by PATRICK LEJTENYI

Last week's security certificate arrest of Adil Charkaoui, a Montrealer of Moroccan origin with permanent resident status, didn't assuage the growing unease Mazen Houdeib has been feeling lately. The Montreal-based vice-president of the Canadian Arab Federation (CAF) thought he'd be safer, happier and left alone when arrived in Canada from Lebanon in 1990. But the Charkaoui case, he says, stirs up some old, queasy feelings.

He says the arrest, coupled with a new report by the Ottawa-based International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG) on Justice Canada's first annual review of Bill C-36, the Anti-Terrorism Act, shows that all Canadians, not just Arab-Canadians, should be deeply worried about the sweeping powers awarded to law enforcement following the September 11 attacks.

"When it comes to human rights, we either live in a police state or a civilized state," he says. "The reason why Canadian Arabs feel frustrated and targetted is because they fled their countries seeking a better future. [Canada] must be either pro-human rights and human dignity or not. We can't just say, ‘I'll insult you, but only a little bit,' or, ‘I'll humiliate you, but only by 20 per cent.'"

Houdeib flatly states that, if Charkaoui is indeed proven to be a threat to national security, he will "have no concern about him. He did something wrong, and he'll have to pay the price." But the growing worry among Arabs in particular and civil liberties groups in general is the extent to which law enforcement agencies are allowed to spy on, detain and expel suspected terrorists - and have been, since the law was enacted in December 2001.

The ICLMG report, entitled In the Shadow of the Law, calls the Bill's definitions of terrorist activity "vague, imprecise and overly expansive," charging that it "undermines the principle of due process." The group, a coalition of some 40 different organizations, including the CAF, calls for an "ongoing independent monitoring of Bill C-36's impact on Canadian citizens and their fundamental civil liberties."

Fears justified

"Justice Canada has a mandate to report on only two specific articles in the Bill, preventive detention and investigative hearings," says ICLMG spokesman Roch Tassé. "And nothing else, especially not surveillance. We don't know what [law enforcement] is doing, and we'll never know. Justice Canada's report justifies our fears of a year ago."

The law, as it stands, is far too open to abuse, Tassé says. Data exchange between different government agencies and foreign governments, the increasing acceptance of what he calls "secret trials" of suspected security threats and the possibility of citizenship status revocation are all worrisome.

Canadian national security legislation is now being strengthened and consolidated to such an extent that new measures that would once have caused outrage are now being ignored because Canadians can't see an immediate, direct effect, he continues.

"The Public Safety Act, Bill C-17, amends 20 other laws and regulates the exchange of information between government agencies [specifically, access to airline passenger information], but it is not restricted to anti-terrorism purposes," he says. "It can be used, for instance, to screen for outstanding warrants - it's like setting up a virtual roadblock. Roadblocks are illegal, and if Canadians were faced with an actual roadblock, they'd certainly react."

Tassé also says the increased use of security certificates is alarming, a sentiment echoed by Houdeib. "My problem is whether there is respect for due process, and whether we can rely on security services we don't know, or what their real agenda is," says Houdeib. "It's a matter of trust. These new laws are changing the face of Canada in a very dramatic way, and it's very unfortunate."