SHARE:  
Facebook  Instagram  X  Web  YouTube

View as Webpage

Logo_ICLMG_HR NEWS DIGEST.jpg

International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group

Coalition pour la surveillance internationale des libertés civiles

September 14, 2024 - 14 septembre 2024

Defending Civil Liberties in an Age of Counter-terrorism and National Security

FINAL-20th-anniv-cover image

ICLMG 11/09/2024 - Defending Civil Liberties in an Age of Counter-terrorism and National Security is a new publication to highlight the 20th anniversary of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group.


It features 27 pieces from leading experts, activists and ICLMG members reflecting on the past twenty years and the challenges that lie ahead.


Read it online or get a physical copy here


CONTENTS


Islamophobia and the ‘War on Terror’ – Monia Mazigh


Kids on Canada’s No-Fly List – Khadija Cajee


Fighting to Abolish the No-Fly List – Tim McSorley


Upholding the Rights of Asylum Seekers – Janet Dench


A Victory for Citizenship Equality! – Tim McSorley


The ICLMG’s Beginnings and the Commissions of Inquiry – Roch Tassé


Fighting Anti-terrorism Legislation – Dominique Peschard


A Victory for Humanitarian Assistance! – Tim McSorley & Xan Dagenais


The Dangerous Seductions of the ‘Anti-Racist’ Racist State – Azeezah Kanji


CSIS, Duty of Candour and Immunity for Illegal Activities – Tim McSorley


Confronting the CRA’s Prejudiced Audits – Tim McSorley


Canada’s National Security Practices Part of Genocide Against First Nations – Pamela Palmater


Canada and Criminalization in the War Over Land and Nature – Jen Moore


What 20 Years of Injustice has Meant for Us – Sophie Lamarche Harkat


Loss of Human Rights in the ‘War on Terror’: The Case of Hassan Diab – Roger Clark


An Excess of Democracy and the Case for Hope – Matthew Behrens


The Fight for the Return of Canadians Detained in Northeast Syria – Justin Mohammed


Canada Bring Them Home! – Xan Dagenais


Information Clearinghouse on Border Controls and Infringements to Travellers’ Rights – Patricia Poirier


Without Effective Review, Human Rights Remain Tenuous – Alex Neve


Facial Recognition Technology: Rights, Risks and Required Regulation – Brenda McPhail


The ICLMG and Surveillance Studies at Queen’s University – David Lyon


COVlD, Surveillance and Defending Privacy Rights – Xan Dagenais


Mobilizing Against Surveillance on the International Scene – Maureen Webb


Government Proposal to Fight “Online Harms” Presents Dangers of its Own – Tim McSorley


Share on Facebook + Twitter + Instagram


Version française: Défendre les libertés civiles à l’ère de la sécurité nationale et de la guerre au terrorisme


Partagez sur Facebook + Twitter + Instagram


NOUVEAU Lancement à Montréal le 19 septembre: Défendre les libertés civiles à l'ère de la sécurité nationale et de la guerre au terrorisme

Online Harms Conference, featuring ICLMG National Coordinator Tim McSorley

GWvJ_IgWUAAGReo image

NCCM 05/09/2024 - Canadians are increasingly coming face to face with the rise of hate motivated crimes.


We have seen the role that hate online plays in affecting our communities - from the Quebec City Mosque massacre, to the targeting of female journalists, to the harassment of Black and Indigenous activists, and everywhere else in between.


How should our leaders deal with this problem, what are the implications of potential regulation, and how might diverse communities work together on solutions that prioritizes both ending hate online and protecting civil liberties?


NCCM, along with Open Media, is convening a full day conference in Ottawa on September 23 for a critical discussion on online harms regulation as the Online Harms Act (Bill C-63) winds its way through the House of Commons.


Join us for this rare opportunity to explore questions of AI, online harms, challenges for civil liberties and law enforcement, along with issues of online regulation. Register today!

Understanding Bill C-70: Beyond a National Security State

CFPI 13/09/2024 - Serious concerns are being raised about the rapid passage of Bill C-70, known as the Countering Foreign Interference Act.


This discussion aims to deepen public understanding of the bill, its far-reaching implications and potentially devastating impact on social movements as well as the critical importance of challenging and moving beyond the motivations that fuel a national security state in Canada.


C-70 is an omnibus bill, amending the Canadian Security Intelligence Act, the Security of Information Act, the Criminal Code, the Canadian Evidence Act, and introducing a new act, the Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act.


Rights groups warn this bill is likely to erode civil liberties and human rights. Passed with minimal scrutiny, Bill C-70 amends key security and criminal laws, threatening fundamental freedoms, including free speech, assembly, and privacy, and could be used for profiling based on politics, race, religion, or nationality.


SPEAKERS:

  • Senator Yuen Pau Woo
  • Professor Midori Ogasawara
  • Tim McSorley (National Coordinator, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group)

With an introduction from Professor John Price Source


NEW Webinar Oct 1st 7pm ET: What To Do About Foreign Interference with ICLMG's Tim McSorley & International Center for Not-for-Profit Law's Nick Robinson


Uhuru 3 Found Guilty of Conspiracy, Acquitted of Foreign Agents Charge in Landmark Trial

Open letter: Civil society coalition urges Canada to stop all arms transfers to Israel

f-35-feature image

Oxfam Canada 03/09/2024 - Dear Minister Joly,

We, the undersigned civil society organizations, are deeply concerned at the enduring devastation in Gaza. Canada risks complicity in this humanitarian catastrophe through its ongoing transfer of military goods destined to Israel, exports which are incompatible with its obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). As organizations committed to upholding human rights, the protection of civilians, peace, and justice—several of whom are present in Gaza and seeing daily the grave consequences of the transfer of weapons to conflict parties—we urge the Government of Canada to take immediate action to cease all exports of arms and arms components to Israel, as well as any and all transfers for which Israel will be the end user.


In the past ten months, more than 40,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israel’s military campaign across the Gaza Strip, the majority being women and children. More than 92,000 have been injured and critical civilian infrastructure has been destroyed. Over the last few weeks only, Israel attacked at least seven schools. They add to the long list of schools, hospitals, refugee camps and places of worship hit since October—many of these crowded with displaced civilians sheltering from the violence.


This year marks the 10th anniversary of the adoption of the ATT, which Canada acceded to five years ago. Under the ATT, Canada is prohibited from exporting arms if those transfers would be used to commit serious crimes under international law including disproportionate and indiscriminate attacks. Moreover, states parties to the Treaty cannot authorize arms transfers if there is an overriding risk they could be misused, including to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law (IHL)—the very type of behaviour that has become routine by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). These obligations are also reflected under domestic law in Canada’s Export and Import Permits Act (EIPA).


In addition, the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) order to halt Israel’s military offensive in Rafah due to the plausible risk of genocide as well as its July 19th Advisory Opinion which found that Israel’s prolonged occupation of the occupied Palestinian territory is unlawful are significant international legal findings that call for concrete policy changes, and not just on the part of Israel. Canada needs to urgently review its own cooperation practices to ensure they prevent international crimes and do not contribute towards any further violations of international law.


To be sure, earlier this year it was reported that your government had paused the further authorization of arms transfers to Israel, which was a definitive step in the right direction. However, since then, the extent of this policy has not been officially outlined, proposed permits for arms transfers to Israel have not been denied but rather left in limbo for future authorization, and, most disturbingly, previously approved arms transfers have continued unabated.


We are extremely concerned that these previously authorized transfers include at least $95 million in Canadian military goods that could be exported to Israel by the end of 2025, despite the ongoing and well-documented pattern of IHL and human rights violations by Israel in Gaza and the West Bank. The continuous arming of Israel by Canada contradicts our country’s commitment to upholding IHL and human rights. It also undermines efforts to end hostilities in Gaza through the implementation of a ceasefire, which Canada has pledged to support.


