International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
3 avril 2020
Starting next week, we will publish the News Digest every other week.
We have moved! Visit iclmg.ca to find our office's new address.
Featuring ICLMG's Tim McSorley: Canada’s spy service moves quietly ahead with data-crunching plans: documents
Jim Bronskill for The Canadian Press 30/03/2020 - Canada’s spy agency is moving quietly ahead with plans to collect and use databases containing personal information about Canadians, newly released documents show. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service says the initiative – made possible by sweeping security legislation passed last year – will enable the agency to crunch large volumes of information and detect previously unseen patterns. However, the new power to gather, sift and keep Canadian data sets worries civil liberties advocates.

The government should give Canadians a better sense of the kind of information CSIS is now allowed to exploit, given the existing dangers of falsely identifying people as security threats, said Tim McSorley, national co-ordinator of the Ottawa-based International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group. “It would help to ensure that Canadians’ rights are being protected,” McSorley said in an interview. In a broader sense, McSorley questioned whether “we want to be moving in this direction of intelligence agencies collecting and retaining vast amounts of information?” Memos disclosed to The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act show CSIS set the process in motion last July with a request to Ralph Goodale, public safety minister at the time. [...]

Eligible data sets should be limited to information that is demonstrably linked to a threat to Canadian security, not data that is simply likely to help CSIS identify eventual threats, said McSorley. For instance, a data set might include information about Canadians who travel to and from certain countries of interest to CSIS. McSorley questions if it makes sense for the intelligence service to retain that sort of information when many Canadians in the database might have legitimate reasons for making such trips. At the very least, there could be more public disclosure about the destinations of interest, he said. “I think they could do that without damaging Canada’s national security.” Read more - Lire plus

ICLMG: Canada must reopen its border to refugee claimants coming from the US now
ICLMG 03/04/2020 - Tomorrow, April 4, marks Refugee Rights Day. The ICLMG is joining other organizations across the country in speaking out about the Canadian government's recent actions to bar refugee claimants from entering Canada from the United States in order to make a claim. This is especially worrying, given there are no assurances from the US government that their rights will not be violated, including being sent back to a country where they face threats of violence, persecution and torture (refoulement). 

Over the past several year s, some have called for more and more restrictions on refugee claimants based on unfounded fears for the integrity of our immigration system or our national security. We are now seeing the government giving in once more to these unfounded fears but this time for our public health, again without evidence that these individuals pose any threat to the Canadian public, health-related or otherwise, and without any regards for their safety. Such actions by our government only serve to reinforce the unjustified fear-mongering around refugee claimants, who are simply attempting to flee living conditions that threaten their rights, and often their lives. The government must immediately reverse course by lifting the prohibition on refugee claimants entering into Canada from the United States and acting in accordance with our country's human rights obligations.



Appel à la retenue en temps de crise pour protéger les libertés civiles
Radio-Canada 29/03/2020 - L'Association canadienne des libertés civiles s'inquiète du manque de transparence dans les mesures qui ont été adoptées au Canada pour faire face à la crise de COVID-19. Elle affirme que les gouvernements doivent expliquer leurs décisions au sens de la loi pour s'assurer qu'ils respectent la Constitution. L'Association précise que les provinces ou les municipalités n'avaient pas d'autre choix que de décréter l'état d'urgence sur leur territoire vu la gravité de la crise sanitaire au pays. Rien de surprenant, on s'y attendait, question de circonscrire le virus, explique son directeur général, Michael Bryant. [...]

L'Association nourrit toutefois certaines inquiétudes, notamment dans certaines municipalités. Elle craint par exemple que les sans-abri soient laissés pour compte, parce qu'ils vivent dans la précarité. Ils n'ont ni logement, ni nourriture, ni même une toilette... ils n'ont nulle part où aller, précise M. Bryant. Selon M. Bryant, il existe un danger que des policiers abusent de leurs pouvoirs pour arrêter ceux qui ne respectent pas la consigne d'isolement ou d'éloignement physique. Il serait inconstitutionnel de mettre à l'amende ou d'arrêter un individu pour de mauvais motifs et il sera intéressant de voir comment les policiers vont appliquer la loi à ce sujet. [...]

M e Rouleau admet que la situation que l'on vit en ce moment peut paraître inquiétante, parce qu'on ne peut prédire ce qui se passera dans un mois au pays. Il met néanmoins en garde les gouvernements contre l'idée d'agir de façon irréfléchie. La possibilité d'un couvre-feu temporaire, volontaire ou obligatoire, nocturne ou illimité, en fait sourciller d'ailleurs plus d'un. M. Bryant parle d'une mesure radicale en termes d'intrusion à la vie privée. On n'en est pas rendus là, ce n'est pas nécessaire de toute façon, souligne-t-il. L'avocat constitutionnaliste Julius Grey pense aussi que l'imposition d'un couvre-feu serait une mesure trop draconienne. Il se dit néanmoins inquiet des modalités que revêtirait une telle option qui pourrait mettre en danger la vie de certains citoyens vulnérables. Va-t-on par exemple empêcher un livreur d'apporter des vivres ou des médicaments chez les gens, s'interroge-t-il.

