International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
June 19, 2021
|
|
ICLMG 08/06/2021 - The ICLMG is expressing its deepest condolences to the Afzaal and Salman families, their surviving child, the Muslim community in London, ON, and the broader Muslim community across Canada. “The heinous, hate-based and shocking attack on Sunday night shakes us to the core and is a reminder of how much we must continue to do to fight Islamophobia and white supremacy in Canada,” said ICLMG national coordinator Tim McSorley.
That this comes after the hate-based murder of six Muslim men at the Quebec City Mosque in 2017, the murder of Mohamed-Aslim Zafis in front of the IMO mosque in Toronto in 2020, as well as the horrendous discovery of the graves of 215 Indigenous children outside of a former residential school in Kamloops, BC, the sentencing of the killer of Barbara Kentner yesterday, the wave of anti-Asian hate throughout the pandemic, and ongoing acts of anti-Semitism, makes it clear this is not an isolated hate-based incident nor something that “is not Canada.” White supremacist violence is a threat that must be urgently addressed.
In ICLMG’s work on the impacts of anti-terrorism laws and policies, from the War on Terror (including in Iraq and Afghanistan) to security certificates, to profiling at the border, to surveillance in the community and on campuses, we see on an almost daily basis how systemic racism serves to continue the targeting of Muslim Canadians. This has led to a tunnel vision that has long ignored the threat that violent white supremacists pose to our society. We also see how this problematic approach helps feed the fear, hatred, xenophobia and Islamophobia that lead to attacks like we have seen in London.
While the federal government has pledged to act to address white supremacist and hate-based violence, action has been slow to come. Outside of government, other major political parties have opposed action on systemic racism and the recognition that Islamophobia is a real and urgent threat. We support the call from the National Council of Canadian Muslims, a long-standing member of our coalition, for a National Action Summit on Islamophobia. Read more - Lire plus
|
|
Azeezah Kanji: We must dismantle the systemically racist and rights-abusive counter-terrorism apparatus in Canada
|
Facebook 09/06/2021 - I understand why people are calling for “terrorism” charges against the London attacker, but I think this is a dangerous move. Anti-terrorism law is certainly applied in grossly racially-disparate ways: Muslims have been responsible for less than 10% of deaths from public political violence in Canada since 9/11, yet are subject to 98% of terrorism prosecutions. However, charging the attacker with “terrorism” in this case – for an act of violence already committed – won’t fix the disparity. This is because Muslims are overwhelmingly targeted pre-emptively, not on the basis of violent actions but on the basis of risk: whether by no-fly lists, terrorism peace bonds, security certificates, counter-radicalization, mass surveillance, or criminal prosecutions (only two of the Muslims charged with terrorism were for actually committing any act of violence). “Terrorism” charges for the London murders won’t fix any of this; it will only serve to put a racially-neutral façade on a deeply racialized and rights-abusive regime, one that we should be seeking to dismantle rather than entrench. If the killer really were to have been treated “equally” to a Muslim, he, his family, and his entire community would have been harassed regularly by CSIS, demonized and denied security clearances for playing paintball, surveilled in their places of worship, targeted for entrapment operations, and sent off to torture on the basis of racist stereotypes. The problem isn’t that these draconian and unaccountable state counter-terrorism powers aren’t applied “equally” enough, but that they exist at all. Source
Looking closely at the “terrorism” charges against the London attacker corroborates the previously-expressed concern – that this does NOT address the gross racial disparities in Canada’s counter-terrorism regime. According to the RCMP press release, Veltman has primarily been charged under s. 231(6.01) of the Criminal Code – which automatically makes a homicide first degree murder if committed in the course of a terrorist activity, even without evidence of premeditation. But in this case, Veltman was already charged with first degree murder anyway. He has NOT been charged under the special “terrorism” offences of s. 83 – explicitly formulated to preventively criminalize a wide range of otherwise non-criminal behaviour, if connected to a “political, religious, or ideological motive” deemed “terroristic” – in practice almost exclusively reserved for Muslims/people connected to Muslim groups.
Due to the vagueness and overlapping nature of many of the s. 83 offences, the absence of any requirement that any violence was actually committed (or even possible), and the suspension of normal criminal law principles preventing people from being convicted on multiple charges for the same underlying act, those convicted under these provisions have often effectively been subjected to “double punishment,” and often on a pre-emptive basis for actions distant from violence (only two of the completed “terrorism” prosecutions of Muslims so far involved any executed violent act). Rehab Dughmosh, for example, who waved a golf club and knife around in a Canadian Tire, causing no serious injuries, was sentenced to SEVEN YEARS imprisonment – just one year less than Brayden Bushby received for killing Indigenous woman Barbara Kentner. Not to mention the wide array of other “pre-crime” measures imposed on Muslims: no-fly lists, draconian “peace bonds,” CSIS interrogations, discriminatory charity audits… So the racial line in Canadian counter-terrorism persists. Please DO NOT let this “terrorism” charge distract us from the much bigger and vital task of dismantling the systemically racist and rights-abusive counter-terrorism apparatus. For more detailed analyses of Canadian terrorism prosecutions, read law prof Michael Nesbitt’s excellent empirical studies. Source
|
|
ICLMG's new report: The CRA's Prejudiced Audits: Counter-terrorism and the targeting of Muslim charities in Canada
|
|
The report details how a secretive division within the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) is targeting Muslim charities in Canada for audits, and even revocation, amounting to an approach that is both prejudiced and lacks substantiation.
