Charges stayed in terror case

 Feb 23, 2007 02:46 PM

Isabel Teotonio
Staff Reporter

In the first setback for the government's case against an alleged homegrown terrorism cell in Toronto, the youngest suspect had charges against him stayed in a Brampton court today.

"The Crown made their own estimation of the evidence that it wasn't going to be adequate to come to a conviction or comittal for trial," said defence lawyer Michael Block, who is representing a 16-year-old, the youngest of the 18 Toronto-area suspects charged last summer after a massive police sweep across the Greater Toronto Area.

"These charges have a lot of political weight and I think the Crown has taken a course that reflects their view of the evidence and at the same time it's a cautious step," Block told reporters outside the courthouse as the preliminary hearing, into its 15th day, ended for his client.

The teen, one of four youths charged with participating in a terrorist group for the purpose of carrying out terrorist acts and receiving training to be part of a terrorist group, breathed a sigh of relief as Justice Paul Currie stayed proceedings against him.

This means that bail restrictions against him are lifted, but the Crown has one year to reactivate those charges.

Crown attorney John Neander refused to comment.

Charges against two other teens, aged 17 and 18, were reduced to the first count and each was committed to stand trial. The Crown withdrew the second count. The hearing for a fourth youth - the only one in custody - continues.

On trial in this landmark case are not only the now 17 accused but also the reputation of Canada's spy service and federal police force after news of the terrorism arrests garnered international headlines.

Defence lawyers have accused the government of casting their net too wide in the sweep and others have said they plabn to argue that the influence of government moles in the case entrapped their clients.

"In matters of these kinds, I think the police are going to throw a very wide net over a lot of people because the allegations are very troubling and it certainly worked out that my client's involvement was nil but I think the procees itself served to bring that out," said Block.

"My client didn't commit any criminal acts but he found himself in the company of some people who brought a lot of scrutiny on their acts, a lot of attention."

A publication ban prevents reporting any evidence heard at the preliminary hearing.

---

 

Supreme Court strikes down security certificates

TORONTO STAR/CP FILE PHOTOS

The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down a law that allowed the government to hold terror suspects, from left, Hassan Almrei, Adil Charkaoui and Mohammed Harkat without charge. Only Almrei remains in jail.

Top court rules in favour of Charter of Rights, gives Ottawa a year to write new law
 

Feb 23, 2007 12:31 PM

Tonda MacCharles
Ottawa Bureau
The country’s top court has declared unconstitutional the overly-secretive “security certificate” system used to deport non-citizens suspected of terrorism ties.

But in a unanimous 9-0 ruling released this morning, the Supreme Court of Canada pointed to different ways the law might be re-written to comply with the Charter of Rights’ guarantees of fundamental justice, and given the federal government 12 months to do so.

Until then, the now-tainted provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act remain valid. None of the men subject to deportation under the law is free to go, but their lawyers say the ruling is - in the words of one - “a nearly total victory.”

Of the three who challenged the law - Adil Charkaoui, Mohamed Harkat and Hassan Almrei - only Almrei remains in jail. Lower courts ordered the other two released into house arrest under extremely strict bail conditions: Charkaoui of Montreal first arrested in May 2003, and Harkat of Ottawa arrested in December 2002.

Conservative House leader Peter Van Loan told the House of Commons this morning the government would review the decision and “follow through on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision.”

The Liberals and Bloc Québécois said they would wait to see what the government introduces, but in theory support a new security certificate system. However, the NDP says it believes the court didn’t go far enough, and that people suspected of terrorist ties should be charged under criminal law, not detained without charge under immigration law.

The high court found the current security certificate system violates the Charter’s section 7 - the guarantee that the state will respect principles of fundamental justice whenever it acts to restrict an individual’s liberty or security of the person.

That means, the court said, the law must provide a fair hearing before an impartial judge, and respect the right of an individual to know the case against him, and the opportunity to answer allegations.

The current system allows “closed door” evidentiary hearings, and bars the individual suspected of being a risk to national security from hearing the evidence against him. That leaves judges in the awkward position of challenging the secret evidence, and providing a deportee with only a “summary” of the allegations against him.

“Security concerns cannot be used…to excuse procedures that do not conform to fundamental justice,” wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin on behalf of the nine-member panel.

“We’re thrilled,” said lawyer Matthew Webber who relayed the news to Algerian-born Mohamed Harkat, now under house arrest and prevented yesterday from attending the court. Webber says Harkat told him over and over, “I’m so very happy, I’m so happy.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling makes clear that security certificates issued against the three in today’s case, and two others as well, were issued under a fundamentally unfair regime and would be quashed. It is, however, open to the government to design a new system, get it passed by Parliament, and proceed anew.

