Profiling, pluralism, and Canada as a Terrorist Haven...part 2
Reader comment on item: Does the Police Department Profile? Should It?

Submitted by J.S. (Canada), Jun 14, 2006 at 19:37

I am not totally in agreement with respect to "racial profiling." I don't believe "race" is a significant factor, and I suspect that the terrorist front is rapidly moving to become "inclusive." Thus, I can imagine a wasp as an Islamist terrorist (for example, an Anglican convert to Islam). Several of the individuals arrested on terrorism charges in Canada were formerly Hindu (I believe with East Indian backgrounds), but they converted to radical Islam. For me, if Hindus are likely to convert, why not Anglicans or Catholics, etc?

Also, I think the police need to build trust with the various ethnic communities in Canada. I think a softer approach might be more appropriate. (I also don't want to see ultra-nationalist, right-wing fanatics in power in Canada -- I suppose, typified by British soccer hooligans -- the rioting, tattooed, drunken, "outsiders out" types.)

On the other hand, I don't want pie-in-the-sky delusional, as in "let's all hold hands," types either...such as those found at the CBC -- generally CBC's journalists (as with the Toronto Star) are far too frightened to even mention or associate the word "Islam" with "terrorism." For them, it's all "Islam means Peace!!"

Now on to the Terrorist Haven part...The Canadian Supreme Court is hearing arguments about what's called a Security Certificate. Security Certificates have been around for a long, long time in Canada (long before 9/11 or 2001). The security certificates worked as follows: a non-Canadian would enter Canada, perhaps apply for refugee status or attempt to enter as an immigrant...Canadian authorities at CSIS (that's similar to the CIA) would get a tip from some other intelligence agency noting that individual X was potentially dangerous (had been implicated in some "plots" -- ie., suspected of terrorist related activities.) CSIS would notify Federal ministers; and if two ministers signed the security certificate, the person would be sent packing. Thus, in the past, any would-be immigrant with a violent past, would be (after a security certificate has been issued) picked up by the RCMP, put on a plane and deported to his home country.

This procedure no longer works. One of the problems is that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that anyone -- citizen or non-citizen -- is entitled to Charter Right protections. That is, if a person sets foot on Canadian soil, he is to be granted the same rights as any Canadian citizen -- that includes not just due process, but free access to lawyers, welfare, social benefits, etc., etc. Then came another problem -- whether or not Canada could deport people to countries which practiced torture...Thus creating a catch-22 situation.

So, now we have 5 people currently being held (in jail) on Security Certificates -- they can't be released from jail because they are too dangerous (one Egyptian has been charged with 7 terrorism related counts in Egypt.). At the same time, their defense attorneys argue that they cannot be deported to their home countries (because their home countries are typically Arab states which practice torture.) These individuals could (if they wished) voluntarily leave their jail cells -- they could choose to return to say, Egypt...But, of course, they do not want to return to Egypt. So they sit in Canadian jails and whine about their "confinement" and claim "it's illegal." They also claim to "want justice." (One of their biggest boosters is James Loney -- he's the fellow who's with the group Christian Peacekeepers -- Loney has been described in the media as a "moral imbecile" -- he was kidnapped in Iraq, then when rescued, he had the temerity to implicitly denounce his rescuers, along with all forms of "violence" -- including any that would, I guess, save his life. I figure he should have been left in Iraq, since he loves terrorists so much.)

Michael Ignatieff, a potential leader of the Liberal Party of Canada has gone public, stating the following "principles" -- 1) He believes *all* people are entitled to Charter protections, not just citizens of Canada; 2) the use of indefinite detention -- that is, putting suspected terrorists in jail by virtue of a Security Certificate -- cannot be justified; 3) he doesn't want Canada sending people off to be tortured. Sooo, just what, precisely, are Canada's options -- let the terrorist go free?? I suspect that this is what liberals want. They want freedom for terrorists.

And the notion that somehow these terrorst plotters from abroad can be given a "trial" in Canada??-- well, where would you begin to get the evidence?? (Intelligence agencies only release info to other agencies given that the info is NOT going to be made public). The notion (which the alleged terrorists repeat over and over) is "Give us a Trial! Give us a Trial!" Yet they all know very well that a trial is not possible -- there's no way to gather sufficient evidence to convict them... Thus a Canadian "trial" would be their guarantee to freedom.

If the Supreme Court takes away the Security Certificates, or rules that deportation of terrorists to their home countries cannot be done -- then Canada will indeed have become a terrorist haven par excellence. Canada will become the World Attractor for Terrorists -- a magnet -- equal to any Third World Somalia. Bin Laden could take up residence and wander the streets of Toronto as a free man. (couldn't deport him to the U.S. -- he might be -- Gasp -- be executed!! o the horror!)...The Supreme Court (some of the justices have a background with the United Nations...) will be making their decision some time in September...or there abouts... I hope it's not dellusional.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".