It also reveals how, as Canada ramped up attempts to counter terrorist financing after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, the CRA and its Charities Directorate were enlisted to monitor the work of Muslim charities in Canada under the unsupported premise that they pose the greatest terror financing risk.
This work has been carried out largely in secret, with little to no outside review or public substantiation of the so-called risk posed by Muslim charities, allowing for the profiling and targeting of Muslim charities to go largely unnoticed and unchallenged. Read more - Lire plus
Media coverage on our report:
|
|
ICLMG: Privacy Commissioner Report Slamming RCMP Use of Facial Recognition Technology Demonstrates the Need for an Immediate Ban |
ICLMG 15/06/2021 - The Privacy Commissioner (OPC) report concludes that the RCMP is responsible for ensuring that the technology it uses does not violate the laws governing the privacy rights of people in Canada. Disturbingly, the RCMP contests that decision, believing that it has no responsibility to verify that third party contractors it works with are not breaking the law.
“It is completely unacceptable and irresponsible that the RCMP be allowed to continue to use facial recognition technology, after misleading the public, misleading the Privacy Commissioner’s office, and insisting that it is not their responsibility to ensure the tools they are using are lawful,” said Tim McSorley, National Coordinator of the ICLMG. “Public Safety Minister Bill Blair must immediately act to end the RCMP’s use of this technology.”
In response to the recommendations in the OPC’s report, the RCMP has agreed to conduct privacy assessments of third party tools, and to establish a new “oversight function” which would review new technology being used by the RCMP for respect of individuals’ privacy rights.
While on the surface this is positive, the RCMP has not demonstrated a strong track record in publishing privacy impact assessments (including their use of facial recognition technology and other surveillance tools). Their promise of an internal oversight mechanism is also undermined by their previous obfuscation of their use of Clearview AI. While it is necessary that there be new transparency and accountability rules around the RCMP’s use of emerging technologies, facial recognition technology is too prone to misuse, inaccuracies, biases and other severe violations of rights that it must simply be banned.
Any future oversight of the RCMP’s use of emerging technology for rights-based and legal compliance must be independent. Mandatory Privacy Impact Assessments, with stronger powers of review and order making powers for the OPC, could present a solution, as could exploring an oversight role for the Intelligence Commissioner.
“The RCMP has proven it cannot be trusted to be transparent and open about its use of privacy-invasive, rights-undermining and even unlawful tools,” said McSorley. “This will only continue to worsen if the RCMP is allowed to ‘oversee’ itself. The Minister of Public Safety must act now to place a ban on facial recognition surveillance by federal agencies, and develop a clear proposal for independent oversight of new and emerging tools going forward." Read more - Lire plus
|
|
Christopher Parsons: NSIRA Calls CSE’s Lawfulness Into Question
|
- CSE potentially violated the Privacy Act, which governs how federal government institutions handle personal information.
- The CSE’s assistance to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) was concealed from the Federal Court. The Court was responsible for authorizing warrants for CSIS operations that the CSE was assisting with.
- CSE officials may have misled Parliament in explaining how the assistance element of its mandate was operationalized in the course of debates meant to extend CSE’s capabilities and mandate. [...]
NSIRA found that CSE received requests for 3,708 identifiers and released 3,671 of them. Of those released, 28% of the requests from Canadian agencies for Canadian Identifying Information (CII) were, “insufficiently justified to warrant the release of CII”. [...]
NSIRA’s review found that the description of how CSE operationalizes requests from CSIS are not entirely accurate on the basis that, “CSE’s treatment and dissemination of [CII] differs from the stringent standards communicated to the Court by CSIS, particularly when it pertains to Canadian public officials and sensitive groups”. The CSE officials were appearing before committee while Parliament was debating Bill C-59, which significantly expanded both CSIS’ and CSE’s capabilities, as well as CSE’s very mandate. The not-so-hidden implication is that when CSE’s officials were explaining how CSE operated to committee they didn’t provide information that the committee may have needed to fully appreciate what CSE was already doing with its powers or how those activities might change subsequent to the passage of the CSE Act. One is left wondering whether NSIRA would take issue with other statements provided by CSE executives to committees, or if this was an isolated case. [...]
Questions and Issues Raised
First, NSIRA has adopted a much different approach to assessing the lawfulness of CSE’s activities as compared to how the CSE Commissioner undertook reviews. [...] That NSIRA is willing to examine historical practices and find that there was likely inappropriate disclosure of CII, potentially in contravention of the Privacy Act, showcases that the Agency will be far less deferential to the CSE and Government of Canada, and thus fulfil its role as a serious review agency.
Second, CSE’s disclosure of information in excess of what was requested by Canadian agencies is concerning as it indicates that CII was circulated more broadly than needed. When juxtaposing the NSIRA report and CSE’s response, this suggests CSE believes that its internal policies may justify these over-broad disclosures of CII, despite NSIRA finding that disclosure policies are not sufficiently documented by the Establishment. The result is to give an impression that CSE believes its processes are adequate despite NSIRA’s findings to the contrary. A referee needs to step in to correct the record. Given the publicity of the review, said referee’s decision should be similarly publicized to clarify the policies concerning disclosures of CII.
