ZGram - 4/4/2004 - "Countdown to D-Day: Is Amnesty International to provide the fig leaf for the Canadian Holocaust Lobby and CSIS?"

[zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org]

Zgram - Where Truth is Destiny:  Now more than ever!

  April 4, 2004

  Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

  Those of you who were on my Zgram list in the early days after the 
Zundel arrest know that one of our first steps was to contact Amnesty 
International offices in Canada specifically, and internationally in 
general, and ask for intervention.  They must have received fistfuls 
of faxes.  You will remember the nasty hostility we encountered and 
their initial statement that they were not prepared to lift one 
little finger to even look into the Zundel situation.  They are 
nothing but a Zionist front, as are so many of those outfits parading 
on Main Street, America with their fig leaf called Human Rights.  To 
find out what Ernst Zundel  thinks of them,  take a look at 
http://www.zundelsite.org/gallery/donations/index.html  and scroll 
down to the second sketch.

  As far as I know, there have been two official documents outlining 
the Amnesty International position about Ernst.  I don't have these 
documents at my fingertips right now, and  I don't have the time to 
look.  I remember the first statement being out-and-out 
Zionist-flavored, really disgusting and insulting, and the second one 
being a bit more carefully crafted - but still, in essence, saying 
NYET.

  Now they have come out with a third.  They don't mention Ernst, but 
from what I have read in the Canadian papers - that there are five 
people held in Canada in maximum detention on a security certificate 
- those five did not include the name of Ernst Zundel.  In the Open 
Letter below, they say there are six.  Unless the CSIS goons have 
nabbed themselves another victim, that means that Amnesty 
International is weakening and now includes Ernst Zundel.  

  In this Open letter, they still do a St. Vitus Dance around the 
Western world's best known thought criminal, but indirectly they seem 
to be referring to Ernst as a specific case to be included.  Later in 
the day, if I have time, I will fax them and ask them.  I am not 
holding my breath that I  will receive a reply.

  Here is the latest.  Take note how they still talk out of both sides 
of their mouths, the hypocrites:

  [START]

  OPEN LETTER FROM AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL CANADA TO ANNE MCLELLAN ABOUT 
SECURITY CERTIFICATES

  http://www.adilinfo.org/amnestyletter.htm

  The Honourable Anne McLellan,

  Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

  340 Laurier Avenue West

  Ottawa, Ontario

  K1A 0P8

   By fax: 990-9077

   March 31, 2004

   Dear Deputy Prime Minister McLellan,

   We are writing this open letter to you to underscore Amnesty 
International's serious concerns with respect to the security 
certificate provisions that have been part of Canada's immigration 
legislation for a number of years.

  Over the past several years Amnesty International has, on numerous 
occasions, written to the Canadian government, highlighting 
individual cases in which we considered that the security certificate 
process was resulting in violations of a number of fundamental human 
rights. We are aware of at least six individuals who are currently 
being held pursuant to security certificates. These individuals have 
been in detention for an extended period now, close to four years in 
one case.

  We repeat Amnesty International's concerns below and urge that you 
take immediate steps to reform the security certificate process to 
bring it into full compliance with Canada's international human 
rights obligations. In doing so we remind the government that the 
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act itself, in s. 3(3)(f), 
requires that the law be "construed and applied in a manner that 
complies with international human rights instruments to which Canada 
is a signatory."

  Unfair Proceedings

  Amnesty International is of the view that the security certificate 
process may very well result in arbitrary detention and thus violate 
the fundamental right to liberty. The process does not conform to a 
number of essential international legal standards, which are meant to 
safeguard against the very possibility of arbitrary detention. 
Detainees are not informed of the precise allegations against them. 
They see only a summary of the evidence that is being used against 
them. Evidence may be presented in court in the absence of the 
detainee or his or her counsel. The detainee is not afforded a right 
to examine any and all witnesses who have been the source of that 
evidence. Furthermore, the Federal Court considers only the 
"reasonableness" of the decision to issue a security certificate and 
does not substantively review it.

  Amnesty International recognizes that special measures may need to 
be taken in cases involving security matters, but any such measures 
must be consistent with international law. We realize, for example, 
that the government may have concerns about protecting the identity 
of certain sources or witnesses. If so, specific and targeted 
measures should be taken to address those particular concerns, rather 
than through the widesweeping approach of the current legislation. In 
any case, in view of the potential for a wide interpretation by the 
detaining authorities of security information which may be the basis 
for a decision to detain, and because decisions to detain in such 
cases are often based on a prediction about an individual's future 
actions, it is imperative that there be full and effective judicial 
scrutiny of such decisions, beyond the test of "reasonableness" that 
is the present standard.