For the next year, said Webber, “we sort of play a waiting game” to see how the government will rewrite the law.

And while in theory, the government could try to deport the men in the interim under the unconstitutional law, since it remains valid for 12 months, Webber said that would be “impossible to fathom.”

“It would be to act against the will of the Supreme Court of Canada. Even legally they cannot and morally they cannot. They will not. And I believe they have a responsible sense of duty and they will not do that,” said Adil Charkaoui’s lawyer Johanne Doyon.

Doyon said she phoned Charkaoui from the Supreme Court of Canada with the result.

“He yelled, he started to cry. I don’t remember his first words - it was `wow’ or something like that, but they were very happy, said Adil Charkaoui’s lawyer Johanne Doyon.

Lawyer John Norris, acting for Hassan Almrei- who remains in jail - added that the Supreme Court of Canada did not decide whether the government can deport such individuals to countries that practice torture. And until the constitutionality of that action is decided - it is working its way up through the courts in another case - the government would not likely move to deport them.

 

---

 October 4,1997

 

Immigration Officer
Canada. 

To Whom It May Concern, 

This is to confirm that Mr.Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, Attorney, New York who acted as a co-ordinator of Suresh legal defence is coming at our invitation to address our members about the judgement given in case Manickavasagam Suresh Vs.Solicitor General of Canada. Grateful if his entry into Canada is facilitated. Thank you.

 

Yours truly

 

Veluppillai Thangavelu
President
FACT

---

  

FACT

P.O. Box 65143, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4K 3Z2 *Tel: (416) 463-7647,(416) 461 5991& Fax: (416) 406 5547 &(416)463 2620  

August 29,1997

 

PRESS RELEASE

                   JUDGEMENT IN SURESH CASE 

     Mr. Justice Teitlebaum of the Federal Court, Trial Division today rendered judgement against Manickavasagam Suresh, a Tamil activist and coordinator of the World Tamil Movement. He has been detained without review at the Don Jail in Toronto since October 18, 1995.

     In 1995 the Solicitor General of Canada and the Minister of Citizenship & Immigration issued a security certificate against Suresh. Today, the Court indicated, on the basis of evidence which it heard in camera (secret) and in public, that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the Ministers acted reasonably in issuing the certificate as the Court believed that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Suresh is a member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). 

     In upholding the certificate, the Court made it clear that it was not deciding if the allegations against Suresh and the LTTE are true as a matter of fact. This is because the judge only has to determine if the Ministers acted reasonably, a standard which is lower than the criminal standard of 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' and the civil standard of 'balance of probabilities'. Indeed, the secret process and the low standard resemble the Star Chamber of ancient England. Given the political nature of the case, it smacks of 'McCarthyism'. The process and the law under which Suresh has been prosecuted have been criticized severely by international and national human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, the American Association of Jurists, the Canadian Civil Liberties 00Association, and the Canadian Council for Refugees.  Ironically, the Minister of Immigration, Sergio Marchi, who signed the certificate against Suresh, was one of the strongest opponents of the law, as an opposition party critic, when it was brought before Parliament for passage.  

     The Court will issue full reasons at a later date. To the extent that the Court provided an explanation for its decision, it indicated, in the best tradition of the Federal Court of Canada, that it could not define 'terrorism' and did not see the need to give meaning to this term, because people 'know what it is when they see it'. The Court did not rule that fundraising and propaganda for the LTTE constitutes terrorism.  

     The Court indicated that there was overwhelming evidence that the Tamils of Sri Lanka face discrimination, and that in some instances, this could be characterized as persecution. He observed that the Tamils were struggling for a homeland, but decided, that as a judge in a Canadian court, it was not his function to comment on political matters. He believed that such matters were to be determined by the people of Sri Lanka with the help of international organizations, like the United Nations, and other countries of goodwill.  

     The Court refused to entertain any challenge to the constitutional validity of the legislation it applied, so that its decision has been made without consideration as to whether the provisions of the Immigration Act infringe Suresh's right to fair process and to freedom of expression and association.  

     The sections of the Immigration Act used by the government to detain Suresh permit the Ministers and the Court to determine that a person is removable from Canada on the basis of association with an organization which is engaged in violence, regardless of whether the person concerned has him/herself engaged in violence or would be likely to and regardless of the nature of the conflict in which the organization is involved.  

     Suresh's case highlights the serious human rights abuses inherent in the security certificate process. These include: 

     *    detaining a person for an extended indefinite time without meaningful access to a court to review the need to detain.

     *    sanctioning detention and deportation of a person whose only 'offence' has been to exercise in an entirely lawful manner his/her constitutionally protected right to engage in political expression and association.

