By Paul Weinberg
TORONTO, Sep 6 2002 (IPS)

One year after the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, it is difficult to know how many people have been affected by Canada’s new anti-terrorism measures.

Some commentators have described the government’s approach as a quieter form of repression, specifically targeting people of Muslim background. But this country does not seem to have detained hundreds of people without formal charges, as has its southern neighbour, the United States.

Still, wider police powers and a new deal that will see Canada return thousands of potential refugees to the United States, have led many people to question the federal government’s legal response to the attacks.

Ottawa is not forthcoming on the numbers of people being held or investigated for alleged terrorist offences in Canada, says Toronto immigration lawyer Barbara Jackman, who represents a client jailed since last October on such an accusation.

Jackman also says the Canadian media has been “hypocritical” for focusing on the post-Sep. 11 imprisonments of people with alleged terrorist links in the United States, while failing to “look at our backyard”.

So far, Ottawa has ignored a call by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) for independent audits of how the increased police powers are being used.

“The government’s anti-terrorist measures were rammed through Parliament at a such a breakneck speed that there was never an adequate assessment of their costs and benefits,” says CCLA general counsel Alan Borovoy.

The new anti-terrorism law (Bill 36) gives police the powers, among others, to detain individuals for up to 72 hours and to force them to testify before a judge.

After a public outcry when the law was first introduced in Parliament, amendments were added to the Bill, but Borovoy characterises the result as a “plethora of powers and a paucity of safeguards”.

As far as Toronto criminal lawyer and security specialist Paul Copeland knows, most of the new provisions have not been used. “There has not been much impact from the legislation, which to a large extent, I think, supports my thesis that they didn’t need the legislation.”

Before Sep. 11, police had sufficient powers to arrest people conspiring to murder or to hijack a plane, and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) for some time has had the right to wiretap conversations with a judge’s permission, adds Copeland.

But a provision in the anti-terrorism law that allows the government to publicly name possible terrorists without a formal legal process has already ruined lives of people later found to be innocent, says Borovoy.

One prominent example is Liban Hussein, a Canadian citizen of Somali origin living in Ottawa. After Sep. 11 he was arrested, jailed, had his financial assets frozen and it was made a crime to have financial dealings with him. Hussein was also the subject of extradition hearings at the request of the United States government.

In early June, Canada admitted it had no evidence linking the man to terrorism and said it would not agree to extradition. In the meantime, Hussein lost his income, business and became a “pariah”, despite an official exoneration, says Borovoy.

Such questionable legal actions against residents of foreign origin in Canada actually began before Sep. 11, says Toronto immigration lawyer Rocco Galati.

Two years ago, Galati’s client Mahmoud Jaballah was found innocent by the Federal Court in Canada of belonging to a terrorist group linked to Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network and of a role in the 1981 assassination of Egyptian president Anwar al-Sadat.

But Jaballah, a teacher and principal in a local Islamic school, was subsequently ordered to reappear before a judge on the same matter a year ago, after CSIS announced new evidence implicating him.

Under a security law that pre-dates the Sep. 11 attacks, the Canadian government can withhold such evidence from the accused and counsel.

Galati says he and his client walked out of legal proceedings he describes as a travesty of justice, in March. “The rule of law does not apply anymore,” he says. Canadian authorities “are breaking (laws) to a far greater degree because everything that used to be illegal is legal”.

The lawyer cites the example of Mohammed Mansour Jabarah, a Canadian citizen of Pakistani origin who was arrested in Oman and handed over to CSIS, which promptly delivered him to U.S. authorities for questioning.

Although Canadian foreign affairs minister Bill Graham insists that Jabarah “does not wish to or need to see any of our consular officials”, some serious questions remain about a process that amounts to a kidnapping, says Galati. “Who is CSIS accountable to? Nobody.”

Canada has also recently signed a deal with the United States that designates both nations as “safe third countries” for refugee purposes. That means that refugee claimants who arrive at the Canadian border from the United States, and vice-versa, can be returned to the neighbouring country for processing.

At least a third of the refugees coming to Canada arrive via the United States. They make their claims in Canada because of less strict requirements of proof and because Ottawa provides them with social assistance, says Janet Dench, executive director of the Montreal-based Canadian Council for Refugees.

U.S authorities turn away many refugees fleeing persecution, says Dench, because they cannot provide official documents proving that they have been singled out for discrimination and abuse due to their background or beliefs.

Dench fears that refugees whose claims are acceptable under Canada’s less restrictive laws will now be sent back to possible torture or death in their home countries.

“Part of our concern is that if Canada turns refugees away – (saying) ‘you must make your claim in the United States’ – we may be effectively complicit with persecution,” she says.

Dench describes this new measure as a violation of the Geneva Convention, which stipulates that refugees should never be sent back directly or indirectly to a situation of persecution.

Canada has been seeking for some time to limit refugee claims by signing such an agreement with the United States, she adds.

Dench predicts the deal, which government officials say is only a proposal, will lead to a “more militarised U.S.-Canada border”, with Canadian police patrols trying to stop refugees from sneaking into Canada, much like what happens now on the Mexico-U.S. border.

“People are going to get hurt and people are going to get killed,” she says.

Excerpt: