We closed in Series – 10 stating 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 until today 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 if Trudeau and his cohorts have not yet instituted means to castrate them.
SECURITY CERTIFICATE DETENTION
Charkaoui and Cohorts under any format of Immigration Detention process should shudder with the July 26, 2017 ruling that the > Immigration detention system is legal, though not always applied perfectly as spoken by Judge Simon Fothergill.
Simon Fothergill ruled on what is the ‘landmark constitutional challenge’ of security certificate detention. 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.
The 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. The ruling came and the > Jamaican Alvin Brown was finally ordered deported but damages were urged for his 5-year immigration detention.
The specter rises once again as we see the issue of ‘we should pay assholes for simply being assholes’ that were found to be in a shitty situation of their own creation to begin with. It does not matter how long they are bound by a circumstance of their own creation. Their own actions place them in their time vacuum and they can unplug the vacuum anytime they choose complete honesty as opposed to duplicity to attain their own designs.
The Honorable Simon Fothergill
The Honorable Simon Fothergill received a Master of Arts in Philosophy from the University of St. Andrews, Scotland in 1987 and a Bachelor of Laws from Osgoode Hall Law School in 1991. He was admitted to the Bars of Alberta and Yukon in 1992, the Bar of British Columbia in 1995, and the Bar of Ontario in 2006. He was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2013.
At the time of his appointment to the Federal Court Mr. Justice Fothergill was Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet and Counsel in the Privy Council Office. He had been with the Department of Justice Canada since 1991 in various positions, including Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Litigation and National Security Coordinator. From 1992 to 2009 he practised civil and criminal litigation with the Department of Justice and in private practice in Whitehorse, Vancouver and Ottawa.
Appointed Judge of the Federal Court, and ex officio, member of the Federal Court of Appeal, December 11, 2014. Address: Federal Court, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0H9.
This ruling by Simon Fothergill and the matter of 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 made this time around. There are persons involved with him from many different positions that wish the Charkaoui matter would just disappear. That it would somehow remain submerged in the bowl of Islamic crap and legal vomit it appeared to have disappeared into.
Noel’s emotional “reasonable grounds to believe” that Charkaoui is not a terrorist threat were totally errant and enough to make a sane man vomit.
A definite Stomach Turning day was Feb 18, 2005 with the announcement that the terrorist > Charkaoui was to go free on bail – The Globe and Mail.
The flaws of Noel were definitely exposed through this action of release as has been highlighted prior. And Adil’s Antics upon release have shown him to be the jihad 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 fully clued into the fact of how impacting the failure to recognize what has transpired with Charkaoui shall be if his circumstance is not handled correctly now.
We now carry on following the tracks of an established and well-known terrorist. The ‘Angriest Man in Montreal’ named Adil Charkaoui.
“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 maneuver. 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 about what was defeated. The disdain the appellate judges hold him in as highlighted in red. The attitude you find 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 I would dispose of the appeal as my colleague suggests.”
However, 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 that “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 his crew. For the Muslims, it appears it was all happening > At The Zoo/ Simon & Garfunkel/ (1967)
Muslims 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 there.
“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.
Then on 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 a definite Stomach Turner occasioned in what many have titled a supposedly landmark decision found referenced in the Docket 2007 SCC 9 surrounding > Charkaoui v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
In it the Court declared the “judicial confirmation of certificates and review of detention” to be of no force and effect.” You can read the Wikipedia account of events as desired.
We shall be moving forward in further analysis of this and disclosure of more Adil Charkaoui chicanery in Series-12.
One way or another, as a Nation we have to deal with the abysmal reality of Islam and its adherents like Charkaoui.
Galatians 4:16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?