On August 14th, the United States government announced that a Quebec-based company, General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems Inc., will be the principal contractor in the likely sale of $61-million US in high explosive mortar cartridges and related equipment to Israel. This announcement directly contradicts the claims made by the Canadian government that the only outstanding military exports to Israel are for “non-lethal” military equipment. In addition, all of Canada’s arms exports are subject to ATT obligations, even those transferred under a General Export Permit to the United States.

Canada cannot credibly prioritize diplomatic solutions and support for peace while simultaneously contributing to the arming of a conflict in which violations of IHL are persistent and well-documented. By halting all military exports that could be used in the hostilities—including those via the United States—Canada will not only comply with its international and domestic legal obligations, but also take a principled stance in advancing the rule of law, human rights and compliance with IHL, thereby reinforcing its international reputation as a defender of these values.


We urge your office to refuse the transfer of the recently announced mortar cartridge sale with the United States and to cease all military exports to Israel—both direct and those transferred through the United States—including by revoking all extant permits. We remain committed to working with the Government of Canada to meet its legal obligations, uphold our shared values and to promote peace and justice both at home and abroad. We trust that you will give this matter the urgent attention it requires and look forward to your response.


Sincerely,

Amnistie internationale Canada francophone

Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME)

CARE Canada

Cooperation Canada

Development and Peace – Caritas Canada

Doctors of the World Canada

Human Concern International

Humanity & Inclusion Canada

Independent Jewish Voices Canada

The International Development and Relief Foundation (IDRF)

Islamic Relief Canada

Labour Against the Arms Trade

Mennonite Central Committee Canada

Oxfam Canada

Oxfam-Québec

Project Ploughshares

The Rideau Institute

Save the Children Canada

World BEYOND War

Source


NEW Ottawa protest: Hands off Gaza! Sun Sept 15 at 4pm


“A Horrifying Undercount”: Ralph Nader Says True Gaza Death Toll Could Be Many Times Higher


Ottawa-based company is key to keeping Israeli warplanes bombing Gaza


What Mélanie Joly Said And Didn’t Say About Israel Arms Exports


NEW Join our call: Canada should welcome more refugees!


CJPME is demanding that Immigration Minister Marc Miller call for the dropping of criminal charges against three Palestinian Canadian protestors


‘Setting an Example’ – Why the UK is Hunting Down Pro-Palestinian Voices


'Politicising security': Palestinian Americans sue US government over secret watchlist, no-fly list

Crown seeks closed-door hearings for lawsuit claiming feds contributed to Canadian's torture

Screenshot-2024-09-13-at-3 image

CBC News 04/09/2024 - After years of delays, a Canadian man's lawsuit accusing the federal government of contributing to his detention and torture abroad is finally going before a court this fall. But before the case can proceed, a judge needs to decide if intelligence officials can testify behind closed doors.



Abousfian Abdelrazik was arrested during a 2003 visit to his mother in Sudan. He spent the next six years in prison or in forced exile at the Canadian embassy in Khartoum as his attempts to return to Canada were continuously rejected by the federal government. He was never charged. 


According to an agreed statement of facts, officials from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service interrogated Abdelrazik while he was in custody about suspected extremist links. Abdelrazik has denied any involvement with terrorism. CSIS has denied asking Sudanese authorities to detain Abdelrazik — but court records suggest Sudanese officials told Canadian diplomats that CSIS asked for Abdelrazik's arrest.


Abdelrazik came back to Canada in 2009 after a Federal Court justice found his charter rights had been violated and ordered his return. The Montreal father filed a lawsuit seeking $27 million in compensation that same year. He alleges in his statement of claim that he was tortured in Sudanese custody and the federal government violated his constitutional right to come home.


After Abdelrazik waited nine years to get his case before a judge, the case was scheduled to go ahead in 2018. That court date was postponed to give court officials time to review and redact hundreds of pages of documents, including emails and memos, under the Canada Evidence Act. The court issued an order last summer redacting 1,469 documents but is allowing vetted summaries be disclosed. A trial date is set for next month — but there's a final hurdle to clear before the case can be heard.


Close the doors to protect national security: Crown


Last month, the Crown filed a motion asking that six of its witnesses be allowed to testify behind closed doors "to avoid injury to Canada's international relations, national defence and/or national security." The witnesses in question are current and former members of CSIS, the RCMP and Global Affairs Canada.

Government lawyers argue in their motion that the public and media should be excluded from the courtroom during those officials' testimony to "prevent inadvertent disclosure" of protected secrets. [...]


Abdelrazik's legal team is fighting the motion, arguing such an exceptional order is unnecessary.


In his written representation, Abdelrazik's lawyer Paul Champ argues the witnesses are "very experienced dealing with highly confidential matters" and calls the suggestion that they might blurt out classified information "speculative at best."


"The open court principle is especially important in this case because it involves allegations of malfeasance and complicity in serious human rights abuses by senior government officials," he writes. "There is a strong public interest in the public hearing government witnesses defend their actions in this case."


CBC News is seeking to intervene in the case, arguing the Crown's motion "would unjustifiably limit the open court principle and infringe upon the freedoms of expression and of the press." Lawyers for all three parties made their arguments in Federal Court Wednesday afternoon. Justice Patrick Gleeson reserved his decision but promised to release one soon, reflecting the fact that the trial is set to start on Oct. 21. Read more - Lire more

Update on Parliamentary Petition e-4901 and Open Letter to the Minister of Justice

Justice for Hassan Diab 11/09/2024 - On June 12, 2024, Parliamentary petition e-4901 was presented to the Government of Canada. The petition calls upon the government to formally declare that “Canada will neither accept nor agree to any second request from the French Government for the extradition of Dr. Hassan Diab”. More than 3,500 Canadians, from every province and territory, have signed the petition.


On August 21, 2024, the government issued its response, stating:



“The Government of Canada cannot confirm or deny the existence of requests for extradition as this would disclose confidential state-to-state communications. The Government of Canada emphasizes that all extradition requests that are received are examined carefully, taking into consideration the totality of the relevant circumstances, the Extradition Act, Canada’s international obligations, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”


This response is totally unacceptable and fails to even address the substance of the petition. The failure of the Canadian Government to acknowledge the pain it continues to inflict on Dr. Diab and on his family is an outrage. There have been cases where the Canadian Government has disclosed whether an extradition request has been made. So, it is misleading for the government to assert that it “cannot confirm or deny the existence of requests for extradition”. By hiding behind duplicitous legalese and using the camouflage of confidentiality, Canada is evading its legal, moral, and human responsibility. What is worse, it only serves to prolong the nightmare it has created.


Open Letter to the Minister of Justice Arif Virani


On September 3, 2024, an Open Letter, signed by 117 leading lawyers and legal scholars in Canada, was submitted to the Minister of Justice, Arif Virani.


The letter urges Minister Virani “to give clear assurances that Dr. Hassan Diab will not be extradited a second time for a crime he did not commit” and calls on the government to implement all recommendations of the report, “Reforming Canada’s Extradition System” by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST).”


Statements of Support for Dr. Hassan Diab


Letter from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) to the Minister of Justice, Arif Virani (August 27, 2024):


“The Canadian Civil Liberties Association is writing to urge you to make a public commitment not to commit Dr. Hassan Diab, a Canadian citizen, to a second extradition to France. Every day that Dr. Diab and his family are left in limbo contributes to sustaining harms that have been endured. It is time to take a clear and public stance that Canada will not entertain a second extradition request by France…” Read more - Lire plus


ACTION Canada must protect Hassan Diab!

