News Digest: Event on Security Inadmissibility in Canada; ICLMG on state surveillance targets; Concerns around upcoming law regulating online content; Will Biden really end the war in Afghanistan? & much more!

International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group

April 23, 2021

Event: Challenging Security Inadmissibility in Canada's Immigration System

Tuesday, May 11, 2021 from 2pm to 3:30pm EST, online. Register here

Co-presented by the Canadian Council for Refugees, the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers

Join us for a discussion on how Canada labels non-citizens as security threats based on broad and vague grounds, the severe impacts that this has on individuals, and ways we can challenge the provisions and fix the system through the courts and through public advocacy. Following the short presentations by our three resource persons, participants will be invited to discuss opportunities to challenge the security inadmissibility system and organize.

Resource persons

Sharry Aiken, Associate Professor at Queen’s Law and former CCR President, will present an overview of the on-going, and long-standing, problems with Canada’s security inadmissibility system.

Warda Shazadi Meighen, refugee, immigration and human rights lawyer, and partner at Landings Law, will present the legal challenge in the case of Abdiaziiz Mohamed Ali. Warda is representing the Canadian Council for Refugees and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, public interest parties in the case. Mr. Ali arrived in Canada in 2015 when he was barely 19 years old, as a refugee claimant. As an ethnic Somali living in the Ogaden region of Ethiopia, he faced persecution by Ethiopian authorities for his support of Ogaden opposition movements, but has been found inadmissible by Canada based on a scant association with an organization deemed to have committed terrorist acts.

Washim Ahmed, refugee and immigration lawyer and co-founder of OWS Law, will present the case of Abdelrahman El Mady, an Egyptian national who arrived in Canada as a refugee claimant in 2017. Mr. El Mady fled persecution by Egypt’s military government for his participation in protests against the former Mubarak dictatorship and his membership in the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP). The FJP won the first democratic elections in Egypt’s history in 2011, before being deposed in a military coup by the current government. More details - Plus de détails

Invite your friends and share on Facebook + Twitter + Instagram. Thank you!

Balance lacking in surveillance trends - featuring ICLMG's National Coordinator Tim McSorley

RNZ 09/04/2020 - This means using "Faith Motivated extremism" to describe one end of the threat spectrum, and "Identity Motivated Violent Extremism" to describe the end that white supremacists inhabit. In its recent annual review, SIS director-general Rebecca Kitteridge said this was a "deliberate change in our language" adapted from a "helpful framework developed by our Canadian sister agency".

"Our new terminology makes it clear that our concern is with violent extremists and terrorists of varying ideologies. Those threats should not be conflated with communities," she added. Tim McSorley, of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group in Ottawa, said his coalition of watchdog groups had yet to see evidence in Canada that since the change in terminology spying was not still targeting Muslims unfairly. "We haven't seen any proof that there's been an actual change in how they operate in the focus of their surveillance activities," McSorley said. A catalyst for the change in terminology used by the Canadian agency was a January 2017 attack on a Quebec mosque that killed six people. The shooter in this case however was not prosecuted as a terrorist.

The following year, in 2018, a Canadian report on terrorism broke new ground in naming white supremacists as a major threat, though the report primarily focused on Islamists, McSorley said. This was followed by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) adopting the new terminology. McScorley said treating white supremacists as a major threat didn't come without "pushback". Recently, he said, several far-right groups have been designated as terrorism entities by Canada, though at the same time several Arab or Muslim groups have also been added to the list. A total of six white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups have been designated terrorist entities in Canada, when none were before 2018.

While the list may be expanding a little, it isn't that Canada is shifting its focus away from one group, he said. "There's nothing that clearly shows that they're lessening their focus on surveillance of Muslim communities." In New Zealand, only one white supremacist has been designated as a terrorist entity. Civil liberty groups in Canada were still getting reports of spies approaching Muslim university groups and youth there to talk about security threats, in a way they were not doing with Far Rightists, McSorley said.