M. Bryant ajoute que toute décision à ce sujet devrait être prise à la lumière de la science. Si un couvre-feu est utile pour combattre le virus, alors une telle mesure serait acceptable, mais à ce stade-ci, elle serait disproportionnée, poursuit-il. L'Association canadienne des libertés civiles rappelle d'ailleurs aux politiciens que leurs décisions doivent être basées sur la science et non la peur. Il dit regretter que certains d'entre eux fassent de la petite politique, en établissant comme au Nouveau-Brunswick une ligne téléphonique de délation pour dénoncer un voisin qui ne respecterait pas une consigne de quarantaine, explique M. Bryant. L'Association affirme toutefois que les politiciens n'ont pas fait preuve de transparence lorsqu'ils ont annoncé leurs décrets sur l'état d'urgence. Ils ont oublié de publier leurs arguments juridiques relatifs à leurs décisions, précise M. Bryant. Nous avons besoin de voir les articles de loi qu'ils ont évoqués pour pouvoir les contester devant les tribunaux s'il s'avère que leurs décrets sont inconstitutionnels. Lire plus - Read more





Opinion: We can’t police our way out of a pandemic
Now Toronto 30/03/2020 - Across Canada, provincial and municipal police forces are being mobilized to work with public health officials to enforce emergency legislation and protocols in the wake of COVID-19. As someone living with HIV in Canada – a leading country for criminalizing HIV – and as a social scientist who studies the policing of communicable and infectious diseases, I can tell you: criminalizing a virus does not prevent its spread. It only adds to the crisis. First, let me be clear: we must obey public health guidance. But we must also be critical of failed approaches that have no evidence of their effectiveness at combating disease. I have seen how deputizing police in the name of public safety only undermines public health responses and violates human rights. Yet across the country we are witnessing a ramped-up police presence. [...]

Unlike effective HIV prevention approaches that emphasize community behavioural changes, policing discourages testing and drives people away from seeking healthcare. While many countries have reduced HIV transmission, Canada’s HIV transmission rates continue to rise. There are over 2.000 new infections each year, while the police create an environment of fear among the 65,000 of us who live with the virus in the country.  We might think COVID-19 impacts everyone equally. But laws designed to punish people in the pandemic will not be applied equally. Police will target marginalized communities. Just look to the numerous police killings of people of colour, homeless people and people with mental health issues. 

To learn lessons from the harms of criminalizing HIV, a global statement by international experts from HIV Justice Worldwide, released on March 25, calls for policymakers to avoid the temptation to use criminal law or other ineffective and disproportionate repressive measures to curb the spread of COVID-19. An effective response to COVID-19 must ensure that people who are most marginalized in society are able to access the means to practise public health protocols. This means ensuring as a society that people have a home to “stay home” in, and that information, education and support is accessible and helps make physical distancing possible for a wide diversity of people. Widespread social and economic reforms are urgently needed. Homeless people need places to stay immediately. Any government enacting a state of emergency must enable the financial and social support of those who are most vulnerable to follow protocols. Instead of policing, we need testing.

The people who will have the hardest time practising physical distancing lack financial means or may have mental health, language, coherence or ability issues. Fines will do no good. And what will we do when people can’t pay the fines? Put them in jails – which are hotbeds of communicable disease? In certain areas, prisoners are being released due to COVID-19 fears. Putting more people in prison will not end COVID-19. Instead of more policing, fines and jail time, we need testing, education and support. We need a basic minimum income and the immediate release of empty buildings to house those without housing. Policing will not end the transmission of a disease; it will exacerbate its spread. We can’t police our way out of a pandemic. Read more - Lire plus
For Autocrats, and Others, Coronavirus Is a Chance to Grab Even More Power
The New York Times 30/03/2020 - In Hungary, the prime minister can now rule by decree. In Britain, ministers have what a critic called “eye-watering” power to detain people and close borders. Israel’s prime minister has shut down courts and begun an intrusive surveillance of citizens . Chile has sent the military to public squares once occupied by protesters. Bolivia has postponed elections. As the coronavirus pandemic brings the world to a juddering halt and anxious citizens demand action, leaders across the globe are invoking executive powers and seizing virtually dictatorial authority with scant resistance. But critics say some governments are using the public health crisis as cover to seize new powers that have little to do with the outbreak, with few safeguards to ensure that their new authority will not be abused.

“We could have a parallel epidemic of authoritarian and repressive measures following close if not on the heels of a health epidemic,” said Fionnuala Ni Aolain, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights. As the new laws broaden state surveillance, allow governments to detain people indefinitely and infringe on freedoms of assembly and expression, they could also shape civic life, politics and economies for decades to come. [...] By ordering the closing of the nation’s courts , Mr. Netanyahu delayed his scheduled appearance to face corruption charges. In some parts of the world, new emergency laws have revived old fears of martial law. The Philippine Congress passed legislation last week that gave President Rodrigo Duterte emergency powers and $5.4 billion to deal with the pandemic. Lawmakers watered down an earlier draft law that would have allowed the president to take over private businesses. “This limitless grant of emergency powers is tantamount to autocracy,” a Philippine rights group, the Concerned Lawyers for Civil Liberties, said in a statement. The lawyers noted that Mr. Duterte had once compared the country’s Constitution to a “scrap of toilet paper.”

Some states are using the pandemic to crack down on dissent. In Jordan, after an emergency “defense law” gave wide latitude to his office, Prime Minister Omar Razzaz said his government would “deal firmly” with anyone who spreads “rumors, fabrications and false news that sows panic.” Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha of Thailand has assumed the authority to impose curfews and censor the news media. Journalists there have been sued and intimidated for criticizing the government’s response to the outbreak.
While the virus itself may have cooled protesters’ will to crowd public squares, Chile’s declaration of a “state of catastrophe” and the military’s presence on city streets has muted raging dissent that rocked the nation for months . Rights groups say governments may continue to absorb more power while their citizens are distracted. They worry that people may not recognize the rights they have ceded until it is too late to reclaim them.

Some emergency bills were waved through so quickly that lawmakers and rights groups had no time to read them, let alone debate their necessity. Rights advocates have also questioned the speed with which states have drafted lengthy legislation. Certain governments have a set of desired powers “ready to go” in case of emergency or crisis, said Ms. Aolain, the United Nations special rapporteur. They draft laws in advance and wait “for the opportunity of the crisis to be presented,” she said. It is far from clear what will become of the emergency laws when the crisis passes. In the past, laws enacted in a rush, like the Patriot Act that followed the Sept. 11 attacks, have outlived the crises they were meant to address. Over time, emergency decrees permeate legal structures and become normalized, said Douglas Rutzen, the president of the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law in Washington, which is tracking new legislation and decrees during the pandemic. “It’s really easy to construct emergency powers,” Mr. Rutzen said. “It’s really difficult to deconstruct them.”

In Hungary, a new law has granted Prime Minister Viktor Orban the power to sidestep Parliament and suspend existing laws. Mr. Orban, who declared a state of emergency this month, now has the sole power to end the emergency. Britain has a long history of democracy and well-established democratic customs. Nevertheless, a coronavirus bill that was rushed through Parliament at a breakneck pace affords government ministries the power to detain and isolate people indefinitely, ban public gatherings including protests, and shut down ports and airports, all with little oversight. Read more - Lire plus




'Shoot them dead': Duterte warns against violating lockdown
Al Jazeera 01/04/2020 - Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has warned he would order the country's police and military to shoot dead anyone "who creates trouble" during a month-long lockdown of the island of Luzon enforced to halt the spread of the coronavirus. "Let this be a warning to all. Follow the government at this time because it is critical that we have order," he said in a late-night televised national address on Wednesday.

"And do not harm the health workers, the doctors... because that is a serious crime. My orders to the police and the military, if anyone creates trouble, and their lives are in danger: shoot them dead. Do not intimidate the government. Do not challenge the government. You will lose," he added in Filipino and English. Duterte's warning came after residents of a slum in Manila's Quezon City staged a protest along a highway near their shanty houses, claiming they had not received any food packs and other relief supplies since the lockdown began more than two weeks ago. Village security officers and police urged the residents to go back to their homes, but they refused, a police report said. Police broke up the protest and arrested 20 people, the report added.

Activist groups condemned the arrest and urged the government to fast track the release of cash assistance promised under a 200 billion peso ($4bn) social protection programme to help poor families and those who lost work amid the lockdown. "Using excessive force and detention will not quell the empty stomachs of Filipinos who, up to this day, remain denied of the promised... cash aid for the poor," said women's rights group Gabriela. Other residents later held a rally to demand the release of those arrested, holding posters that read "mass tests not mass arrests". The main northern Philippine region of Luzon is home to more than 57 million people and under a month-long lockdown. Provincial and town executives from others parts of the country have also rolled out similar measures in their communities, virtually putting more than 100 million people under quarantine. Read more - Lire plus



Governments Haven’t Shown Location Surveillance Would Help Contain COVID-19
EFF 23/03/2020 - Because new government dragnet location surveillance powers are such a menace to our digital rights, governments should not be granted these powers unless they can show the public how these powers would actually help, in a significant manner, to contain COVID-19. Even if governments could show such efficacy, we would still need to balance the benefit of the government’s use of these powers against the substantial cost to our privacy, speech, and equality of opportunity. And even if this balancing justified government’s use of these powers, we would still need safeguards, limits, auditing, and accountability measures. In short, new surveillance powers must always be necessary and proportionate . But today, we can’t balance those interests or enumerate necessary safeguards, because governments have not shown how the proposed new dragnet location surveillance powers could help contain COVID-19. The following are some of the points we have not seen the government publicly address.