Report Launch - Challenges and Consequences: The Impact of Bill C-41 on Aid Delivery in Afghanistan

September17Launch image

CCMW 2024 - About the Report:

The withdrawal of the United States and its allies from Afghanistan created an unprecedented humanitarian crisis, leaving the country in a state of extreme vulnerability. Amidst decades of conflict, widespread human rights violations, natural disasters and diseases, including the COVID-19 pandemic, constant displacements, and enduring corruption, Afghanistan became heavily dependent on international aid for the survival of its population and infrastructure. 


The Taliban’s takeover compounded the problem by creating a unique legal challenge for humanitarian actors and other entities working to meet the basic human needs of the Afghan people. For the first time, a group subject to sanctions and counterterrorism financing (CTF) measures, including individuals designated as terrorists, was now governing an entire country. These sanctions and CTF measures, designed to prevent material support from reaching the Taliban, inadvertently created significant barriers for the delivery of aid into Afghanistan. Routine, unavoidable, and incidental payments—such as taxes or fees to the Taliban—suddenly carried legal risks, potentially exposing humanitarian actors and other entities to severe civil and criminal penalties.


This report delves into the implications of Bill C-41, which introduced a bifurcated framework for humanitarian efforts in Afghanistan. While intended to safeguard against the Taliban benefiting from aid, the law has inadvertently created barriers for humanitarian actors and other entities supporting basic human needs. The report, based on interviews with Canadian humanitarian actors and other entities, reveals the complexities and challenges these entities face, including programmatic disruptions, bureaucratic delays, and operational hurdles. The report also sheds light on the consequences of Bill C-41 for the Afghan people. Register - S'inscrire

CRCC Releases Summary of a Public Complaint Review of RCMP C-IRG Enforcement Actions at Fairy Creek, BC

CRCC 11/09/2024 - Today, the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP (CRCC) published a summary [PDF] of its final report on the RCMP’s handling of a public complaint regarding enforcement of a civil injunction covering the Fairy Creek area in British Columbia.


In its review, the CRCC found that the broad exclusion zones and checkpoints used by members of the RCMP’s Community-Industry Response Group (C-IRG) were unreasonable. The review determined that the RCMP’s demand to search the complainant at a checkpoint on a public road was unfounded, and his arrest, after refusing to agree to the search, was groundless.


The RCMP Commissioner agreed with most of the findings and recommendations in the CRCC’s review and committed to develop a national policy on policing civil injunctions that is consistent with recent court rulings on police powers and civil liberties during public order events.

The CRCC review also concluded that:

  • the practice of searching people who seek to cross into what is an unreasonable exclusion zone violates their rights and freedoms;
  • it was unreasonable for RCMP members at the protest sites to remove their name tags, without any other effective way to identify them; and
  • an RCMP member who wore the unauthorized "Thin Blue Line" patch on his uniform acted unreasonably and broke policy.

The CRCC is also completing a separate systemic investigation of the activities and operations of the C-IRG in British Columbia.


Whenever anyone is dissatisfied with the handling of their complaint by the RCMP, they can request a review by the CRCC. To protect the privacy of those who participate in the public complaint process, the CRCC publishes only depersonalized summaries of our completed public complaint reviews. We occasionally profile selected review summaries or reports on our website that involve significant research or recommend action on national RCMP policies. Visit the CRCC website to learn more. Read more - Lire plus


Criminalized Wet’suwet’en land defender Sleydo’ testifies about RCMP C-IRG violence at abuse of process hearing


Former RCMP C-IRG Bronze Commander Ken Floyd testifies at hearing on abuse of process application


EVENT In Conversation with Canada’s First Prisoner of Conscience: Chief Dsta’hyl, Sept 25 at noon ET

Roshni Ahmed: 23 Years After 9/11, Are We Any Safer?

True justice for the lives lost on 9/11 and during the U.S.’ war on terror would require us to put an end to overfunding violence and war, and instead prioritize safety and security through investing in our communities.

9-11-memorial image

Common Dreams 11/09/2024 - It is hard to forget the burning stares of people in the airport that look at you with suspicion and disdain, to the point that your eyes close in shame. I remember feeling deeply embarrassed as a teenager when the Transportation Security Administration officers took my family and I aside to do a secondary screening at the airport. It wasn’t until many years later I realized that this was just a small cost of being Muslim in America after 9/11.



It has been 23 years since September 11, 2001. The phrase “Never Forget” is echoed nationally to memorialize the nearly 3,000 lives lost that day. Instead of building a safer world after 9/11, the United States government responded with misplaced vengeance on multiple civilian populations, the consequences of which continue to be felt at home and globally. Following the attacks on 9/11, the U.S. government launched an international military campaign, called the “Global War on Terror,” under then President George W. Bush’s leadership. It was a campaign with no end date that included “large-scale surveillance measures in the U.S., torture, global drone strikes, blacksites, and the Guantánamo Bay military prison.”


If investing money in militarism and incarceration was meant to serve as a measure of justice for a post 9/11 world, then our communities would be safe and thriving. The U.S. government’s response included wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan that killed 940,000 people directly, while 3.6-3.8 million people died indirectly in post-9/11 war zones. The names of the people killed may never be known and memorialized. At the same time, 38 million people in and from Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, the Philippines, Libya and Syria were forcibly displaced. Over 7,000 U.S. service members also lost their lives due to our government’s foreign policy since the 9/11 attacks.


Since 2002, 780 Muslim men and boys have been detained at Guantánamo Bay, which claims to hold terrorist suspects. However, most were released without being convicted of a crime, and many are survivors of torture at the hands of U.S. officials. Thirty individuals still remain there. Due to decades of dehumanization and propaganda, the American people have become conditioned to believe that death and violence among Black, African, Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian (BAMEMSA) communities is inevitable. These Islamophobic and anti-Muslim tropes continue today, as we witness the genocide of Palestinians with increasing normalization.


The U.S. government also spent $8 trillion on wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and other countries. Over $21 trillion has been spent on militarism since9/11; militarism expenditure includes funding for the Pentagon, detentions and deportations, and policing and prisons. Our priorities become clear too when we see that the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate and largest immigrant detention system in the world. If investing money in militarism and incarceration was meant to serve as a measure of justice for a post 9/11 world, then our communities would be safe and thriving. Instead, Americans feel less safe than 30 years ago, while 78% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck.


Oftentimes the U.S.’ global war on terror and intervention in other countries is seen as “an over there problem.” However, the general American public must also pay attention to how the military-industrial complex influences how we are governed, and firmly reject it. The military-industrial complex is a term used to describe the influence of those who profit from war such as contractors who produce weapons, our policymakers, and armed forces. Defense contractors have spent over $60 million in donations to politicians in the 2024 and 2022 election cycles. During the Democratic National Convention (DNC), we saw a clear example of how Vice President Kamala Harris would continue this pattern of brute American force and militarism. She said, “As commander in chief, I will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world.”


Lethal is defined as: deadly, mortal, fatal, causing or capable of causing death. Criticisms of the Democratic Presidential candidate or party are often accompanied by “Trump would not be any better.” No politician is exempt from accountability when embracing death and destruction as values to lead with. Other realities are possible. How else have oppressed communities fought for their freedoms in the U.S.? Visionaries challenged the choices given to them by fighting for new ones. Power does not only lie in the hands of defense contractors and lobbyists, but among all of us too.