Third, NSIRA’s assessment that CSE’s officials were not entirely candid with Parliament is disturbing, and should lead Parliament to compel the heads of CSE to present themselves to committee and explain themselves. The very nature of CSE’s activities are largely secret and thus unknown to the public, including to parliamentarians. If CSE officials are found to be misleading in their testimony or when providing answers to committee, especially at times where committees are evaluating whether to supplement CSE’s existing capabilities, these officials risk putting CSE’s activities outside of a lawful democratic mandate. Security services and intelligence agencies are wholly dependent on the trust of the population, and politicians, to retain their moral authority to operate in secrecy; misleading Parliament is a quick way to lose that authority.
Fourth, CSE’s response is non-specific in what has changed. The Establishment suggests there are problems with NSIRA’s methods without detailing them with any specificity; as written, CSE attempts to dispute NSIRA’s conclusions without actually explaining why they are inaccurate. Perhaps there are serious issues in NSIRA’s process of review and if that’s the case then it’s important that those deficiencies are brought forward. CSE’s attempt to do so, however, is unsuccessful and does little to cast NSIRA’s actual review into dispute.
There are further items in the review that merit attention. For starters, it’s worth asking whether CSE’s disclosures of Canadian officials’ CII to CSIS may force NSIRA or others to assess whether the disclosures contravened CSIS’ own policies surrounding sensitive sector investigations: did CSE’s disclosures mean that CSIS had access to information in excess of what its own policies authorized it to have and use? Further, in calling into question the appropriateness of decisions reached by the CSE Commissioner, what does this mean given that the same individual who was the CSE Commissioner now occupies the role of the Intelligence Commissioner? And finally, while there are better policies in place to control the disclosure of CII to foreign agencies and clients–likely a result of past publicly reported incidents where CSE unintentionally disclosed information to them–what might NSIRA find when inspecting those policies, today? Read more - Lire plus
|
|
Why is Canada failing when it comes to the laws of war? |
Ceasefire/Rideau Institute 11/06/2021 - Back in May 2021 David Pugliese reported that Canadian soldiers had complained to their commanders in September 2018 that the Iraqi troops they were training were war criminals who liked to show videos of their atrocities including rape, torture and execution: At least five Canadian Forces sergeants and two master corporals saw the videos, which they immediately reported to their leadership in Iraq. Pugliese further wrote that: The Canadian personnel were told by their officers the problem would be dealt with, but they were to continue with their processing of the Iraqi troops for training. However, repeated attempts on their part to determine if their complaints had been acted upon proved fruitless.
Picking up the story on 6 June CBC’s Murray Brewster, after noting how much Canadian military and civilian leadership in Ottawa knew of the complaints is a “matter for debate”, goes on to write: The matter might have been buried and forgotten had it not been for a briefing note prepared recently for the new commander of the 3rd Battalion Royal Canadian Regiment, based in Petawawa, Ont. [...] The briefing note seems to have belatedly awakened the Canadian military to the seriousness of these allegations, with acting Chief of Defence Staff Lt. Gen. Wayne Eyre stating: When I heard the allegations of this, it gravely concerned me [and] I’ve ordered an investigation into it to determine the facts. This apparently includes military police interviewing the Canadian soldiers who first made the allegations. The Canadian training mission in Iraq, part of Operation Impact, was extended on 30 March 2021 until 31 March 2022, with the recent federal budget allocating significant funds to this effort.
General Vance was warned about inadequate vetting of Iraqi soldiers
More fuel was added to the fire when Lee Berthiaume of the Canadian Press reported that: A secret memo has emerged showing that Canada’s top military commander was warned last year that the vetting of Iraqi security forces associated with a Canadian-led training mission in the country lacked “sufficient depth.” [...]
NDP calls for independent inquiry
Alleging a disturbing pattern that goes all the way back to Canadian conduct in Afghanistan, NDP defence critic Randall Garrison believes the time has come for an independent inquiry: Why is that happening? I think there needs to be an independent inquiry. Is this the fault of certain senior leaders? Or is there something systemic here that causes us not to uphold international (law) and even our own national law?
On the merits of a public inquiry, the blog references a high level Open Letter signed by 41 human rights experts, former and current leading parliamentarians and other eminent Canadians which stated in part: A public inquiry would serve to authoritatively investigate and report on the actions of all Canadian officials in relation to Afghan detainees, and to review the legal and policy framework that attempted to justify these actions. Based on this review, the Commission would issue recommendations with a view to ensuring that Canadian officials never again engage in practices that violate the universal prohibition of torture.
We call on the Government of Canada to forthwith institute an independent inquiry into the handling of the video atrocities incident in Iraq. We also reiterate our longstanding call for a public inquiry into the allegations of Canadian complicity in war crimes in Afghanistan. Read more - Lire plus
|
|
Hands Off: Appeal Court Decision Strikes Border Agents’ Warrantless Device Searches |
Cox & Palmer Law 01/06/2021 - A recent Alberta Court of Appeal decision highlights how Canadians’ right to privacy at the border may also change – and for the better – over the coming months. Following the Supreme Court of Canada’s 1988 decision in R v. Simmons (”Simmons”), Canadian Border Service Officers (“BSOs”) have held broad powers to search and seize the personal belongings of any person entering Canada (and without a warrant).