  Amnesty International has repeatedly drawn attention, worldwide, to 
instances where the failure to comply with international human rights 
standards regarding fair trials has led to wrongful detention and 
other human rights violations. In the present circumstances Amnesty 
International considers that individuals detained pursuant to a 
security certificate are effectively denied their right to prepare a 
defence and mount a meaningful challenge to the lawfulness of their 
detention. This is in contravention of Canada's obligations under 
articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and 
Political Rights.

  While some of the provisions in articles 9 and 14 apply specifically 
to individuals who have been formally charged with a criminal 
offence, which is not the case in the issuance of a security 
certificate, they are nevertheless widely recognized as reflecting 
general principles of law and are relevant in so far as they set out 
the basic essential elements of a fair hearing. Furthermore some of 
the provisions apply to all detainees, such as those guaranteeing the 
right to challenge the lawfulness of their detention. That right to 
challenge must be in accord with recognized international fair trial 
standards.

  Other international standards highlight the importance of ensuring 
that all detainees enjoy the same level of fairness. The UN Body of 
Principles for the Protection of all Persons under any Form of 
Detention or Imprisonment, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1988 
establish that anyone who is detained shall be given an "effective 
opportunity" to be heard by a judicial or other authority, has the 
right to defend him or herself, and shall received "prompt and full 
communication" of any order of detention "together with the reasons 
therefore." The Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, adopted in 
1990, underscore that lawyers must be given access to "appropriate 
information, files and documents" so that they can provide their 
clients with "effective legal assistance." Amnesty International 
considers that these standards require that the detainee be given 
detailed reasons as to why he or she is detained, access to the full 
evidence that is being used against them, and a substantive hearing 
to examine the lawfulness of the detention.

  On the basis of these concerns Amnesty International has repeatedly 
urged the Canadian government to reform the security certificate 
process so as to bring it into line with Canada's international human 
rights obligations, including by ensuring a substantive review of the 
reasons for detention and by making all evidence available to the 
individual detained so that any potentially unfounded allegations can 
be effectively and meaningfully challenged.

  Protection against Refoulement

  Amnesty International is doubly concerned about the fundamentally 
flawed and unfair security certificate process because it is 
frequently applied in cases where the likely outcome is deportation 
to a country where the individual concerned is at serious risk of 
torture or other grave human rights violations. Given such 
potentially severe consequences, it is all the more critical that the 
security certificate process fully comply with international human 
rights standards governing arrest and detention.

  International law is absolute, no one should be deported to a 
country "where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or 
she would be in danger of being subjected to torture." The United 
Nations Committee against Torture, in 2000, informed Canada that it 
is a violation of the UN Convention against Torture to deport an 
individual to face a substantial risk of torture, including when 
there are security concerns. In 2002 the Supreme Court of Canada, in 
the Suresh case, recognized that international law provides absolute 
protection against being returned to torture, but left open a 
possibility that such returns might be allowed under the Canadian 
Charter of Rights, in extraordinary circumstances which the Court did 
not define.

  There is a mechanism in Canadian law which requires an assessment to 
be carried out by an immigration officer prior to deportation to 
determine whether an individual does face a substantial risk of 
torture. However, if a security certificate has been issued and found 
to be "reasonable" by a judge, that possibility is no longer 
available to the individual concerned. Both before and since the 
Suresh ruling Amnesty International has urged the Canadian government 
to amend Canadian law so as to clearly prohibit any individual being 
returned to country where there is a substantial risk of torture.

  Conclusion

  Amnesty International is very much aware that the government alleges 
that individuals detained pursuant to security certificates 
constitute a danger to the security of Canada. However, Amnesty 
International urges Canada to adopt a response to security concerns 
that does not result in violations of such fundamental human rights 
as the protections against arbitrary detention and torture. Canada's 
response should instead focus on bringing individuals to justice in 
criminal proceedings that meet international fair trial standards. 
That is the best means of ensuring both that both justice and 
security will prevail.

  Sincerely,

  Alex Neve Michel Frenette

  Secretary General Directeur

  Amnesty International Canada Amnistie Internationale Canada

  http://www.adilinfo.org



  [END]

  =====

   Help free Ernst Zundel, Prisoner of Conscience.  His prison 
sketches - now on-line and highly popular - help pay for his defense. 
Take a look - and tell a friend.

  http://www.zundelsite.org/gallery/donations/index.html