     *    failing to provide a fair and meaningful opportunity for a person to know the case against him/her and to challenge this case on all grounds, including a challenge to the constitutionality of the provisions of the Immigration Act. 

     Suresh has been adopted as a political prisoner and a prisoner of conscience by the Association of American Jurists. Amnesty International has expressed its concern over his detention and has indicated that if his detention continues, it would consider him to be a political prisoner. Suresh remains detained and faces deportation from Canada. Further legal steps will be taken, including a constitutional challenge and asking the Court to protect Suresh from deportation, to ensure that his human rights are protected, and to recognize the legitimacy of the cause of the Tamil struggle for self determination.

         FEDERATION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF CANADIAN TAMILS 

                             -30-

---

 

August 31,1997

Madam Alexa McDonough, MP-Halifax
Leader
New Democratic Party
House of Commons
Ottawa.
 

JUDGEMENT IN MANICKAVASAGAM SURESH DETENTION UNDER SECTION 40.1 OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT
 

Dear Alexa McDonough 

     You may be aware of the arrest and imprisonment of Thamil activist and co-ordinator of World Tamil Movement Manickavasagam Suresh on a certificate signed by the former Minister of Immigration Hon'ble Sergio Marchi on September 22,1995 under sub-section 40.1 of the Immigration Act. He has been detained without review at the Don Jail in Toronto since October 18, 1995.  

     Mr. Justice Teitlebaum of the Federal Court, Trial Division on August 29, 1997 rendered judgement upholding the reasonableness of the certificate signed by the Minister. Today, the Court indicated, on the basis of evidence which it heard in camera and in public, that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the Ministers acted reasonably in issuing the certificate as the Court believed that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Suresh is a member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). 

     In upholding the certificate, the Court made it clear that it was not deciding if the allegations against Suresh and the LTTE are true as a matter of fact. This is because the judge only has to determine if the Ministers acted reasonably, a standard which is lower than the criminal standard of 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' and the civil standard of 'balance of probabilities'.  

     Indeed, the secret process and the low standard resemble the Star Chamber of ancient England. Given the political nature of the case, it smacks of 'McCarthyism'. The process and the law under which Suresh has been prosecuted have been criticized severely by international and national human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, the American Association of Jurists, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Church groups and the Canadian Council for Refugees.  Ironically, the Minister of Immigration, Sergio Marchi, who signed the certificate against Suresh, was one of the strongest opponents of the law, as the Liberal opposition party cr0itic, when it was brought before Parliament for passage in 1988.(See annexe for a partial text of his speech from the Hansard).   

     The section 40.1 certificate that Mr.Suresh to be described in sections of the Immigration Act: S.19(1) (e) (iv)( C), persons who there are reasonable grounds to believe are members of an organization engaged in terrorism; s. 19((1)(f) (ii), persons who are there are reasonable grounds to believe are or were members of an organization engaged in terrorism. The basis of the certificate is that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) believes that there are reasonable grounds that Mr.Suresh is a member of the LTTE.

     During the course of the trial the Minister’s counsel has conceded a number of points. It was conceded that there are no allegations of criminal misconduct or criminal activity against Mr.Suresh. There are no allegations that he engaged in terrorism in Sri Lanka. There was no allegations of any known procurement by him of arms, ammunition, weapons or material of military application neither in Canada nor allegation that he was involved in shipping such materials.

     The Court will issue full reasons at a later date. To the extent that the Court provided an explanation for its decision, it indicated, in the best tradition of the Federal Court of Canada, that it could not define 'terrorism' and did not see the need to give meaning to this term, because people 'know what it is when they see it'.   The Court at the same time  indicated that there was overwhelming evidence that the Tamils of Sri Lanka face discrimination, and that in some instances, this could be characterized as persecution. He observed that the Tamils were struggling for a homeland, but decided, that as a judge in a Canadian court, it was not his function to comment on political matters. He believed that such matters were to be determined by the people of Sri Lanka with the help of international organizations, like the United Nations, and other countries of goodwill.  

     The Court refused to entertain any challenge to the constitutional validity of the legislation it applied, so that its decision has been made without consideration as to whether the provisions of the Immigration Act infringe Suresh's right to fair process and to freedom of expression and association.  

     The sections of the Immigration Act used by the government to detain Mr.Suresh permit the Ministers and the Court to determine that a person is removable from Canada on the basis of association with an organization which is engaged in violence, regardless of whether the person concerned has him/herself engaged in violence or would be likely to and regardless of the nature of the conflict in which the organization is involved.  

     Suresh's case highlights the serious human rights abuses inherent in the security certificate process. These include:

     * detaining a person for an extended indefinite time without meaningful access to a court to review the need to detain.