These powers have since translated into the ability to conduct warrantless searches of the contents of personal electronic devices, including cell phones, laptops, and tablets. According to Canadian Border Services Agency (“CBSA”) rules, travelers crossing into Canada must provide their device passwords for BSOs upon request in order to facilitate such searches. Notwithstanding the significant privacy implications for travelers, lawyers in particular should be aware of the scope of the CBSA’s searching authority, which could impact their duty of confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege. For example, in a report on privacy at airports and borders. the Canadian Bar Association equated crossing the border with an electronic device to raising the possibility that “every piece of mail a traveler has ever sent or received” could be accessible by BSOs.
A recent decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”), however, has taken a 21st century look at the CBSA’s powers regarding its warrantless searches of electronic devices. Following the Supreme Court of Canada’s refusal to grant leave to appeal, the ABCA decision in R v Canfield (“Canfield”) has put Parliament on notice that legislative reform is needed to provide clarity – and renewed protection – from such intrusive investigative powers. Read more - Lire plus
|
|
IJV's Michelle Weinroth: How France lied about Hassan Diab
|
Canadian Dimension 06/06/2021 - Given that the hard facts speak in favour of Dr. Diab’s innocence, and having watched his lawyer, Don Bayne, easily refute the prosecution’s case, it was a fair assumption that Dr. Diab’s freedom would soon be granted. But on May 19, flying in the face of exculpatory evidence, France’s Cour de cassation (Supreme Court) upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision. Why is Diab being scapegoated? For an answer to this question we need to examine the politics of deceit underpinning France’s second Dreyfus Affair.
For 40 years, French authorities have tried to solve the conundrum of the 1980 bomber of the Paris synagogue on rue Copernic. They struggled for many years and finally realized that they had reached an impasse. But they could not admit failure publicly; nor would pressure from the victims’ lobby allow them to abandon the file. The victims’ lobby demanded closure. The hunt thus continued undeterred, but with one caveat: the sacrifice of an Arab would be imperative—it would align with France’s Islamophobic politics and the spread of anti-Arab racism. The French authorities relied on foreign intelligence. Yet, the scenario they dreamt up could barely satisfy the script of a B movie. For even by its own logic, the fiction that prosecutors concocted makes no sense. Their story is incoherent, speculative, fanciful, and, not least, brazen. Replete with groundless assertions, its most salient howler is a convoluted narrative about Diab’s lost passport coupled with a contradictory claim that he had taken exams in Beirut between late September and early October while also planting a bomb in Paris during that same period.
If telling tales of Dr. Diab’s superhuman ubiquity were not enough, French authorities also presented a deceitful extradition request. In 2008, they suppressed fingerprint analyses that proved that Diab’s fingerprints did not match those of the bomber (they were fortunate that Canada’s flawed extradition laws prohibited the disclosure of Diab’s alibi, that he was in Beirut at the time of the bombing writing exams, since that alibi, along with the mismatching fingerprints, would have scuttled his extradition from the start).
In the absence of this crucial information, extradition hearings went ahead, focussing on a flimsy handwriting analysis that erroneously linked Dr. Diab’s calligraphic style to the bomber’s. The analysis was fully discredited by international and (most recently) by French experts. Indeed, the entire handwriting issue was a colossal distraction; but it bought time for the French authorities, whose framing of Dr. Diab rested on non-disclosure of exculpatory evidence, as well as on foreign intelligence, likely sourced through torture, and a knotted yarn of disconnected information. The latter formed a fabric of lies stretching from 2007 to 2018, and was recently threaded into the Court of Appeal’s ruling of January 27, 2021.
With unethical conduct, French authorities sought to pull the wool over Canada’s eyes. Their act of deception and shoddy legal work reek of colonial contempt, not to mention Islamophobic bias. The mystery bomber aside, they are the guilty party, and it is high time we placed them on the hot seat and exposed their multiple crimes against the long-suffering Dr. Diab. It is also high time that Justin Trudeau intervened to extricate our fellow Canadian citizen from France’s corrupt judiciary. The Hassan Diab case is a political one and deserves a political solution. Trudeau has the power to stand up to his French counterparts. He should do what is morally right, and do it now. Read more - Lire plus
|
|
Carleton student Cihan Erdal freed from Turkish prison, but can't yet return to Canada |
CBC News 15/06/2021 - A Carleton University PhD student and Canadian permanent resident who spent the last 262 days in a Turkish prison has been freed. Cihan Erdal, 32, was taken into custody in September while visiting Turkey as part of a mass arrest of dozens of people — including three students and a university professor — who were accused of fomenting anti-government protests more than six years ago.
