Despite this our legal lip-a-lots set aside sanity and freed Charkaoui on bail.

 Surrounding the Release on Bail:  2005-02-17 / 2005 FC 248 / DES-3-03

There are so many holes and contradictions within the docket from beginning to end that it defies sanity that Charkaoui was ever released. Go through it for yourself. I am simply going to point out a couple blatant facts.

In this docket Charkaoui said he had never committed a crime. However, in March 1999, he pleaded guilty to attempted theft, for which he received an unconditional discharge. He says he was innocent, he had never tried to steal anything and could not defend himself since it cost too much.

It cost too much? Not so for our lying bozo. The fact is that it was another kudu with the ‘bad boys’ to brand himself prepared to provide for the pathway to sharia in every fashion possible, to show theft as being just another means of provision.

Further, he had no shortage of cash to take his trips such as to Morocco in 1999 and the rest of his side junkets to Europe. In 1999, he went back to Morocco where his wife was waiting to receive her Canadian permanent residence permit. He stayed in Morocco for a few months, and then left for Europe in order to buy fabrics and clothing for resale in Morocco to finance his return trip to Canada. He went into Turkey, and then to Germany by plane. He then toured France and Spain by bus and train, before returning to Morocco in early January 2000, returning to Canada with his wife in late February 2000.

He was also able to purchase a laptop computer to take with him to resale at a cheap price to a neighbour who was an information technology consultant in Morocco. All this and he could not afford to defend himself from being branded a thief? The man is just a deceiving lying bastard and shows himself such from beginning to end through the documented evidences.

Our Cash Strapped Adil actually started into his international terrorist travels in 1993 and we will go into this after we introduce Concernable Characters and present the Bad Boys List with highlights of some of the characters surrounding Charkaoui.

 Concernable Characters

The past Contacts that Adil Charkaoui had with certain individuals proved to be of particular concern to CSIS.  The present ones such as Trudeau’s Tramps should be of primary concern now when it comes to facilitating terrorism.

From the past one such person was Samir Ezzine, a native of Morocco and Canadian citizen since 1993. Through Justice Noel it is learned that Ezzine and Charkaoui have known each other since the summer of 2001 when Charkaoui wanted to purchase a pizzeria. A friend of Charkaoui contacted him for assistance as Ezzine had been in such business prior. Ezzine did so, initiating Adil in the business and even went so far in the operation as to help with the cooking work. They met on many occasions at the mosque.

Mr. Ezzine was interrogated by the CSIS on three occasions. In 1997, he was questioned about his business, about Morocco and with regard to Mr. Saïd Atmani. The other two interrogations were held after the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Ezzine states that he knows Abousfiane Abdelrazik and Raouf Hannachi, claiming that the two men left Canada because they were being constantly harassed by CSIS agents. He added that Abdelrazik returned to the Sudan and Hannachi, whom he had known for four years, returned to Tunisia in October 2001 where he was allegedly tortured. Ezzine stated that Charkaoui knew both Abdelrazik and Raouf Hannachi well enough to shake hands whenever they crossed paths.

Since, Ezzine and Charkaoui supposedly only met in the summer of 2001, and Hannachi fled for Tunisia in October of 2001, it is obvious that Charkaoui had built up a relationship with the two terrorists for some time prior.

Also of concern to CSIS was Adil’s relationship with Abdellah Ouzghar, a man Ezzine states that he has not personally seen for five years. For the reality of Adil’s’ buddy Ouzghar look at his insert in Bad Boys following.

But, a further bit of testimony before Noel concerned Ezzine himself.

[29]       Another important fact on which Mr. Ezzine testified is the trip to Bosnia he made in 1996. He claims he left for about three months to go and assist victims of the war. He says he paid for his trip from his own resources, that his airplane flight cost him $600 and that he spent about $1,000 to buy food and clothing to donate to the victims. At the time, Mr. Ezzine was working in a restaurant in Montréal and earning a minimum wage of $7.00 an hour. Finally, during his trip, he did not make any friends and did not maintain any contact, he says.

[62]     Another concern appears to me to be what the ministers claim are the contacts the respondent has with certain individuals (Summary of information pursuant to paragraph 78(h) of the Act, Tab B, Exhibit R-3). With the exception of the witness Mr. Ezzine, the evidence as adduced by the respondent is largely silent in this regard. Again, I think the respondent would facilitate his application for release if he were to address this concern.

(Note: Of primary concern were the respondent’s contact with, inter alia, Abousfiane Abdelrazik, Samir Ait Mohamed, Karim Saïd Atmani, Raouf Hannachi and Abdellah Ouzghar. Mr. Zahaoui, a Canadian citizen since 2001 and a native of Morocco, had known the respondent since the middle of 1998 and considers him a friend. In his affidavit, he explains that he was contacted several times by CSIS agents who wanted to obtain information about the respondent and about Mr. Abdallah Ouzghar and other persons in Montréal whom he knew.  Adil Charkaoui maintained a silence surrounding his knowledge and activities of these men).

 BAD BOYS:  Adil Charkaoui Terrorist Connections via Mosques and Ahmed Ressam

These are some of the characters connected to Charkaoui in light of the case of Ahmed Ressam. The scenario involved fanatical Muslims in Montreal, learning to kill in bin Laden’s camps, plotting to massacre American citizens and should have entailed a dramatic ‘heads up” for Canadian National Security. However, it had no major results for an extended period until the investigation of Adil Charkaoui took place.

Charkaoui was born in Morocco, emigrated to Montreal in 1995, involved himself heavily with the Montreal extremists, became a Canadian Citizen in 2014, and evolved as a figure central to aspects of change for operational facets of both CSIS and the RCMP. We shall be looking at him in-depth in many manners.

Abder Raouf HannachiThis Tunisian became a Canadian citizen in 1986. He was trained in terrorist camps in Afghanistan and in Montreal successfully recruited young men for jihad against the West. He was publicly familiar with Adil Charkaoui to the degree they would shake hands when encountering.

Abdelghani Meskini: The Brooklyn, N.Y.  con man who was to help deliver the bomb from Seattle to Los Angeles.

Abdellah Ouzghar:  CSIS questioned Samir Ezzine about this man. Ouzghar: is a joint citizen of Canada and Morocco, who was arrested in Canada shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, on suspicion of ties to terrorist. > Abdellah Ouzghar – Wikipedia       > French court papers shed light on fugitive – The Globe and Mail    Abdellah Ouzghar, was tried in absentia in Paris, and convicted of supplying false passports to terrorists.

According to Canadian Immigration Reports in May 11, 2010. Ouzghar was promoting jihad at mosque prayer sessions frequented by Adil Charkaoui. Charkaoui is on record stating he came to know Abdellah Ouzghar.

Abdelmajid Dahoumane: Ressam’s Montreal friend that helped make the bomb.

Abderrahmane Kherour:   The respondent’s counsel put in evidence the affidavits of Mr. Abderrahmane Kherour .Mr. Kherour, a Canadian citizen, a native of Algeria, is a former employee in the respondent’s pizzeria. They have known each other since July 2001, when he began working for the respondent. Mr. Kherour states in his affidavit that in January 2002 he was questioned by a CSIS agent who showed him a photo of an individual identified as Mr. Samir Ezzine.

Abigail Bakan:  Abigail Bakan glorifies Razak and Abigail Bakan is a ruddy anti-Semite and a Marxist.  In a protest held in Toronto on July 29, 2006, Bakan criticized the Government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper for supporting “Israel’s illegal action against the Lebanese and Palestinian people.”

Abu Doha: The Algerian-terrorist ringleader, based in London, that was the brains and money behind Ressam’s Los Angeles airport plot. Ressam informed on him.

Abu Jaffar:  The al-Qaida leader with access to Osama bin Laden for Ressam’s request of bin Laden’s blessing for the airport bombing

Abu Sulieman: He taught bomb-making at the al-Qaeda Darunta training camp.

Abou Sifian Abdelrazik (Abousfiane Abdelrazik): a Sudanese Canadian who launched a $27-million lawsuit against Ottawa for his own detention. CSIS questioned Samir Ezzine about this man. Abdelrazik alleges federal officials conspired to have him jailed and interrogated in the Sudan, and refused to repatriate him to Canada once he was freed. The Charkaoui case was lumped in with his for investigation by the Standing Committee first launched to determine the security certificates issue.   He was familiar with Adil Charkaoui to the degree they would shake hands when encountering.

Abu Zubaydah (Zubadia):  He was thought of as little more than a travel agent for terrorist wannabes making their way to the al-Qaida camps until Ressam put a name to him. He was a top aide to bin Laden and is now in U.S. custody. The ‘gatekeeper to bin Laden’s training camps’ and man who coordinated the entry of recruits to Afghanistan for Abder Raouf Hannachi.

Adel Boumezbeur: Member of Kamel Cell and mosque frequenter.

Ahmed Ressam: The Millennial Bomber, attempted to bomb Los Angeles International Airport and was caught trying to cross the U.S. border with a bomb in the trunk of his rental car. In interviews held in the presence of a lawyer who was representing him and that at two distinct points Mr. Ressam instantly and without hesitation identified Adil Charkaoui on two different photographs under the name of Zubeir Al-Maghrebi.

Alan Sears: Professor, professional student activist associate with Abigal Bakan etc.

Aziz Zahaoui:    Zahaoui, a Canadian citizen since 2001 and a native of Morocco, has known the respondent since the middle of 1998 and considers him a friend. In his affidavit, he explains that he was contacted several times by CSIS agents who wanted to obtain information about the respondent and about Mr. Abdallah Ouzghar and other persons in Montréal whom he knew. He says he told the agents that the respondent was a student, that he engaged in sports, that he looked after his business and his family. He says he never stated that the persons he had to identify were terrorists. Mr. Zahaoui says he refused to work as an informant but told the CSIS agents that he was prepared to inform on anyone who would do harm in Canada.

Fakr Abdul Aziz Bosura:  currently on the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist List with a $5 million-dollar bounty on his head

Fateh Kamel:  emigrated to Canada in 1987 and headed the Kamel terrorist cell in Montreal with his links to bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network.

Fouzia Ouahid: the wife of Gharkaoui, a Moroccan French teacher

Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi: who ran the al-Qaeda Khalden training camp.

Johanne Doyon: first counsel for Charkaoui – associated with Julius Grey

Karim Said Atmani: Is a Moroccan detained and charged in France with document forgery for which he received a penalty of four years prison time in abstention. He is another Moroccan living illegally in Montreal since 1995. Also known as Abu Isham or Abu Hisham he is a document-forger for the Groupe Islamique Armé and shared an apartment with Ahmed Ressam.

He frequently travelled to Bosnia and held both Bosnian and Moroccan passports. In Bosnia he fought in an Arab brigade led by Abdelkader Mokhtari, another veteran of the GIA. Evan Kohlmann claimed that, in addition, in 1994 and 1995, he “was officially tasked with organizing the transfer of foreign guerillas to Bosnia from staging points in Milan and elsewhere in Europe.”

Kohlmann claimed he was Fateh Kamel‘s “right hand man”, and was also close to Abu el-Ma’ali. According to Kohlmann, Italian police found evidence of telephone calls between Atmani and el-Ma’ali, when they raided Milan’s Islamic Cultural Institute. According to Kohlmann, during a 1995 raid of Sheikh Anwar Shaaban‘s office they found a fraudulent passport bearing Atmani’s photo.

In 1999, he was arrested by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Niagara on the Lake, along with an associate believed to be smuggling guns.

After being convicted of colluding with Osama bin Laden by a French court, he was released early for good behavior. He is believed to have returned to Bosnia following his release.

In 2015, at the time of the terrorist attacks on the offices of the French satirical political journal Charlie Hebdo, Atmani was suspected of having aided the attackers by supplying forged passports.

Adil Charkaoui knew and had frequent contacts with this man.

Khalil Deek: The computer engineer and al-Qaida operative, arrested on suspicion of plotting to kill American tourists in the Holy Land.

Ms. Layla Sawaf, principal of a private school that she founded in 2000, testified that Charkaoui was an excellent French teacher. He was very well-liked by the students, but she had to let him go because Charkaoui’s problems with the government prevented him from obtaining a teaching permit.

Larbi Ouazzani (Larbi Quazzani) is a Canadian citizen of Moroccan origin and brother in law that expressed his concern to Noel about Charkaoui’s trip to Pakistan. He has known Charkaoui since his marriage to Foujzia Ouahid, who is his wife’s cousin. As the first person to testify in favour of the respondent, was raising doubts about the Adil Tacky-Paki religious studies trip. But he acts as a supervisor for Charkaoui with bail release. He continued as a contributor to the bail offered for the applicant. As a supervisor, he claims that Charkaoui was concerned about complying with his conditions.

Marie McAndrews:  A dhimmi professor of Charkaoui in 2003.