In a moment when our politicians are paying close attention to the issues voters care about, we cannot separate the genocide in Palestine from police brutality, or issues like access to abortion from the economy. Each issue is inextricably linked because of how our government chooses to prioritize its budget, and the domestic or foreign policies we employ always have a domino effect. During the DNC, Prism interviewed Cherrene Horazuk, the former president of a union at the University of Minnesota. Cherrene shares, “Palestine is a workers’ issue first because money that goes for war is not available for jobs.”


Pro-Palestine advocates understand the interconnectedness of struggles for all people. Their moral compass exemplifies that if we don’t reject this cycle of violence now, we are signaling to those in power that we condone and are willing to continue the U.S.’ culture of forceful domination that has existed since its inception. The Institute for Social Policy and Understanding examined 3,100 bills in 50 U.S. state legislatures across several years and issue areas including abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, immigrant rights, and more. Eighty-five percent of legislators that supported anti-Shariah or anti-“foreign law” bills also supported restrictive bills against other marginalized communities. When we understand that any form of injustice threatens all of us, we can act to advance our collective needs.



What does real justice look like for all those who have been harmed by the legacy of the U.S.’ war on terror since 9/11? Reparations for the lives lost that day some may argue could be revenge, but families advocating for a peaceful response to end the cycle of harm and violence are also showing us another way. True justice must include demanding our government to:

Islamophobia is not just a threat to Muslims—it’s a threat to all marginalized communities in the U.S. and globally. We must end the war on terror, and the violence U.S. government has inflicted on its people and elsewhere. Through our collective power and action, we can create a world that prioritizes and benefits from life, not death. Source


When Governments Unleash Targeted Killings: The assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar shocked Canadians. But it fits a deadly trend the US helped normalize.

Security Theater

Marine veteran Adam Straus reviews Richard Beck's "Homeland: The War on Terror in American Life"

Homeland_ee image

LA Review of Books 03/09/2024 - [...] In 2015, TSA internal testing agents found “a failure rate of 96 percent” in detecting weapons passing through security checkpoints. Controlling for bureaucratic manipulation and straight-up entrapment, the Department of Justice has successfully prosecuted almost no domestic terror convictions, despite a massive dragnet that has ensnared thousands of predominantly Muslim Americans. The Taliban control more territory today than they did in 2001. Iraq’s best-case-scenario future appears to be as an Iranian vassal state, its worst as a failed state like Libya, Syria, Somalia, or Yemen. Americans enjoy fewer civil liberties and less wealth than they did in 2001. We have more enemies across the globe now than we did when this shit show began.


And we have doubled down on these failures with a creeping militarism that has suffused post-9/11 America. Beck makes this clear by analyzing the proliferation of security zones, “urban area[s] in which governments have decided that security concerns take precedence over […] the hundreds of other uses to which city residents might want to put their public spaces.” Think pedestrian barriers and CCTV, omnipresent police and restrictions on what you can bring into a stadium. From Super Bowls to airports, these elaborate performances of “security theater” manifest the state of war they so hope to exclude.


“One of the paradoxes of post-9/11 security zones,” Beck writes, “is that everyone secretly knows they don’t work.” The same could be said of the wars themselves. A 2019 Pew survey found that a solid majority of both the public and veterans believed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not worth fighting; these numbers would almost certainly be higher today, after the Iraqi parliament’s attempts to expel US troops and after Afghanistan’s disastrous end.


In other words, Americans know that our security measures are ineffective at home. And they know that our interventions aren’t worthwhile abroad. Why does the United States remain so steadfastly committed to both? Part of the answer lies in the intended targets of these actions. A central contradiction of the War on Terror is its need to establish “Muslims as both victims to be saved and barbarians to be eliminated.” Without the former, there would have been no popular support for extended wars of occupation; without the latter, no justification for anything more than a limited revenge mission against al-Qaeda itself. The result has been an unrelenting torrent of violence both at home and abroad. In the six years following 9/11, there were over eight times as many anti-Muslim hate crimes as in the preceding six years, constituting “a national, slow-moving pogrom.” These numbers obviously fail to account for the FBI’s own Islamophobic campaigns of surveillance and harassment. And these numbers pale in comparison to the millions of primarily Muslim civilians dead in American war zones across the globe.


Beck also ties our post-9/11 thirst for revenge to early settler myths. First, men like Natty Bumppo, Daniel Boone, George Armstrong Custer, and Davy Crockett taught us that “violence is the only remedy for humiliation, fear, and trauma.” Then, in places as infamous as Abu Ghraib in Iraq and black sites whose names will never be known, soldiers “slowly made out of suspected terrorists a new kind of Indian” for whom “violence and humiliation were the only languages they could be expected to understand.” These connections between contemporary war and genocide against Native Americans are hardly a reach: Osama bin Laden’s code name during Operation Neptune Spear was literally “Geronimo.”


There’s more driving the War on Terror than racist nostalgia, though. As the Venetians, the Dutch, and the British all found in their own times, capitalist hegemony, like the growth it depends upon, doesn’t last forever. More problematically for the rest of the world, “slow growth turns the global economy into a zero-sum game […] rather than growing the pie quickly enough for most people to do well.” In this way, the United States is dragging down with it a whole network of nations, trapping billions in the “informal economy” where it’s essentially impossible to make more than a subsistence wage. Viewed through this lens, the “kind of terrorism that America mobilized to fight […] expresses a version of the emerging world’s anger and hopelessness in the most brutal way available.” This recasts the War on Terror as a conflict motivated by economics rather than by ideology alone. Even if the war couldn’t “solve the problems facing a low-growth world, […] it could at least tolerably insulate the United States from their effects.” So-called victory, then, means minimizing the homeland’s experience of violent blowback from the United States’ economic decline.


A “logical” corollary to these trends is that “for at least the next ten years, the U.S. foreign policy establishment’s highest priority will be to prevent China from replacing the United States as the world’s primary superpower.” As part of these efforts, I spent several months in and around Okinawa, Japan, on my second deployment. We had near-unlimited access to alcohol, which was different from our time in the Middle East; we spent most of our time bored senseless, which was the same. Around the midpoint of that deployment, I watched the January 6 insurrection unfold on a laptop in my barracks room. A week later, we were on ship, endlessly circling the oceans around Palau and Guam, serving as “a credible deterrent to adversary aggression in the Pacific.” Per Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III, “The $842 billion fiscal year 2024 budget request for the Defense Department is driven in large part by strategic competition with China.” In the empty weeks before our flight home, Radiohead’s song “Creep” became a kind of anthem: “What the hell am I doing here?”


In related news, I got out of the Marine Corps three years ago. Now, I teach high school English. I enjoy exercising a modicum of control over my life, less so the fact that my students sometimes don’t do exactly what I tell them the moment I tell them to do it. But they did, at my behest, read “False Star” by Sterling HolyWhiteMountain, a story that centers around a Blackfoot teenager getting his first car. After discussing the piece, students wrote creative reflections about their own first days with their own first cars. Unanimously, they mentioned the extreme sense of freedom they felt alone behind the wheel for the first time. Then they began comparing notes on the software their parents use to track them. They recounted getting calls telling them to slow down, of having to explain why they drove somewhere by a certain route. They seemed annoyed by this, sure, but it didn’t strike them as a terrible affront. It’s just how things are, they explained. And all I could think was that there was a time when a teenager’s idea of freedom was incompatible with being tracked by their parents.


Driven by such a limited sense of possibility, these same teenagers, according to Beck, have “turned to the internet as a public space of last resort.” This pushes them deeper into surveillability, into a world where everything they say and do is recorded. You don’t have to be a developmental psychologist to imagine the impact this is having on today’s youth. Undergirding every interaction they have is an infrastructure designed with security in mind: more security theater, and a heightened sense of the dangers that may or may not be lurking all around them. Silicon Valley and the US government generally want the same thing (as much data as possible), and when that much money and power come together, it gets what it wants. The intent is to create a net so fine that it will catch anyone who hopes to harm us. In reality, “Washington has refused to abandon large-scale, tech-driven surveillance despite the growing pile of evidence that it doesn’t catch terrorists after all.”