He was released Tuesday around 4 p.m. ET, according to Ottawa-based human rights lawyer Paul Champ, who is part of Erdal's legal team.Erdal's partner of 10 years, Ömer Ongun, told the CBC Radio's World Report Nil Köksal earlier Tuesday that the release is conditional and Erdal can't return to Canada yet. "I'm jazzed. I am so happy that he's finally free. [It's] just unbelievable. I am struggling to believe it," Ongun said in an interview from Ottawa. "This was the first time he actually made a defence and he made a beautiful defence, an excellent defence." Once released, Ongun said Erdal will travel to Istanbul until he and his lawyers can secure permission for him to return to Canada. He will have to check in with local police twice a week. Read more - Lire plus
|
|
Turkey: Stop misusing the law to detain human rights defenders, urges UN expert |
OHCHR 09/05/2021 - A UN expert today urged Turkey to release imprisoned human rights defenders and to stop using vague terrorism charges to turn people who stand up for human rights into criminals. “I am greatly concerned that anti-terrorism laws are being used extensively to silence Turkish human rights defenders and disrupt their legitimate work defending human rights,” said Mary Lawlor, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders.
Article 314 of the Turkish Penal Code and Article 7 of the Anti-Terror Law relating to leaders and members of armed organisations are being used to convict human rights defenders and sentence them to lengthy prison sentences, Lawlor said. “In Turkey, human rights lawyers are particularly targeted for their work representing human rights defenders, victims of human rights violations, victims of police violence and torture, and many people who simply express dissenting opinions,” she said. “Turkey is violating some of the pillars of international human rights law – freedom of expression, freedom of association and the right to lawfully practice one’s own profession – by repeatedly depriving human rights defenders and lawyers of their freedom.”
The case of Osman Kavala, a businessman and human rights defender, is emblematic of a pattern of judicial harassment against human rights defenders in Turkey, she said. In February 2020, he was acquitted, along with eight others, of participating in the 2013 Istanbul Gezi Park protests that kicked off a wave of demonstrations. Just hours after a judge ruled there was “not enough concrete evidence” against Kavala, he was arrested again and charged in a new case which is ongoing. Lawlor said she has told the Turkish Government of her concerns for 14 human rights defenders serving prison sentences of 10 years or more, including nine lawyers and members of the Progressive Lawyers' Association (Çağdaş Hukukçular Derneği - ÇHD). One of them, Ebru Timtik, died in custody in August 2020 while on hunger strike to demand fair trials for her and her colleagues. Lawlor said she continues to discuss these cases with the Turkish authorities.
She also expressed concern for the physical and mental health of human rights defenders who remain in high-security prisons. These include detained human rights defenders Aytaç Ünsal and Fevzi Kayacan, who are not getting the critical medical care they need. Woman human rights defender Oya Aslan has also been tortured while in detention, Lawlor said. Several human rights defenders and civil society members are on trial for terrorism-related charges and face up to 14 years imprisonment if convicted. These include members of the NGO Human Rights Association İnsan Haklari Derneği (İHD) such as Eren Keskin, as well as civil society actors and human rights defenders Erol Önderoğlu and Şebnem Korur Fincancı. “In all court cases – particularly those against human rights defenders – I call on Turkey to ensure impartiality of the proceedings and to respect the right to a fair and free trial,” said Lawlor.
|
|
Opening Pandora’s Box: New “Threats” in the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy |
Just Security 14/06/2021 - Ismael is a 24-year-old community and youth organizer working to protect Indigenous people’s rights in Mindanao. (We have changed his name and age here to protect his identity.) He has been included on the Armed Forces of the Philippines’ unofficial list of “terrorist” members of the National People’s Army, an armed group waging the longest ongoing communist insurgency in the world. On four occasions he has been summoned to military bases to prove that he is not a “terrorist.” His crime? Speaking up about human rights.
Ismael’s story is not unique. For many years, authorities in the Philippines have used overbroad definitions of what constitutes “terrorism” to target minorities, political opposition and civil society activities. Under President Rodrigo Duterte, human rights defenders, journalists, labour group members, Indigenous people, environmental rights activists, lawyers, doctors, and priests have been executed, or have died in security operations after being “red-tagged” or labeled “terrorists” by the government for their alleged political sympathies.
This is not only happening in the Philippines. In every continent on the globe, authorities are using counterterrorism (CT) as an excuse to attack human rights and fundamental freedoms. In Hong Kong, a vague and overbroad National Security Law has conflated terrorism, secession, and subversion. Egypt has arrested human rights defenders on phony terrorism charges. Hungary has used counterterrorism laws against refugees and migrants. The El Salvador government has branded environmental protesters as “extremists.” Nigerian authorities have justified a crackdown on political protests as “counter-terrorism.” Belarus has branded journalist Roman Protasevich a terrorist for criticising the government. And, in Cambodia, critics of the government pandemic response are labeled “terrorists.”
Why does this matter for the review of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy (GCTS), which is taking place this month? Well, one of the big debates that diplomats are currently having is how the U.N.’s strategy should respond to “new threats” of “terrorism.” In the 2021 review, there is a significant push – across the geopolitical spectrum – to add references to “right-wing” or “far-right” terrorism to the focus of the GCTS. Some delegations have also advocated the inclusion of concepts such as the “far-left,” “violent nationalism” and “xenophobic violence” in the Strategy. This issue has emerged as a priority for many delegations given the political impetus to respond to a worrying trend of terror attacks perpetrated by individuals said to hold hateful, right-wing and ethnic supremacist ideologies. Many States have also asserted the belief that for too long global counterterrorism efforts have focused only on violence from individuals or groups professing an attachment to Islam.