Mohammedou Ould Slahi (Salahi) is the Osama bin-Laden courier who immigrated to Canada in November of 1999. He studied at the École Polytechnique de Montréal and during Ramadan he led prayers at the Al Sunna mosque, where members of a North African terror cell came to pray. Members of the Kamel Terrorist Cell were drawn largely from Montreal’s Algerian community.

Mohammed Rifatt: The radicalized Rosemount student of Charkaoui that was publicly exposed in 2015.

Mourad Ikhlef: Montreal roommate of Ressam that aided his bomb construction.  Ikhlef had fled Algeria in 1992 just before he was convicted, in absentia, of helping to detonate a bomb in the Algiers airport that killed 11 and injured more than 100.

Mokhtar Haouari: The credit-card thief who provided money for Ressam.

Mustapha Labsi:  Member of Kamel Cell and mosque frequenter.

Philippe Gélinas:  the martial arts teacher, attests that he has known the respondent since he enrolled in the Académie d’Arts Martiaux Culturels Gélinas, about two years ago. He says the respondent was not a novice when he enrolled, but that he wanted to improve so he could give some courses.

 Ms. Radwan: Charkaoui’s mother, going for complete removal of bail conditions she explained the difficulties her husband has experienced as a supervisor over the last four years, given he had to accompany Adil everywhere he went, whether it be to the university, doing errands or driving the children to school. Her husband had to leave his employment as a machinist because of his supervisory duties, which did not leave him enough time to work. She whined that the financial impact was so great they could no longer afford to continue like this.

Samir Ait Mohamed:  The former law student whose diabetes had kept him from going to terrorist training camp and desired to bomb Outremont

Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil: The foreign minister of the Taliban, ruling Afghanistan while protecting Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.

Zacarias Moussaoui:  A French national of Moroccan descent who had frightened flight-school trainers in Minneapolis by insisting on learning to steer a jumbo jet while showing no interest in learning to take off or land. If this man had been investigated properly 9-11 may have been avoided. He was identified after the fact by Ressam as a trainee from Osama bin Laden’s Khalden camp.  Zacarias Moussaoui

 

TRACKS OF THE TERRORIST ADIL

The Respondent’s Trip to Pakistan from February to July of 1998.

Adil Charkaoui, is a Morocco-born Canadian citizen who was arrested by the Canadian government under a security certificate in May 2003.

Before issuing the certificate, evidence was submitted that he had trained in an anti-Soviet Jihadist camp in Afghanistan. The court was also not satisfied with his reasons for visiting Pakistan for six months in 1990. Evidence that he practiced Karate was also among the submissions. Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) testimonies included opinions that he would also “have been trained in such areas as: operating rocket-propelled grenade-launchers, sabotage, urban and assassination.” CSIS also alleged that ” it was noteworthy that one of those who participated in the hijacking of the September 11 attacks in 2001 had taken martial arts training in preparation…” and suggested that Charkaoui represented a sleeper agent.  This led to the issuance of the security certificate by the two responsible government ministers after which he was detained, and such evidence was also enough to uphold the certificate by Federal Court upon review.

I remind you that this trip of concern was precursor to being branded a thief due to lack of cash for legal defence.

Along with CSIS, Justice Noel was very concerned about the secrecy and lack of information that Charkaoui provided surrounding his trip to Pakistan. Justice Noel states: “It seems to me that for the purpose of clarifying this stay of close to six months in Pakistan, the respondent could have had recourse to his passport, his professors, the University or institution where he studied the Muslim religion, etc. But nothing was done in this regard. Although a witness stated that he was satisfied with the respondent’s explanations, I am not. The respondent would have everything to gain from explaining this trip in detail.”

Charkaoui gave investigators nothing, no format of a reasonable explanation and offered nothing for consideration by the Court under Noel. But, both his father and his wife claimed the trip was to study the Muslim religion as part of a project to write a book on the Muslim religion in French.

However, entered into evidence: “During a CSIS interview with the respondent on February 27, 2001, it was noted that:

[translation] CHARKAOUI said he had been sponsored to go and take a five-month course in religions in 1998. According to the subject, this religion course is divided into a number of components: course on the Koran; course on Islamic culture; course on the customs of the Koran. CHARKAOUI said that this five-month course was very beneficial to him and this deepening of the Muslim religion enabled him to answer a number of existential questions. However, CHARKAOUI himself indicated that he had had some bad experiences during this stay in Pakistan in 1998. The subject indicated that once his course in religion had ended, he was arrested twice within the territorial limits of Pakistan. (See Tab 4, Volume B, Record of documentation concerning Adil Charkaoui)

From 2001 to 2003, Charkaoui operated a Montreal pizzeria, where the CSIS first approached him in the wake of 9/11. He refused to account for his whereabouts or reason for travel to Pakistan. However, Moroccan authorities had stated that Charkaoui provided funds and resources to an Islamic insurgent group.

In another meeting, on July 26, 2002, the CSIS investigators noted that: [translation] … CHARKAOUI denied being in Afghanistan and having made the Jihad there. He confirmed he had been in Pakistan to do some studies in the Islamic religion in several cities of Pakistan, primarily in Karachi. He noted that he had attended some madrassas in that country. (See Tab 3, Volume B, Record of documentation concerning Adil Charkaoui)

But at the time of Justice Noel first investigating the event of his Pakistan-Afghanistan sojourn even his brother in law Larbi Ouazzani, the first person to testify in favour of the respondent, was raising doubts about the Adil Tacky-Paki religious studies trip. As is stated by Noel: “Mr. Ouazzani asked the respondent the purpose of his trip to Pakistan. It seems to me that Mr. Ouazzani was concerned by the fact that he did not know the respondent had made a trip to Pakistan and wondered about the reason for such a trip.

As a result of the media coverage of this case, this trip aroused some concerns in Mr. Ouazzani, a witness for the respondent: [translation] “Were you concerned about that trip?”

“Yes, it was a matter of concern to me. I wanted to know, it worried me… In other circumstances, it would be no more suspicious to travel to Pakistan than to the United States. But when you put this whole story in its context, you can’t help being suspicious. And when you also put the thing in what I have just explained to you, it becomes comprehensible. Do you understand, My Lord?”

Take note: And do you understand who the man Charkaoui is from this evidence so far? You see, it is incomprehensible that an intimate Muslim male family member would not have been included in discussing the plans for such a momentous religious studies trip if not for the existent mindset of Charkaoui by this time. He had for some time walked in the reality of the true ‘cell group jihadi’- no information to anyone without absolute need to know surrounding any ‘assignment’. No relationship of any kind superseded that of the brotherhood of cell group design of the mujahedeen.

Adil was simply on-the-job and Ouazzani should have had no expressional concern if he truly comprehended the demands of sharia. However, Ouazzani also stated he was ultimately satisfied with the explanation Adil provided for the events surrounding the trip.  But as Noel stated: “Although a witness stated that he was satisfied with the respondent’s explanations, I am not. The respondent would have everything to gain from explaining this trip in detail.”

There is more to come from external sources, but perhaps the most damning associate evidence of the true nature of Adil Charkaoui is that given by his father. “Mr. Mohamed Charkaoui, states in his affidavit that he raised his son in accordance with the precepts of their religion.” And the precepts of their religion demand the eradication through every means possible of all that oppose sharia. Case closed you foolish kafirs.

Now, to reiterate: Charkaoui was arrested under a security certificate in May 2003, which was co-signed by Solicitor General Wayne Easter, and Immigration Minister Denis Coderre. He was detained without charge or trial in Rivière des prairies Detention Centre. The Coalition Justice for Adil Charkaoui was formed in defense of his rights, with Coalition launching a campaign for his release.

He was released from prison on $50,000 bail on 18 February 2005. His bail conditions included a curfew, electronic monitoring, designated chaperones for leaving his home, restriction to the island of Montreal, 24-hour police access to his home without warrant, and a prohibition on access to the internet, on the use of cell phones and on the use of any telephone except the one in his home.

Restrictions on his conditional release were gradually lifted to be cancelled in September 2009. On his final release order by Federal Court Judge Danièle Lame Brain Tremblay-Lamer it is stated “There will be an order all conditions be revoked immediately.” And with this Adil was uncuffed. This man that founded ‘Anti-Islamaphobia’ in 2013 with Canadian tax payers’ dollars belongs in jail until extradited.

 Uncuffed Temporarily

Onward evidence introduced at the sequence of docket hearings shows the purposes of Adil Charkaoui’s trips.  In his zest to find means to eradicate security certificates Charkaoui opened a doorway that necessitated two more ‘sittings’ by Justice Noel that allowed entry to public knowledge of previously classified information.

On July 26, 2002, the CSIS investigators noted that Charkaoui denied being in Afghanistan and having made the Jihad there which are proven absolute lies when April 28, 2004: Charkaoui loses his bid to remove judge Noel for being biased. (2004 FC 624 – DES-3-03)

We see in docket information at this time that Charkaoui was being considered an even greater security threat than prior for his bail surety was doubled for a number of reasons surrounding Justice Noel’s original three concerns.

“To facilitate Mr. Charkaoui’s task, I identified three concerns, namely his life from 1992 to 1995 (in Morocco) and from 1995 to 2000 (in Canada), including travel; Mr. Charkaoui’s trip to Pakistan from February to July 1998; and Mr. Charkaoui’s contacts with, inter alia, Abousfiane Abdelrazik, Samir Ait Mohamed, Karim Saïd Atmani, Raouf Hannachi and Abdellah Ouzghar. Based on the evidence presented by both parties in this matter, I consider these three concerns are important to a responsible assessment of the danger and of the public interest. In the interest of justice and to resolve these concerns, I invited Mr. Charkaoui to submit evidence that might challenge the evidence submitted by the Ministers and enable him to recover his liberty.

In the subsequent decision of February 4, 2004, on continuing the detention, I noted that Mr. Charkaoui had not dealt with these three concerns. However, the evidence he presented added to that of the first review, by increasing the surety from $25,000 to $50,000; filing newspaper articles dealing with the unreliability, and questioning the credibility, of Ahmed Ressam and Abou Zubaida, two individuals who identified Mr. Charkaoui as a person they had met in an Al-Quaeda training camp in Afghanistan in 1998, and whom they knew as “Zubeir Al-Maghrebi”; and by filing affidavits supporting his application for release. Mr. Charkaoui argued that in reviewing the continued detention, a designated judge should not be concerned with assessing the danger as his role was limited to identifying the conditions for the release and the amount of a surety.”

(Take note, it is due process through the actions of Charkaoui in ongoing litigation that allowed the damning information to now becoming public knowledge through docket.)

Charkaoui had essentially impaled himself and immediately turned to trying to find a way to make such evidence inadmissible in court. Charkaoui argued that in reviewing the continued detention, a designated judge should not be concerned with assessing the degree of danger he may or may not present. He claimed that Judge Noels’ role was strictly limited to identifying the conditions for the release and the amount of a surety as granted under constitutional authority. Thus, the damaging information must be cast down and permanently inadmissible in Court.

Further, he attacked Noel on the grounds that the Justice had also done a ‘private review’ of all the ‘classified information’ upon which the security certificate had been originally based. This Charkaoui claimed placed the Judge in position of prejudicial bias necessitating removal of Noel and securing of information released as per his demands.

Charkaoui alleged that the disclosure of evidence on July 17, 2003 of Abou Zubaida, the close collaborator of Osama bin Laden, and that of Millennial Bomber Ahmed Ressam both having recognized him under the name of Zubeir Al-Maghrebi at the training camp in Afghanistan should have been disclosed to him at the hearing of the first review of the continued detention early in July 2003. Not to do so he claimed showed Noel as having apparent bias.

But the timing of ‘private review’ and disclosure of additional evidence on July 17 and August 14, 2003, was explicitly due to reasons of national security. There was in no manner bias upon the part of Justice Noel. (FC 624 DES  303)is

And, as the Justice states: “At the start of the matter, and as provided in the IRPA, I informed the parties that to properly understand the Ministers’ position (both with respect to the certificate and continuing the detention), I had reviewed the documents on which the certificate and the arrest warrant were based. I further informed them that I had held a hearing without the presence of Mr. Charkaoui and his counsel (decision of July 15, 2003, paragraph 7).

In reviewing a “matter”, a designated judge commonly undertakes an analysis of the facts which are important both for reviewing the certificate and continuing the detention. It is even conceivable that the evidence presented in reviewing the detention may be entered in the record of review of the reasonableness of the certificate.

Accordingly, it follows that review of the reasonableness of a certificate, determining whether a danger exists and monitoring the continued detention are separate functions which ultimately lead to different conclusions. It cannot be said that a determination regarding continuing detention necessarily leads to the same kind of determination regarding the reasonableness of the certificate.