Mass surveillance might be relatively invisible, but the war has come home in more obvious ways. “More than thirty states mobilized some thirty-two thousand National Guard reservists” to suppress the George Floyd protests; by way of comparison, there were roughly 38,000 Americans in Afghanistan in 2008. Not only that; through the 1033 Program, police have come to rely on gear originally intended to be “used by Marines patrolling in Mosul or Special Forces teams carrying out nighttime raids in rural Afghanistan.” The resulting visuals are shocking: unarmed college students facing down the full might of the militarized state, 19 year-olds protesting for peace and being met with a painfully literal manifestation of the violence they decry. As a veteran, you watch, and obscured behind the riot helmets is a face that could be your own, because the rest of the kit is the same. The last time I felt that sort of uncanny shock was after the fall of Kabul, when I saw the Taliban driving around in our vehicles, brandishing our weapons, and wearing the plate carriers and high-cut helmets we gave the deposed government for protection.


Those images from August 2021 offered brutal clarity: we lost the War in Afghanistan. The analogous image for the War on Terror as a whole might be of Trump’s inauguration, celebrating an election in which he lost the popular vote, months after the Access Hollywood tapes had leaked. Trump is the embodiment of one of the most disturbing and damaging trends to emerge in post-9/11 America: “Powerful people really [can] get away with almost anything.” This could mean the police, or the CIA operatives who oversaw rampant black site torture, or the members of the Bush administration who knowingly prosecuted a war of aggression against Iraq, or the members of the media who blindly supported that war in direct contradiction to their supposed professional integrity. It’s impunity on a mass scale, impunity that serves to sever the American people from the institutions meant to serve their interests. Of course, impunity has always marked government conduct, not just in the US but across the globe as well. But “impunity culture flourished during the war on terror because the war itself was impunity culture on a global scale.” The United States was accountable to no one and nothing, not even the interests of its own citizens. Read more - Lire plus

Special Rapporteur calls for justice for victims on anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks

OHCHR 11/09/2024 - Too many victims and families devastated by the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States still await justice 23 years later, an independent human rights expert said today. Ben Saul, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, issued the following statement on the September 11 anniversary:


“On the anniversary of the devastating terrorist attacks on the United States of 11 September 2001, I solemnly commemorate the victims from over 100 countries, with 2,977 people killed, including 441 first responders, and over 6,000 injured. I pay tribute to the courage and resilience of the survivors and the victims’ families and loved ones and welcome the genuine efforts of the U.S. Government to assist the victims and their families. However, there is still more to do, and I urge the U.S. to comprehensively assist all victims of terrorism in future by implementing United Nations standards.


The unfathomable violence on 9/11 against ordinary people going about their daily lives was a crime against humanity, but sadly, 23 years later, the victims remain starved of justice because successive U.S. governments have undermined efforts towards genuine accountability Closure for the victims is impeded by the legacy of illegal renditions, torture, inhuman detention conditions, unfair trials before irregular military commissions, arbitrary detention, and other violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. These gross violations have thwarted justice for over two decades and rendered genuinely fair trials virtually impossible.


Most recently, the trial of three 9/11 suspects has been further delayed by the U.S. Secretary of Defense revoking a credible plea agreement to sentence them to life imprisonment The conditions of detention for the remaining 30 detainees at the U.S. detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, do not appear to meet international standards, including in relation to medical care, torture and trauma rehabilitation, access to lawyers, and family visitation. Sixteen of the remaining detainees have been cleared for release and await resettlement abroad, after decades in detention without charge.


Many of the approximately 741 people released from detention at Guantánamo Bay, including foreign nationals resettled in 29 third countries, face acute vulnerabilities and have not had adequate, sustained support to recover from the trauma suffered from torture and protracted, inhumane detention. Some were arbitrarily detained, tortured, or were abusively charged with crimes upon arrival in other countries Very recently, a significant number of men were expelled from two supposedly safe third countries to their countries of origin, where they face risks of serious human rights violations. This was despite apparent diplomatic assurances secured by the U.S., but not enforced by it, that they were not to be returned to risks of harm. Despite its errors in detaining many innocent people, the U.S. has not provided them with remedies, including rehabilitation and compensation.


U.S. officials involved in serious violations of international law in the ‘war on terror’, including torture, have largely enjoyed impunity for decades. Given its global pre-eminence, U.S. impunity signals to other countries that lawlessness and international crimes are acceptable while countering terrorism. That signal continues to be acted on around the world, including by U.S. allies A reckoning is long overdue. U.S. double standards in not accepting the international rule of law erodes the enforcement of the law everywhere and undermines the credibility and legitimacy of the global order designed to protect all humanity I encourage the U.S. Government to fully implement the recommendations of my predecessor after her technical visit to the United States and Guantánamo Detention Facility in 2023. These include accountability, compensation, and apology for victims of U.S. violations. Source


Maha Hilal: Twenty-three years after 9/11, Muslim victims of US violence deserve justice


The Defense Secretary Revoked a Plea Deal in the 9/11 Case. Or Did He?


News organizations seek unsealing of plea deal with 9/11 defendants

Terrorism and human rights - Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

reliefweb 06/09/2024 - In the present report, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights addresses the use of administrative measures to counter terrorism, focusing on the extent to which such measures adhere to international human rights law. In this regard, the report highlights certain measures, such as administrative detention, terrorist proscription, movement restrictions, and deprivation of nationality. The report recommends a series of legislative, institutional and policy measures to ensure that such administrative measures are fully human rights-compliant in meeting their stated objectives of countering terrorism.


1. The present report is submitted pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 51/24. In that resolution, the Council reaffirms its unequivocal condemnation of all acts, methods and practices of terrorism. It stresses the responsibility of States to protect persons in their territory and subject to their jurisdiction against acts of terrorism, in full compliance with their obligations under international law. These elements have been stressed in the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy and numerous resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly.


2. In the resolution, the Council noted with concern the “measures that undermine human rights and the rule of law, such as the detention of persons suspected of acts of terrorism in the absence of a legal basis for detention and due process guarantees”, and urged States to review the grounds of detention and to respect the rights to equality and non-discrimination in the administration of justice and to a fair trial, as provided for by international law”. The resolution also emphasized that “States should ensure that domestic laws and practices related to counter-terrorism measures respect the principle of non-discrimination, including by repealing the proscription and listing of organizations and individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion or political opinion, by reviewing laws on the deprivation of nationality, including the foreseeable grounds for deprivation and adequate procedural safeguards, in accordance with international law”.


3. Recent years have seen a significant increase in the use of administrative measures to counter terrorism. Many States have adopted practices such as administrative detention, house arrest, travel restrictions, and control orders independent of the pursuit of criminal charges, while others have resorted to far-reaching measures such as deprivation of nationality in the context of countering terrorism, in addition to placing individuals or entities on so-called watchlists, outside the criminal justice system. In this regard, the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1373 (2001) concerning counter-terrorism has recommended that States, “utilize administrative measures … as preventive alternatives to prosecution” only “in cases in which it would not be appropriate to bring terrorism-related charges, while ensuring that such measures are employed in a manner compliant with applicable international human rights law and national legislation and are subject to effective review”.