States do have an obligation to develop responses to these new trends of violence – and prevention strategies will require regional and global cooperation rooted in the respect for human rights and international humanitarian law to respond to any transnational activity. But bringing these new “threats” into a multilateral framework like the GCTS needs very careful consideration. Broadening the scope of what constitutes “terrorism” or “terrorist” violence has real-world consequences that are already playing out in countries like the Philippines. Adding over-broad references to “new threats” in the GCTS could open up Pandora’s box, unleashing serious harms at a national level.
Many States will seize on the inclusion of new definitions in a U.N. strategy as justification to change domestic legislation and national counterterrorism practice. Authorities would gain cover to label a wider spectrum of behaviors, ideologies, or political beliefs as evidence of an individual’s or group’s “extremism” or links to “terrorism.” As in the case of the Philippines, this would hand authoritarian governments yet more license to target civil society and human rights activists – and misuse the U.N.’s name while doing so.
Hastily expanding the concept and definition of terrorism within a narrowly framed strategy negotiation that has been limited further by the COVID emergency could aggravate existing confusion over definitions of terrorism and violent extremism within the U.N. It could serve to politicize in-country U.N. programming – where authorities use countering or preventing “violent extremism” (PVE) projects as cover to target political opponents or human rights defenders. It could further the rise of “PVE-ization” at the U.N. – where development, conflict prevention, and peacebuilding programming is rebranded as “preventing violent extremism,” targeting these “new threats.”
Legal analysis has also shown that the suggested additions of concepts such as “violent nationalism,” or “anti-authority,” and political concepts of the “far right” and “far left,” which are inserted without further definition, pose a serious risk of justifying or enabling States’ violations of human rights, and could undermine the objectives of the entire GCTS. Inserting these concepts into a U.N. counterterrorism strategy risks further muddying already murky waters, and the case of the Philippines demonstrates the risks attached to this lack of clarity.
Those negotiating the Strategy should therefore heed these warnings and avoid the precipitous addition to the GCTS of a laundry list of new threats. The human rights pillar of the U.N. Global Counter-terrorism Strategy has been much neglected for 15 years; to avoid undermining it further, the Strategy should remain precise and targeted, with no room for misuse. As Canadian Ambassador to the U.N. Bob Rae noted in a recent U.N. Office of Counter-Terrorism conference, “in the world we live in there are states that are taking advantage of the concept of terrorism to limit freedoms much too widely, much too broadly and much too oppressively.” Diplomats should heed his words, or individuals like Ismael will be the ones who suffer the consequences. Source
|
|
Algeria Prepares To Prosecute Journalists, Critics As Terrorists |
Morocco Wolrd News 12/06/2021 - Algeria is expanding its Terrorism Act to the extent that it will be able to prosecute its critics and journalists on terrorism charges. An update was published on June 10 that indicates that Algeria’s unpopular regime is broadening the definition of terrorism to include charges commonly levied against journalists, anti-establishment protesters, and even online critics. Ahead of a weekend of legislative elections, the move appears to constitute another increase in repressive measures by Algeria's ruling elite in the face of domestic opposition and calls for structural reform.
The revisions to the penal code were initiated by the country’s embattled leadership and was discussed and adopted in one session of the country’s Council of Ministers on May 30. Officials in Algiers have indicated that the revised penal code intends to strengthen efforts to combat terrorism, by estbalishing a list of “terrorist people and organizations.” How the upcoming terrorist “black list”would help combat terrorism, few could explain. A closer examination of the changes made to the penal code reveals a broad expansion of what the state considers terrorism. While the broadening of the term is indeed likely to lead to increased arrests on terrorism charges, the penal code revisions have no provisions that would actually arrest more extremists. Instead, the new penal code now considers "any act aimed at the security of the state, national unity and the stability and normal functioning of institutions,” as a terrorist act. This expansion is likely to concern journalist, Hirak protesters and government critics, as the terms defined as “terrorism” are the exact charges commonly used to arrest whomever the regime considers to be a critic. Read more - Lire plus
|
|
Hong Kong film censors get wider ‘national security’ powers |
The Guardian 11/06/2021 - Hong Kong’s censors have been given expanded powers to vet films for national security breaches in the latest blow to the Chinese city’s political and artistic freedoms.
In a statement on Friday, authorities said the film censorship ordinance had been expanded to include “any act or activity which may amount to an offence endangering national security”.
“When considering a film as a whole and its effect on the viewers, the censor should have regard to his duties to prevent and suppress acts or activities endangering national security, and the common responsibility of the people of Hong Kong to safeguard the sovereignty, unification and territorial integrity of the People’s Republic of China,” the new guidance, which is effective immediately, states.
Films and cultural activities are often rigorously vetted on the Chinese mainland; only a handful of western films or documentaries ever see a commercial release each year. Hong Kong’s Film Censorship Authority, in comparison, has traditionally employed a much lighter touch and the city has long been a centre for Asian films. Read more - Lire plus
|
|
A new report from the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group shows that the Canada Revenue Agency is targeting Muslim charities for audits, based on prejudiced and unsupported allegations of a risk of terrorist financing, and in secret and without accountability.