However, I informed Mr. Charkaoui in the decision of July 15, 2003, at paragraphs 7 and 9, that the additional information could eventually be disclosed. In the decision of December 5, 2003, (Charkaoui, [2003] F.C. 1418, at paragraphs 15 to 19), I explained that the information he had been given could not have been disclosed earlier for reasons of national security. Mr. Charkaoui received the offer of a hearing to allow him to respond to this new disclosure before the six-month statutory review, but he declined it. I should like to emphasize that if this information could have been disclosed earlier, it would have been.”

(Take note: Charkaoui declined ‘the offer of a hearing to allow him to respond to this new disclosure before the six-month statutory review’. He effectively had some degree of timing the control of his attack upon the employment of the security certificate, but it was the entry in of the now allowable new evidence that panicked him to some degree. He had to try to negate the clear-cut evidence against him. He tried to get the evidence entry quashed under the guise that it was allowed in due to bias on the part of Noel.)

Further, the Justice states: “At the second review of the continued detention, Mr. Charkaoui filed documentary evidence including newspaper articles commenting on the reliability and credibility of Ahmed Ressam and Abou Zubaida (decision of February 4, 2004, at paragraphs 6, 9 and 12). According to Mr. Charkaoui’s arguments, the designated judge again demonstrated bias, or perceived bias, by failing to comment on the newspaper articles and their conclusions that Ahmed Ressam and Abou Zubaida were not reliable and credible.

Considering the additional evidence adduced on January 12, 2004, I am of the opinion that the danger must be assessed and that conditional release cannot be contemplated unless there is sufficient evidence that the danger is reduced or does not exist, and that Mr. Charkaoui will continue to submit to the proceeding.

It will be recalled that in Mr. Charkaoui’s opinion the facts mentioned above as a whole created an apprehension of bias or bias. As I have commented on each of these facts, and concluded that they did not individually establish an apprehension of bias or bias, I can only say that these facts as a whole do not support a reasonable apprehension of bias or perceived bias.

Conclusions: (2004 FC 624 – DES-3-03)

“This decision comes down to the fact that Mr. Charkaoui’s arguments do not support the allegation that the designated judge should disqualify himself for an apprehension of bias, perceived bias or bias, for the following reasons:

– Parliament intended the designated judge to decide on the reasonableness of the certificate and the continuance of the detention;

– determination of the reasonableness of a certificate is not the same as determining danger and continued detention;

– the facts raised by Mr. Charkaoui concerning the proceedings and their continuance under the IRPA are not facts, as a whole or individually, that support a finding of perceived bias or of bias.

For these reasons:  The application by Mr. Charkaoui for disqualification is dismissed.”

(Again, take note that bias did not exist, the circumstance of additional information led to classified condemning information surrounding Charkaoui entering public docket and that former news paper reports not regarded as evidence are now qualified as being so. Such media reports may entail events established through existing dockets or filed authorized government agency documents surrounding events having transpired. Both are considered legal evidence. But, media reports of themselves are not considered legal evidence. The media reports however, do point out apparent truths surrounding issues and the time lines of transmission of such events. In such light, both they and the reporters of such matters, are a necessary field that must be farmed by the parties held responsible for determining the pathways that national security must follow. The ability to plow such fields cannot be hindered by pandering or surrendering to the claim of rights violations of those parties deemed as needing investigation.

The Ressam Evidence damned the liar from inception. We are now going to run down a few of the dockets surrounding Charkaoui precedent to release on bail, pointing out some salient facts surrounding them.

 

 In July of 2004: Charkaoui lost another bid for bail.  (Justice Noel: 2004-07-23  FC 1031 DES-3-03)

Note: a review of security certificate still has not taken place. It was suspended so Charkaoui could make an application for protection. Here Charkaoui tries to introduce his potential torture as reason for removal of the Ressam Evidence.

He tries again to say Noel is rigid and biased, claiming the Justice should be looking for means of reducing threats rather than evidence for establishing the level of threat. He still will not give an accounting for the original three concerns raised by both the Ministry and Justice Noel.

In this docket, we also encounter the ‘evidence ‘of another Islamic liar:  Abdurahman Khadr, a 22-year-old Canadian citizen, testified about his life in Afghanistan from 1996 to November 2001, in Jalalabad (until 1999) and in Kabul (until 2001) and under CIA detention from November 2001 to March 2003, a period during which he had agreed to become an informer. In this capacity, he was sent to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for about eight months. Subsequently, after being trained in infiltration, he was sent to Bosnia where he remained for one month. In December 2003, he decided to return to Toronto, Ontario, Canada, a place where he had stayed several times in the 1980s and 1990s with his parents and brothers.

He stated that in Afghanistan, the name of Zubeir Al-Maghrebi, like other names such as Abu Reda and Abu Hamza, is frequently used as a cover name and cannot serve as an indication of the true identity of the person who uses this name;

(Take note: this in no manner is indicative that Charkaoui was not employing such name; rather that he was using it. Charkaoui was established as knowing Zubaida in Canada.)

He knew Mr. Zubaida and he described him as being one of the three leaders of the Khalden movement. He was the coordinator of the participants in the training camps. In this capacity, he coordinated their arrival in Pakistan, their conveyance to a “guest house” and to the camp and their return;

On cross-examination, he admitted having lied to his family by hiding his role as an informant to the CIA. Also, he admitting having lied to his lawyer and to the people of Canada upon his arrival in Canada during his initial press conference in December 2003. He justified his subsequent decision to tell the truth by his desire to break with his past and begin a new life.

(Take note: this supposed desireto break with his past and begin a new life’ is the frequent Islamic ploy and a favorite of all lying Khadr’s’ such as Omar Khadr. But, returning to Charkaoui we find it is the Ressam evidence that has him in a dither and him objecting to strongly. But Adil was clearly and legally identified through docket information as being at the terrorist training camp in Afghanistan.)

Finally, through his counsel, he submits that the approach taken by the Court on the earlier reviews, that is, assessing the danger and then looking at the possibility of conditional release or bail, is not the right one. In his opinion, the Court should instead try to find the conditions that could secure a neutralization of danger.

Issue: Taking into account the evidence presented by the Ministers associating dangerousness to national security and the safety of others with Mr. Charkaoui, should he be released on bail or subject to conditions in accordance with the evidence he has filed and the approach he suggests be taken?

I should add that these interviews were held in the presence of a lawyer who was representing him and that at two distinct points Mr. Ressam instantly and without hesitation identified Mr. Charkaoui on two different photographs under the name of Zubeir Al-Maghrebi.

[29]       Exercising its general authority under section 78 of the IRPA, the Court had verified this statement and did so again using the best possible evidence given the special situation arising out of this case. The Court is satisfied that this evidence may form part of the record for what it represents.

 It is inconceivable that the proposed supervision by his parents and/or sister and/or Mr. Ouazzani Larbi and the deposit of $50,000 in bail money could neutralize the danger as it is described in the evidence.

In December 2003: Charkaoui lost his bid to quash the case on constitutional grounds and to see secret spy service evidence .  (Justice Noel:  2003-12-05 FC 1418 DES-3-03)

[17]       In light of the preceding comments, it was not until July 17, 2003, that I was able to authorize the disclosure of certain previously protected information, namely, that Mr. Abou Zabaida, characterized as a close collaborator of Osama bin Laden, had recognized Mr. Charkaoui (under the name of Zubein Al Magherebi) in a photograph as being an individual whom he had seen in Afghanistan in 1993 and in 1997/1998.    (Take note: 1993 was his supposedly great religious study trip, where under pretext of travel for religious reasons he went to Morocco where he met the French teacher, who became his wife. This docket, like others, clearly legally enters in evidence that damns Charkaoui for the terrorist he is. This is part of the evidence that he believes he has eluded through the bumbling’s of the Justices and timing of external events.)

[18]       It was not until August 14, 2003, that I was able to authorize the disclosure of other previously protected information, namely, that in the course of interviews with representatives of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (hereinafter “the Service”), in January 2002, Mr. Ahmed Ressam recognized Mr. Charkaoui in two photographs and identified him under the name of Zubein Al Magherebi. Mr. Ressam added that he had met him in Afghanistan in the summer of 1998 while they were training in the same camp.

In September 1, 2004: Newspapers claimed Charkaoui was granted the right to an amendment of a judge’s motion  (Noel:  2004-09-21 FC 1291 DES-3-03) Read the dockets surrounding the matter and this is somewhat misleading. Ultimately Charkaoui simply failed in a bid concerning the potential cross-examination of Ahmed “Millennium Bomber” Ressam and Guantanamo Bay detainee Abu Zubaydah. He desperately wants a stay upon entry of evidence given by Ressam and Zubaydah. He tries to stall acceptance of the entered evidence through launching an appeal and claiming that unless he is granted a temporary stay he will suffer unjustified irreparable harm. For certain his life as an Islamic terrorist will suffer irreparable harm, but a blight upon Canadian society would be effectively legally removed.

In Sept 24, 2004: Charkaoui lost at the Federal Court of Appeal . (Justice J.A. Letourneau: 2004-09-24 FCA 319 A-603-03) The matter raised was clearly answered:  Will the lack of a temporary stay during the appeal cause irreparable harm to the moving party?

[12]  On this point, the moving party basically cites three sources of harm that he describes as irreparable: his ongoing detention, the damage to his reputation resulting from a process which does not enable him to fully and effectively assert his grounds of defence and which appears to be institutionally biased, as well as the risk of his appeal becoming unnecessary.

[13]   I immediately preclude the second source cited: even if it were a source of harm, it is not irreparable. Damage to reputation can be compensated monetarily. If the process followed by the Federal Court which led to the decision on the reasonableness of the certificate were to be quashed by our Court on the grounds that it was unconstitutional, I find it difficult to see how that decision could stand if its foundation were to crumble. Finally, in my view there is no evidence of an appearance of institutional bias at this stage, beyond the allegations to that effect.

In October 2004 Charkaoui tries to get his certificate hearing dates changed under the guise of necessity of swapping of lawyers and funding for his defence now coming through legal aid.   He tries raising constitutional questions and seeks a postponement through Justice Noel which is not granted.        (Noel: 2004-10-06  FC 1377 DES-3-03)

In December 10, 2004: Charkaoui lost his appellate bid to have the security-certificate law declared unconstitutional.    (200412-10  FCA 421 A-603-03)

(Reasons for Judgment:  Décary J.A. and Létourneau J.A.   Concurring Reasons:  Richard C.J.)

The major question was: Do sections 77 and 78 of the IRPA contravene the rights under the Charter with respect to a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal, when, for example, the designated judge must determine the “reasonableness” of the security certificate issued by the ministers and not the merits of the case? National Security was the focal point of inquiry and Charkaoui was clearly established as the threat he truly poses and the fool he publicly is stated to be.

3]         The appellant raised a plethora of constitutional questions before the designated judge: in fact, no fewer than forty questions.

4]         As experience shows, one who seeks too much risks losing everything. The appellant’s position before the designated judge, who had to request some particulars concerning the constitutional questions, was characterized by virtuous statements of general, rather unfocused principles, often irrespective of the possible relationship to the facts of the case, and without any genuine effort to strike a balance between divergent individual and collective interests. While the appellant primarily criticizes the designated judge for focussing excessively on national security and thereby assigning undue weight to the interests of the collectivity, it is no exaggeration to say that the appellant’s position completely ignores the issue of national security. Thus, for example, the appellant claims, in the proceedings on the security certificate that was issued against him, a right of access to all the relevant information, including information that might be injurious to national security, and the right to be present and participate at all times in the hearings that concern him, even when evidence involving national security in regard to which he is considered a threat is being discussed. Hence his repeated constitutional attacks on a number of sections of the IRPA based on both national and international instruments protecting and promoting human rights.

[5]         The appellant essentially repeated before us the arguments he raised before the designated judge, often making do in his memorandum of fact and law with a reference to his submissions to the designated judge.

[17]       Because of the possibility of fluctuations in national security matters and the discovery of new information, the designated judge adopted a policy of ongoing disclosure of evidence and information to the appellant. That is why, on July 17, 2003, he allowed some information that until then had been protected to be given to the appellant. This information informed the appellant that Abou Zubaida, considered a close collaborator of Osama Bin Laden, had recognized him in a photograph and designated him as a person he had seen in Afghanistan in 1993 and in 1997-98.

[18]       On August 14, 2003, further protected information was given to the appellant with the authorization of the designated judge. First of all, the photograph that Abou Zubaida had been shown for identification purposes was given to the appellant on July 17, 2003. Secondly, he was informed that Ahmed Ressam had also recognized him in two photos, adding that he had met him in Afghanistan in the summer of 1998 when the two were training in the same camp. Upon seeing the appellant’s photograph, Mr. Ressam identified the appellant under the name of Zubeir Al-Maghrebi, just as Abou Zubaida had done one month previously.

