|
International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
Coalition pour la surveillance internationale des libertés civiles
July 22, 2023 - 22 juillet 2023
| |
650+ individuals call on Prime Minister Trudeau to say “No” to a 2nd extradition for Hassan Diab | The ICLMG has signed onto this letter | |
|
Just Peace Advocates 15/07/2023 - Since the original letter written by Michelle Weinroth, and endorsed by Just Peace Advocates, was delivered to Prime Minister Trudeau with 116 individuals including Michael Lynk, Chris Hedges, and others, there are now over 650 individual–activists, academics, lawyers, faith leaders, authors, and others–who have joined to sign this important letter. See the full list below. The updated list will be provided to Prime Minister Trudeau this week with a copy to Minister of Justice Lametti.
In the meantime, the main petition from the Hassan Diab Support Committee has reached more that 10K signatures! It will also be delivered soon so make sure to sign and share it if you haven't done so yet. Thanks! Read more - Lire plus
CALL Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Urging Him to Protect Hassan Diab
LETTER: Canada must protect Hassan Diab!
Lettre: Le Canada doit protéger Hassan Diab!
Take Action to Prevent Another Wrongful Extradition of Hassan Diab! (all actions, one link)
| |
Lettre commune: Le Canada ne doit pas extrader Hassan Diab à la demande de la France | |
Signée par Howard Tzvi Adelman, professeur agrégé retraité d’études juives et d’histoire à l’Université Queen’s; Bernie M. Farber, ancien PDG du Congrès juif canadien et président fondateur du Réseau canadien anti-haine; Ivan Kalmar, professeur d’anthropologie à l’Université de Toronto; Karen R. Mock, consultante en droits humains; et Ariel Salzmann, professeur agrégé d’histoire à l’Université Queen’s. | |
|
Pivot Quebec 16/07/2023 - En tant qu’universitaires et défenseur·es des droits humains spécialisé·es dans l’antisémitisme et la discrimination anti-minoritaire, nous sommes profondément troublé·es par les appels à l’extradition de l’universitaire canadien Hassan Diab. Celui-ci a été jugé et déclaré coupable en son absence par un tribunal français et condamné à perpétuité pour l’attentat à la bombe contre une synagogue de Paris en 1980. Un crime que, de toute évidence, il n’aurait pas pu commettre.
Une version de cette histoire a été écrite il y a 100 ans par l’auteur juif européen Franz Kafka. Il nous est impossible de ne pas voir les parallèles entre Le Procès de Kafka – dans lequel le protagoniste Josef K est piégé dans les rouages d’un tribunal d’État pour un crime dont il n’a pas connaissance – et les épreuves d’Hassan Diab : une transposition horrifiante , de la fiction kafkaïenne du 20e siècle jusque dans la vie réelle du 21e siècle.
En effet, le calvaire imposé à Diab est à certains égards encore plus kafkaïen qu’une histoire de Kafka. Dans Le Procès, Josef K est présumé coupable sans aucune preuve. Hassan D, en revanche, a été déclaré coupable malgré des preuves contradictoires démontrant son innocence.
Des « preuves » peu probantes et un alibi en béton
Aucune des analyses médico-légales de la scène de l’attentat ne le désigne comme l’auteur, et les témoignages corroborent qu’il n’était même pas en France à l’époque. L’analyse de l’écriture manuscrite censée l’inculper a été discréditée avec autorité – et, en fait, reposait en partie sur des échantillons d’écriture qui n’ont pas du tout été produits par Diab.
Il s’agit exactement du même ensemble de « preuves » qui avaient précédemment été jugées insuffisantes pour déposer des accusations contre Diab par deux juges d’instruction français spécialisés dans le terrorisme, et décrites par le juge canadien Robert Maranger comme « faibles », « très problématiques » et « peu susceptibles [de conduire à une] condamnation dans le cadre d’un procès équitable. »
Et pourtant, la cour d’assises spéciale de Paris a décidé de procéder à une poursuite, malgré l’absence de nouvelles preuves – et maintenant, on ne sait comment, Diab a été condamné. In absentia, rien de moins.
Une longue tradition de discrimination et un bon bouc émissaire
Pourquoi Diab, et pourquoi maintenant? Au lendemain de l’attentat de 1980, les récriminations contre le gouvernement français et les agences de sécurité pour leur incapacité à protéger les citoyens juifs – ou même à identifier les auteurs du crime – ont coïncidé avec l’introduction de nouvelles lois, pouvoirs et institutions étatiques draconiennes au nom du « contre-terrorisme ». Cette réponse mal ciblée, injuste et discriminatoire en réaction au problème de l’antisémitisme a été largement condamnée en France et à l’international.
Pourtant, quatre décennies après l’attaque de la synagogue, la condamnation de Diab pour cet horrible crime non résolu survient dans un contexte d’escalade de la répression étatique contre les Musulman·es, les Arabes et d’autres communautés victimes de racisme, tel que documenté lors du récent examen périodique universel de la France à l’ONU et dans de nombreux autres rapports d’impact sur les droits humains.
Loin de représenter la justice contre l’antisémitisme, l’utilisation de Diab comme bouc émissaire aggrave l’injustice et perpétue l’histoire de profilage racial et religieux des tribunaux français. La plus notoire est la condamnation injustifiée de l’officier militaire juif français Alfred Dreyfus pour trahison en 1894. Comme Diab, Dreyfus avait été condamné sur la base d’une analyse d’écriture déficiente et de « preuves » secrètes, étayées par un antisémitisme omniprésent et une présomption de culpabilité juive.
Deux poids, deux mesures
Plus récemment, comparons le sort d’Hassan Diab dans le système judiciaire français à celui du major général américain Geoffrey Miller, qui a supervisé les opérations de torture des États-Unis à Guantanamo et Abu Ghraib. Miller a refusé de se présenter en France pour faire face à une affaire intentée contre lui au nom de deux Français musulmans rescapés de Guantanamo. En 2021, la justice française a purement et simplement rejeté leur plainte.
Comparons également les demandes de la France pour l’extradition de Diab avec le refus du même pays d’extrader ses propres citoyens vers le Canada, par exemple le prêtre français Johannes Rivoire, accusé d’avoir abusé sexuellement des enfants Inuit dans des pensionnats.
Persécution légalisée
Après que Diab ait été extradé par le Canada vers la France en 2014, il a été détenu pendant plus de trois ans, alors qu’il faisait l’objet d’une enquête, dans un isolement presque total, une violation de la Convention des Nations Unies contre la torture, avant d’être autorisé à rentrer chez lui. S’il est réextradé, on ne peut qu’imaginer à quel point ses souffrances seraient intensifiées maintenant que la déclaration de « culpabilité » a été officiellement obtenue.
À la fin du roman Le Procès, Josef K est tué par des fonctionnaires de l’État, « comme un chien ». Pour Diab, en revanche, condamné à une peine de « mort en prison » à perpétuité, il n’y aura pas de délivrance du supplice et de la persécution légalisés qu’il a été forcés d’endurer. Le ministre de la Justice du Canada devrait exercer ses pouvoirs en vertu de la Loi sur l’extradition afin de rejeter l’extradition de Diab et refuser toute autre complicité canadienne dans ce spectacle ultra-kafkaïen honteux. Source
Original in English: Opinion: Canada must not bow to French demands to extradite Hassan Diab
| |
Canada’s ‘Counterinsurgency Doctrine’ Is Up For Review. It Warns About Labour Unrest | |
|
The Canadian Press 26/06/23 - The Canadian military’s 15-year old “Counterinsurgency Doctrine,” which is up for review this year, includes long paragraphs about the need to be on the lookout for “strikes” and “absenteeism,” and to screen for “disloyal” workers among labour pools during insurgency operations. More broadly, it warns about armed uprisings drawing on support from “disaffected” and “unemployed” people across the world.
The Canadian Armed Forces’ 249-page doctrine was first drafted in 2008 with the expectation that “future operations” would likely involve wars against “insurgencies” at home and abroad. It warns about “passive” forms of protest and labour disobedience alongside “terrorism” as examples of insurgent strategies. The document warns that popular grievances can be exploited by insurgent forces. Insurgencies, it explains, “thrive in states lacking efficient, stable or popular governments, conditions that are aggravated by economic weakness, corruption or foreign agitation.” In particular, it states that “unemployed or disaffected members of the populace” could be convinced into carrying out attacks in return for offers of “remuneration.”
Insurgent forces, according to the document, seek to use social grievances to “undermine the authority and legitimacy of the official government and supporting forces.” The document characterizes fights against insurgents as hinging on “a battle of wills.” In addition to warning about the military aspects of insurgencies and terrorism, the document advises that oppositional tactics can include strikes, sit-ins and other non-military means. It brands such actions as potential vectors for would-be insurgents.
Regarding strikes and “absenteeism,” the document warns:
“Passive sabotage is generally aimed at causing disorder and disruption by deliberate error, contrived accident, absenteeism or strikes. The target can be industry, public services, supplies or troops, where action is usually planned on a wide scale through political front organizations.”
The document also mentions sit-in protests as another form of passive disruption, particularly within “liberal societies”:
“Examples of passive resistance include withdrawing labour from public services, obstructing the law or sit-ins in public places … insurgent leaders will encourage passive measures on behalf of the larger population in order to undermine the authority of the government and disrupt civil society through agitation. They may also seek to provoke violence during public demonstrations in hopes of causing an overreaction by the government forces and creating another claim to injustice and a sense of alienation and frustration amongst the populace.”
In countering such methods, the document advises that military forces should be on the lookout for “insurgent infiltration of Labour.” In addition to having “security forces living amongst the population” for the purpose of “enhanc[ing] the intelligence network,” the document recommends that potential hires for work on ports, roads, railways and other government choke-points should be vetted extensively in order to block “disloyal” elements. [...]
Adam D.K. King, a labour researcher and author of The Maple’s Class Struggle newsletter, said the doctrine’s comparable treatment of violence and civil disobedience is striking.
“Historically, labour movements around the world have been central actors in the democratization of societies,” King explained. “In fact, a strong, independent labour movement is a hallmark of a free society. That the Canadian military takes the view it does of labour action is deeply troubling." [...]
Alongside “Religious insurgents,” the document warns military personnel that they will be called upon to wage campaigns against liberation struggles like those seen in the twentieth century. Specific case studies cited in the document include the French government’s “pacification” wars in Algeria and Vietnam, the United Kingdom’s brutal Mau Mau campaign in Kenya and the crushing of the 1918 German Revolution. [...]
In an emailed statement to The Maple, Major Derek Reid confirmed that the 2008 counterinsurgency doctrine is still current, and said the doctrine aims to guide Canada’s military leaders. “It is authoritative but requires judgment in application,” he explained. However, Reid said the doctrine is up for “review priority at an Army Doctrine Development Board to be convened this year.” The board’s site describes the doctrines it develops more concretely as “the intellectual foundation for land operations and force development.”
As part of the development process, the board says it works with "both the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the American, British, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand (ABCANZ) Armies Program.” NATO’s 2020 document, “Future Trends In Insurgency And Counterinsurgency,” warns about the rise of “egalitarian” movements and “economic insurgencies,” suggesting that these will affect "Latin America, Africa, and South-East Asia in the medium and long term.” According to NATO’s report: “Future economic crises or outbreaks of violence where there are stark disparities of wealth or access to resources are likely to develop into economic or commercial insurgencies.” Read more - Lire plus
| |
Journalist asked for RCMP bodycam footage from Fairy Creek protest. Two years later, their answer is: "No." | |
|
Twitter 30/06/23 - Two summers ago, the RCMP indiscriminately pepper sprayed a crowd and then lied about it. I've been waiting for two years for their bodycam and handheld footage, which I requested under Access to Information legislation. They just got back to me: "No."
For those who aren't familiar with the case, I investigated this alongside Ethan Cox and Brishti Basu in 2021. We found that the RCMP's justification for the pepper spray — they were evacuating an injured officer — was absolutely false. The police said he had been shoved, was unconscious, and had to be removed. Not only was the officer able to walk out on his own, but he was clear of the crowd within seconds of tripping and falling.
I wanted the video evidence of what had happened behind the police lines.
[In their response, they mention] subsection 19(1) which refers to "personal information" — in this case, it's likely video footage of protesters, which is already circulating widely in the public domain, which the Information and Privacy Commissioner says means it can't be excluded from the access to information request. They also said they don't have to turn over information they gathered in the course of an investigation.
BUT. If this applies to this kind of footage, then that means the RCMP and other police agencies in Canada have carte blanche to almost always withhold bodycam footage and other footage. It flies in the face of the purpose of bodycams — i.e. to hold police accountable.
So after two years, I get two highly questionable justifications. They have never admitted to having lied about why they pepper sprayed that crowd, ripped a mask off a middle-aged woman's face to better soak her in spray, sprayed down the front of a man's pants, and more.
Small update: the Information Commissioner has told the RCMP to retain its records related to this request, because they are investigating. (That's a routine step; basically, they've verified the complaint meets a minimum standard of validity.) Progress! Now to wait 18 months for a response... Read more - Lire plus
Secret Canada: An investigation into Canada’s freedom of information systems
Police body cameras are touted as an accountability tool. But getting the footage is a challenge
| |
Top-secret security committee reports challenges accessing information from government | |
|
CTV News 20/07/23 - One of the committees tapped by the prime minister to look into the state of foreign interference in Canada says it is still experiencing significant hurdles accessing information from various government departments.