     * sanctioning detention and deportation of a person whose only 'offence' has been to exercise in an entirely lawful manner his/her constitutionally protected right to engage in political expression and association.  

     * failing to provide a fair and meaningful opportunity for a person to know the case against him/her and to challenge this case on all grounds, including a challenge to the constitutionality of the provisions of the Immigration Act. 

     The Association of American Jurists has adopted Suresh as a political prisoner and a prisoner of conscience. Amnesty International has expressed its concern over his detention and has indicated that if his detention continues, it would declare him to be a political prisoner. Suresh remains detained and faces deportation from Canada. Further legal steps will be taken, including a constitutional challenge and asking the Court to protect Suresh from deportation, to ensure that his human rights are protected, and to recognize the legitimacy of the cause of the Tamil struggle for self determination.  

     It is now likely that Mr.Suresh will face removal directly to Sri Lanka and the Minister of Immigration will write to Suresh’s counsel to that effect. Fifteen days time will be given for a response, and the Minister thereafter may proceed to sign the deportation orders. At this stage an application will be made to the Federal Court for a stay order on the grounds that Mr.Suresh will face serious risk to his life and freedom if removed to Sri Lanka. It is probable but not certain the Federal Court will grant the stay order. After a lapse of 120 days if Mr.Suresh has not been removed to Sri Lanka or to another third country, then his detention will be reviewed, he may apply for release from detention. The court will release him if it is satisfied that Mr.Suresh poses no threat to the national security of Canada. 

     It should be mentioned that the relevant sections of the Immigration Act apply only to refugees and not to permanent residents or citizens. In a similar case ( Al Yamani Vs Solicitor General) relating to a permanent resident, the court held that section 19(1)(g) of the (Immigration Act) …. Contravenes freedom of association assured to everyone by paragraph 2(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in a manner that is not demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, and to that extent paragraph 19(1)(g) is of no force and effect.” 

     It is interesting to observe that the Canadian Foreign Ministry offers to mediate between the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE to end the civil war provided both the parties to the conflict make a joint request. Further Canadian representatives served as members of the Monitoring Committees appointed to oversee the Committees appointed to monitor the aborted “Cessation of hostilities” in 1995. The Canadian diplomatic staff has also no qualms to meet LTTE functionaries outside Canada. We also wish to state that countries like Britain, France, Norway, Sweden etc allowed LTTE offices to function freely. It is beyond our comprehension why Canada alone should consider LTTE as an organization engaged in terrorism and thus look less democratic and less tolerant.  

         In the circumstances we will very much appreciate if you will take this matter at a personal level with the Minister of Immigration and ask the Minister not to deport Mr.Suresh to Sri Lanka. In view of the wide media

publicity given to this case in the Sri Lankan press, his life will be in danger if he is deported to Sri Lanka. As you might know widespread human rights violations are committed by the Sri Lankan government’s Sinhala armed forces against Tamil people in Sri Lanka. Mr. Bacre Waly Ndiya, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on extra judicial, summary or arbitrary executions on a recent visit to Sri Lanka has said “ that a disturbing number of people have disappeared during Sri Lanka’s 14 year against Tamils. Sri Lanka enjoys the dubious distinction, next to Iraq, of 10,000 cases of disappearances since the 1980,s according to the UN working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. We are counting on your prompt action. Thank you. 

 

Yours truly

 

 

Veluppillai Thangavelu
President
FACT

 Annexe

Text of the speech made by Sergio Marchi in Parliament on 26th January 1988.

  " The Government suggested that any one suspected of a security flaw should not have access to the refugee process or the refugee system. The Senate came back and said " We believe that that should be the case for those who are convicted of a serious crime, for terrorism, and for convicted war criminals. It indicated that those people should not have access to our refugee system to buy more time or to abuse the compassion of our country. I would agree with that. However, the government wanted to go beyond that and talk about people it may suspect of some wrongdoing. Currently it wants to incorporate under Subsections 19(1)(c), (e), (f) and (g) of the Immigration Act people suspected of undermining security or people suspected of having done so in the past. It is all based

on suspicion. As the Prime Minister mentioned  a number of times

this week, we have in our system the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Our point is that we cannot simply detain or order people out of the country based upon suspicions. It must be much more valid than that. We must also define what we mean by subversive." 

"Is Nelson Mandela a terrorist because he has tried to obtain freedom for himself and his people in South Africa? According to the definition, Nelson Mandela would be one of those individuals who would be seen undermining a Government of another land. He would be seen as going against the system. Currently Nelson Mandela is in prison and has been convicted of what South Africa thinks is a crime and what we would reward with a medal, namely, seeking of one's democracy and freedom. Therefore we must try to define what constitutes subversive activities. Our position has been that we need more than simply suspicion, and at the end of remarks I will be moving an amendment which plays to that fact."