They are a reminder that in matters of national security, the cost of failure can be high. This seems to me to underline the need for the judicial arm of government to respect the decisions of ministers of the Crown on the question of whether support for terrorist activities in a foreign country constitutes a threat to national security. It is not only that the executive has access to special information and expertise in these matters. It is also that such decisions, with serious potential results for the community, require a legitimacy which can be conferred only by entrusting them to persons responsible to the community through the democratic process. If the people are to accept the consequences of such decisions, they must be made by persons whom the people have elected and whom they can remove.

[68]       This complaint of the appellant is in our view absolutely without merit, unfounded and consequently of no effect.

Conclusion

[144]     The designated judge had jurisdiction to hear and determine the constitutional questions raised by the appellant within the context of the inadmissibility proceedings taken against him. But the appellant has been unable to demonstrate that the procedure for reviewing the reasonableness of the security certificate issued against him, and for reviewing the reasons for the continuing detention as well as the procedure for reviewing protected information under sections 76 et seq. of the IRPA, do not meet the requirements of the Charter and the three international instruments to which he referred. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the conclusions of the designated judge must be upheld and that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.

On February 1, 2005 Charkaoui lost his bid to have the CSIS intelligence ‘summaries’ thrown out that were being used against him. (Noel:  2005-02-01 FC 149   DES-3-03)

[2]         Within the context of the fourth review of Mr. Charkaoui’s detention (see section 83(2) of the IRPA), he has filed a two-pronged motion: the first requesting that the certificate be vacated and that he be released, and the other, in the alternative, requesting that the summary of additional information, the new evidence dated January 6, 2005, be excluded.

CSIS: Adil CHARKAOUI was seen on 2002 01 31 and 2002 02 02. On the first contact, CHARKAOUI said he was prepared to clarify point by point what the Service might hold against him. He said he was prepared to undergo a polygraph, although he made fun of that tool. On the second contact, CHARKAOUI reverted to his defensive mode, saying he was being persecuted by the authorities, by the Service. Saying he has never done anything wrong, he refutes our allegations to the effect that some accused such as RESSAM had recognized him. He says this time that he refuses to undergo a polygraph and storms out. CHARKAOUI left many points unsettled, for example: CHARKAOUI says he never went to Afghanistan, but he admits he went to Pakistan, without indicating what he was doing there. Failing any second thoughts and a change in attitude, Charkaoui did not leave us under the impression that he would see the Service again.

She adds that CSIS, as a government agency, is subject to the rules of natural justice and that consequently it must act with objectivity and in compliance with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter when conducting investigations.

The summary of the interviews of January and February 2002 should have been disclosed in May 2003. However, the error is human, and this explains the belatedness in communicating the summary of the interviews.

Furthermore, a careful reading of the evidence (both public and protected) indicates that the facts and allegations at the basis of the certificate and the detention do not originate in any way in the summaries of interviews but are instead elsewhere in the evidence. Of course, these summaries are part of the evidence but they are not necessary in order to demonstrate directly or indirectly the foundation of the facts and the allegations on which the proceeding is based.

In view of what is stated above, it is not necessary to address the other submissions, for there was no breach of procedural fairness as defined in section 7 of the Charter, the facts and allegations in the present proceeding not being based on these summaries. Nor, for the same reasons, is it necessary to discuss the role of CSIS in the investigation, other than to say that CSIS is not a police agency and that it is not its role to lay charges. As such, it cannot be subject to the same obligations as those attributed to a police force. Moreover, we are dealing here with immigration law, not the criminal law. The standpoint is different:

This procedure resulted in the production of a summary of the additional information. Briefly, the summary of the evidence discloses the following:

–            the investigation concerning Mr. Charkaoui is ongoing;

–            the Moroccan authorities have identified Mr. Charkaoui as being a member of the Groupe Islamique Combattant Marocain (GICM) [Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group];

–            the GICM is a group linked to Al-Qaida and is allegedly responsible for the attacks of May 16, 2003, in Casablanca and of March 11, 2004, in Madrid;

–            during a trip to Afghanistan in early 1998, Mr. Charkaoui is alleged to have taken military training and theological training in the Sharia institute at Khalden;

–            the emir of the GICM, Noureddine Nafia, who is being held in Morocco, reveals that Mr. Charkaoui was indoctrinated by a Libyan imam;

–            some funds have allegedly been collected in order to establish cells in Canada, Pakistan, Germany, France and the United Kingdom;

–            Mr. Charkaoui has maintained contact with and allegedly sent CAN$2,000.00 to the GICM and allegedly gave a laptop computer to a member of the GICM.

[28]       Mr. Charkaoui, through his counsel, requests that the summary be excluded for the reasons cited in paragraph 4 herein.

Before commenting on the submissions by both parties, I should note that Parliament has anticipated the possibility that the Ministers might file with the Court new facts in support of the allegations (see section 78(e) of the IRPA). The English text is more explicit when it states: “On each request… made at any time during the proceedings…”. The latter clause does not appear in the French text. Accordingly, during the proceedings the Ministers inform the Court of new facts (favourable or unfavourable) arising out of the ongoing investigation. Consequently, a summary of information may disclose some information in order to inform the individual of the circumstances giving rise to the passing on of information from the Ministers to the Court, but the summary must not be injurious to national security. This means, then, that the designated judge may be in possession of more information than the Ministers had at the time of the initial decision.

[42]       For all of these reasons, the request for exclusion of the summary of additional information, dated January 6, 2005, is dismissed.

Read the entirety of the docket for yourself. It will exemplify just how convoluted the legal mind may become in trying to enact justice. In spite of all the entered in evidence as to the reality of Charkaoui we see it all tossed aside and the man released on bail through the docket rendered some 16 days after it was declared the CSIS summaries could not be dismissed.

On February 17, 2005 Charkaoui was granted release from jail on strict surveillance conditions . (Noel: 2005-02-17 FC 248 DES-3-03)   You can wade through all the pages of testimony yourself, but the reason for the release ruling is quite simple. Charkaoui clued in somehow and played upon Justice Noel’s flaws like he was a cheap guitar. He broke his silence and [12] “and for the first time, Mr. Charkaoui testified briefly through questions from his counsel and in response to questions in cross-examination by counsel for the Ministers. Mr. Charkaoui’s testimony resulted largely from answers to questions put by the Court.

Noel may have believed that he was finally seeing compliance on the part of Charkaoui, but the docket evidence shows him lying and distorting events in his favor that Noel had clearly established prior as justifiable cause for considering him a danger to national security.

Charkaoui made all kinds of excuses for his past silence and claimed “he decided to testify to show his good faith.” He lied in matters surrounding his travels, such as when “Charkaoui said he had never been to Afghanistan.” He lied and downplayed his contacts with established Islamic radicals such as Samir Ezzine, Abu Zubadia, Karim Said Atmani, Abdallah Ouzghar, Raouf Hannachi, Samir Ait Mohammed and Abousfiane Abdelrazik.

When it comes to the garbage spewed by Charkaoui we are given a can full in relation to Ahmed Ressam and thus the mans ability to identify him in any manner. He goes to the extent of stating: “In the Montréal Muslim community, many people think Mr. Ressam was recruited by the secret services to embarrass Canada and that Mr. Ressam was never part of the Al-Qaeda network.” He claims he never knew Ressam personally and yet the man Abdelrazik was the close personal friend of both Charkaoui and Ressam. Ressam knew Charkaoui and knew exactly who he was identifying when he placed Charkaoui in the Afghanistan terrorist training camps.
His glossed over comments of his personal life and the clown show ‘evidence’ of his John Galianos polygraph are just a waste of reading time. Neither has any useful solid basis of truth. He gave a ludicrous opinion on terrorism.

[19]  Charkaoui opined at length about terrorism. He found it deplorable that a [TRANSLATION] “terrorist” prototype had developed over the years, that of a young Arab Muslim male who travelled a lot, and studied languages and the martial arts. He said he knew many innocent people who had been suspected of being terrorists, often on account of this prototype. He also told the Court that he found it difficult to understand how anyone [TRANSLATION] “who was in a medieval country in a cave” (namely, Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan) could have perpetrated an attack on the scale of September 11, 2001 in the U.S. Mr. Charkaoui noted that in December 2000 he was searched by the F.B.I. at JFK airport when he was accompanied by his pregnant wife, but nineteen young Arab men were able to board aircraft on September 11, 2001 without difficulty. He found it strange that the 19 passports of these men had been found but the black boxes of the four aircraft were still missing. From his reading, his study on the Internet and the newspapers, Mr. Charkaoui is not convinced that the attacks were committed by Muslims; he says it is equally likely they were carried out by neo-conservatives and religious authorities in the U.S.”

When it comes to the parties’ arguments surrounding the docket information the claim that “Charkaoui perjured himself in his testimony” is absolute truth. And, the ongoing danger found to exist three times (see Charkaoui I, II and III) was and is still present today.

Whatever, Charkoui knew the weakness Noel had was his misconstrued perception of Islam and the family. His counsel went for it: [28] “They added that the detention prevented Mr. Charkaoui from looking after his two young children and he was unable to earn any income to discharge his responsibilities as the father of a family.” Further, his counsel played to the ego of Noel in giving illusion that he had finally won in bringing Charkaoui into submission to the law. “They mentioned that he had undertaken under oath to comply with “any conditions of release it shall please the Court to order”. This pleased Noel and when coupled with his personal beliefs that ‘passage of time’ somehow magically lessened his danger to national security or the safety of any person, or is he unlikely to appear at a proceeding or for removal. This is what effectively uncuffed Charkaoui and allowed Noel to mentally dance around the ‘damning entered evidence’ and applicable laws surrounding standards of review that applied to arrest and detention under security certificates.

Noel drags on in his analysis and through personal emotional based flaws made void the reasonable grounds standard through his actions. He personally needs to be held accountable for the resultant damage to our society his actions have entailed. Read the docket, the evidence is clear, starting with Noel much of the legal system should be neutralized.

Noel stated “[58] I do not intend to decide here on the reasonableness of the certificate, only to determine whether Mr. Charkaoui is still a danger and is unlikely to appear at a proceeding or for removal.” Like, duh! A judgment that Charkaoui is no longer a danger is a judgment on the certificate retention of the man. He goes on to state time itself “should neutralize what should be neutralized. I would even say that at the time of this assessment, the danger has been neutralized. [77] In summary, considering the evidence as a whole, I conclude on the basis of “reasonable grounds to believe” that the danger associated with Mr. Charkaoui has been neutralized.”

Charkaoui’s security certificate never has undergone a court review and thus has not been upheld nor has it been invalidated through any of the events that transpired. The case was suspended in March 2005, pending a new decision on his protection by the Minister of Immigration. It is in fact only in a state of suspension. Political expediency, needs of protecting National Security and a couple process application fumbles cannot change the fact that security certificates are absolutely legal under Canadian law. They were when Charkaoui temporarily slithered out of its containment and they are today.

July 26, 2017: The Immigration detention system is legal, though not always applied perfectly as spoken by Judge Simon Fothergill who ruled on what is the landmark constitutional challenge.  Judge Simon Fothergill says there are mechanisms built into the law to allow detainees to challenge their detention and the conditions in which they are held, which is enough to make the system constitutional.

Lawyers, including Jared Will, launched the landmark constitutional challenge two years ago, calling on the government to justify the practice of indefinite immigration detention. The constitutional challenge was filed by Alvin Brown, a Jamaican man who was detained for five years before being deported last year.

Monday’s case is believed to be the first-ever charter challenge to the practice, according to his lawyer Jared Will. > Federal Court hearing landmark challenge on indefinite immigration detention  >   Jamaican Alvin Brown finally deported but damages urged for his 5-year immigration detention

This ruling and deportation is giving the Charkaoui bunch a well-deserved headache. His issues were never closed, only momentarily sidestepped and there will be no similar mistakes this time. Noel’s emotional “reasonable grounds to believe” that Charkaoui was/is not a terrorist threat were errant.

 

 Stomach Turning Events

A definite Stomach Turner day was Feb 18, 2005 with the announcement Charkaoui was to go free on bail – The Globe and Mail

The flaws of Noel were definitely exposed through this action as has been highlighted prior.  And Adil’s Antics upon release have shown him to be the jihadi junkyard dog that he truly is. When released under bail he immediately pounded the Charkaoui drum beat of security certificate annihilation. He failed as shown by the Alvin Brown case, but it seems nobody has clued into the fact of how impactful this failure is now going to be.

On February 17, 2005, the undersigned released Mr. Charkaoui subject to 16 “preventive conditions” (see Charkaoui (Re), 2005 FC 248). There were then certain minor amendments to those conditions.

On March 22, 2005, at the request of Mr. Charkaoui, an order was issued inter alia staying the review of the reasonableness of the certificate, thereby enabling the Ministers to file an application for protection in accordance with subsections 79(1) and 112(1) of the IRPA. (Note: Charkaoui stayed the review of the reasonableness of the certificate through this legal manoeuvre. If the review had proceeded through the recognized legal channels he would have been looking for a cash-grab as a deportee like Alvin Brown is doing.)