1. Are the location records sought sufficiently granular to show whether two people were within transmittal distance of each other? In many cases, we question whether such data will actually be useful to healthcare professionals. This may seem paradoxical. After all, location data is sufficiently precise for law enforcement to place suspects at the scene of a crime, and for juries to convict largely on the basis of that evidence. But when it comes to tracking the spread of a disease that requires close personal contact, data generated by current technology generally can’t reliably tell us whether two people were closer than the CDC-recommended radius of six feet for social distancing. For example, cell site location information (CSLI)—the records generated by mobile carriers based on which cell towers a phone connects to and when—is often only able to place a phone within a zone of half a mile to two miles in urban areas. The area is even wider in areas with less dense tower placement. GPS sensors built directly into phones can do much better, but even GPS is only accurate to a 16-foot radius . These and other technologies like Bluetooth can be combined for better accuracy, but there’s no guarantee that a given phone can be located with six-foot precision at a given time.

2. Do the cellphone location records identify a sufficiently large and representative portion of the overall population? Even today, not everyone has a cellphone, and some people do not regularly carry their phones or connect them to a cellular network. The population that carries a networked phone at all times is not representative of the overall population; for example, people without phones skew towards lower-income people and older people.

3. Has the virus already spread so broadly that contact tracing is no longer a significant way to reduce transmission? If community transmission is commonplace, contact tracing may become impractical or divert resources from more effective containment methods.
There might be scenarios other than precise, person-to-person contact tracing where location data could be useful. We’ve heard it suggested, for example, that this data could be used to track future flare-ups of the virus by observing general patterns of people’s movements in a given area. But even when transmission is less common, widespread testing may be more effective at containment, as may be happening in South Korea .

4. Will health-based surveillance deter people from seeking health care? Already, there are reports that people subject to COVID-based location tracking are altering their movements to avoid embarrassing revelations. If a positive test result will lead to enhanced location surveillance, some people may avoid testing.

As our society struggles with COVID-19, far narrower “big data” surveillance proposals may emerge. Perhaps public health professionals will show that such proposals are necessary and proportionate. If so, EFF would seek safeguards, including mandatory expiration when the health crisis ends, independent supervision, strict anti-discrimination rules, auditing for efficacy and misuse, and due process for affected people. But for now, government has not shown that new dragnet location surveillance powers would significantly help to contain COVID-19. It is the government’s job to show the public why this would work. Read more - Lire plus





Guantanamo Prisoners Cleared For Release Must Be Freed Amid Pandemic - Activist
Urdu Point 26/03/2020 - Prisoners at Guantanamo Bay already cleared for release must be freed at once especially since a US sailor serving at the detention facility in Cuba has already tested positive for COVID-19, antiwar and social justice activist Malachy Kilbride told Sputnik. The sailor who has tested positive is undergoing tests and evaluation now and Guantanamo authorities are enforcing social distancing and minimizing group gatherings among personnel stationed there, the US Navy said in a news release on Tuesday. " Guantanamo prisoners who have been long cleared for release must be set free now," Kilbride, an organizer with the National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance and with Campaign Nonviolence said. However, the release did not mention any measures being taken to protect the prisoners held at the facility from the spread of the virus.

"I am concerned about the health and safety of the prisoners of Guantanamo in light of the coronavirus pandemic. All measures must be taken to protect their health," Kilbride said. Procedures already existed to repatriate the Guantanamo prisoners to their countries of origin or to a secondary country where they could be released, Kilbride pointed out.
"This must be done now. Setting the Guantanamo prisoners free is long-unfinished business of the United States ...The United States has far more pressing issues to deal with in this time of the coronavirus ," he said.

The existence of the Guantanamo prison camp, where the captives have been held has cast a dark shadow on the people of the United States , Kilbride said. "Keeping Guantanamo open is far more costly and detrimental to the United States than it is to simply put an end to this affront to law and human rights. The justice denied to these prisoners of occupied Cuba must end... Guantanamo should be shut down and the innocent set free," he said. Guantanamo is manned by about 6,000 US troops, their family members and contractors and there are still 40 prisoners held there who have been accused of terrorism but have never been tried. Read more - Lire plus



Prosecuting Purposeful Coronavirus Exposure as Terrorism
Lawfare 31/03/2020 - It may be possible to prosecute purposeful coronavirus exposure cases at the federal and state levels, but two broader concerns arise. First, if prosecutors choose to prosecute such cases, should federal or state governments take the lead? Second, should these cases be prosecuted as “terrorism” at all? In light of the track record of successful state prosecutions for infecting others with COVID-19 or other communicable diseases, perhaps states are best positioned to take the lead. But not all states with relevant statutes on the books may choose to prosecute purposeful exposure cases under their terrorism statutes or general-purpose criminal laws. This could result in a patchwork of prosecutions, where some states aggressively prosecute these individuals and some states don’t. A federal decision to prosecute purposeful exposure cases could reiterate—across the United States—the seriousness of these crimes. This uniform practice could achieve a stronger deterrent effect, especially in a pandemic, where it is critical to delay the spread of the virus.