Please send a message to the Minister of Revenue, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Public Safety, the Charities Directorate Director as well as your Member of Parliament to stop the prejudiced audits of Muslim charities.
|
|
Open letter calling for a global ban on biometric recognition technologies that enable mass and discriminatory surveillance
We, the undersigned, call for an outright ban on uses of facial recognition and remote biometric recognition technologies that enable mass surveillance and discriminatory targeted surveillance. These tools have the capacity to identify, follow, single out, and track people everywhere they go, undermining our human rights and civil liberties — including the rights to privacy and data protection, the right to free assembly and association, freedom of expression, and the rights to equality and non-discrimination.
These uses of facial and remote biometric recognition technologies, by design, threaten people’s rights and have already caused significant harm. No technical or legal safeguards could ever fully eliminate the threat they pose, and we therefore believe they should never be allowed in public or publicly accessible spaces, either by governments or the private sector.
|
|
Canada must take action to end the injustice against Dr Hassan Diab |
|
Despite no new evidence, strong exculpatory evidence, and contradictory reasoning, France's highest court, the Cour de Cassation, has upheld the French Court of Appeal's shocking order that Hassan must stand trial.
Send the message below to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, as well as the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs: The Canadian government must take immediate action to put an end to Dr. Diab's long odyssey of injustice!
|
|
Want to do more? Take these actions as well:
|
|
 |
Protect our rights from facial recognition! |
ICLMG - Facial recognition surveillance is invasive and inaccurate. This unregulated tech poses a threat to the fundamental rights of people across Canada.
Federal intelligence agencies refuse to disclose whether they use facial recognition technology. The RCMP has admitted (after lying about it) to using facial recognition for 18 years without regulation, let alone a public debate regarding whether it should have been allowed in the first place.
Send a message to Prime Minister Trudeau and Public Safety Minister Bill Blair calling for a ban now.
|
|
|
|
CSIS is NOT above the law! |
Two recent court decisions revealed the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) engaged in potentially illegal activities and lied to the courts. This is unacceptable, especially given that this is not the first time these serious problems have been raised. CSIS cannot be allowed to act as though they are above the law.
Send a message to the Public Safety Minister demanding that he take action to put an end to this abuse of power and hold those CSIS officers involved accountable. Your message will also be sent to your MP and to Minister of Justice David Lametti.
|
|
|
|
|
Tell Trudeau to sanction Israel |
Right now, Gaza is under attack, and Jerusalem is being ethnically cleansed right before our eyes.
Help us ramp up the pressure on the Trudeau government to stop Israeli aggression and war crimes.
Send an email to Trudeau now demanding that the Canadian government forcefully condemn Israel’s actions and follow its words up with consequences, including sanctions.
|
|
|
|
UPDATE Action for Cihan Erdal's return!
|
CUPE member Cihan Erdal has finally been freed after almost 9 months imprisoned in Turkey. CUPE National has sent a letter to Canadian foreign affairs minister with three specific demands for action and reiterating CUPE’s call last fall for Canada to work on Cihan’s behalf. You can help by reminding the Ankara Prosecutor, Turkish Minister of Justice and the President of Turkey of their country's human rights obligations and encourage them to allow him to return home.
|
|
|
|
|
Save Abdo from deportation |
Abdelrahman El Mady is a father, a husband, a human rights activist and a refugee. He escaped persecution in his home country of Egypt, hoping to find safety in Canada.
Instead he faced profiling and Islamophobia at the hands of the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA). The CBSA has deemed him inadmissible and is now trying to deport him to Egypt.
The Canadian government must hold the CBSA accountable, offer Abdo protection from the risks of detention and torture in Egypt, and reunite him with his wife and children in Canada.
|
|
|
|
Tell PM Trudeau: No New Fighter Jets! |
The Canadian government has launched a competition for 88 new fighter jets, for a starting price of $19 billion (and a cost of at least $77B over the lifespan of the jets). This is the second most expensive procurement in Canadian history.
This purchase is planned for early 2022. It's crucial that the government hears from all of us, now!
Send a letter to Prime Minister Trudeau, National Defence Minister Sajjan, Foreign Affairs Minister Champagne, and all Members of Parliament.
|
|
|
|
|
Call on Justin Trudeau to ensure justice for Abousfian Abdelrazik |
In September 2003, Canadian citizen Abousfian Abdelrazik was arrested in Sudan, while he was back in the country visiting his ailing mother. Over the next three years he was imprisoned for nearly 20 months and was held under house arrest for 12 months. He was denied a lawyer, and was never charged or brought before a judge. During that time he was badly tortured in three different prisons. Not only did Canada fail to take steps to protect him, CSIS officials frequently obstructed efforts to secure his release. |
|
|
|
Tell Transport Minister to cancel Canada's drone contract now! |
Canada’s Transportation Ministry recently approved a $36M contract for drone technology from Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest weapons company. The money will purchase a “civilian” version of Elbit’s lethal military drone, the same one which was used to kill civilians during Israel’s assault on Gaza in 2014.
Click below to message the Transport Minister, the Prime Minister, federal political leaders, and your MP.
|
|
|
|
|
Stop CSIS from targeting everyday citizens & community groups |
A recent report revealed that CSIS, Canada’s spy agency, collected over 8,000 pages of documents, spying on citizens like you, people who exercise their democratic rights by attending a community meeting at a local church or taking peaceful action for what they believe in. And CSIS shared this info with Big Oil corporations. Sign this petition to tell the govt to stop using taxpayer money to unconstitutionally spy on Canadians part of peaceful community groups. |
|
|
|
All-in-one action page: Stop Mohamed Harkat's Deportation to Torture
|
Call PM Trudeau, write a letter to Public Safety Minister & your MP, and sign Sophie Harkat's petition to stop the deportation of Moe Harkat.