Charkaoui never stopped looking for legal loop-holes. On February 24, 2006, Charkaoui filed a motion to set aside the great majority of the preventative conditions, with the motions to be heard on April 6 and 7, 2006.

He constantly objected to the events and measures that were emerging through his case. For example, On March 13, 2006, the Ministers asked the Court to preside over a hearing in camera in the absence of Charkaoui and his counsel for the purposes of examining the security intelligence information supporting the certificate and the arrest warrant as well as the other evidence or information. The Ministers also asked the Court to order that this information and evidence remain in the Court’s sealed records on this matter and that they not be disclosed to any other party, unless there is an order to the contrary. Charkaoui objected. The result: “For the reasons stated herein, I cannot give effect to Mr. Charkaoui’s objection and I must therefore dismiss it.” (Noel: 2006-03-30 FC 410 DES-3-03) Thus, Charkaoui lost his bid to stop secret hearings in his case.

Then on May 4, 2006 Charkaoui lost a bid to scale down his bail conditions. Charkaoui (Re) – (2006 FC 555 – 2006-05) This was quickly followed by another loss in his attempt to get at CSIS and eradicate the ‘secret evidence’ against him. On June 6, 2006 he lost an appeal bid to get a judge to censure CSIS’s destruction of its notes and tapes.  . (Pelletier J.A.: “I would dismiss the appeal with costs.” Nadon J.A. and Justice J.A. Letourneau: “I concur.”  (2006-06-06 / FCA 206 / A-105-05) Read from the docket as follows what was defeated. The disdain the appellate judges hold him in as highlighted in red. The attitude displayed underlies that of Charkaoui and all male Islamic adherents.

“Mr. Charkaoui has filed three grievances against the decision of the designated judge. First, he submits that his right to procedural fairness has been breached because certain information was belatedly disclosed to him. Second, he alleges that the destruction of the notes and recordings (if any) of his interviews with the Canadian Security Information Service (CSIS) is a breach of the CSIS duty to disclose any information it has to the respondent Ministers (the Ministers) and the designated judge. Mr. Charkaoui alleges that these constitute two infringements of the procedural fairness guaranteed to him by section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter), and that they entitle him to a remedy under section 24 of the Charter, and in particular a stay of proceedings affecting his inadmissibility to Canada.

[3]        Finally, Mr. Charkaoui challenges the receipt by the designated judge of certain new information that has been placed in the record on two grounds. First, the respondent Ministers had no knowledge of it when the certificate was issued in his regard. Second, this information is not credible or trustworthy in the light of other information that he has offered.

[4]        For the following reasons, I do not accept Mr. Charkaoui’s arguments. I rule that the designated judge hearing this matter properly dismissed his requests.

[48]      It will be recalled, as my colleague notes, that the appellant argues that the judge who is determining the reasonableness of the security certificate may examine only the evidence that the Ministers cited at the time they signed the certificate.

[49]      As my colleague rightly noted, this position is not only absurd, it is contrary to the clear language of section 80 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, which defines the role of the judge, and to the language of section 78 pertaining to the admissibility of new evidence.

[50]      But in the same breath — and my colleague explicitly noted this — the appellant argues that he himself could introduce new exculpatory evidence while, on the other hand, the Ministers could not offer new incriminating evidence even if such evidence is recent, did not exist at the time the certificate was signed and establishes beyond any doubt the merits of the security certificate issued in regard to the appellant.

[51]      Contrary to what the appellant seems to think, as his position bespeaks it, procedural fairness is not a one-way street or a street that is exclusively reserved for him.

[52]      I would dispose of the appeal as my colleague suggests.”

Charkaoui was made the poster boy and center of attention of a public campaign by Amnesty International against the extension of state power in the name of the “war on terror”.  In February 2006 Amnesty International reminded Canada, “His fundamental right to liberty and security of the person accords him the right to due process or release from the restrictive bail conditions that have been imposed on him.”

In striving for control Charkaoui bent every legal means he could, but he made a monkey out of Justice Noel on July 17, 2006 when he won the right to visit a zoo outside Montreal’s city limits.  (Noel: 2006-07-17 FC 891 DES-3-03)  He got an amendment to condition 9 dealing with his ‘territorial restrictions’ due to Noel’s personality structure surrounding family. He got two special amendments to allow two special family visits to the zoo by Charkaoui and crew. For the Muslims, it was all happening  At The Zoo/ Simon & Garfunkel/ (1967)  They were an objectionable public site at Parc Safari due to religious display then and they continue to be so today as the Quebec zoo fends off criticism for allowing Muslim prayers.

“The object of this motion is to allow Mr. Charkaoui to leave the island of Montréal to go to Parc Safari in Hemmingford, Quebec, on July 19 or 20, 2006, and to Granby Zoo in Granby, Quebec, on July 24 or 25, 2006, with his spouse, children and parents.

The Court is of the view that condition 9 is an important principle put forward in the conditions for release and must not be amended without any clear and precise grounds which warrant making an exception to the principle of territorial restrictions.

Having studied the motion and the answer submitted by Mr. Charkaoui, as well as the Ministers’ answer and letter dated July 17, 2006, the Court is prepared to make a temporary exception concerning the territorial limit described in condition 9 of the order.

In my humble opinion, considering the request and the limits I am placing on it, there is a balance between the goal of neutralizing the danger to national security and to other persons on one hand and the day‑to‑day needs and obligations of Mr. Charkaoui on the other.”

The day‑to‑day needs and obligations of Charkaoui remain the establishment of sharia and domination of all by Islam. Noel is in a state of self-deception and clearly was from the time he released the terrorist on bail. The rule of law is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by decisions of individual government officials. Should not the rule of law extend to the judiciary itself? Society cannot any longer bare the brunt of emotionally driven decisions by government officials. And the Court Justice System is nothing more than another branch of Government officials constituted by individuals such as Noel and Lame Brain Lamer.

February 2, 2007 Charkaoui lost another appellant bid to quash the security certificate . (Justice Alice Desjardin, Robert Décary, Marc Nadon: 2007-02-22 FCA 80A-652-05)

“The designated judge made no error in deciding as he did. I would dismiss the appeal with costs.”

But the definite Stomach Turner is what many have titled a supposedly landmark decision found in the docket Charkaoui v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)  2007 SCC 9. This docket contains a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of procedures for determining the reasonableness of a security certificate and for reviewing detention under a certificate.

February 23, 2007 the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision of Charkaoui v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) on the appeals of Charkaoui, Hassan Almrei, and Mohamed Harkat. Within the Supreme Court Citation, you once again see the claim that ‘passage of time’ and ‘disruption of contacts’ leads to serious decline of threat.

The Court held that the security certificate process, which prohibited the named individual from examining evidence used to issue the certificate, violated the right to liberty and habeas corpus under section 7, 9 and 10 of the Canadian Charter. The Court however rejected the appellant arguments that the extension of detentions violated the right against indefinite detention, that the differential treatment violated equality rights, and that the detention violated the rule of law. As remedy, the Court declared the “judicial confirmation of certificates and review of detention” to be of no force and effect, striking down articles 33 and 77 to 85 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, but suspended the ruling for one year. Parliament was given the time to redraft the articles which were enacted through Bill C-3.

Conclusions regarding the perceived troublesome articles:

[138] The scheme set up under Division 9 of Part 1 of the IRPA suffers from two defects that are inconsistent with the Charter.

[139] The first is that s. 78(g) allows for the use of evidence that is never disclosed to the named person without providing adequate measures to compensate for this non-disclosure and the constitutional problems it causes.  It is clear from approaches adopted in other democracies, and in Canada itself in other security situations, that solutions can be devised that protect confidential security information and at the same time are less intrusive on the person’s rights.  It follows that the IRPA’s procedure for the judicial confirmation of certificates and review of detention violates s. 7 of the Charter and has not been shown to be justified under s. 1 of the Charter.  I would declare the procedure to be inconsistent with the Charter, and hence of no force or effect.

[141] The second defect is found in s. 84(2) of the IRPA, which denies a prompt hearing to foreign nationals by imposing a 120-day embargo, after confirmation of the certificate, on applications for release.  Counsel for the ministers submitted in oral argument that if this Court were to find that s. 84(2) violates the Charter, the appropriate remedy would be to strike s. 84(2) and read foreign nationals into s. 83.  This is a good first step, but it does not provide a complete solution, since s. 83 deals with detention review only until the certificate has been determined to be reasonable, whereas s. 84(2) deals with detention review after it has been determined to be reasonable.  Striking s. 84(2) would therefore leave no provision for review of detention of foreign nationals once the certificate has been deemed reasonable.

[142] Accordingly, I conclude that the appropriate remedy is to strike s. 84(2) as well as to read foreign nationals into s. 83 and to strike the words “until a determination is made under subsection 80(1)” from s. 83(2).

As partial solution to the security certificate system, in January 2008 the government created a special class of defence lawyers, who did not meet their clients, but instead argued for them in whatever secret hearings were held. Special Advocate – Wikipedia The Government enacted this with Bill C-3 under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This attempt to strike a balance between protecting the rights of persons named in a certificate and ensuring the confidentiality of information which, if disclosed, would be injurious to national security or endanger a person’s safety still left Charkaoui looking for means to abolish the certificates permanently. Their creation actually was troublesome to his attempted time stall through application for protection.

The special advocates are appointed by the Court to protect the interests of persons named in security certificates during the hearings from which persons named in certificates and their own lawyers are excluded.

“The special advocate’s role is to protect a person’s interests in certain proceedings when evidence is heard in the absence of the public and of the person and their counsel. The special advocate may challenge the claim made by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to the confidentiality of evidence as well as the relevance, reliability, sufficiency and weight of the evidence and may make submissions, cross-examine witnesses and, with the judge’s authorization, exercise any other powers necessary to protect the person’s interests.

(The enactment under Bill C-3 (Historical) | openparliament.ca  received Royal Assent and became law.)

The enactment eliminates the suspension of consideration of the reasonableness of a security certificate that occurs when the person named in it makes an application for protection.”

In effect, Charkaoui could no longer block examination of the reasonableness of his security certificate, the results of which would have placed him back in cuffs and onwards to deportation.  So Charkaoui increased his efforts to attack through CSIS and keep awareness of his vulnerability on a legal backburner.

We now return to the sequencing of events in 2007 that led up to this juncture.

In March 2007, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a second challenge by Charkaoui, this time relating to the destruction of evidence in his case. Government lawyers had revealed that in January 2005 the CSIS had destroyed evidence in Charkaoui’s file. The situation raised some concerns about the accuracy of the secret evidence before the court. The Supreme Court set a date in January 2008 to hear the challenge.

In April 2007, the “millennium bomber” had responded through a letter to Montreal’s La Presse from his jail cell in the United States. Ressam was convicted in the United States and held under an unusual arrangement whereby he was offered a reduced sentence in exchange for information. Under this arrangement, over a period of some years, he fingered 130 people as “members” of the “extremist Islamist network linked to Bin Laden”.  Ressam is believed to have suffered a mental breakdown while in prison. In a return letter to de Pierrebourg, written in Arabic, Ressam retracted all his allegations against Charkaoui. He said he was psychologically unbalanced when he was interrogated by Canadian security agents.

Trying to have his bail conditions quashed Charkaoui’s lawyers hoped that the letter would be enough to get the judge to lift the bail conditions he has been living under since February 2005.

Journal de Montreal’s Fabrice de Pierrebourg was subpoenaed to appear at the Federal Court hearing and on 22 August 2007 testified that in his correspondence to Ahmed Ressam, that the Millennium Bomber had withdrawn his allegations against Adil Charkaoui. Getting Ressam to enact such an obvious ploy to benefit Amnesty Internationals ‘poster boy’ was not that difficult for the Montreal terrorist links in and outside prisons internationally.

What was the finding specific to this Ressam recantation and other damning evidence against Charkaoui? Our poster boy got an all thumbs down for his duplicity as shown October 10, 2007 when he lost his attempt to have his surveillance regime quashed. Charkaoui Re – (2007 FC / 1037 / 2007-10-10)

“Once again, Mr. Charkaoui believes that the time has come to cancel the preventive conditions attached to his release because they are not necessary to meet the objectives of the Act or the Court.

[12] Mr. Charkaoui is requesting that all these preventive conditions be abolished. During his testimony, Mr. Charkaoui offered his opinion, without specifically being asked, “that the preventive conditions as established would not have prevented him from committing a terrorist act.”