---

 

FACT

P.O.Box 65143, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4K 3Z2 *Tel: (416) 463-7647,(416) 461 5991& Fax: (416) 406 5547 & (416) 463 2620

 

 

December 18, 1997

 

Hon. Lucienne Robillard MP, PC

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Place du Portage, Phase 1, 23rd Floor

50 Victoria Street

Hull, Quebec K1A 1L1

 

 

THAMIL POLITICAL PRISONERS MURDERED BY SINHALA CONVICTS IN KALUTARA JAIL, SRI LANKA

 

Dear Hon’ble Minister,

 

We wish to bring to your attention the killing of three Thamil political prisoners in cold-blood by Sinhalese convicts and common criminals serving sentences at Kalutara jail 30 miles south of Colombo. The murder, reminiscent of the brutal massacre of 53 political prisoners at the Welikada prison in 1983 Black July by Sinhalese prisoners, took place at 2 PM on December 12, 1997 allegedly incited by the jail guards and the army. The prisoners using deadly weapons like knives, clubs, swords and iron rods seriously injured seven other Thamil prisoners in the attack, even though the Commissioner of Prisons made a feeble attempt to deny the incident.

 

These gruesome murders and ghastly attacks reveal that the Thamils are not safe even inside maximum security prisons and come on the heels of the recent Amnesty International report which stated “that of the 600-odd people who have “disappeared” in the last 18 months after their arrest by the security forces, nearly all have died as a result of torture or been deliberately killed in detention.”

 

According to news reports the three killed were among the 223 Thamil prisoners transferred recently from the Colombo Magazine (Welikada) prison where they were languishing for years without charges or trial. All of them were arrested by the army and the police and kept in prison under the notorious Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) or under Emergency Regulations.

 

The ordeal of the Thamil political prisoners began on November 27 when they decided to go on an indefinite hunger strike to protest against their continued detention without being subjected to any judicial process under the law. They commenced their protest fast on top of the Welikada prison roof with the slogan " Release us or initiate inquiries on us". These detainees were severely attacked with batons by the Sinhalese prison staff and pushed down the roof. They were then force fed with bread soaked in water.

 

A photographer of the Thamil national daily Virakesari who went to cover the protest fast at the Welikada prison that day was manhandled by the Police and his film rolls confiscated.

              

Amnesty International has called on Tuesday ( December 16, ) for an impartial inquiry into the killings of the Thamil prisoners. It has also expressed concern for the safety of other Thamils detained for alleged involvement in rebel activities. Amnesty in a letter to Minister Gamini Peiris stated “ Prison staff and army personnel deployed at the prison appear to have failed to take measurers to protect the Thamil detainees at the time, according to some reports, were even actively involved in the attack which lasted more than an hour.”

 

The premeditated attack on Thamil political prisoners within the four walls of the Kalutara jail and the murder of three of them is not just an act of barbarity on the part of Sinhala criminals and convicts. The connivance in the murder by Sinhala jail guards and prison officials, the presence of murderous weapons like swords within a jail, the initial attempt by prison administration to deny the incident, are symptomatic of the impunity with which racist attacks on Thamils happen under the rule of the Chandrika government.

 

               This is a grim reminder and proof positive of what awaits Manickavasagam Suresh if he is to be deported to Sri Lanka by the Hon’ble Minister. We trust the Hon’ble Minister will bear this in mind while considering whether Suresh removal in fact should be executed.  It is our considered view that he is not a threat to the national security of Canada, the certificate should not be executed and he should be released.  Thanking you.

 

 

Yours truly,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Veluppillai Thangavelu

President

FACT

 

 

---

 

 

To: thanga@better.net

Subject: Tamils Protest Deportation of Community Leader

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Status: OR

X-Mozilla-Status: 0001

Content-Length: 4887

 

Hi!

This is suresh from Ottawa, this is sams report about Sept 26, 1997

 

Tamils Protest Deportation of Community Leader

 

 

Ottawa, Sept 26, 1997 (SAMS)  Hundreds of Tamils took part in a token

fast on Parliament Hill today to protest the Immigration Department

recommendation to deport Mr. Manickavasakam Suresh to Sri Lanka.

 

Protesters were peaceful and some had come from Toronto and Montreal.

Women, children and the elderly carried several placards calling on the

Canadian government not to deport Mr. Suresh.  One read "Please Don't

Deport Mr.  Suresh.  He faces Certain Death in Sri Lanka!".

 

Mr. Suresh fled the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka and came to Canada on

Oct. 5, 1990 and was accepted as a Convention refugee by Ottawa on April

11, 1991.  On October 18, 1995, Suresh was arrested and detained for

over two years under Section 40.1 of the Immigration Act.

 

On Aug 31, 1997, Mr. Justice Teitelbaum found that minister who had

signed the certificate against Mr. Suresh had reasonable grounds to

believe that Mr. Suresh was a member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil

Eelam (LTTE), the main guerrilla group fighting for the independence of

Tamil regions from Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan high commission in Ottawa,

in a press release, hailed the verdict and said Mr. Suresh was the chief

fundraising officer for the LTTE in Canada. Whether the SL government is

actively seeking extradition of Mr. Suresh to Sri Lanka is not known.

 

The Tamil protesters say that Mr. Suresh faces torture and death in Sri

Lanka.  "Canada accepted Mr. Suresh as a Convention refugee because he

faced danger to his life but now says that he is in no danger. This is a

contradiction," says Shanthokumar, an employee of a hi-tech firm in

Ottawa.

 

Ram Selvarajah and his wife came from Cambridge, Ontario, about 700 km

from Ottawa to participate in the token fast. He is with an organization

called 'Save Suresh Campaign'. "Suresh mobilized Tamils against the

human rights violations in Sri Lanka.  Just before the arrest, Suresh

organized a large demonstration in Toronto.  Close to 25,000 people took

part in it and it was one of the largest political demonstrations in

Canada. This made him a target of Sri Lankan government," he said. Ram

dismissed the argument that Suresh is a potential threat to Canada.

"Suresh lived in Canada for more than four years and he had never

committed any crime."

 

An Anglican priest Fr. J. Francis Xavier also took part in the token

fast.  He said, "The council of churches in Canada opposed this law

[Section 40.1 of the Immigration Act] when it was first introduced.  The

churches consider this to be a Draconian law which denies [the accused

a] fair trial...  Canada already has a law to handle war criminals and

[hence] there is no need for a law which heavily relies on the

Minister's judgement alone to prosecute someone"

 

Sankar Ratnam is a local hi-tech employee. The Sri Lankan government's

assurance that the human rights situation has improved did not satisfy

him and he fears for Mr. Suresh's life. "People have the freedom to

express or associate with any organization. The killing and

disappearances still continue unabated in Sri Lanka".  He hopes the

minister will reconsider the deportation order. "No country has ever

deported anyone to Sri Lanka who alleged to be associated with the LTTE"

he said.

 

The protest also drew people from other ethnic communities.  Mr. Adonius

Darbas, a Palestinian said "In many of the third world countries, there

is no democracy. I have no doubt that if Suresh is deported to Sri

Lanka, he will be tortured and killed," he said. "Today may be Tamil.

Tomorrow may be someone from other community".

 

Mr. Mike Wolf, a resident of Ottawa said he was moved by many old and

young peoples and their determination to protest injustice. "Canada

always gave sanctuary to refugees and sending back people is not a

solution" he said.

 

The Immigration Act Section 40.1, which was used to arrest and detain

Mr. Suresh, has earned Canada the scorn of many human rights

organizations including Amnesty International (AI) and the International

Association of Jurists.

 

"Manickavasagam Suresh, a Tamil refugee from Sri Lanka, detained in

October 1995 on the grounds that he "has or will engage in terrorism",

remained held under section 40(1) of the Immigration Act, the provisions

of which fall short of international standards for fair trial. Under

this legislation detainees are not provided with full information on the

reasons for their detention and are therefore deprived of an effective

opportunity to defend themselves. There was also concern that

Manickavasagam Suresh could be returned to Sri Lanka, where he might

face human rights violations" said the1997 AI report on Canada.

 

 

Copyright 1997          South Asian Media Services

 

 

---

 

February 26, 1996

 

Hon'ble Lucienne Robillard, M.P.
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Ottawa.

 ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT OF MANICKAVASAGAM SURESH  UNDER SECTION 40.1 IMMIGRATION ACT

 Dear Hon'ble Minister, 

We write in continuation of our letter dated January 26,1996. 

We assume that the Hon'ble Minister is aware of the arrest and imprisonment of Thamil activist on a certificate signed by the former Minister of Immigration Sergio Marchi on September 22,1995 under sub-section 40.1 of the Immigration Act. Ironically Sergio Marchi as opposition Liberal Immigration critic slammed this piece of legislation enacted by the Conservative government in 1988 to appease the political agenda of the Reform Party. But he on becoming the Minister for the same Immigration Ministry signed with vengeance a dozen certificates sending hapless refugees to jail and deporting some of them under the very provisions of the Immigration Act which he eloquently criticized! 