4. The present report is focused on the use of administrative measures in countering terrorism such as administrative detention, travel restrictions, deprivation of nationality, and terrorist listing of individuals and entities, and on their human rights impacts. It examines certain administrative measures, in legal context, and examines substantive and procedural guarantees afforded in the implementation of such measures. It does not seek to address all human rights aspects associated with all types of administrative measures in the context of countering terrorism, for example measures related to countering terrorism financing, or the impact of administrative measures on humanitarian action. Finally, the report considers the effectiveness of administrative measures, and concludes with recommendations to States to ensure that administrative measures used in counter-terrorism are both human rights-compliant and effective.


5. In February 2024, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) sent notes verbales to States and to international, regional and intergovernmental bodies, and also approached national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations, requesting information to inform the High Commissioner’s report.5 The present report is informed by inputs received from stakeholders, as well as by previous OHCHR reports, the work of United Nations human rights mechanisms and the work of scholars and practitioners. Read more - Lire plus

Don’t Hype the Terror Threat: The Dangers of Official Alarmism

John Mueller is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Ohio State University, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, and the author of Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them.

Screenshot-2024-09-13-at-8 image

Foreign Affairs 10/09/2024 - Testifying in Congress a few months ago, FBI Director Christopher Wray said that the terrorism “threat environment,” already quite intense, had been further “heightened” when Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023. “We’ve seen the threat from foreign terrorists rise to a whole nother level,” he argued. Citing Wray’s warning and those of other U.S. officials, Graham Allison and Michael Morell (“The Terrorism Warning Lights Are Blinking Red Again,” June 10, 2024) contend that “the United States faces a serious threat of a terrorist attack in the months ahead.”


But the country has heard such alarms many times before, and they have proved unjustified. This was particularly true, of course, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. In those years, Morrell and Allison sometimes joined the chorus of concern. Morell, who was the CIA official in charge of briefing the U.S. president at the time of the 9/11 attacks, recalled the atmosphere vividly in a book he wrote in 2015. “We were certain we were going to be attacked again,” he wrote, a conclusion supported by “thousands of intelligence reports.” In a 2004 book, Allison concluded that “on the current path, a nuclear terrorist attack on America in the decade ahead is more likely than not.”



Morrell and Allison were hardly alone. As Jane Mayer observed in her book The Dark Side, “The only certainty shared by virtually the entire American intelligence community in the fall of 2001 was that a second wave of even more devastating terrorist attacks on America was imminent.” Rudolph Giuliani, New York City’s mayor at the time, remarked later that any security expert would have concluded that “we’re looking at dozens and dozens and multiyears of attacks like this.”


In 2002, U.S. intelligence officials were telling reporters that there might be up to 5,000 operatives trained abroad by al Qaeda inside the United States. After a few years of intensive sleuthing, the FBI found no al Qaeda cells at all in the country. But the agency’s director, Robert Mueller, was not assuaged, telling a Senate committee in 2005 that he was “very concerned about what we are not seeing.”


In 2003, John Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, claimed that there was “a high probability that Al Qaida will attempt an attack using a [biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear] weapon within the next two years.” Later that year, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft publicly warned that “al-Qaeda plans to attempt an attack on the United States in the next few months,” that it would “hit the United States hard,” and that preparations for such an attack might be 90 percent complete. No such assaults ever materialized, of course: indeed, after the 9/11 attacks, al Qaeda never managed to carry out another major strike on the U.S. homeland.


Even after the 2011 U.S. raid in Pakistan that killed the al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, experts continued to hype the threat the group posed. In the wake of bin Laden’s death, the political scientist Bruce Hoffman predicted that the raid would lead to “acts of retribution, vengeance, frustration and punishment” directed at the United States. The scholar John Arquilla, meanwhile, contended that any “lack of ‘spectaculars’” in attacks al Qaeda carried out after bin Laden’s death “should not be seen as a sign of a weakening al Qaeda, but rather as an indicator of a shift in strategy.”


Evidence seized in that raid, however, strongly suggested that the central al Qaeda organization was little more than an empty shell, harassed by U.S. drone strikes and starved of funds. In the words of the al Qaeda expert Nelly Lahoud, by that point, the group had become notable mainly for its “operational impotence.”


Al Qaeda did inspire would-be jihadis in the United States, and its quasi-successor, the Islamic State (also known as ISIS), inspired even more during its heyday from 2014 to 2017. In the two decades after 9/11, some 125 plots by Islamist extremists targeting the United States were either carried out or were disrupted by the authorities. (Many of the latter were in embryonic stages.) In total, these resulted in the deaths of about 100 people—about five per year, on average. The deaths were tragic, of course, but scarcely monumental; consider that on average, more than 300 Americans die every year from drowning in bathtubs.


Despite the dire official warnings that Allison and Morrell cite, it is not at all clear that the threat to the United States from international terrorism has increased of late. There continue to be jihadi plots, but the authorities have managed to roll them up with familiar tactics. For example, a recent effort from Iran to enlist someone in the United States to assassinate John Bolton, who served as national security adviser in the Trump administration, was foiled by the FBI.


It is true that jihadi organizations around the world urge like-minded Americans into action, but this is scarcely new. Twenty years ago, bin Laden and other al Qaeda operatives were given loudly to proclaim that the United States “needs further blows” and warned that they could come at any moment. For the most part, however, such blows failed to materialize.


Wray and others are concerned that terrorists will join the large numbers of migrants who illegally cross the U.S.-Mexican border. Yet of the hundreds of millions of foreign visitors who were admitted legally into the United States in the two decades after 2001 and the millions more who entered illegally, few if any were agents smuggled in by al Qaeda or ISIS. In recent years, some migrants seeking entry have shown up among the two million names in the FBI’s terrorism watch list, but this seems to reflect the fact that the list itself is overly inclusive rather than suggesting constant attempts by jihadis to penetrate the U.S. homeland.


Meanwhile, there has been a great deal of outrage worldwide over American complicity in Israel’s destructive response to the vicious Hamas raid. But nearly a year later, that anger has yet to produce the increase in terrorist activity in the United States that Wray and others have cited as a potential threat.



More generally, the post-9/11 experience suggests that despite official alarm, even if such an increase did occur, it would be manageable without extraordinary actions. Allison and Morrell, however, call for significant policy steps: a review of “all previously collected information related to terrorism,” the use of “national emergency authorities” to prevent terrorists from entering via the southern border, and stepped-up covert U.S. actions all over the world to disrupt jihadi groups. In reality, there is little reason to believe that such measures are necessary. Source

Turkey’s political dissidents face arbitrary prosecutions, report says

Screenshot-2024-09-14-at-12 image

Turkish Minute 12/09/2024 - UN News 27/08/2024 - A new report from German human rights organization PRO ASYL claims that the Turkish government is using its judicial system to silence political dissent by arbitrarily prosecuting individuals on charges of terrorism. The report highlights how the government, through vague and broadly interpreted anti-terror laws, targets political opponents for expressing views on sensitive issues such as corruption and human rights.


The 140-page report, titled “On the State of the Judiciary in Turkey: Legal Uncertainty in Politically-Related Criminal Proceedings,” outlines how politically motivated trials fail to meet basic rule-of-law standards, depriving defendants of a fair trial. It was authored by two Turkish legal scholars who remained anonymous for security reasons and is based on interviews with lawyers, an analysis of Turkish and European court rulings and reviews of reports from international bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Council of Europe.


The report claims the judicial system, deeply compromised since a failed coup in 2016, no longer functions independently. Judges and prosecutors who issue decisions unfavorable to the government face punishment, while pro-government decisions lead to promotions. PRO ASYL’s investigation reveals that arbitrary charges, particularly related to terrorism, are frequently used against individuals who participate in public demonstrations, even if they are unaware of alleged links between the events and terrorist organizations.


