These sparse allegations are unique in the annals of security-clearance revocation cases,” Elliott observed in her judgment.
“Ms. Farah was simply not provided with enough information to allow her to make any kind of meaningful response.”
Her response wasn’t at issue, it was her choices before that.
That’s nothing new. Many of us who were around in the 1970s remember what the federal government did to Peter Treu.
It wasn’t the PET government’s finest hour.
Imagine, accusing a Somali of consorting with criminals. Who could imagine such a thing? Everyone?
Likewise, we readers have not been provided with enough information to allow us to make any kind of meaningful judgement of the judge’s decision. She was accused of having ties to gangsters, but it is alluded that one of the the individuals implied to be a gangster was her brother. Was she aware of his criminal activity? Did she approve of it, or aid and abet it? Was she associating with him because he was her brother, or was she associating with him because he was a gangster? Was she using her security clearance to provide information to her brother? We don’t know. It makes it hard to support either position.
Help me out here Lance. To what previous choices of Ms. Farah’s do you refer to?
Somehow judges are required to take courses on every politically correct issue, but are not educated on either organized crime nor Islamic jihad.
This is a serious problem.
The most violent criminal gangs in Canada are Somali ones. They’ve spread across the country and every major city has felt the impact. Dozens of Somali drug dealers have been killed in drug turf wars in Alberta, alone.
An RCMP officer was shot and wounded responding to someone shooting randomly inside an apartment block in Fort Mac a few years ago. She killed him.
Close contact/family with criminal backgrounds is serious, clan/family loyalties are stronger than any other in that culture.
Whether it’s criminal or security, the lax standards at airports in Belgium and France are not things we want here.
There are lots of jobs that don’t affect public safety, hers isn’t one of them.
By all means those who question this should hire Farah and her friends and family to work around their friends and family. If you feel for Farah (that could be a hashtag, no?) give her a hand.
Seems to me that the use of the car, if true, sealed her fate. Given what’s in the story, Farah didn’t deny its use.
An advisory group recommended revocation of clearance. Did they see the Mounties evidence that the woman’s car was used in an event involving Criminals? If not, did they ask for it? Did Judge Elliott?
The Minister can revoke clearance if an individual may be induced to act in a manner that interferes with aviation. Judge Elliott, as happens so often in our Federal Court, may well have based overturning the security revocation based on her dislike of a Conservative Minister’s power of revocation.
Want a job that requires security clearance? Better be squeaky clean. ‘Course, that statement is kind of hollow given the people the Government is welcoming into our country without checking on them at all.