Captive in Canada

Appeal to the Canadian Conscience and Justice

On behalf of the Canadian Political Prisoners
Shareef Abdelhaleem, Zakaria Amara and Fahim Ahmad
On June 2, 2006, the lives of three young Canadian citizens, along with others, were changed forever. Like other young Canadians, these men aspired to complete a degree or find a job, and settle down to start a family of their own. Instead, on this night, their dreams were shattered when more than 400 heavily armed police officers stormed their homes in the Greater Toronto Area. Doors were broken, furniture was destroyed, and women and children were pushed to the floor. These young Canadian men, with others were charged of being alleged members of a purported Islamic terrorist cell that was allegedly planning to explode some buildings in downtown Toronto! They were taken away from their scared and shattered families. Another suspect was arrested two months after the raid and released on bail few weeks after his arrest.

On June 3, 2006, we families of the accused, watched in disbelief as victorious congratulations flew across the stage of the RCMP news conference announcing the capture of 17 suspected terrorists in Toronto. We listened in dismay as the media described our sons, brothers, and husbands as terrorists and criminals and reported one-sided stories about the patriotic and heroic RCMP officers who raided the homes of unarmed young men and their families.

On June 12, 2006, a publication ban on the proceedings was imposed by a Justice of the Peace. Defence lawyers have appealed this decision as being unfair to their clients, since the ban allows the government to lay these alleged terrorism charges but disallows the accused from disputing these claims in public. The accused have already been tried, condemned, and sentenced by the media. We still have no right to discuss any of the alleged accusations and evidence. This censorship ensures that the accused remain unable to show publicly the lack of evidence against them, an obvious weakness in the prosecution’s case that would embarrass the government and reveal the true reasons for this case. 

For 14 months, these men were kept in solitary confinement in Milton’s Maplehurst correctional facility. They spent 23.5 hours a day in a steel box that measures 4 x 6 x 10 feet with a food window of 1 x 1 foot. They were under an imposed communication ban and could not talk to anyone. Guards gave them hard time, swore at them, insulted their families, even beating one of the other accused and dragging him naked on the floor. Since the imprisonment, the families have had difficulty providing their loved ones with access to books for some time, with much less access to almost every thing else provided to convicted prisoners. The excuse was that their status is “remanded” and not sentenced! Remanded status is only tolerable for few days or weeks. These young men are now “remanded”, as of today, for 553 days!

In August 2007, after a motion by defence lawyers, the Brampton Provincial Court found that there was no basis for keeping 10 of the accused in solitary confinement and no basis for the communication ban. These individuals had had to endure the atrocity of being separated and kept in solitude for 14 months. Zakaria and Ahmad are still suffering in solitary confinement in the Don Jail. But neither the Crown Attorney nor the police have explained why this happened and who is responsible for this mistake. No consideration has been given to how the accused will overcome the mental anguish from such a life-damaging “mistake.”

If this treatment was the result of a fair trial where the accused were found guilty, then it would be justified. We, families of the accused, would accept it without prejudice. However, over the past 18 months, evidence to the contrary has been unfolding, to the extent that many involved and interested parties believe this case is just made-to-measure, possibly serving a political agenda of the Conservative Party and justifying the budgetary ambitions of the secret service establishments. There are also huge holes in the “body of evidence” collected by CSIS and the RCMP.

When the bail hearings started with some hope that the law would be applied equally to everyone, without double standards, the “infliction of punishment before conviction” was the primary goal of the prosecution. Those who applied for bail hearing were denied more than once not because of strong evidence provided by the prosecution, but because of reasons unrelated to the charges, which we aren’t allowed to mention here. The only exception was the presumed, by the media, as “ring leader” of the terrorist cell, who was recently granted bail only after the preliminary hearing dismissed the main charge against him. Understandably, the defence lawyers for some of the remaining accused did not try for bail hearings so far.

We accept the rule of law and are willing to submit to it. But the law presumes the accused are innocent until proven guilty. We are denied this principle in our own country, Canada, the land of liberty and human rights.

We ask, in the name of God and justice, how many of you believe, even after the “trial by media” that took place, that these young men are innocent until proven guilty, as the law suggests.

The sudden cancellation of the preliminary hearing (which began June 4, 2007) by the Crown Attorney on September 24, 2007, adds to the doubtful nature of this case. Not only does this mean more than four months of wasted money and effort, but it is clear evidence of the Crown’s deteriorating case and concern that most of the accused would be acquitted and released for lack of reasonable evidence.

Now, after 18 months of such pain and clear injustice, we, families of the accused, ask the question: Why aren’t the accused out on bail? The law gives the right of bail on reasonable grounds as it “permits the unhampered preparation of defense, and serves to prevent the inflection of punishment before conviction”. We wonder how alleged murderers, rapists, and child molesters are granted bail and yet these young men who hold no prior criminal record, or record of any mischief, are denied bail. Considering the recent injustices of the RCMP and CSIS with the Arar case and the Pickering arrests, we ask another question: Why wouldn’t this case be considered another example of the wrongful tactics of these agencies?

We appeal to the Canadian conscience - to every mother and father, every brother and sister, every husband and wife - to think of the lives we now live, with daily desperation and fear, with no one thinking of us. Sadness has become the mode of our lives and black is the color of our days. Our loved ones have been incarcerated for 18 months so far, some still in solitary confinement, denied a preliminary hearing, and presumed guilty before any trial.

We ask for justice for our loved ones, who have the right to be granted bail while awaiting a trial that might take the next few years. Murderers, rapists, and child molesters are granted bail. Why deny bail to those who did not harm anyone. The accused and their families are the only parties badly hurt.

Related: Fahim Ahmad • Shareef AbdelHaleem • Zakaria Amara

December 9th, 2007 Opinions | 3 comments | Email it! |  Print This Post | 382 views