Among the most vulnerable groups are Kurds, who make up the largest portion of asylum seekers from Turkey to Germany. In the first half of 2024 alone, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) recorded nearly 16,000 asylum applications from Turkish nationals, many of them Kurds. PRO ASYL criticizes BAMF for failing to recognize the politically motivated nature of the charges and for denying protection to many of these individuals.


The report also mentions that there are ongoing rights violations against the Gülen movement, inspired by Turkish cleric Fethullah Gülen, but says the violations against the group will constitute the subject of a separate report. The Gülen movement is accused by the Turkish government and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of masterminding the failed coup and is labeled as a “terrorist organization,” although the movement denies involvement in the coup attempt or any terrorist activity. Erdoğan has been targeting followers of the Gülen movement since the corruption investigations of December 17-25, 2013, which implicated then-prime minister Erdoğan, his family members and his inner circle.


Dismissing the investigations as a Gülenist coup and conspiracy against his government, Erdoğan designated the movement as a terrorist organization and began to target its members. He intensified the crackdown on the movement following the abortive putsch in 2016 that he accused Gülen of masterminding. Gülen and the movement strongly deny involvement in the coup attempt or any terrorist activity. In addition to the thousands who were jailed, scores of other Gülen movement followers had to flee Turkey to avoid the government crackdown. Turkish authorities routinely rely on witness statements as evidence to identify and prosecute members of the group.


The defendants in the trials against the movement are often encouraged to benefit from the country’s repentance laws allowing for reduced penalties in exchange for denouncing other members of the group.

In recent years, there have also been many reports about the alleged use of torture and ill-treatment in custody to coerce detainees into becoming informants and incriminating others.


PRO ASYL’s report emphasizes the flawed nature of the Turkish legal system’s reliance on anonymous witness testimony, often leading to mass convictions. Defendants are typically not afforded the opportunity to challenge these statements effectively, undermining the fairness of trials. In some cases witnesses have recanted their testimony, stating it was obtained under duress, yet the courts continue to rely on their earlier statements.


PRO ASYL calls on BAMF to revise its guidelines on Turkey to reflect the systemic abuse in Turkish courts and to provide better protection for political asylum seekers. Despite the documented political persecution, Germany’s asylum protection rate for Turkish nationals has been declining, with the overall approval rate dropping to just 13 percent in the first half of 2024.


In a related publication, PRO ASYL released a brochure detailing the cases of two asylum seekers, identified only as “Aras” and “Berat,” who fled Turkey after being targeted on politically motivated charges. Both were initially denied protection in Germany, but their stories exemplify the harsh reality faced by many Turks seeking asylum in Europe.


The report concludes with a warning that without changes to Germany’s asylum policy and recognition of Turkey’s judicial failings, those fleeing political persecution in Turkey will continue to face unjust legal proceedings and long prison sentences. Source


Türkiye: Drop terror propaganda charges against writer Yavuz Ekinci

Encryption FAQ: encrypted messaging, AI, content moderation, and more

cover-encryption-myhts-cover image

AccessNow 11/09/2024 - Encryption is increasingly in the news, whether it’s governments seeking access to encrypted messages, or the CEO of an encrypted messaging platform getting arrested. But many people don’t understand how it works, or why protecting strong, end-to-end encryption (E2EE) is vital for safeguarding people’s privacy and other human rights. Below, we answer some of the most common questions surrounding encryption, AI, and content moderation on encrypted messaging platforms.  

  1. What’s the difference between ordinary encryption and end-to-end encryption?
  2.  If a platform says that messages are encrypted, does that mean no one can access the content?
  3. Can the government or law enforcement get access to encrypted content?
  4. Should people use the same secure messaging platform in every context?
  5. What are some of the technical differences between major messaging platforms that affect our privacy?
  6. Can platforms use machine learning/AI to scan encrypted content without harming privacy?
  7. Where can I find more information about encryption and human rights?

Read more - Lire plus


Signal Is More Than Encrypted Messaging. Under Meredith Whittaker, It’s Out to Prove Surveillance Capitalism Wrong

LinkedIn Share This Email

OTHER NEWS - AUTRES NOUVELLES

Access to information

Accès à l'information


Canada’s Information Commissioner chastises National Defence for ‘unacceptable’ response to records request

Anti-terror legislation

Législation antiterroriste


Senators condemn Pakistan's new anti-terrorism powers, warn of escalating crisis in Balochistan

Attacks on dissent

Attaques contre la dissidence


“Another Appalling Year” of Violence Against Land Defenders as Nearly 200 Killed Worldwide in 2023

Criminalization of dissent

Criminalisation de la dissidence


“On Thin Ice”: Western Nations Crack Down on Climate Activists with Arrests & Jail Terms


“What Constitution?” Rashida Tlaib Blasts Michigan AG’s Criminal Charges Against Pro-Palestine Students


Joint Statement: Saudi Arabia must free detainees jailed for their online expression ahead of Internet Governance Forum


‘Fraudulent last words’: Hong Kong arrests two suspects for sedition under national security law


Imprisoned for 50 Years: Amnesty Calls for Leonard Peltier’s Freedom as He Turns 80 Behind Bars


COVID Pandemic Not Over, Mask Bans Put Power of Public Health in Police Hands

Criminalization of the opposition

Criminalisation de l'opposition


Venezuela judge issues arrest warrant for opposition leader after disputed election


Six Pakistan MPs Appear In Anti-terrorism Court

Freedom of expression

Liberté d'expression


Letter from Amira Elghawaby, Canada’s Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia, to University and College Presidents


Gaza has shown European universities are no longer places of free inquiry


Palestine Legal Condemns Wave of Campus Anti-Protest Policies Intended To Suppress Student Activism


UK - ‘Vote Genocide’: Satirical Poster Included in Dossier of Election ‘Abuse’

Freedom of the press

Liberté de la presse


Drop Site News is Under Attack From an Authoritarian Government

Police


Racial profiling is systemic problem in Montreal police, judge rules


La Ville de Montréal devra indemniser les victimes de profilage racial par les policiers


CCLA Files its Submission to the Toronto Police Service Board on the Upcoming Policy on Police Action in Respect of Protests


Ottawa police secretly wiretapped 5 Black officers, lawsuit alleges

Privacy and surveillance

Vie privée et surveillance


Will German police get to do secret house searches?


UK: Racist violence does not justify proposed expansion of police surveillance technology


Civil Society Joint Statement on the Use of Surveillance Spyware in the EU and Beyond

Terrorist entities list

Liste d'entités terroristes


Myanmar regime labels key ethnic armed groups ‘terrorist’ organisations


Several people placed under Fourth Schedule of anti-terrorism act in Balochistan

Miscellaneous

Divers


Indigenous mothers fight to search CIA experiment site in Montreal


UK - What is Starmer’s promised new ‘Standing Army’?


AUKUS submarine deal exposed as monumental folly


War in Sudan: Both Sides Accused of Crimes Against Humanity as UAE, Russia, China, Serbia Send Arms


WEOG: The UN's settler-colonial bloc

ICLMG ACTIONS DE LA CSILC

image image

Uphold rights and liberties at protests and encampments across Canada!

Please join us in calling for the following:

  • Officials must stop equating Charter-protected expression and dissent with “support for terrorism,” and refrain from calling for law enforcement to forcibly end or prevent protest activities.
  • Law enforcement agencies must refrain from acting against protesters exercising their Charter-protected rights, including at encampments.
  • The Ontario legislature must immediately reverse the keffiyeh ban.
  • Canada must call for a permanent ceasefire and to halt all arms sales, transfers and military aid to Israel.
ACTION
narrow-horizontal-AI-image image

Canada: Remove the national security exemptions from Bill C-27!