The second, related question is whether federal and state prosecutors should treat these cases as terrorism cases at all. As Bobby Chesney noted in discussing domestic terrorism, states have “a wide array of general-purpose state criminal laws applicable to terrorist acts: murder, attempted murder, conspiracy.” These laws, some of which might also apply to coronavirus infection cases, carry hefty sentences and are well established in the law. There is an argument, then, that there is no need to prosecute infection cases as “terrorism” cases. More broadly, the average person who intentionally coughs on another person while he has COVID-19 may not be aware that he could be committing a terrorist act. The coronavirus pandemic arose suddenly and has few modern precedents. There is an argument that, before the government prosecutes a person as a terrorist for this act, Congress should make an affirmative decision that this type of behavior is a category of terrorism and enact a specific statute criminalizing it as such. After all, it is far from clear that either Congress or the state legislatures, in enacting terrorism laws, intended to cover these particular and novel instances of purposeful exposures to the coronavirus. At the same time, it is not unprecedented for anti-terrorism laws to be used in novel ways, and the cases referenced above show that their use in the current setting may not be that novel.

As a final point, to ensure that these prosecutions do not increase the spread of the virus, prosecutors may be wise to pursue summonsable charges that carry fines rather than terrorism charges that require the individual to be transported to jail or prison or that are punishable only by imprisonment. First, if officers charge offenses for which a summons may be issued, officers would not need to take the offending individual—who has or claims to have COVID-19—into custody and thereby risk greatly exposing themselves and inmates to the virus. The individual would have to return to her home and self-quarantine; and, if there’s reason to believe she will not isolate herself, the court could employ home electronic monitoring or, more drastically, the police department could post officers outside her residence —as a Kentucky county sheriff’s office did in one case—to prevent her from leaving. Second, by adopting a prosecution strategy that ultimately requires the individual to pay a fine (rather than be sentenced to prison or jail time), the individual will not further burden a system that is currently ill-equipped to isolate or treat COVID-19 patients. Prosecutors can still achieve the desired deterrent effect while not compromising the purpose of prosecution in the first place. The intentional spread of the coronavirus cannot be tolerated and should be taken very seriously. But it is not clear that federal and state governments should prosecute those intentionally spreading the virus under terrorism statutes. As long as terrorism statutes are not the only option for prosecutors, they should think hard about whether it is necessary to invoke these provisions to prevent, deter and punish this conduct. Read more - Lire plus
'Zero accountability': US accused of failure to report civilian deaths in Africa
The Guardian 02/04/2020 - Faced with new allegations of killing civilians with drone strikes in Somalia , the US military has announced plans to make its operations across Africa more transparent. Amnesty International accused the US military on Wednesday of providing “zero accountability” for civilian victims of airstrikes by its Africa command, Africom.

The rights group said its investigations into two February airstrikes that Africom claimed had killed al-Shabaab fighters showed “no evidence” the two victims killed were militants.
According to Amnesty, the victims were 18-year-old Nurto Kusow Omar Abukar, whose house was hit while she ate dinner with her family, and 53-year-old banana farmer Mohamud Salad Mohamud.

“We’ve documented case after case in the USA’s escalating air war on Somalia, where the Africom thinks it can simply smear its civilian victims as ‘terrorists’, no questions asked,” said Deprose Muchena, Amnesty’s east and southern Africa director. “Not only does Africom utterly fail at its mission to report civilian casualties in Somalia, but it doesn’t seem to care about the fate of the numerous families it has completely torn apart.” Read more - Lire plus
Counterterrorism and Humanitarian Action: Will 2020 Be a Turning Point for International Humanitarian Law at the United Nations?
Lawfare 31/03/2020 - In recent decades, humanitarian efforts to alleviate suffering in war have coincided with a surge in counterterrorism mandates at the international, regional and domestic levels. Not least, beginning in 2001 the U.N. Security Council decided that all states must ensure both that any person who participates in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice and that such terrorist acts be established as serious criminal offenses in domestic laws and regulations. Yet in doing so the Security Council has refrained from adopting a definition of prohibited terrorist acts and has further diluted the precise contours of illegitimate conduct by introducing another ambiguous concept: violent extremism. In the absence of sufficiently precise and legally grounded definitions, several states have in effect criminalized certain activities underlying humanitarian relief and protection efforts, even where those activities are covered by IHL. This “ criminalization ” of humanitarian action has occurred against a broader trajectory in which several states’ responses to terrorism have implicated other IHL categories in practice as well; consider, for example, notions of combatancy, prisoner-of-war status and membership in non-state parties.