The other parallel of concern to the coalition watchdog was spy agencies in both Canada and New Zealand wanting to get access to more data. This was a key thrust of the SIS commissioned Arotake report into how it performed in the lead-up to the March 2019 mosque attacks in Christchurch. Canada's spy agencies won law changes in 2019 allowing them to use datasets. This was to compile "vast troves of information that aren't necessarily tied to a direct threat", McSorley said. It is still pushing for more powers. "They argue that they don't want to find a needle in a haystack, they want to build their own haystack, so just collect as much information as possible, and then be able to sift through it." The coalition was pressuring the Canadian government on this, but instead it had legalised mass data collection even after it was proved the domestic agency had already been gathering it illegally, McSorley said. Read more - Lire plus

ICYMI: Open Letter to Federal Leaders: Do Not Expand Anti-Terrorism Laws in the Name of Anti-Racism

Should Canada block websites that post terrorist content and child porn? Ottawa is considering it

The Toronto Star 20/04/2021 - Canadians could soon be blocked by their internet service providers from accessing certain websites — even those hosted in other countries, like most of the social media behemoths — should the federal government come to believe those sites are flagrantly violating the law. The plan, currently under consideration in Ottawa, would only apply as a last resort in cases where the “worst of the worst” kind of material is being posted online, according to a government source with knowledge of the legislation that’s in its final stages of development.

With the new law, the Liberal government is determined to curb illegal content on the internet that falls into five categories: hate speech, terrorist content, child sexual abuse material, content that incites violence, and non-consensual sharing of intimate content (so-called “revenge porn”). Only child pornography and terrorism content would be targeted by court-ordered website blocking measures, said the source, who the Star is not naming because they were not authorized to speak publicly. The idea has civil liberties advocates concerned about freedom of expression, while anti-hate activists say the government should ensure it’s able to go after loosely organized groups that target minorities. And both are concerned about how “terrorism” would be defined. Website blocking is still under consideration for the legislation, which is expected to be rolled out as soon as May, the source said. [...]

Brenda McPhail, director of privacy, technology and surveillance at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said the organization “doesn’t oppose very narrow, very clear rules that could effectively address some of the harms, particularly in the category of child sexual abuse.” Still, McPhail said while most people wouldn’t oppose laws targeting child pornography and terrorism, they should be wary of consequences those laws could have on civil liberties, like freedom of expression, or on privacy. “Even in a regime that sounds careful and measured, there can be sticking points when we’re talking about (internet service providers) blocking entire websites online,” she said. “What that engages is one of the most fundamental rights that we have, which is freedom of expression.” [...]

Both McPhail and Evan Balgord [executive director of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network] raised concerns about how a new law might address “terrorist” content. McPhail said the term “terrorism” is “more subjective” because laws defining terrorist propaganda are “overly broad.” She said that additions to Canada’s terrorist watchlist haven’t gone without controversy, are often done in a “secretive” way and “very, very difficult to appeal.” On top of that, defining what “terrorist speech” is becomes difficult, said McPhail. “Is all speech by a group on the list considered terrorist propaganda? If so, should they be on the list? Have they appealed? “There’s a real quagmire when it comes to what is or isn’t terrorist speech,” she said. [...]

Vivek Krishnamurthy, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, called website blocking a “blunt instrument” that could be used too broadly, potentially blocking legal content. And since court-ordered blocking would put the administrative onus on internet service providers, “it also means that you’re creating capabilities that can be used for other purposes,” Krishnamurthy added. “Once you create the tools to restrict certain kinds of websites in their entirety, or IP addresses, those tools are on the shelf and those tools can be used, so I think there’s sort of a concern about crossing that Rubicon.” Read more - Lire plus

Tamir Israel from CIPPIC & others: "Consultations" on upcoming legislation to regulate online content have been a sham

Hassan Diab’s French Lawyers Appeal to the Court of Cassation

HDSC 14/04/2021 - Thank you for your support following the shockingly unjust decision on 27 January 2021 by a French Court of Appeal to refer Dr. Hassan Diab to trial. This comes three years after French investigating judges found consistent evidence of Hassan’s innocence and dismissed the case in 2018.

According to the French newspaper Le Monde, the Court of Appeal’s decision is exceptional, because never before, in terrorism cases, had a Court of Appeal opposed the investigating judges. The decision flies in the face of overwhelming evidence of Hassan’s innocence and offers Hassan as an innocent scapegoat. Hassan’s French lawyers point to the immense political pressure being applied to keep the case alive. Hassan’s French lawyers have appealed to the Court of Cassation, France’s highest court, which will hear the case next month. Read more - Lire plus

TAKE ACTION: Urge PM Trudeau to concretely support Hassan Diab

Canada’s commitment to media freedom must be matched by action

The Globe and Mail 19/04/2021 - Last May, writer and activist Mushtaq Ahmed was arrested in Bangladesh’s capital, Dhaka, for criticizing the government’s response to COVID-19 on Facebook. According to his wife, officers from a paramilitary unit arrived in five vehicles at 1:44 in the morning, taking Mr. Ahmed into police custody where he was held without trial up until his death last month. Together with 10 other cartoonists, journalists and activists, Mr. Ahmed was accused of “spreading rumours and carrying out anti-government activities.” He was charged under the Digital Security Act, a sweeping and repressive law central to a worsening human-rights situation in Bangladesh that has sought to silence critics, students and members of the news media.

