What is the argument that the detention of an alleged terrorist is not necessary in the public interest?

The respondent does submit that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that his detention is not necessary in the public interest. The respondent argues that the applicant has been ordered surrendered in connection with terrorism-related offences. She argues that Canada, as a responsible member of the international community, must be seen as co-operating fully with other countries who seek to root out and prosecute those involved in terrorist activities. As I understand this argument, the respondent submits that the applicant's continued release on bail would somehow suggest that Canada does not take these matters as seriously as it should. Counsel relies on the well-known passages from the majority judgment of La Forest J. in United States of America v. Cotroni, 1989 CanLII 106 (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1469, [1989] S.C.J. No. 56, at paras. 28-29, in which he stressed the importance of Canada's responsibilities to co-operate in the effective prosecution of international crime in an ever- shrinking world.