The thumbnail version of the specific tension that has arisen concerning humanitarian action is that a rationale underlying those counterterrorism frameworks presumes that impermissible “support” to terrorism is fungible and always unlawful and that certain humanitarian organizations might function (if unintentionally) as conduits for such support. That support is broadly conceived in some instances to include—in relation to designated actors and communities under their de facto control—such things as the provision of medical care and training on respect for IHL. Humanitarian organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) have been warning, at least since 2011 , that some counterterrorism measures may imperil emergency relief and protection efforts and reflect a lack of respect for humanitarian principles underlying IHL. Researchers—including at our program , as well as from OCHA , the Norwegian Refugee Council , the Humanitarian Policy Group , the Charity and Security Network , the International Peace Institute , the University of Essex and Chatham House —have documented and analyzed several concerning intersections between counterterrorism frameworks and humanitarian action . Recent initiatives by states—including Germany, Mexico and Switzerland—have sought to raise these issues for more sustained consideration by governments.

Until recently, intersections between counterterrorism measures and humanitarian action received relatively little attention in multilateral instruments. Nevertheless, the U.N. General Assembly included a provision about these issues in the 2016 U.N. Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy Review, and that provision was retained in the 2018 version.
The U.N. Security Council took some initial steps on these issues last year. In Resolution 2462 (2019), the Security Council, acting under its Chapter VII authority, demanded that member states ensure that all measures taken to counter terrorism comply with their respective obligations under IHL. In Resolution 2482 (2019), the Security Council, building on a similar provision in Resolution 2462, urged states to take into account the potential effects of counterterrorism measures on exclusively humanitarian activities, including medical activities, that are carried out by impartial humanitarian actors in a manner consistent with IHL. From our research and consultations, it appears that, so far, the vast majority of states—and indeed the Security Council itself—have not elaborated a position on what exactly these provisions require and might otherwise mean for the implementation of IHL in counterterrorism contexts that also qualify as armed conflicts. Read more - Lire plus

Myanmar editor faces terror charges over interview with AA
MyanmarTimes 31/03/2020 - Police detained and charged a local Myanmar editor under the country’s anti-terrorism law for interviewing a spokesperson for an ethnic armed group the government recently declared as a terrorism organisation. U Nay Myo Lin, chief editor of Mandalay-based Voice of Myanmar (VOM), was arrested on Monday, and charged for violating Section 50(a) and 52(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Law.

Judge U Kyaw Swa Lin, from the Chan Mya Tharzi township court, ordered the remand of U Nay Myo Lin for contacting Arakan Army spokesperson Khaing Thu Kha and broadcasting the interview under the title “Peace Process has stopped”. The interview was conducted a few days after the government on March 23, declared the Arakan Army an unlawful organization and a terrorist organization. Under the current anti-terrorism law, organizations and individuals are prohibited from contacting or associating with outlawed organizations, doing so is punishable by imprisonment. If convicted of the two charges, U Nay Myo Lin can be sentenced to a total of 10 years imprisonment, U Nay Myo Lin maintained that he did not do anything wrong in interviewing the AA spokesperson as he was just doing his job as a journalist. “Actually media businesses are for the peace. I wrote those stories in line with the media ethics. If I broke the ethics, they could take action against me through the press council,” he during his arrest. Source
ICYMI: Non-violent protesters are not terrorists and it’s time the police accepted that
The Guardian 15/01/2020 - Priti Patel probably thought she was helping when she tried to defend counter-terrorism police from the condemnation that followed last week’s story in the Guardian revealing the inclusion of Extinction Rebellion (XR) in a guide on supposed “extreme or violent ideologies”. The document has apparently now been withdrawn. Nevertheless, the home secretary’s insistence that the police always make decisions based on the “risk to the public, security risks, security threats” does inevitably lead to an obvious, unanswered question. If she is right, how exactly did Counter Terrorism Policing South East (CTPSE), which wrote and published the guide, manage to make what even it admits was a significant “error of judgment”?

The answer lies in how alleged risks posed by protest groups are assessed. To begin with, it may surprise many that there is no legal definition of what “domestic extremism” even means, leaving the police with complete discretion in deciding what it covers. “Extremism” and “domestic extremism” are used interchangeably by the police to differentiate from terrorism. The current criteria is so broad and ambiguous that David Anderson, a former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has described it as “manifestly deficient” and last summer, the Home Office finally confirmed it had stopped using such terms. The police, as we have seen, have not.

In practice, decisions about who is labelled an “extremist” are made in secret by police units concerned more about their ideas of security and defending public order than about human rights and by officers who are often deeply antagonistic towards protesters challenging the corporate and political orthodoxies of the day. The full extent of such hostility was set out in a Policy Exchange report on XR co-authored last year by Richard Walton, the former head of the Metropolitan police’s counter-terrorism command. Walton claimed, extraordinarily, that what he saw as “the underlying extremism of the campaign” had been “largely obscured from public view by what many see as the fundamental legitimacy of their stated cause”.