Abolishing the preventive conditions, as Mr. Charkaoui is asking the Court to do, would amount to a decision favourable to Mr. Charkaoui on the merits of the case, namely the reasonableness of the certificate. Charkaoui states the conditions are not necessary to meet the objectives of the Act or the Court. He claims new evidence contradicts the original evidence that was before the Ministers about Mr. Ahmed Ressam (who claims to have recognized Mr. Charkaoui in Afghanistan in 1998), Mr. Abu Zubaida (who also claims to have recognized Mr. Charkaoui) and Mr. Noureddine Nafia (who allegedly identified Mr. Charkaoui as an active member of the Groupe Islamiste Combattant Marocain (GICM)

[9] In this decision, the Supreme Court upheld the Court’s use of confidential information submitted by the Ministers that has not been disclosed to the named party (see paragraphs 49 and 61, Charkaoui VI). However, the Court declared that the security certificate procedure is of no force or effect because it does not include the participation of a third party (to be determined by Parliament) to verify the confidential information (see paragraphs 65, 70 …, Charkaoui VI). Having said that, the Court gave the government one year to remedy this deficiency and to propose amendments to Parliament that would be appropriate under the circumstances (see paragraph 140, Charkaoui VI). During this period, the IRPA and the security certificate procedure remain in effect. Paragraph 140 even indicates that if the Ministers want to go forward with the proceedings to determine the reasonableness of Mr. Charkaoui’s certificate, the IRPA would apply. However, the procedure for determining the reasonableness of the certificate under section 79 of the IRPA has been suspended since March 2005; the suspension will continue until a decision on the protection application is made and communicated or until Mr. Charkaoui requests that the suspension be lifted. At this time, it is impossible to proceed with reviewing the reasonableness of the certificate.

[27] In light of all Mr. Ressam’s evidence and only for the purposes of this motion, and given that the undersigned has not had the benefit of a hearing on the merits of this matter, I cannot conclude, based on the recent evidence, that Mr. Ressam lied when he said he recognized the person in the two photographs (Mr. Charkaoui) as Zubeir Al-Maghrebi and that he had received training in an Afghan camp in the early summer of 1998. In making this finding, I considered the evidence of the journalist Fabrice de Pierrebourg, the correspondence filed, the arrest warrant of the Service de police de la ville de Montréal and the testimony of the Forensic Identification Section etc…. I also took into account the testimony of Mr. A. Khadr. It should be noted that I had already stated that I was concerned about this aspect of the evidence and that I had explained that the interviews with Mr. Ressam had been conducted by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in January 2002 in the presence of a lawyer and that at two separate times, Mr. Ressam had identified Mr. Charkaoui in two different photographs immediately, without hesitation, as Zubair Al-Mogherebi. Considering all the elements associated with this evidence, I have concluded that Mr. Ressam was not lying.

[28] With respect to the evidence of Mr. Noureddine Nafia linking Mr. Charkaoui to the GICM and to a contribution of $2,000 and a laptop computer, the Court finds that this information from Morocco has been corroborated by “other sources”.

[29] Since Mr. Charkaoui’s release on preventive conditions, they have been revised several times to take into account the specific needs of Mr. Charkaoui and his family. These requests for adjustments have always met with a favourable response. Today, for the second time, he is seeking the complete and unequivocal abolition of all the conditions that were developed to ensure the neutralization of the danger associated with Mr. Charkaoui.

 The Court is being asked to cancel all the conditions. This does not take into account the determination of the danger to be neutralized through the use of conditions. Such a solution is not proportional to the danger determination.

[37] Taking into account the danger with which Mr. Charkaoui was associated and the importance of ensuring that this danger is and remains neutralized, preventive conditions for his release are still necessary and, therefore, it is not in the interests of justice to cancel all the conditions of his release.

[38] Given my conclusion that conditions must remain to ensure that the danger is neutralized, I cannot simply order Mr. Charkaoui’s provisional release without any preventive conditions. The motion by Mr. Charkaoui for provisional release without conditions is dismissed.

 

 As well, in April 2007, Charkaoui submitted a leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in a third challenge; in this instance to the law permitting deportation of non-citizens when there is a risk of torture. The Canadian government’s position was that legal safeguards against being sent to torture did not apply to people who were subject to a security certificate, basing this policy on their interpretation of a 2002 Supreme Court Suresh decision. Charkaoui challenged the legal framework allowing deportation to torture and what appeared to be the lack of due process, claiming he was being unfairly treated through even being subjected to the threat of deportation to torture and procedural delays. He wanted security certificates eradicated. Fortunately, he did not gain his desires, but events in February 2008 aided him in inching forward to his designs.

Throughout his attempts to destroy security certificates Charkoui challenged their legitimacy because he was not able to access the secret information in such files. Canadian authorities and the Federal Court had refused to disclose the case against him, relying on provisions in the security certificate process that permitted evidence to be kept from the defense and the public based upon reasons of National Security.

However, given the political needs of government individuals to separate themselves from the pressures associated with interrogation methods of the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) an opportunity was created that assisted Charkaoui.  Some of the evidence on file was garnered from Abu Zubaydah, a “high-level” U.S. detainee being held in a CIA secret prison and now known to have been “water-boarded” to elicit his cooperation. It was the public-political pressure against the practice that had Canada’s top prosecutor assure defence lawyers the federal government would not rely on evidence of Zubaydah in their case. They did not do this because of the veracity of the evidence. As we have seen through our docket examinations CSIS had all the evidence on file establishing the case against Charkaoui. But this action created an environment that allowed Charkaoui to generate that all CSIS practices and all aspects of security certificates were suspect due to secrecy.

The actions surrounding this Abu Zubaydah incident truly proved to be a stomach-turning event for CSIS. Maneuverings through the political-justice system enabled Charkoui to gain the Courts favorable decision that the CSIS should not be able to destroy notes and files creating their ‘summary files’, but agents should retain their notes and recordings for possible necessary use in court. Such action would leave both the CSIS agents identified and the information collection system naked. It would irreparably damage CSIS and place National Security in the hands of the Islamic terrorist. This is what was a stake when on June 26,2008 the Supreme Court of Canada reached this ruling.

CITATION:  Charkaoui v. Canada Citizenship and Immigration, (2 S.C.R. 326, 2008 SCC 38 Date:  20080626 Docket:  31597)

We have concluded that Mr. Charkaoui’s appeal succeeds.  In our view, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (“CSIS”) is bound to disclose to the ministers responsible all information in its possession regarding the person named in a security certificate.  The ministers must convey this information to the designated judge.  The judge must then disclose the information to the person named in the security certificate, except to the extent that disclosure might, in the judge’s view, endanger Canada’s security.  These obligations of disclosure cannot be properly discharged where CSIS has destroyed what it was bound to disclose.

As a matter of text and context, we have therefore concluded that CSIS is bound to retain the information it gathers within the limits established by the legislation governing its activities.  In accordance with its prior practice, it did not do so here.  For reasons to be later explained, we are nonetheless satisfied that a stay of proceedings would not be an appropriate remedy in this case.

In essence CSIS was being instructed to stop destroying its tapes and notes in terrorism investigations. The SCC judges of the time considered this to be a fundamental mistake of the CSIS in interpreting the statutes. It was no where stated that the CSIS was trying to circumvent the law to enable some illegal practice on its part. “The only appropriate remedy is to confirm the duty to disclose Charkaoui’s entire file to the designated judge and, after the judge has filtered it, to Charkaoui and his counsel,” said the ruling.  

Armed with this Supreme Court ruling Charkaoui’s lawyers were soon asking the Federal Court to order immediate disclosure of all the CSIS evidence. Mary Foster, a member of Coalition Justice for Adil Charkaoui stated the Supreme Court has recognized his right to see all the evidence against him. This is not quite true. His right was to see evidence that was pertinent to National Security only after it had been filtered through judges of the Justice system, and only if it would not be endangering National Security.

 Lame Brain Lamer

The man never should have been released from custody subsequent to his arrest, but as spoken on February 17, 2005 he was released on bail of $50,000 Canadian and his surveillance conditions went into effect.

As we have seen a great deal transpired from being released under conditions of bail until Justice Daniele Tremblay-Lamer on 24 September 2009 announced she would lift all restrictions on Mr. Charkaoui by the end of the day.

On February 20, 2009 Charkaoui had gained a bid to lessen his surveillance regime given Justice Daniele Tremblay-Lamer finds the threat posed by Charkaoui “neutralized, in large part as a result of the passage of time.”  Time in no manner lessens the threat posed by the true Islamists. (Date: 2009-02-20 2009 FC 175 DES-4-08)

(Take note: In her words, Mr. Salem El Menyawi, a Montréal imam and professor of Islamic theology at Concordia University, “significantly assisted the Court in determining whether Mr. Charkaoui’s release will or will not pose a danger to national security or to the safety of any person.”

This man Menyawi is truly not capable of assisting anyone to an unbiased decision and needs to be removed from the Canadian Educationl system himself. Daniele Tremblay-Lamer exposed her own lunacy and flawed logic in relying upon such an evidential source for decision making. She bases her Charkaoui Threat Level upon her perceptions that Salem El Menyawi “knew Mr. Charkaoui during his detention. He continued his contacts with him after his release from detention; he sees him regularly almost every week and considers him a good friend. Mr. El Menyawi describes Mr. Charkaoui as a devout Muslim who adheres to the Sunni interpretation but who respects other religions and opinions that are contrary to his own.

From the conversations had with Mr. Charkaoui, he is convinced that if Mr. Charkaoui is released without conditions, he will be a model citizen. Mr. Charkaoui is very mindful of the fact that he has the support of his community and he would not want to behave in a way that would disappoint them.

Although Mr. El Menyawi is not an expert, I place significant weight on his testimony since he has had many opportunities to personally observe Mr. Charkaoui and to notice his maturity or lack thereof, his commitment to his family and to his community and to what extent the community exercises control over Mr. Charkaoui’s conduct.

Based on all the testimony and the evidence heard thus far, I find as a fact that the danger to national security and to the safety of any person is neutralized. I point out, as Justice Noël did previously in Charkaoui (Re), above, that in making this finding, I am not ruling on the reasonableness of the certificate since the evidence is not complete and this issue must be determined at a later time.

If the danger is neutralized, it remains to be determined what preventive conditions would be necessary and proportionate to ensure that the danger remains neutralized until the Court determines the reasonability of the certificate.

 I place considerable weight on the passage of time. First, the allegations in the certificate date back nine years. The contacts that the applicant could have had with certain individuals before his arrest that may have been problematic at that time would have been interrupted for roughly nine years. The applicant’s trips ended in January 2001. He lives in the same building as his parents, with his wife and, now, his three children.”

(Now, take special note: One, at the core of the issues of concern is the reasonableness of the security certificates which were acknowledged and defended as appropriate in a multiplicity of the Court dockets presented prior. Much new evidence legally entered in damning Adil Charkaoui for the Islamic terrorist he is was clearly established. For whatever reason, lame brain Lamer chose to set aside legal evidence for the mere ‘opinion’ of a Muslim Buddy Boy and her own misconstrued personal ideologies.

Two, note what I have highlighted in her further statement. “The Ministers pointed out that the applicant chose to not testify about the release conditions as he had done in the past before Justice Noël. The applicant submitted a detailed affidavit, which specifically explains the impact of the release conditions on his personal and professional life. I note that the Ministers chose to not cross-examine the applicant on his affidavit as they could have done under rule 83 of the Federal Courts Rules (1998), SOR/98-106.”

By this time of 31 July 2009, CSIS had reached the decision due to Court orders demanding more transparency surrounding their investigations re Charkaoui that they could not comply. Such vast disclosure would be jeopardizing its source and methods which CSIS considered the lifeblood of national security.

They could not afford to expose the entirety of their investigative network and technique given the magnitude of the threat to national security this action would entail. As such, the Crown acknowledged there was insufficient evidence to uphold the security certificate against Charkaoui given their withdrawal of much of evidence. Essentially the Crown pulled all of the wiretaps it used against Charkaoui, and half of its human sources, leaving it with insufficient evidence to meet the security certificate’s test that there is a “reasonable suspicion” that Charkaoui is a threat to Canadian national-security.

Thus, the judgment proceeded accordingly in September 2009 with the actions of Lame Brain Lamer. And six years after the federal government declared him a terrorist and severely restricted his freedom of movement, Adil Charkaoui was a free man only because the CSIS had to withdraw their evidence, not because he was not a terrorist.

Thus, on August 5, 2009 Justice Tremblay-Lamer issued a directive saying she would consider whether she should quash the certificate or order the Ministers to revoke it themselves on her return from holidays, in early September.

Her holidays obviously took precedence over the confinement of Charkaoui, an issue that was considered to be so profoundly affecting the National Security and Canadian Immigration.  Daniele Tremblay-Lamer on 24 September 2009 announced she would lift all restrictions on Mr. Charkaoui by the end of the day and our Islamic animal was free to walk the streets once again unhindered.

Daniele Tremblay-Lamer is obviously a self-centered legal idiot that missed the most blatant of facts, that the CSIS withdrawal was truly not an issue. All the ‘new evidence’ entered in through the legal docket proceedings that had occasioned was not withdrawn and could never be withdrawn from Court Evidence that should have been now ‘established precedent’ showing all terrorist claims surrounding Charkoui to be true. This docket evidence is shown in these writings and cannot be ignored.

