Trickiest terror cases test Canada's values

JUSTICE: How should a liberal democracy deal with terror suspects, nearly five years after the 9/11 attacks that shook the world?

Does Canada have to keep the handful of potentially dangerous people who arrive here and are deemed to be terror suspects locked up for years on end without being charged with a crime? And without any prospect of being deported to their home countries any time soon because they claim they will be tortured or killed if sent back?

Does Ottawa have no option but to run a mini-Guantanamo Bay holding centre, keeping people behind bars indefinitely, against natural justice?

There is indeed an option. And Madam Justice Eleanor Dawson of the Federal Court has just wisely made use of it dealing with Mohamed Harkat, an Algerian who has been held for 3 1/2 years for ties with Al Qaeda.

In a ruling this past week, Dawson expressed concern that Harkat was associated with senior Al Qaeda figure Abu Zubayda.

That he knowingly assisted Islamic extremists. And that he lied about it under oath. That makes Harkat an ongoing potential threat to national security and safety, she found.

Even so, Dawson ruled that Harkat should be freed on strict conditions "that, on a balance of probabilities, would neutralize or contain the danger" his release might pose. Bail is warranted because there is scant prospect Harkat will be deported within a reasonable time.

"Canada's respect for human and civil rights, and the values protected by our Charter (of Rights and Freedoms)" requires he be set free under supervision, she ruled.

Dawson is right, and Canadians who cherish civil liberties will be cheered by this decision. It reaffirms that we can strike a reasonable balance between civil rights and national security. We do not have to become a police state to defend ourselves against terror.

That said, Dawson's ruling was tough-minded. It ensures we do not become an easy target. She imposed a heavy list of conditions that runs to 10 pages, and effectively places Harkat under house arrest, constantly supervised by his wife and others approved by the authorities.

He has to wear an electronic monitoring device. Accept that his phone will be tapped and his mail screened. Have his guarantors post heavy bond. Be accompanied by a guarantor at all times. Meet no one but his lawyers and people vetted by the authorities. Not possess a modem-equipped computer, a cellphone, or any hand-held communication device. Have no weapons.

And shun anyone who "supports terrorism or violent jihad" or who has a criminal record. Not only does this hem in Harkat, it makes it easy for our security services to track those who try to contact him.

These conditions are even more stringent than those imposed on Adil Charkaoui, another notorious long-term detainee. He was freed in 2005 after spending nearly two years in jail as a security risk because he belonged to a Moroccan group sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

Gradually, Canada's justice system is finding ways to handle these cases that do not offend civil rights or leave us overly vulnerable.

This leaves three prominent detainees in limbo: Syrian Hassan Almrei, and Egyptians Mahmoud Jaballah and Mohammad Mahjoub. They are on a hunger strike to protest the conditions in which they are held.

Next month, the Supreme Court will hear arguments about the constitutionality of the security detention process.

But for now, Justice Dawson's ruling offers reassurance that our courts are doing their best, in these vexing but mercifully rare cases, to affirm core Canadian values, to safeguard human life and to keep us on the right side of international law.