Evidence against the accused, taken from devices, messages and Facebook accounts, was collected by the notorious Bangladeshi Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), a government paramilitary force accused of more than 1,200 extrajudicial killings, politically motivated arrests and enforced disappearances. Security forces have continuously covered up these unlawful killings, and the government denies all allegations. Despite this continuing violence and turmoil in Bangladesh, Global Affairs Canada gave Canadian tech company Octasic approval to sell and export mobile phone spy equipment to the Bangladeshi government, the Toronto Star reported. Separate records show that officers from the RAB had been due to travel to Canada in late 2019 to try out the surveillance gear. The technology in question, known as “IMSI catchers,” can be used to identify and locate phones, and in some cases intercept messages, although Octasic denied this ability is possible with its model. By enabling authorities to spy on cell phones in a blanket and untargeted manner – covertly and independently of any operator – this technology poses a threat to journalists, protesters and others where security agencies seek to crack down on government critics.

That Ottawa may have sanctioned the export of this technology while the Digital Security Act continues to be exploited is therefore of serious concern. Yet, we are unable to know whether this is in fact the case because such decisions are hidden from public view.

While Octasic’s CEO confirmed that the Canadian government approved the export of IMSI catchers to Bangladesh, and that the technology itself was exported, Global Affairs Canada refused to discuss specific details regarding surveillance exports. The Canadian government’s resounding silence facilitates one of the features of the surveillance industry that allows it to operate with limited regulation or accountability: secrecy. Canada – when compared with other Western jurisdictions – is particularly tight-lipped on the topic. While the government provides an annual report on the export of Canadian military goods, it excludes “dual-use or other sensitive items” such as surveillance technologies. Read more - Lire plus

Stephen Harper joined ex-spymasters in company investing in Israeli security tech

An absolute right?

National Magazine 20/04/2021 - A senator is in shock. Highly classified information shows that the Canadian Armed Forces is participating in a military operation targeting Canadian citizens in drone strikes overseas.

The senator is on the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP), a special review body mandated to review the frameworks within which national security and intelligence organizations operate, as well as any specific activities of these agencies that it so chooses. The senator alerts her colleagues, and the committee starts investigating. But the minister of national defence, acting under the prime minister’s instructions, halts the review on the grounds that it pertains to an ongoing operation and would be “injurious to national security,” a decision he is entitled to make under the committee’s enabling legislation, the former Bill C-22. After all, the NSICOP is an executive-branch committee of 11 parliamentarians who, unlike their peers, have Top Secret security clearances and report to the prime minister.

The committee attempts to notify Parliament of the government’s prevention of the review in the annual report that it tables in Parliament, but it is required by law to submit that report to the prime minister first. The prime minister now makes use of a power granted to him under C-22: he orders that mention of the halted review be redacted on the grounds that this information would be “injurious to national security” or “international relations.” In a crisis of conscience, the senator arranges an in camera meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence and tells her fellow senators about the ongoing drone strikes. Government officials learn about this meeting, and the Crown prosecutes the senator for disclosing state secrets. Because C-22 forbids the senator from using the legal immunity of parliamentary privilege as a defence, she is convicted and sentenced to prison.

This hypothetical scenario is described in the factum of Ryan Alford, a law professor at Lakehead University who was granted public interest standing to challenge the constitutionality of the provision of C-22 that repeals parliamentary privilege. By including this scenario in his factum, Alford wanted to highlight the limitations that the law built into the committee. While there was some debate among those I interviewed about how realistic this scenario is, it seems plausible to Mary Liston, a law professor at the

University of British Columbia who has studied the growth of executive power in Canada.