At the time Mary Foster, a member of the Coalition Justice for Adil Charkaoui, said the ruling had given the Charkaoui family a great sense of relief. “They can have a much more normal life; it means they can go outside the home without always being together,” Foster said. Well, their sense of relief is justifiably going to end, for it will not just be Adil behind bars this time around the Canadian Justice system.

I do not know if the Crown understood this at the time they were protecting the National Security interests through withdrawal to shelter their spy agency. But, they can issue a sigh of relief knowing that Adil and Animals will be herded back behind bars and out of the nation permanent.

 ADIL’S DOLLARMANIA

And now…we going for the money honey!    

Immediately following absolute discharge our Muslim Mutt headed for his bowel of golden bones. Charkaoui asked the Canadian government for a letter of apology, Canadian citizenship, and compensation for lost income and legal fees incurred as a result of his years in court fighting the security certificate. Ultimately Charkaoui sued the government for $24.5 million and on 12 March 2010 claimed”it’s not about the money honey….it’s about my reputation.

“Charkaoui said Friday he intends to sue for $24.5 million to restore his tattered reputation after failing to get an apology from Ottawa.

He said the civil suit, filed in Quebec Superior Court on Feb. 22, is not about the money.

“I’m doing it to clear my name, this is very important for me,” Charkaoui told The Canadian Press in a telephone interview between teaching classes.

He said he sent a letter asking for an apology, Canadian citizenship and compensation for lost income and legal fees after a federal judge quashed a security certificate against him.

The response he says he received was that the government was just doing its job.

‘I wanted to forget this whole nightmare, but they didn’t even accept to even present an apology.’—Adil Charkaoui

“To me it meant ‘Go to hell’,” Charkaoui said. “This is about accountability. I want to restore my name, and they made a mistake and destroyed my life in Canada and outside Canada, and they have to pay for what they did.”

And, how did Ottawa damage the reputation of a lying, manipulating terrorist that the entered documents have shown him to be. Just because most people were or remain oblivious to the truth due to temporary lack of access to it does not lessen its reality. And, why should Ottawa, or individuals within the government that were party to the fullness of truth surrounding Charkaoui have to apologize for damaging his reputation and make themselves a partner in his lies?  They did not have to lie to protect National Security, they were just positioned to believe that they could not expose the fullness of truth without violating their personal oaths of allegiance to the Government of Canada and its laws.

It is only elements within the press, general public and dhimmi that believed Charkaoui was a justifiable actions man. But, the timing of events and circumstance were such that Adil Asshole was able to defecate on the general Canadian society with each cramp he felt in the political intestines of Islam.

Both lawyers and monetary provision for them has been used by Charkaoui as a legal tactic and time stalling mechanism from the start of his ‘political campaign’ from prison.

He had a small pack of pro-bono boneheads such as Johanne Doyan and Julius Grey whose attempts to get cash through the courts was to no avail. For example, June 23, 2004Charkaoui lost a bid to recover $20,000 in legal costs . (Justice Noel: 2004-06-23 FC 900 DES-3-03)

“In his memorandum, Mr. Charkaoui implicitly argues that he has a right not only to representation, but also to the counsel of his choice. [21] Mr. Charkaoui wishes to be represented by the lawyers Doyon and Grey, who require payment in advance and a higher fee scale than that paid by the legal aid.”

Note: By this time Noel had signed nine judgments in the matters tagged into this application for free money. Who paid the supposed cash in advance troops to this point in time? Noel brought attention to this fact: “I have no evidence to explain how Mr. Charkaoui has been able to discharge his obligations to his lawyers for a year.”: but he did not pursue it.

Charkaoui was simply about manipulating stays in the proceedings against him. Were Doyan, Grey and others willing participants in his duplicity or were they blinded by Charkoui through their emotional idealism?

A case example of his manipulation for avoidance of security certificate examination at this time is the November 9, 2004 docket. (Noel:2004-11-09 FC 1562 DES-3-03) with Charkaoui looking for another stay of proceedings

[1] This is another motion to suspend the schedule, which provides, inter alia, for a one-week hearing (beginning November 22, 2004) to review the reasonableness of the certificate establishing inadmissibility and a further week (beginning December 13, 2004) for the analysis of the lawfulness of the decision of the Minister’s delegate in relation to the application for protection (protection report) in accordance with section 80 of the IRPA.

[2] More specifically, Mr. Charkaoui is seeking (1) a temporary stay of the proceeding under section 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter) accompanied by an order requiring the federal government to provide him with a paid attorney who can represent him. (2) An amendment of the schedule and (3) A judgment for provision for costs (evaluated at more than $60,000) to cover the fees and disbursements to be incurred for his representation.”

Adil was able to offset security certificate examination at this time and the time buying measure proved to be the replacement of his lawyer, his counsel of record Johanne Doyan, due to poor Adil having to turn to legal aid for his defence. While outwardly it might appear Johanne Doyan was simply demanding more then Muslim terms of endearment when she informed Mr. Charkaoui of her intention to withdraw from the case on October 7, 2004 the timing was well calculated. Exit Dodgy Doyan and enter our new champion Ms. Larochelle of the legal firm Des Longchamps, Bourassa et Trudeau stepping in to provide free legal services.

To ensure Charkaoui had the benefit of legal services through legal aid, Ms. Larochelle needed some time in which to prepare for the scheduled hearings on the reasonableness of the certificate.

So, the Court granted the necessary latitude and the schedule hearing dates were changed to address the reasonableness of the certificate, an address that Charkaoui certainly was trying to stall at this time.

With the Canadian taxpayer now footing the bill, Noel no longer had to address money issues.

The above is but one example of the type of tactics and measures employed by Charkaoui. With respect to his damaged reputation we shall look at the claims of deliberate unrighteous attempts to destroy our poor innocent Adil.

 THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN ISSUE with our buddies Charkaoui and Abdelrazik.

There is a pattern displayed in the Muslim path to cash through the Court system and the lawyers involved with them will bend every law and twist verbal ineptitudes to whatever degree is necessary to get their hands on the cash bags lodged in government coffers. The case of Omar Khadr is but one of many trips to the trough by legal pigs that care nothing about the ultimate damage caused society. Islamic insurgents know this and cooperate with one another in all formats of deception to see it comes about. It suits their purposes to see it does as the discredited attempt in April of 2007 by Ressam to withdraw evidence against Charkaoui has shown us.

Do you recall that CSIS had expressed concern about Charkaoui in his association with Abou Sifian Abdelrazik?  This Sudanese Canadian in the fall of 2009 sued the Canadian government for C$24-million, and C$3-million more for Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon’s, “misfeasance in public office.” Abdelrazik alleged federal officials conspired to have him jailed and interrogated in the Sudan, and refused to repatriate him to Canada once he was freed.

In the fall on Oct 14, 2009 his buddy Charkaoui was considering a lawsuit against Ottawa  and announced a celebration party for all his friends and supporters. A good venue to discuss ongoing manoeuvres.

I draw your attention to one statement in this report of great importance. “A member of Charkaoui’s legal team called the decision a legally important one, because it cements in practice the notion that decisions on national security could be left to a judge’s discretion.” It elucidates our current legal malaise and is in itself deceptive as it cemented nothing, it only placed the decisions reached in the crumbling mortar of the mind of Lame Brain Lamer. But the social loonies of all sorts and Islamists now launched into the courts with a fury as if they had a legal precedent inviolate.

This ‘inviolate illusion’ and all that has resulted shall be torn from the pages of legal jurisprudence and tossed in the trash can where it belongs. National Security is too important an issue to be left to a singular judge’s discretion when their incompetence and political leanings scream out their bias. Thus, you ultimately see a more equitable and just rendering in the Appellant Court dockets than the singular as has proven in the case of Adil Charkaoui and his Islamist buddies.

When Charkaoui first announced he was considering suing our government, he had long prior determined that was his pathway, and twenty-four million as their base figure of entry seems to be one of the buddy elements, eh

Charkaoui opened on February 22, 2010 a $24.5 million lawsuit against the Canadian government. Past federal ministers Denis Coderre and Wayne EasterDiane Finley and Stockwell Day were named in the suit. And, while there was a lot of legal parlance taking place, in August of 2010 the Federal court granted Abdelrazik the right to sue the federal government.

 The pressure on and manipulation of government is most easily activated through the great spiritually unwashed Canadian public. By getting such elements to back you in a façade of justice you can gain and maintain the controls of the vehicles you employ until you crush the lot in the twin beds of deception and stupidity in which they sleep.

I stumbled across the photo to your left. Could it possibly be Lame Brain in transitional jaunt of putting on the pounds and gowns we see her in today. If so, a word of caution Lame Brain Baby. Shut the yap in both directions, for you are not only making yourself to sound like an idiot in matters Charkaoui, you are also beginning to look like the Baby that ate New York.

Without digressing further, we see that in June 2007 and August 2011 CSIS documents containing information regarding the activities of Charkaoui were leaked to Montreal’s French-language newspaper La Presse.

It was in April 2007 that Ressam failed in his effort to recant his evidence against Charkaoui. Shortly after Montreal’s La Presse reported in 2007 it was given a leaked CSIS transcript of a 2000 phone telephone conversation in which Abousfian Abdelrazik and Adil Charkaoui conspired to use a bomb hidden in a keychain to blow up an airline flight between Montreal and Paris.

By July of 2007 the RCMP were occupied with investigating the sources of the leak. Charkaoui acknowledged he knew the man but insists they never talked of plots. Mary Foster, his spokeswoman for the Coalition backing him was adamant the leak didn’t happen by accident.

“We want to know who leaked it, who confirmed the authenticity of the secret document and why. At the same time, this is not the first time that dirty tricks have been played. That is why we are now calling for a public inquiry into the actions of CSIS in Charkaoui’s file,” she said on Wednesday.

Certainly, the leak did not happen by accident Mouth Mary. The leak came as you Charkaoui dhimmi were preparing for his second hearing before the Supreme Court of Canada, on the grounds that CSIS destroyed evidence in his file. The hearing scheduled for January 2008.

The leak reinforced your Coalition image building against both CSIS and the RCMP. You increased the volume of your howl for a public inquiry into the actions by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in the case, and demanded a review and withdrawal of the security certificate issued against Adil Asshole.

Contrary Mary, there will be exposure of who leaked and confirmed the document for La Presse for this was not the first time that your Coalition and Islamist dirty tricks were orchestrated from within both Federal and Provincial government offices. The leak was deliberately designed to weaken the Government in the long-term and to reinforce you and the elements you sleep with.

It was Horsemen that starting riding down your trail in this particular leak matter in 2007 and they have never abandoned the saddle. Horsemen are not the watered-down distortion of the RCMP that Islam, Goodale and your ilk believe the RCMP to now be. They are an element within the National Policing Service that fully adheres to the righteousness of the Core Values upon which both the RCMP and this Nation of Canada were founded. The poisonous roots of Islam are about to be torn both legally and violently out of the Canadian governmental structure at all levels of enactment. It was and now is just a matter of time and the days have greatly shortened.

The ‘propaganda machine’ claimed in 2008 that the allegations in the leaked document were unsubstantiated. (Noel: 2008-01-18  FC 61  DES-3-03) The claim is true. Some of the information in the document was and some was not substantiated due to judicial procedure. However, through the Coalition statements were made for public consumption in such manner as to allude that the Charkaoui-Abdelrazik plot was found to be untruthful in Federal Court, that it never occasioned. To create such illusion is duplicitous. Here is a bit from the docket, you examine the rest.

  1. The Court is of the opinion that its first objective is to give Mr. Charkaoui as much information as possible so that he is able to answer the allegations made against him in the certificate. While mindful of its duty to ensure the confidentiality of information affecting national security or the safety of any person, the Court held that it was in the interests of justice to disclose a summary of information to Mr. Charkaoui. The Court drafted a summary and disclosed it orally to Mr. Charkaoui’s counsel on July 16, 2007. Through his counsel, Mr.Charkaoui asked that the summary not be made public, given the motion to quash the proceeding for abuse of process, and because publication could compound the harm done to him by the La Presse article.

(Why not make the summary information public knowledge? Duh?)

  1. It is in the interests of justice and of Mr. Charkaoui that a summary of additional evidence be filed on the public record of this proceeding. The Federal Court took note of the allegations made against Mr. Charkaoui in the newspaper La Presse on June 22, 2007. The Court confirms the existence of the document mentioned in the newspaper articles. In July 2007, the Court was not in a position to confirm the authenticity of the document. Since then, the Court has taken cognizance of the document, which was submitted by the reporter Bellavance. This document was not part of the secret documentation submitted to the Court in May 2003. However, the information revealed in the June 2007 newspaper articles was. The Federal Court confirms that is has unproven information in its possession that correspond in large part to the information related in the La Presse article concerning Mr. Charkaoui. According to this information, at a June 2000 meeting in the presence of two individuals, Mr. Charkaoui discussed hijacking a commercial airliner for an attack. This information is already included, in a general way, in the public summary of information dated May 20, 2003, at paragraph 35. The Court notes that the information in its possession was not assessed in terms of the reasonableness of the certificate. To date, this information remains unproven. The Court also confirms that it has unproven information alleging that Mr. Charkaoui travelled to Afghanistan in early 1998 to receive military and theological training at the Khalden camp.