It is hardly surprising, therefore, that assessments of alleged “risk” are never neutral. Invariably, as the CTPSE guide claimed, just having an “anti-establishment philosophy”, taking part in entirely non-violent direct action and even participation in “planned school walkouts” is enough for the police to classify individual campaigners as a threat. In turn, this classification provides police with the justification for intensive surveillance, which can be extremely intrusive and intimidating. XR is far from the first environmental campaign to receive this kind of police attention. More than a decade ago the anti-aviation group Plane Stupid was targeted and it is nine years since Mark Kennedy was exposed as an undercover police officer who infiltrated annual climate camp gatherings. However, the most recent targets have been opponents of fracking, with sustained surveillance from regional counter-terrorism units. Netpol, the organisation I run to monitor public order, protest and street policing, has documented the experiences of the anti-fracking movement for five years and these provide an important reminder of why no matter what promises are made now, there are no guarantees the police will stop categorising XR as “extremists” in the future.

In December 2016, negative media coverage forced the Home Office to declare that “support for anti-fracking is not an indicator of vulnerability” to extremism. This followed reports about City of York council and a school in North Yorkshire including anti-fracking campaigns in their Prevent counter-terrorism advice. However, months later, leaked “counter-terrorism local profiles” – again the work of the regional police unit in the south-east of England – identified protests in Sussex as a “priority theme ... where increased tensions or vulnerabilities may exist ”. As recently as October 2019, there was evidence of Surrey county council claiming local police had advised it that anti-fracking activities were among their “ main extremist areas of concern ” (alongside the far right) and that any protest, no matter how peaceful, was “extremist”.

It is clear that once the current controversy dies down, it will be only a matter of time before XR and other climate activists are again labelled as an “extremist risk”. The group has indicated it may bring legal action to have its name removed from any list but perhaps XR would be better served by putting its weight behind the call for the complete abolition of the “domestic extremist” label for everyone. To protect freedom to protest, the government also needs to completely separate secretive counter-terrorism units from the policing of non-violent protests. They have no business involving themselves in legitimate political activity. Until this happens, it seems unlikely anyone will ever be held to account for “errors of judgment”, no matter how potentially damaging the consequences are for those labelled a safeguarding risk. Officers will simply carry on, as they have for decades, trying to find imagined threats in any new and emerging protest movement and then spying on and disrupting their campaigns. It’s time this finally stopped for good. Source
WHAT WE'VE DONE IN 2019
2019 has been very busy, and we are looking at a busy year 2020! Before giving you the summary of what we've been up to in the second half of 2019, here are a few things we will do in 2020:

  • We will continue to call for justice for Dr. Hassan Diab’s case and for the reform of the Extradition Act.


  • We will monitor the implementation of the National Security Act, 2017 (formerly Bill C-59), especially around mass surveillance and immunity for CSIS employees, in order to protect our civil liberties.

  • We will continue to push for a strong and effective review mechanism for the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA).

  • We will continue advocating for the repeal of the Canadian No Fly List, as it violates mobility rights and due process, and for putting a stop to the use of the US No Fly List by air carriers in Canada for flights that do not land in or fly over the US, as it violates both our rights and Canada’s sovereignty.


ACTIONS & EVENTS
Say NO to facial recognition in your community
Click on the Action button and send a letter to your city council to stop invasive, biased and unregulated facial recognition surveillance in your community!

Controversial facial recognition technology is spreading in Canada, even though our privacy laws don’t regulate its use.

If we can get cities to ban facial recognition, we’ll ramp up the pressure on the Canadian government to take action nation-wide. Send the letter below to take action!
Stop CSIS from targeting everyday citizens & community groups
A recent report revealed that CSIS, Canada’s spy agency, collected over 8,000 pages of documents, spying on citizens like you, people who exercise their democratic rights by attending a community meeting at a local church or taking peaceful action for what they believe in. And CSIS shared this info with Big Oil corporations.

Sign this petition to tell the govt to stop using taxpayer money to unconstitutionally spy on Canadians part of peaceful community groups.
Stop Facial Recognition in Canada
Facial recognition is invasive, biased and unreliable. But Canadian agencies and law enforcement have started using the tech despite the huge controversies.
Canada’s out-of-date privacy laws don’t yet cover facial recognition tech, leaving our government free to experiment on us with no oversight or regulations. We need to slam the brakes on the spread of this dangerous technology before it’s too late. Demand a moratorium on the use of facial recognition technologies and a full review of our privacy laws — before it becomes entrenched as a surveillance method in Canada.
Release Yasser Albaz from arbitrary detention in Egypt
It's been more than a year since Yasser has been detained without charge - take action now!