If sent back to Algeria, Moe faces detention, torture and death.
No one should be deported to torture. Ever.
|
|
|
|
|
Reunite Ayub, Khalil, and Salahidin with their families |
Ayub Mohammed, Salahidin Abdulahad, and Khalil Mamut are 3 Uyghur men who fled China's persecution. They were sold by bounty hunters to the US military in 2001 and taken with 19 other Uyghurs to Guantanamo.
Despite being exonerated in 2003, they were kept in Guantanamo for years. Now in forced exile, their families are here in Canada, and their kids growing up without their fathers.
Despite posing no threat to Canadian national security, these men have been waiting over 5 years to reunite with their families.
Take action to reunite them!
|
|
|
|
Call on China to allow reunion of Uyghur families |
Many Uyghur parents overseas have had to leave one or more children in the care of family members in Xinjiang. Some parents have since learned their children were taken to state-run “orphan camps” or boarding schools after the relatives taking care of them had been detained.
The mass detention campaign in Xinjiang has prevented Uyghur parents from returning to China to take care of their children themselves.
Sign the petition and call on China's President to ensure that children are allowed to leave China to be reunited as promptly as possible with their parents and siblings already living abroad, if that is preferred by them.
|
|
|
|
|
China: Free Canadian Huseyin Celil |
The Chinese authorities accused Huseyin of offences related to his activities in support of Uighur rights. They held Huseyin in a secret place. They gave him no access to a lawyer, to his family, or to Canadian officials. They threatened him and forced him to sign a confession. They refused to recognize Huseyin’s status as a Canadian citizen, and they did not allow Canadian officials to attend his trial. It was not conducted fairly, and resulted in a sentence of life in prison in China. His life sentence was reduced to 20 years in February 2016. Huseyin has spent much of his time in solitary confinement. He lacks healthy food and is in poor health. Kamila needs her husband, and the boys need their father back. |
|
|
|
Canada must act to end Islamophobia in Xinjiang, China |
There is credible evidence that up to one million Uyghurs, Kazakhs and other mainly Muslim groups in China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region are being detained in secret internment camps. Detainees are brainwashed, tortured and are forced to renounce their religion and culture.
And send a message to Chrystia Freeland demanding that Canada actively support an independent and unrestricted international fact-finding initiative to Xinjiang.
|
|
|
|
|
Protect Encryption in Canada |
Our ability to use the Internet safely, securely and privately is under threat. Canada wants to create 'back doors' into encryption like some of our partner countries in the Five Eyes Alliance have already done.
This weakens Internet safety for all of us. If we don’t act, Canada could be next.
We need a policy that explicitly protects our right to encryption now.
|
|
|
|
Environmental defenders are not terrorists! |
We, the undersigned environmental and climate activists from the Philippines and the international community, urge Filipino public authorities to undertake preventive interventions against the continued red-tagging and the possible escalation of reprisals against environmental defenders.
We urge legislators to declare red-tagging as a crime punishable by law for curtailing constitutionally-guaranteed free speech and other civil liberties.
|
|
|
|
MORE NEWS - AUTRES NOUVELLES |
|
Access to information & accountability
Accès à l'information et reddition de compte
|
|
Attacks on dissent
Attaques contre la dissidence
|
|
Freedom of speech, press & academia
Liberté d'expression, de presse et académique
|
|
Migrant and refugee rights
Droits des migrant.es et réfugié.es
|
|
Privacy and surveillance
Vie privée et surveillance
|
|
Whistleblowers
Lanceur.ses d'alertes
|
|
From July to December 2020 |
|
ICLMG - 2020 has been BUSY! Click below to see what we’ve accomplished in the second half of 2020, but first here is our plan for the next year.
In 2021, we will continue fighting:
- against facial recognition technology, governments' attacks on encryption, and online mass surveillance
- for a review mechanism for the Canada Border Services Agency
- to abolish security certificates and end deportation to torture
- to repeal of the Canadian No Fly List
- for justice for Hassan Diab & the reform of the Extradition Act
|
|
Les opinions exprimées ne reflètent pas nécessairement les positions de la CSILC - The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the positions of ICLMG. |
|
THANK YOU
to our amazing supporters!
|
We would like to thank all our member organizations, and the hundreds of people who have supported us over the years, including on Patreon! As a reward, we are listing below our patrons who give $10 or more per month (and wanted to be listed) directly in the News Digest. Without all of you, our work wouldn't be possible!
Mary Ann Higgs
Kevin Malseed
Brian Murphy
Colin Stuart
Bob Thomson
James Turk
John & Rosemary Williams
Jo Wood
The late Bob Stevenson
Nous tenons à remercier nos organisations membres ainsi que les centaines de personnes qui ont soutenu notre travail à travers les années, y compris sur Patreon! En récompense, nous nommons ci-dessus nos mécènes qui donnent 10$ ou plus par mois et voulaient être mentionné.es directement dans la Revue de l'actualité. Sans vous tous et toutes, notre travail ne serait pas possible!
Merci!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
