Parallels.

Now here's a piece of good news: Mohamed Harkat -- held in jail since 2002 under that odious "Notwithstanding Clause-lite," the security certificate -- has been allowed to plead his case before the Supreme Court.

Top court to hear security certificate appeal:

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed on Thursday to hear another case on whether security certificates are constitutionally valid.

(...)

The Supreme Court said it will hear Harkat's case in June in conjunction the cases of Adil Charkaoui and Hassan Almrei, who are also being held on security certificates.

The detainees argue the security-certificate process is unfair because their lawyers are denied access to the allegations against them.

The entire story may be read here (will open a new browser window).

I don't understand how the Canadian public can react to the Notwithstanding Clause with such visceral malaise while continuing to blithely ignore the much graver threat posed by these innocuous-sounding security certificates. Okay, that's not entirely true: I understand that institutionalized racism, energized and legitimized by post-9/11 paranoia, makes this kind of hypocrisy possible. Plus, security certificates are used mainly against brown "foreigners," while the shadow of the damocletian Notwithstanding Clause chills everyone.

Unfortunately, both serve to cheapen and demean the rights and responsibilities of all Canadians by making them contingent on the indulgence of courts and Parliament.