But “we might not even get there,” she said. Committee members “serve at the pleasure of the prime minister,” she noted. If the prime minister turned on one of them, he could dismiss them “just like that.” Moreover, the prime minister designates the committee’s chair, giving him a lot of power, she added. “It looks like it’s an independent committee, but there are lots of hints that it’s not as independent as you would like.” [...]

There is already evidence that information is being improperly withheld from the committee. “The Committee has faced a number of challenges in accessing information based on reasons that are inconsistent with NSICOP’s enabling legislation,” states the committee’s 2019 annual report. Some organizations have “inconsistently” invoked cabinet confidences to not disclose information, and sometimes, they have simply not provided requested records. These limitations make the NSICOP “political theatre,” said Rob Walsh, former law clerk and parliamentary counsel of the House of Commons. “It’s a joke. It’s Alice in Wonderland.” Read more - Lire plus

Podcast: New Domestic Terrorism Laws Won’t End White Supremacy

ACLU 02/04/2021 - After the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, calls for new domestic terrorism laws grew louder. Proponents of the laws argue they’ll provide law enforcement with more resources to go after white supremacists and stop the violence. Now, with the country reeling from a recent spike in mass shootings, the calls continue.

Not so fast, says Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. New domestic terorrism laws will give the government even more power to surveil and criminalize communities of color. Existing counterrorism laws have already disproportionately affected these communities, and new laws will only exacerbate the violence against them. Shamsi joined At Liberty to tell us why these laws won’t stop white supremacy, and what legislation we should look out for in the future. Listen - Écouter

Lawmakers divided over need for new domestic terrorism law

Joe Biden Isn’t Ending the War in Afghanistan

Jacobin Mag 16/04/2021 - [F]or anyone who actually wants to see the United States leave the “graveyard of empires,” Biden’s delay shouldn’t be a moment for celebration. At worst, Biden is doing what so many administrations do, including the one he served as vice president in: loudly proclaiming the end of a war for political points while quietly figuring out some way to keep it going, usually through endless delays. At best, to give himself back the time for an orderly drawdown that he lost by sitting on his hands for three months, he’s unwittingly increasing the chances the withdrawal will be scuttled.

That’s not an exaggeration. Biden’s delay is an unambiguous violation of the deal Trump struck with the Taliban, and the latter are treating it that way, threatening attacks on US troops who are still in the country past the agreed-upon deadline and refusing to attend an upcoming peace summit with the Afghan government in Turkey in response. With violence in the country on the rise and the Taliban on the brink of their annual spring offensive, the coming months could see a surge in attacks, military conquests, and US body bags — either the perfect pretext or a valid, urgent reason to scuttle an Afghanistan pullout entirely. Even assuming the purest motives, the administration’s warning to the Taliban that it would retaliate against any attacks on US troops makes the likelihood of a back-and-forth escalation all the greater.

But even if Biden does nominally follow through on his promise to get US troops out by September, the more we read the fine print of the withdrawal, the more we have reason to worry. Unnamed “current and former American officials” have already told the New York Times that the Biden administration will “most likely” simply replace official US troops with spies, Special Forces, and private military contractors. Other unnamed officials have also told the paper the plan is to load up surrounding countries with US forces, then use drones and planes to kill suspected terrorists, the same way it does all over North Africa and the Middle East. If an invading force pulled troops out of the United States but continued bombing and sending covert forces into it, ask yourself if you’d think the war had finished.

Essentially, Biden is relegating Afghanistan to the “counterterrorism-plus” formulation he devised under Obama, a clever way to wage war on more countries than ever without the domestic political blowback that tends to come with full-blown invasion. As Spencer Ackerman pointed out, in his speech, Biden partly justified the pullout on the grounds that terrorism had “become more dispersed, metastasizing around the globe.” It made no sense to throw thousands of troops and billions of dollars at one country when, Biden implied, the US government should be doing that all over the world, including in Syria and Iraq. He might be wrapping up one pointless war, but Biden’s doubling down on another, much bigger one.

Maybe more ominously, Biden also cited something else to justify ending the war: the need to take on China. Along with the fact that China hawk Tony Blinken was reportedly the driving force behind the decision to get out of Afghanistan, the announcement looks less like a dovish pivot by the most progressive government in human history, as is being sold to the public, and more like a reallocation of resources for a completely different and much more dangerous conflict. Like winter into spring, one Forever War might be ending, but a new one is set to take its place.

