Talk:Security certificate

Canada: Law Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian law.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mansour Ahani edit

if no actuall seperate page from this one exists about Mansour Ahani do not mislead people by naking it look like one does! Also why is his case before the UNHCR not disccussed?

Bias edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

The article states that the law allows the Canadian government to remove a non-citizen who poses a security threat. This essentially straight from the government website. However, we have no evidence that these individuals actually pose a security threat. Only the state has the evidence. It would be accurate to say that the state claims that the law exists to remove people who pose a security threat. The rest cannot be proved. Also, the article implies that without this legislation, Canada would have no means to remove individuals who pose a security threat. This too is questionable. - Kesahun 04:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't see the bias. I read it as saying that the law provides a mechanism for the ministers named to state that an individual poses a security threat. It's not bias to state the facts about what the law specifies. E.g. if there were a law allowing the government to tattoo all left-handed people in order to allow easier identification of "sinister" individuals, there would be no bias in stating the existence of that law or describing the justification of that law as given by the government. Furthermore, the law can be completely unjustifiable (according to x, y, or z) but it isn't bias to state that the government justifies the law due to a, b, or c. I don't think it's a good law, but (from the little I know about it) it seems that this article describes the law accurately. - Hayne 23:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Hayne's assessment. Regarding your second concern (only way to remove people), no where in the article does it say it is the ONLY method to remove individuals. I think the article is fine, so I'm removing the POV tag. Copysan 04:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually, Kesahun does make an interesting point. While the law says that security certificates are to be used to remove foreign nationals and permanent residents who are inadmissible because they are a threat to Canada's national security, that is not a point which is proven in Court. More specifically, it is an allegation made purely by the Government of Canada and it is not an issue in federal court per se. The Courts only review the reasonableness of the decision of the ministers. Consider what the federal trial court said in Re Jaballah (2003) on the reasonableness of certificate and how he characterizes it as a "certified opinion":

By subsection 80(1) of the IRPA, I am to determine whether the certificate of the Ministers is reasonable on the basis of the evidence and information available to the Court, including that produced to Mr. Jaballah, and that filed but withheld from release to him on security grounds. For that determination, the Court may consider information that in its opinion is appropriate, even if that is inadmissible as evidence in ordinary civil or criminal proceedings, and the decision may be based on that information (paragraph 78(j) of the IRPA). In sum, the Court is not bound by traditional rules of evidence and the designated judge makes her or his determination on the information and evidence filed in the Court upon which the certificate is said to be based.

The determination required is not a question of fact in the ordinary sense but rather it is an assessment of the reasonableness of the certified opinion made in the exercise of ministerial discretion, in light of the information on which the opinion is based. While that seems obvious and is in accord with the statute, in the case where a second security certificate of the same opinion is issued after one has been quashed, this Court accepts that the principles of res judicata, of issue or cause of action estoppel, or of abuse of process, may be applicable. Information simply repeated, without any significant change from the proceedings in Jaballah No. 1, should not now be reassessed in considering the reasonableness of the Ministers' second certified opinion, in my view. If there is no new information the principle of res judicata or of abuse of process would apply to preclude a different determination from that reached in Jaballah No. 1.(Re Jaballah (2003), FCT 640 (T.D.) at paras. 71-72)

Ben 01:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why not just say that "the law allows the Canadian government to remove a non-citizen who, in the governments certified opinion, poses a security threat".

Why not say that "the law allows Canadian intelligence agencies such as CSIS and the RCMP to detain and/or expel any individual who poses a threat to Canadian national security based on classified evidence". Just because the evidence is classified and is not released to the general public does not mean that the evidence does not exist. Those few people who have access to it (such as the federal judges involved in a particular case) are people who are appointed to their job for that particular reason. Releasing classified evidence to the media and the public can, in many cases, have very negative implications in the security of the country. The evidence is classified for a reason, and no, the reason is not that there is no evidence or that it is inconclusive... that is up to the judges to decide, not the general public. The whole point of the security certificates is to keep certain details classified, otherwise it would simply be an ordinary arrest and expulsion from the country. Believe it or not, the government is not out to get us, but on the contrary, the purpose of such laws is to protect the public. There is nothing wrong with this law and the article is not biased.
- MP

Very often 'evidence' is passed between intelligence agencies with the request that such 'evidence' be kept classified. Canadians have good reason to be distrustful of information that was not collected by CSIS or the RCMP but was passed on to them by some other countries' intelligence agency. If Canada reveals classified info against the expressed wishes of another country, then future exchanges will halt. Pendragon39 19:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Relase? edit

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have been lead to understand that an immigrant or refugee detained under a security certificate may be released at any time if they agree to be deported to their homeland. However, this article doesn't mention anything about this.

Is it true or not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.191.168.102 (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC).Reply

Yes, that's the core of the problem: he could accept a release at any time to be deported to his homeland; however, if he were to do so, he would likely be subjected to torture upon his arrival (not to mention that he would have to leave his wife in Canada). Therefore, he is fighting the deportation order. --RealGrouchy 06:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

recent news stories edit

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070425/charkaoui_review_070425/20070425?hub=Canada

Ben 22:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

YES JOSEPH VENUS (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

yes JOSEPH VENUS (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Security certificate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Security certificate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Which of the meanings of the term "Security certificate" is most relevant? edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As of 2021-06-15 the term is used here on the English Wikipedia in its meaning as a Canadian legal instrument.
But in Internet technology it's the common term for normal users and marketing parlance for the rather technically and specific term "Public key certificate".

Relevance & Priority edit

I guess #2 is clearly more relevant in the English speaking world and in the global English-dominated tech world. And hence deserves to be the main entry on Wikipedia.
But as #2 also has a more specific and technically correct term, the Canada-specific #1 seems to have gotten priority.

Please review whether the Canada-specific usage is justified edit

Especially look at the incoming links!
Note: Not that quantity is a binding metrics, but certainly a good indication. This is just food for thought. I was less involved in Wikipedia recently and don't know the relevant contemporary analytical cross-reference tools nor the guidelines in case of terminology conflict.
I.e. today I came here via Domain fronting where it clearly referred to #2 and thus first puzzled me.

PutzfetzenORG (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Add topic