On February 18, 2019, my dad, Yasser Albaz, was stopped at Cairo airport, his Canadian passport was confiscated, and he was kidnapped by Egyptian State Security. My dad remains in the notorious Torah prison where he is forced to sleep on cold, concrete floor. He has not been charged and continues to receive 15-day extensions to his arbitrary detention.

Sign to tell PM Justin Trudeau to do everything in their power to bring this Canadian citizen home to his family.

Canada must act to end Islamophobia in Xinjiang, China
There is credible evidence that up to one million Uyghurs, Kazakhs and other mainly Muslim groups in China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region are being detained in secret internment camps. Detainees are brainwashed, tortured and are forced to renounce their religion and culture.


And send a message to Chrystia Freeland demanding that Canada actively support an independent and unrestricted international fact-finding initiative to Xinjiang.

Saudi Arabia: Free jailed activists
In Saudi Arabia, human rights violations are legitimized through the ‘Specialized Criminal Court’. The past 2 years have seen an unprecedented crackdown on Saudi activists, and this court acts to legitimize this oppression. Now is our chance to put pressure on King Salman to end grave human rights violations.

Sign the petition and demand that the King of Saudi Arabia, King Salman immediately and unconditionally releases all those who have been imprisoned for peacefully protesting.
All-in-one action page: Stop Mohamed Harkat's Deportation to Torture
Call PM Trudeau, write a letter to Public Safety Minister & your MP, and sign Sophie Harkat's petition to stop the deportation of Moe Harkat.

If sent back to Algeria, Moe faces detention, torture and death.

No one should be deported to torture. Ever.
Send a letter opposing cameras in the ByWard Market
Send a letter in support of CAMS Ottawa's response to Mayor Watson. While we share concerns about ongoing violence in the Market, installing surveillance cameras is not an appropriate solution. The very premise that CCTV can deter violent crime is highly doubtful. Video surveillance also raise significant concerns regarding the treatment of marginalized members of our community. We urge you to take the above problems and the following evidence into consideration and reconsider implementing such an ineffective, costly, and intrusive system.
Your phone is not safe at the border
Canada’s border agents can search your phone and laptop at borders and airports, including looking through your private photos, personal messages, and call history.

These ‘digital strip searches’ are allowed because our laws are incredibly out of date. But politicians are refusing to update them for our digital age.

Fight back with us: demand updated laws , learn more about your rights, and make a complaint if your privacy has been violated at the border.
OPP must be held accountable for violent repression of land defenders
The terrifying incident happened in April 2008 during a land occupation and road blockades by members of Tyendinaga Mohawk Nation, near Belleville, Ontario. Although the road blockades involved only a small number of community members – none of whom were armed -- the Ontario Provincial Police sent more than 200 officers, including the Tactics and Rescue Unit (TRU), tasked with responding to “the most serious threats to peace and order”. The UN Committee against Torture called on Canada to launch a thorough and impartial review to ensure accountability.
Five Eyes: Save encryption
Ministers from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and the U.S. have gone public with their plans for a huge attack on our personal security.

They want to force companies to crush the encryption that protects our private data and messages. But ordinary people need and use encryption every day, in everything from online banking to personal messaging in apps like WhatsApp.

Tell ministers to stop their attacks, and commit to protecting our privacy and security.
Call on Justin Trudeau to ensure justice for Abousfian Abdelrazik
In September 2003, Canadian citizen Abousfian Abdelrazik was arrested in Sudan, while he was back in the country visiting his ailing mother. Over the next three years he was imprisoned for nearly 20 months and was held under house arrest for 12 months. He was denied a lawyer, and was never charged or brought before a judge. During that time he was badly tortured in three different prisons. Not only did Canada fail to take steps to protect him, CSIS officials frequently obstructed efforts to secure his release.
Make January 29 a National Day
On Jan. 29, 2017, a lone gunman entered a mosque in Quebec City and opened fire on dozens of Muslim-Canadian worshipers. By the time the shooting had ended, six had been tragically killed, and 19 more injured. 

 W e, citizens and residents of Canada, call on the government of Canada to henceforth designate January 29th as a National Day of Remembrance and Action on Islamophobia and other forms of religious discrimination or a National Day of Action against Hate and Intolerance .
MORE NEWS - AUTRES NOUVELLES
Freedom of expression and of the press
Liberté d'expression et de la presse


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 our patrons who are supporting ICLMG on Patreon ! As a reward, we are listing our patrons who give $10 or more per month (and wanted to be listed) directly in the News Digest. Without you, our work wouldn't be possible!

Kathryn Dingle
Mary Ann Higgs
Kevin Malseed
Brian Murphy
Karen Seabrooke
Colin Stuart
James Turk
Jo Wood
Late Bob Stevenson

Nous tenons à remercier nos organisations membres et toutes les personnes qui soutiennent la CSILC sur Patreon ! En récompense, nous nommons ci-dessus nos mécènes qui donnent 10$ ou plus par mois directement dans le News Digest. Sans vous, notre travail ne serait pas possible!
 
Merci!