All the indications we’re getting so far suggest Biden will continue fighting some kind of conflict in Afghanistan even once all US troops formally withdraw, however scaled down, and it’s still far from certain even that’s going to happen. Meanwhile, other signs point to the president elsewhere escalating the endless global warfare that’s done so much damage to both ordinary people around the world and their counterparts in the United States. It should be the job of the press to explain all this to the public. But you can barely hear it over the sound of the pom-poms. Read more - Lire plus

Afghanistan: Biden Vows to End Nation’s Longest War by 9/11 After Decades of Bloodshed & Destruction

Democracy Now: Will Biden End the U.S. “Forever War” in Afghanistan?

Cut the Defense Budget: Rep. Khanna on Bloated Pentagon Spending, Ending War in Yemen, UAE Arms Deal

DemocracyNow! 15/04/2021 - Congressmember Ro Khanna of California says hundreds of billions of dollars in annual defense spending could be better used on diplomacy, humanitarian aid, public health and other initiatives.

He’s one of 50 House Democrats who signed a letter to President Joe Biden in March urging a “significantly reduced” Pentagon budget, which has grown to over $700 billion. “The Pentagon increases make no sense,” says Khanna. “If you’re ending the forever war in Afghanistan … then why are we increasing, at the same time, the defense budget?” Khanna also discusses the Saudi-led, U.S.-backed war in Yemen, a major U.S. arms deal with the United Arab Emirates and more. Read more - Lire plus

Two Dozen Senators Tell Biden It Is 'Past Time' to Finally Close Guantánamo

Common Dreams 17/04/2021 - Echoing recent demands from human rights advocates and former detainees, two dozens members of the U.S. Senate Democratic Caucus on Friday pressed President Joe Biden to finally close the Guantánamo Bay offshore military prison, where 40 men are still being held despite global outrage over the facility and its long record of torture.

"As a symbol of lawlessness and human rights abuses, the detention facility continues to harm U.S. national security by serving as a propaganda tool for America's enemies and continues to hinder counterterrorism efforts and cooperation with allies," declares the letter (pdf), spearheaded by Senate Majority Whip and Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) as well as Appropriations Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.).

"For nearly two decades, the offshore prison has damaged America's reputation, fueled anti-Muslim bigotry, and weakened the United States' ability to counter terrorism and fight for human rights and the rule of law around the world," the letter continues. "In addition to the $540 million in wasted taxpayer dollars each year to maintain and operate the facility, the prison also comes at the price of justice for the victims of 9/11 and their families, who are still waiting for trials to begin."

In February, National Security Council spokesperson Emily Horne said that "we are undertaking an NSC process to assess the current state of play that the Biden administration has inherited from the previous administration, in line with our broader goal of closing Guantánamo." White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki subsequently confirmed that shuttering the prison permanently "certainly is our goal and our intention." Welcoming the White House's review, the senators point out that all 40 Gitmo detainees are aging, many with complex health problems, and six have been approved for transfer for years, in some cases for over a decade.

"After years of indefinite detention without charge or trial; a history of torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment; and multiple attempts at a thoroughly failed and discredited military commission process, it is past time to close Guantánamo's detention facility and end indefinite detention," the lawmakers emphasize, adding that "with sufficient political will and swift action, your administration can finish the job." Read more - Lire plus

Biden Team’s Litigation Tactics on Guantanamo Undercut Biden Policy to Close the Prison

The death of a former Guantanamo prisoner exposes how the US controls the life and death of its captives, even after released

USA: “Rewards for Justice” program violates human rights, say UN experts

OHCHR 14/04/2021 - The United States’ anti-terrorism program “Rewards for Justice” is violating the human rights of some of the individuals it targets, UN human rights experts said. The program, operated by the U.S. State Department, offers money for information about people outside the United States whom the U.S. Government designates as being associated with terrorism, but who have not been charged with any crimes. It also offers money to foreign individuals whom it claims are involved with terrorism if they cooperate with U.S. authorities.

“Many of the people targeted by the Rewards for Justice program have had their due process rights denied,” said Alena Douhan, the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights. “Those rights entail the presumption of innocence and fair trial, and the United States is obliged by international law to respect them. By offering money for information that can lead to the capture of these individuals, the program encourages others to participate in the denial of these rights.