(Take note: The information is unproven, because it must be proven through examination of the security certificate. Noel nowhere states the information is not true. And, it is Charkaoui that doe not want the summary information to become public knowledge. Charkaoui feared full examination of his security certificate. He only wanted it quashed and this leak abetted him in his designs as did all his confederates.)

February 22, 2010 Adil sued the Big Bad government for damages to his reputation and continued in his efforts to be regarded the unjustified victim of the war on terror. The benefits gained in his propaganda war underway in 2007 were to be tried once again as a tactical manoeuvre.

Gasp! How could this be happening to Mr. Innocence in every circumstance he has been caught involved in? Oh, no! Not again!  On August 11, 2011 Charkaoui Terror Plot allegations resurface and he claims they set back efforts to clear his good name. He claims it another deliberate, ‘disgusting’ CSIS leak designed to destroy him.-.    

Did you read the article? Charkaoui’s supporters say an inquiry is needed to understand how and why secret CSIS documents about Charkaoui keep getting leaked.

“We want a public inquiry into who is responsible for this leak and what the motivations were behind it,” the Coalition Justice for Adil Charkaoui said in a news release Wednesday. “There are certain … indications that lead us to believe that high ranking officials may have been directly involved in this leak.”

“A coalition spokeswoman declined to provide precise details about what led it to conclude that high-ranking officials leaked the document. But she promised to release more information in the weeks ahead.”

“We’re deciding in what context (it) should be made public,” said the coalition’s Mary Foster.”

The allegations were essentially the same as those leaked in 2007 and the propaganda value appeared to be similar in these Criminal Leaks.

To my knowledge neither CSIS, nor the RCMP have ever made the results of these investigations public. And, Mouthy Mary: what were the certain indications you had indicating what high-ranking government officials were directly involved in the Criminal Leaks? A lot of time has passed, but you will be answering such questions in open court in the near future.

How outraged are your supporters going to be this time? I am not suggesting any actions calculated to silence criticism of the government. The onus is being placed upon you and the Charkaoui camp to disclose the secret evidence, the certain indicators to the veracity of any of your defamation claims.

Your drone-on drumbeat of defamation chanting will not work again Monotonous Mary. Try playing a different instrument, eh?  On May 7, 2013 we once again saw you people trying to resurrect the spectre of poor Adil’s defamation through Charkaoui supporters expressing outraged by specious attacks upon him. | NB Media…   But, Mary the supposed defamation needed to elicit the outrage, took place through the media stating such things as “On August 4, 2000, RCMP officers following [Charkaoui] witnessed him buying goods with an accomplice in Ottawa with a credit card that had been declared lost or stolen, for a total of $9000, including laptop computers bought at two different stores. [Charkaoui] and his accomplice seemed quite concerned about not being seen together.” Macleans.ca

“His supporters were outraged, with Mary Foster claiming his reputation was repeatedly being attacked and demanded public inquiry.”

Went a long way back in time to generate the rage, eh Mary? Bit of a delayed reaction this manipulated rage reaction, eh Mary?

AND, This same year, Mr. Supposedly Defamed Again in 2013, established the. Quebec Collective Against Islamophobia, an advocacy rights group.  He as its President presented himself as the Defender of unpopular causes. In August 2013, Charkaoui defended the right of two foreign Islamic hate-preachers to spread their message in Montreal, even if they held sexist and misogynist views of women in society. Citing security concerns, the event was cancelled by the convention centre where it was supposed to be held. Charkaoui maintained that it was Islamophobia to ban their visit to Canada.

“An interview of Charkaoui by CBC’s Anne-Marie Dussault sparked quite a bit of controversy the following week. Dressed in a djellaba, Charkaoui presented himself as a victim and rejected calls for him to condemn violent jihadism and the Islamist project. Instead he accused occidental (Western) politicians of promoting violence against Muslims everywhere in their degenerate, Islamophobic culture. Charkaoui maintained that ISIS was a creature of the US government, and on his website he hyperlinks to praise of Osama bin Laden. He rejects any interference of the wider community in which he lives on his religious rights; he finds this argument to be nefarious. One commentator was shocked because of what his position meant in the context of his pedagogical pursuits.”

The Conservative government is guilty of defaming his name? Not necessary, he does the job well enough on his own. Charkaoui gained a reputation as an Islamic extremist within local communities where his presence was felt. And, adept at manipulating the media, his presence was felt throughout La Belle Province. As a result, he did suffer personal attacks.  On May 20, 2014 a man with sword was stopped by stun gun outside his Assahaba Islamic Community Centre in Rosemont -.

But these attacks were simply more fuel for the fire of anti-Islamaphobia and the m-103 assembly of Justine Trudeau faggots, maggots and Islamic embracing queers. What, we are back to this track again? Yep! We sure are dhimmi dim wits.

But, in spite of being defamed so badly and becoming a focal point for a general spiritual-political unrest in Quebec he was granted Canadian citizenship in July 2014. This was given to a man that was  publicly known as the angriest man in Montreal – Macleans.ca   Better read this article in its entirety. I hope it helps to take your rose colored Charkaoui glasses off.  Whatever, things just seem to keep reappearing, some of which are now beginning to haunt poor, always innocent Adil.

If you have learned you’re A-B-C’s boys and girls, then by now you have a clear understanding that A is for Asshole, B is for Bullshit and C is for Charkaoui, but then again, perhaps you are a slow learner.

Why was this manipulating terrorist even permitted to have the privilege of taking the Canadian Citizenship test? He could have been legally blocked. Who orchestrated the events allowing this travesty?

Did Adil Charkaoui get an out of court settlement with the Canadian government over his legal suit against it?

Did Adil Charkaoui get an in-court settlement with the Canadian government?

Why the deafening silence? Better get some ear plugs for it will not remain silent much longer. As to the money, the eraser of defamation. Rest assured whatever passes through the hands of Charkaoui has the ultimate end of funding the violence necessary to ensconce sharia in Western Society.

 The FUNDING of VIOLENCE

At one point, to add to the demonstration of danger to national security and to any person, the ministers tried linking Charkaoui to violence, karate and martial arts. 

Charkaoui as a young person in Casablanca, Morocco attended a Tae Kwon Do club. In Montreal, he enrolled in the Académie d’Arts Martiaux Culturels Gélinas for over two years to improve whatever skills he had so he could give some courses.

Fortunately, the man has very limited skills, for he is by Islamic nature and spiritual birthing a violent man, promoting jihad designs along every avenue he can.

Read Montreal Les Perreaux  February 29, 2016:

“A security guard at a Montreal college that has become a hotbed of Islamist radicalization has made an assault allegation against a visiting Muslim teacher who was once accused of terrorist links.

Adil Charkaoui met with police on the weekend and faces an assault complaint after he was accused of shoving the security guard during a confrontation at a pickup soccer game at Collège de Maisonneuve. Mr. Charkaoui, who denies the allegation, confirmed he is free on a promise to appear in court March 16. A prosecutor must sign off on the complaint before it proceeds to court and becomes an official assault charge.

A group of young men were playing soccer in a gymnasium at the college on Feb. 21 when a security guard on his rounds confronted them. According to the college, the students shouted at the guard, surrounded him and threw balls at him before Mr. Charkaoui shoved him in the chest. Mr. Charkaoui and Farouk Aoun, the game organizer who rented the space, say Mr. Charkaoui was there only to play soccer with his son and acted as peacekeeper and gently guided the guard away from the confrontation.

The incident occurred a little more than a year after several students with connections to Mr. Charkaoui and Collège de Maisonneuve disappeared to join jihadi fighters in the Middle East. Last April, four more de Maisonneuve students were arrested at Montreal’s Trudeau airport apparently also en route to join Islamic State. No charges were laid in the interception and three of the students have returned to the school, according to the college.

In the months since, Montreal launched an anti-radicalization centre backed by the province, which has also drafted a law to crack down on extremist indoctrination. The college has had numerous reports of tension between students and administrators. Mr. Charkaoui has been a frequent lightning rod and provocateur in Quebec media.

Mr. Charkaoui, who spent six years in detention and under electronic monitoring as Ottawa pursued him as a terror suspect before the case was dropped in 2009, faces frequent accusations that he is radicalizing Muslim youth in Montreal. “It’s like collective hysteria,” Mr. Charkaoui said in a text exchange Monday. “Things have moved with incredible speed.”

Mr. Charkaoui was renting space at the college for Islamic lessons last year when some students with ties to him joined the jihadi travel movement. The school suspended the rental briefly, then allowed him to complete his contract under supervision. They did not rent him space this year but he is not banned from the grounds.

The school accused Mr. Charkaoui of provoking the soccer confrontation to mark the one-year anniversary of the contract controversy. “It was a strange coincidence,” Line Legaré, the school spokesperson, told radio host Paul Arcand last week.

After the soccer incident, Montreal police told La Presse that officers had attended the confrontation but decided it was simply a quarrel. Pressure mounted last week as school administrators met with Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre and the local member of the National Assembly.

Five days after the altercation, Mr. Charkaoui was informed he would be charged. “Circumstances change sometimes. A witness doesn’t have to press charges immediately,” said Abdullah Emran, a spokesman for the Montreal police service who said he couldn’t comment on the specific case. “It sometimes happens that [a complainant will] wake up the next day and decide they won’t put up with whatever happened.”

And, our boy Adil was granted Citizenship. Again, why was the terrorist bastard granted this privilege and Who was responsible for this nauseating action?

And did our boy manipulate himself into a whack of cash, eh? If so, exactly how much was he given and who authorized this dispensing of funds for the promotion of Islamic violence here and abroad?

 Now, if you think I have been outlining a sinister plot, you are 100% correct.

Do not be another dim wit dhimmi. Funds dispensed to Charkaoui and his ilk fund terrorism and fuel hate propaganda. I will lay out the most prominent individuals and organizations in Canada guilty of The Funding of Violence as an introduction to GENOCIDE – Sector Three of the base documentations being given through The Qur’an Is Hate Propaganda. I left GENOCIDE to the end because it is the arena that Islam is most easily legally rousted through.

The Criminal Code bans “hate propaganda,” which has been defined by the Supreme Court as speech “intended or likely to circulate extreme feelings of opprobrium and enmity against a racial or religious group.” Genocide has to be the worst form of ‘enmity against a racial or religious group.’

Unequivocally the Qur’an and hadith is hate propaganda. They teach supremacy, hatred and hostility and fulfill all requirements that define hate speech/hate propaganda as ascribed in Canadian law.

Prosecution for the Incitement of Hatred and promotion of Genocide is easily enacted under existing laws. I have identified Five Areas of Entry for Islamic Prosecution to commence the task of absolute eradication of the doctrines of Islam within Canada, thus the five sectors to the base documentation in these writings. The current court enacted legal pathways such as those of Prosecution, Citizenship Revocation, Seizure and Forfeiture and Security Certificate deployment can see fully to the task ascribed.

God willing, GENOCIDE will be posted precedent to the end of August. Exact date unknown as I am now launched into the arena of locating the five individuals who will assume the leadership of the five sectors of the legal battle finally getting underway.

I must thank Adil Asshole and the rest of the Motley Muslim Crew spoken to in my writing for all they have done to ensure that Canada will ultimately be a Muslim Free Zone.

I must also thank those Horsemen with the moral fortitude and ability to discern the legality of what truly comprises Hate/Bias Crime. Simply honoring their founding core values gives great hope that Islam can be completely offset before our streets are awash in blood.

At this point you need to watch the VIRAL VIDEO: “The Truth About Justin Trudeau …  and give heed to the knowledge you should have analyzed prior to electing a very dangerous man.

The video raises concerns about Trudeau’s associations with various Islamic groups and individuals in Canada; his recitation of the Muslim convert’s “shahada” prayer during a visit to a particular mosque; and much more. We’ll let the video speak for itself and let you make up your own minds about it!

I will continue to share with you all salient issues in the manner called to. And now I ask you to watch these two videos:  > Canada Defiance Part 1mysticgatekeeper10,157 views       > Canada Defiance Part 2mysticgatekeeper1,887 views

Send Justin Trudeau the message that he does not represent you anymore and demand that he resigns from the office of Prime Minister. Include in you demand that all Muslim MP’s resign as well, for there is no place for Islam in the Canadian government.

The safety and well-being of Canada and its citizens must be the first priority of the federal government, not the advance of Trudeau’s Islamic invasion.

Thank you.

Phinehas

 

In Christ – I Remain Phinehas