We wish to take the opportunity to quote from the Hansard what  Sergio Marchi spoke on the 26th January, 1988 in his role as the then Immigration critic. On this day he tore to shreds Bill 84 describing it as draconian and castigated the then Immigration Minister Hon'ble Benoit Bouchard with the zeal of a human rights crusader.  

"The Government suggested that any one suspected of a security flaw should not have access to the refugee process or the refugee system. The Senate came back and said " We believe that that should be the case for those who are CONVICTED of a serious crime, for terrorism, and for CONVICTED war criminals. It indicated that those people should not have access to our refugee system to buy more time or to abuse the compassion of our country. I would agree with that. However, the government wanted to go beyond that and talk about people it may suspect of some wrongdoing. Currently it wants to incorporate under Subsections 19(1)(c), (e), (f) and (g) of the Immigration Act people SUSPECTED of undermining security or people SUSPECTED of having done so in the past. It is all based on SU0SPICION. As the Prime Minister mentioned  a number of times this week, we have in our system the presumption of innocence until proven  guilty. Our point is that we cannot simply detain or order people out of the country based upon suspicions. It must be much more valid than that. We must also define what we mean by subversive." 

Sergio Marchi then proceeded to ask rhetorically "Is Nelson Mandela a terrorist because he has tried to obtain freedom for himself and his people in South Africa? According to the definition, Nelson Mandela would be one of those individuals who would be seen undermining a Government of another land. He would be seen as going against the system. Currently Nelson Mandela is in prison and has been convicted of what South Africa thinks is a crime and what we would reward with a medal, namely, seeking of one's democracy and freedom. Therefore we must try to define what constitutes subversive activities. Our position has been that we need more than simply suspicion, and at the end of remarks I will be moving an amendment which plays to that fact." 

This is not all what Sergio Marchi told the then Minister for Immigration. He used choice epithets to debunk the fabrication of the immigration crisis to rein in the amendments to Immigration law. But when the Hon'ble Member became the Hon'ble Minister of Immigration he ate his own words and reversed his role. This by any standards of public propriety is very dishonourable conduct. 

We firmly believe that the present Hon'ble Minister of Immigration  has the opportunity to undo the damage done by the former Minister. Suresh as a community activist worked 18 hours a day to advance the interests of Thamil Canadians. It is ridiculous to claim he is a "terrorist" based on alleged membership ( simply on suspicion as Sergio Marchi put it) in an organization engaged in "terrorism."  To deport Suresh back to Sri Lanka will tantamount to returning him to the very persecutors from whose political  persecution he fled in the first place. 

We appeal to the Hon'ble Minister of Immigration for the same reasons so eloquently advanced by Sergio Marchi at one time to review the case against Suresh and withdraw the certificate immediately. According to legal opinion, the Hon'ble Minister has authority to instruct the lawyers for the government to withdraw the certificate. This is the only honourable course of action that will cement the strained relationship between the Canadian government and the 150,000 strong Thamil Canadians. Thanking you. 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Veluppillai Thangavelu
Director 
FACT

---

March 10, 1996

 

The Right Hon. Jean Chretien
Prime Minister of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

 ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT OF MANICKAVASAGAM SURESH UNDER SECTION 40.1 IMMIGRATION ACT

 Dear Hon. Minister, 

We wish to draw the attention of the Right Hon. Prime Minister to the previous correspondence on this subject. 

The Hon. Minister is aware of the arrest and imprisonment of the Thamil activist on a certificate signed by the former Minister of Immigration Sergio Marchi on September 22, 1995 under sub-section 40.1 of the Immigration Act.  Ironically Sergio Marchi as opposition Liberal Immigration critic slammed this piece of legislation enacted by the Conservative government in 1988 to appease the political agenda of the Reform Party.  But he on becoming the Minister for the same Immigration Ministry signed with vengeance a dozen certificates sending helpless refugees to jail and deporting some of them under the very provisions of the Immigration Act which he had so eloquently criticized! 

We wish to quote from the Hansard what Sergio Marchi spoke on  January 26, 1988 in his role as the then Liberal Party Immigration critic.  On this day he tore to shreds Bill 84 describing it as draconian and castigated the then Immigration Minister Hon. Benoit Bouchard with the zeal of a human rights crusader!  

He said "The Government suggested that any one suspected of a security flaw should not have access to the refugee process or the refugee system.  The Senate came back and said 'We believe that that should be the case for those who are CONVICTED of a serious crime, for TERRORISM, and for CONVICTED war criminals'.  It indicated that those people should not have access to our refugee system to buy more time or to abuse the compassion of our country.  I would agree with that.  However, the government wanted to go beyond that and talk about people it may SUSPECT of some wrongdoing.  Currently it wants to incorporate under Subsections 19(1)(c), (e), (f) and (g) of the Immigration Act people SUSPECTED of undermining security or people SUSPECTED of having done so in the past. It is all based on SUSPICION.  As the Prime Minister mentioned  a number of times this week, we have in our system the presumption of innocence until proven  guilty.  Our point is that we cannot simply detain or order people out of the country based upon suspicions.  It must be much more valid than that.  We must also define what we mean by subversive."