Bill C-27, the Digital Charter Implementation Act, has been introduced by the federal government with the promise that it would enhance privacy protections, adequately regulate artificial intelligence (AI) and protect human rights. The bill, however, is not up to the task. Please join us in denouncing the dangerous national security related exemptions in the bill.

ACTION
Screenshot-2023-06-23-at-4 image

Canada: Do not purchase armed drones

The ICLMG is a member of the No Armed Drones campaign

In the government's proposal seeking bids for its drone program it laid out disturbing scenarios for Canadian military drone use: One scenario described drones being used to surveil activists protesting a (theoretical) G20 Summit in Quebec, helping the security team intercept and identify the occupants of a vehicle, who are “anti-capitalist radicals” intending to “hang a banner concerning global warming.” Another scenario modeled after US drone strike programs features a drone bombing “Fighting Age Males” in the Middle East after spotting one of them “holding a small radio or cell phone." The initial cost estimate is $5 billion with billions more to operate the drones over their 25-year lifespan.

ACTION
CSIS-ABOVE-THE-LAW-2_1 image

CSIS isn't above the law!

In recent years, at least three court decisions revealed the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) engaged in potentially illegal activities and lied to the courts. This is utterly 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 Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino demanding that he take immediate action to put an end to this abuse of power and hold those CSIS officers involved accountable, and for parliament to support Bill C-331, An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act (duty of candour). Your message will also be sent to your MP and to Minister of Justice David Lametti.

ACTION

Canada must protect Hassan Diab!

Send an email using ICLMG’s one-click tool and share widely!

Letter in English + Lettre en français


Sign and share the LeadNow petitions to protect Hassan from further injustice

Petition in EnglishPétition en français


For more information on the case of Hassan Diab, read our webcomic, watch our animated version of the comic, or visit justiceforhassandiab.org.

Canada must repatriate all Canadians detained in NE Syria now!

On January 20, 2023, Federal Court Justice Henry Brown ruled that Canada must repatriate Canadians illegally and arbitrarily detained in northeast Syria. On February 6, 2023, the Canadian government filed an appeal and asked that the Brown ruling be set aside and placed on hold while the appeal plays out. This is unacceptable. 


Every day the government fails to bring these Canadians home, it places their lives at risk from disease, malnutrition, violence, and ongoing military conflicts, including bombing by Turkey’s military. United Nations officials have even found that the conditions faced by Canadians in prison are akin to torture. Please click below to urge the federal government to repatriate all Canadians illegally & arbitrarily detained in northeast Syria without delay.

ACTION

Please share on Facebook + Twitter + Instagram

21 years of fighting deportation to torture: Justice for Mohamed Harkat Now!

December 10, 2023 - ironically Human Rights Day - marked the 21st "anniversary" of the arrest of Mohamed Harkat under Canada's rights-violating security certificate regime. For Mr. Harkat, it's been two decades of fighting deportation to torture, 16 years of harassment and intrusive surveillance, arbitrary detention, solitary confinement, secret trials, PTSD: enough is enough! We call for justice for Moe Harkat now! Watch - Visionnez


TAKE ACTION: Stop Moe Harkat's deportation to torture!


ACTION: Arrêtez la déportation vers la torture de Mohamed Harkat!

Screen Shot 2021-08-26 at 5.55.05 PM.png

Reform Canada's extradition law now!

Canada’s extradition system is broken. One leading legal expert calls it “the least fair law in Canada.” It has led to grave harms and rights violations, as we’ve seen in the case of Canadian citizen Dr Hassan Diab. It needs to be reformed now.



Click below to send a message to urge Prime Minister Trudeau, the Minister of Justice and your Member of Parliament to reform the extradition system before it makes more victims. And share on Facebook + Twitter + Instagram. Thank you!


Version française: Le Canada doit réformer la loi sur l'extradition! + Partagez sur Facebook + Twitter + Instagram


Phone PM Justin Trudeau


TAKE ACTION: Justice for Hassan Diab!


Just Peace Advocates' action: Write a letter to Prime Minister Trudeau: Say “No" to a second extradition of Hassan Diab

ACTION

Canada must protect encryption!

Canada’s extradition system is broken. One leading legal expert calls it “the least fair law in Canada.” It has led to grave harms and rights violations, as we’ve seen in the case of Canadian citizen Dr Hassan Diab. It needs to be reformed now.



Click below to send a message to urge Prime Minister Trudeau, the Minister of Justice and your Member of Parliament to reform the extradition system before it makes more victims. And share on Facebook + Twitter + Instagram. Thank you!


Regardez la vidéo avec les sous-titres en français + Agir

ACTION
FR_frontpage_slider.png

Protect our rights from facial recognition!

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.

ACTION

December to June 2024 - Décembre à juin 2024

Thanks to the support of our members and donors, so far in 2024 we have been able to work on the following:


  • Bill C-20, Public Complaints and Review Commission Act - which would FINALLY create an independent watchdog for CBSA
  • Bill C-27, Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022 - which includes the very problematic Artificial Intelligence and Data Act
  • Advocating for the protection of international assistance from anti-terrorism laws after the adoption of Bill C-41
  • Bill C-63: The very concerning Online Harms Act
  • Bill C-70: The new and highly controversial Foreign Interference legislation
  • Parliamentary study on Transparency of the Department of National Defence
  • Biometrics guidance & other privacy issues with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
  • Palestine and the right to dissent
  • Combatting Racism & Islamophobia
  • Repatriation of all Canadians detained in Northeastern Syria
  • Justice for Dr Hassan Diab
  • Mohamed Harkat & Security certificates
  • Canada’s 4th Universal Periodic Review
  • Work with the international Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights and Counter-terrorism
  • The UN Counter-terrorism Executive Directorate (CTED) Canada assessment
  • The UN Cybersecurity Treaty & the EU AI Convention


What we have planned for the rest of 2024!


  • Pressuring lawmakers and officials to protect our civil liberties from the negative impact of national security as well as opposing the discourse of “countering terrorism” to repress dissent, such as protests and encampments in support of Palestinian rights and lives.
  • Opposing the weaponization of concerns around foreign interference to unnecessarily increase national security powers, which will greatly affect rights and liberties of Canadians, and will most likely lead to more harassment and xenophobia
  • Ensuring that the Canadian government’s proposals on “online harms” do not violate fundamental freedoms, or exacerbate the silencing of racialized and marginalized voices
  • Protecting our privacy from government surveillance, including facial recognition, and from attempts to weaken encryption, along with advocating for good privacy law reform
  • Addressing the lack of regulation on the use of AI in national security, including proposed exemptions for national security agencies
  • Fighting for Justice for Mohamed Harkat, an end to security certificates, and addressing problems in security inadmissibility
  • Ensuring Justice for Hassan Diab and reforming Canada’s extradition law
  • The return of the rest of the Canadian citizens and the non-Canadian mothers of Canadian children indefinitely detained in Syrian camps
  • The end to the CRA’s prejudiced audits of Muslim-led charities
  • Greater accountability and transparency for the Canada Border Services Agency
  • Greater accountability and transparency for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service
  • Advocating for the repeal of the Canadian No Fly List, and for putting a stop to the use of the US No Fly List by air carriers in Canada
  • Keeping you and our member organizations informed via the News Digest
  • Publishing a collection of essays written by amazing partners on the work of the ICLMG for our 20th anniversary
  • And much more! Read more - Lire plus


Help post it.png
Contribution post it.png
long border agent website.jpg
Archives.jpg

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!


James Deutsch

Bill Ewanick

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!