“Such offers are reminiscent of wanted posters that target fugitives from justice – fugitives charged with crimes or who have warrants for their arrest,” said Douhan, whose call is supported by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. The offers of money to foreign individuals alleged to be involved in terrorist activity or associated with entities qualified by the United States as being involved in terrorist activity – including institutions of Iran, Cuba and many other States – comes with threats to impose sanctions on these individuals if they don’t cooperate with the U.S. Government’s demands. Sanctions imposed against them violate a number of their rights, including the right to work, to freedom of movement, right to reputation, right to life with no possibility to access justice to protect these rights, as well as the right to be forgotten.

“Making an individual carry out tasks against their will under the threat of a penalty for not doing so amounts to forced labour as defined by agreements made through the International Labour Organization, and the United States has accepted that definition,” said Douhan. Forced labour is prohibited by treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the United States has ratified. “I respectfully urge the U.S. Government to review its Rewards for Justice Program in order to ensure that its activities are aligned with international law,” Douhan said. [...] The Special Rapporteur has raised this, along with other issues of concern to her mandate, with the US Government but has thus far not received any response. Read more - Lire plus

French air strike killed 19 civilians at Mali wedding party, U.N. says

Reuters 30/03/2021 - A French air strike in January killed 19 civilians and three armed men at a wedding in the remote desert of central Mali, United Nations investigators said on Tuesday, contradicting France’s account that only Islamist militants were hit. France immediately rejected the findings, which are likely to fuel domestic criticism of Mali’s former colonial master. France has more than 5,000 troops in Mali and neighbouring countries to battle groups linked to al Qaeda and Islamic State.

The human rights division of the United Nations mission in Mali (MINUSMA) said it had visited the village of Bounti where the attack took place on Jan. 3, analysed satellite images and interviewed more than 400 people, including at least 115 in face-to-face, individual sessions. “MINUSMA is able to confirm that a wedding celebration was held that brought together about 100 civilians at the site of the strike, among whom five armed individuals, presumed members of Katiba Serma, were present,” the report said. The MINUSMA report said 19 people, including 16 civilians and three of the armed men, were killed immediately in the air attack, while three more civilians died while being transferred to medical care.

The MINUSMA report said each witness account was verified with other evidence and that some witnesses were relocated to allow them to speak freely. Its report said forensics experts found no evidence of incinerated motorcycles, weapons or ammunitions that would have suggested the presence of a large number of armed men. “This strike raises important concerns about the respect of the rules of armed conflict,” it said. “MINUSMA recommends that the Malian and French authorities lead an independent, credible and transparent investigation.”

Local officials in northern Mali accused France’s military last week of killing six civilians in another air strike. French forces said they had again struck Islamist militants. France has been embroiled in Mali’s conflict since 2013, when it intervened to push back Islamist militants who were advancing south after seizing the desert north. The conflict has since spread to neighbouring countries in the West African Sahel region like Burkina Faso and Niger, leading to rising criticism of French forces from local activists and some politicians. The Jan. 3 air strike came after five French soldiers were killed the previous week in two attacks carried out with improvised explosive devices. Read more - Lire plus

France Rejects UN Report of Airstrike on Wedding Party in Mali

Sahel civilians becoming trapped victims of counter-terrorism forces as well as militants

Mapuche organizations call on international agencies to intervene on behalf of Chile’s Indigenous population

The Global Americans 21/04/2021 - On March 3, 2021, the Chilean Chamber of Deputies approved Resolution Project 1448, allowing President Sebastián Piñera to decree a State of Constitutional Exception and deploy armed forces to Mapuche territory in the Zona Sur (the southern zone) of Chile. This measure was announced following fierce lobbying by President of the Chilean Federation of Southern Truck Owners José Villagrán, who threatened roadblocks on national highways if President Piñera’s administration “fail[ed] to address arson attacks” against truckers in the Araucanía region. According to Villagrán and the Federation, these attacks were carried out by radical Mapuche insurgents. [...]

The accusations of terrorism levied against the Mapuche range from allegations of arson attacks against trucks and cargo to burning down entire forests. Yet, despite these allegations and the contentious arrest and detention of several Mapuche spiritual and community leaders, the evidence backing these claims remains limited. Mapuche activists blame the fires on commercial forestry companies that have introduced non-native varieties of eucalyptus and pine to Araucanian forests, which have worsened seasonal droughts. [...]