Sergio Marchi then proceeded to ask rhetorically "Is Nelson Mandela a terrorist because he has tried to obtain freedom for himself and his people in South Africa?  According to the definition, Nelson Mandela would be one of those individuals who would be seen undermining a Government of another land.  He would be seen as going against the system.  Currently Nelson Mandela is in prison and has been convicted of what South Africa thinks is a crime and what we would reward with a medal, namely, seeking of one's democracy and freedom.  Therefore we must try to DEFINE what constitutes SUBVERSIVE activities.  Our position has been that we need more than simply SUSPICION and at the end of the remarks I will be moving an amendment that plays to that fact." 

This is not all what Sergio Marchi told the then Minister for Immigration.  He used choice epithets to debunk the fabrication of the immigration crisis to rein in the amendments to Immigration Act.  But when the Hon. Member became the Hon. Minister of Immigration he ate his own words and reversed his role.  It is a shame that Sergio Marchi had no memory about his past.  He in opposition was sanctimonious, but in government hypocritical.  He really raised duplicity to new heights and as a fine art. 

We firmly believe that the Right Hon. Prime Minister has the opportunity to undo the injustice caused to Suresh, a convention refugee, by the former Minister.  Suresh as a community activist worked 18 hours a day to advance the interests of Thamil Canadians. It is ridiculous to claim he is a "terrorist" based on alleged membership ( simply on SUSPICION as Sergio Marchi put it) in an organization engaged in "terrorism".  To deport Suresh back to Sri Lanka where daily hundreds of Thamils are killed, arrested, or detained without charges will tantamount to returning him to the very persecutors from whose political persecution he fled in the first place. 

So far we have failed to secure justice from the Hon. Minister of Immigration, and we are appealing to the Right Hon. Prime Minister as a last resort.  According to legal opinion, the Hon. Minister of Immigration has the necessary authority to instruct the lawyers for the government to withdraw the certificate.  This is only course of action that will put back on track the cordial relationship that once existed between the Liberal Party and the 150,000 strong Thamil Canadians.  Thank you.

Yours sincerely

 

 

Veluppillai Thangavelu
Director 
FACT

 

---

 

March 14, 1996 

PRESS RELEASE 

DETENTION AND IMPRISONMENT OF MANICKAVASAGAM SURESH UNDER SEECTION 40.1 OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT 

A silent demonstration, opposite the Federal Court at 361 University Avenue, at 10 a.m. on March 18, 1996 (Monday) will be held when the case against Thamil activist Manickavasagam Suresh who is detained and imprisoned under section 40.1 of the Immigration Act is taken up for review.   

The demonstration is organized by the FACT in support of Suresh who has been working tirelessly to promote a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the Thamil Nation and the Sinhala Nation in the island of Ceylon. This peaceful demonstration is expected to be attended by a large number of Thamil Canadians who believe that an injustice has been inflicted on Suresh by the Minister of Immigration.   

Suresh was detained and imprisoned on the basis of a certificate signed by the Minister of Immigration and the Solicitor General of Canada alleging that he was or is a "member" of the LTTE which according to the Minister of Immigration is an organization engaged in "terrorism".  It is also alleged that he posed a threat to the national security of Canada.  The Federal Court will review a certificate to examine the reasonableness of the assertions that whether (a) The LTTE is an organization engaged in terrorism; (b) Suresh is or was a member of this organization; and (c) whether Suresh poses a threat to the national security of Canada. 

Mr. Clayton Ruby, Ms. Barbara Jackman, and Mr. Lorne Waldman, all prominent lawyers, will appear on behalf of Suresh to challenge the reasonableness of the certificate and to assert the innocence of Suresh.  Constitutional issues are also expected to be raised before the court.   

Manickavasagam Suresh as the co-ordinator of the World Thamil Movement and FACT, had a clean record in Canada not even ever charged with a traffic violation.  The Thamil Canadians are rightly indignant that Suresh has been treated as a common criminal and unreasonably incarcerated.  This act of the Minister of Immigration is a affront against the Thamil Canadian community.   

The demonstration on Monday will give expression to these sentiments and will bring to the attention of the Canadian people the injustice inflicted on Manickavasagam Suresh.   

 

FEDERATION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF CANADIAN THAMILS

---