The Mapuche have a long history of resistance to colonial occupation. Today, their struggle for the right to live on their ancestral land has been met with a militarized response and criminalization from the Chilean government. This response has included the deployment of a unit that operated under the name Comando Jungla, which received training in the Colombian jungle specifically to suppress Indigenous uprisings in Araucanía. [...] Laws stemming from the Pinochet-era Constitution of Chile enable the state to target dissent among the Mapuche community. The 1984 anti-terrorism law (Law No.18,314), for instance, has been invoked repeatedly by the Chilean government, despite several international agencies deeming its application to be inappropriate in the context of challenging Indigenous rights to live on ancestral lands that are enshrined in international law.

As President Piñera seeks to appease those who maintain vested commercial interests in the Araucanía region, the rush to military intervention—rather than a committed effort to foster peaceful dialogue between the state, Mapuche leaders, and private sector interests—bodes poorly for the prospects of peace and stability in southern Chile. With Chile’s police and military forces mired in human rights abuses and corruption scandals—indeed, multiple international human rights organizations have documented crimes committed against the Mapuche by Chilean security forces—it is clear that they are incapable of resolving a centuries-long conflict that continues to claim Mapuche lives. Read more - Lire plus

China hands death sentences to Uyghur former officials

The Guardian 09/04/2021 - A Chinese court has issued a suspended death sentence to the former directors of the Xinjiang education department for charges including writing and publishing school textbooks it said were designed to “split the country”. Sattar Sawut and his deputy, Shirzat Bawudun, were given death sentences with a two-year reprieve, while five other Uyghur men, including editors, were given lengthy jail terms, according to state media. The date of the convictions and sentences are unknown but were revealed in a state media film released in the last week, amid a PR offensive by the Chinese government pushing back on international criticism of its abuses in the Xinjiang region. In the Chinese judicial system, a death sentence with reprieve can be commuted to 25 years, or life in prison, pending good behaviour.

Sattar was accused of building a team and planning with his deputy to incorporate “bloody, violent, terrorist and separatist ideas” in primary and secondary school textbooks dating back 13 years, the state news agency Xinhua said. The books in question date back as far as 2003, but in 2016 the content was deemed by Xinjiang authorities to be “separatist” in nature and inciting ethnic hatred. The son of Yalqun Rozi, one of the editors sentenced, and who was first arrested in 2016, said the charges were “absurd”. “These textbooks were sanctioned by the state,” Kamaltürk Yalqun told the Associated Press. “China is trying to erase history and write a new narrative.” Read more - Lire plus

Hong Kong marks first ‘National Security Education Day’

Turkey sentences Syriac monk on terrorism charges for giving bread to visitors

TWE 12/04/2021 - Turkey’s broad-based anti-terrorism law, open to interpretation that permits the abuse of the human rights of its ethnic and religious minorities, demands serious scrutiny by the international community. At the center of the latest example is Father Aho Sefer Bilecen, a Syriac Christian monk and head of the Monastery of Mar Yaqoub. On April 7, a Turkish court sentenced him to two years and one month in prison on terrorism-related charges. The crime for which he must spend the next two years of his life in prison? One day, in 2018, he gave bread and water to two people who knocked at the door of his monastery and asked for some means of sustenance, not an unusual occurrence in the rural areas of Turkey. The strangers happened to be members of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, a designated terrorist group.

Aho, who is known for his generous and charitable nature as well as his dedication to the Christian ideal of serving others, complied with their request. He does not ask for visitors’ political views, ethnicity, or religion when he gives them food. His arrest and sentencing are a case study in what Amnesty International has reported on the state of human rights in Turkey. “The judiciary disregards fair trial guarantees and due process and continued to apply broadly defined anti-terrorism laws to punish acts protected under international human rights law,” said its latest report. Read more - Lire plus

Turkey police detain 33 people critical of government in “terror” operations in İstanbul: report

Turkey releases writer Ahmet Altan after more than four years in prison

ACTIONS & EVENTS

LAST CHANCE Stop arms shipments to Saudi Arabia now!

Sign this parliamentary petition to call upon the Government of Canada to:

1) Halt arms shipments to Saudi Arabia immediately and ensure that any future arms transfers fully comply with Canada’s int'l legal obligations under the UN Arms Trade Treaty;

2) Participate in international efforts to bring an immediate end to the deliberate Saudi-led attacks on civilians which constitute war crimes;

3) Demand and support international partners in lifting the siege on Sana’a Airport and Hudaydah Port in order to deliver humanitarian assistance.