The assessment is included in the latest annual report by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP), which states the group has had “problems obtaining government information that it is entitled to by law.” NSICOP outlines, for example, that “several” departments have tried to cite, as examples of reasons for withholding information, circumstances that are “outside the statutory exceptions.”
“Some departments selectively refused to provide information even though the information fell within a request for information from the committee,” the report states. “In several cases, the committee came across the information later or through other sources, such as subsequent media reporting based on information disclosed by those very departments under the Access to Information Act.”
“This is an important problem, because the committee is unaware of what information is being withheld, which could undermine its ability to fulfil its mandate,” it adds.
The 34-page report, released Wednesday, is a redacted version, while the full copy has been delivered to the prime minister.
NSICOP has been reviewing the state of foreign interference in Canada since the committee first came together more than five years ago, and the federal government has continuously pointed to the group as best positioned to study the issue amid mounting allegations of foreign interference in recent months, especially because the committee is meant to have access to classified information.
Reviews of other top files also fall within the group’s mandate in an effort to hold Canada’s national security and intelligence agencies accountable, such as its ongoing look at the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s federal policing mandate, and into the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces’ intelligence activities.
NSICOP’s report also lays out previous recommendations the committee has made to government across several past reviews, and provides a status update on which have been implemented. However, according to the report’s opening message from the committee chair, Liberal MP David McGuinty, as of last December, the government has not formally responded to 22 recommendations made in the committee’s last seven reviews. Read more - Lire plus
EVENT: Canada Proposes Foreign Influence Registry: A lot could go wrong! Online, Sept 20th, organized by the Centre for Free Expression
| |
We’re in an AI hype cycle—can Canada make it a responsible one? | |
|
The Monitor 20/07/23 - [...] AI conversations have the characteristics of a hype cycle, which is one reason why we should slow down how we approach the matter from a policy and regulatory perspective. Unfortunately, Canada’s Ministry of Innovation, Science, and Economic Development (ISED) is operating in urgency mode. ISED has a mandate to establish Canada as a world leader in AI, and, apparently, to accelerate AI’s use and uptake across all sectors of our society.
The confidence with which ISED is asserting societal consensus on AI’s uptake is troubling. Very few of us have had a chance to think about if and how we do and don’t want AI to become installed in our society and culture, our relationships, our workplaces, and our democracy. Though lacking any type of informed public demand for it, ISED has created a draft bill called the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA), which, as part of Bill C-27, is making its way to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology (INDU) in a few months, on the heels of a successful second reading in the House of Commons. AIDA is an AI law for the private sector. Canada has an existing policy directive for the use of AI in the public sector, called the Directive on Automated Decision-Making, but this is notably a policy rather than law.
In ISED’s argument for the need for this bill, it points at problems with AI, such as discrimination in hiring software, bias in facial-recognition technology, and deepfake media. Interestingly, in the same document, it heralds benefits of AI that include health care screenings, information accessibility, “smart” products and services, and translation tools. This framing provides a perfect example of the erroneous thinking behind AIDA—that there is good or bad AI. This isn’t how technology works, and this over-simplification leaves many consequences of technology adoption out of the frame of public and legislative consideration. Probably the most telling of ISED’s arguments for AIDA relates to industrial development. ISED claims to need to rush this bill so that the Canadian AI industry can stop worrying about future rules about AI that might “unfairly stigmatize their field of work.”
As the owner and drafter, ISED’s approach with AIDA is flawed to the degree that the members of the committee would be wise to stop the bill. ISED itself would likely be relieved at this point. It has no doubt become increasingly clear to ISED, and everyone else watching, that the ministry is operating way outside of its lane and capacity, given the breadth of this file. Stopping AIDA at the INDU committee will make time and space for us to return to the matter of AI regulation with a more thoughtfully informed, and expansive, approach. [...]
Starting the conversation again, properly
The very notion of the need to regulate AI is debatable. Regulating AI in the manner that ISED is proposing is jumping the gun in two distinct ways. Firstly, unlike the rest of C-27, AIDA was never subject to broad public consultation. By skipping this step, it is, by definition, starting with a weak draft.
The broader policy community, and the general public, would bring much more expansive thinking to the process than the narrow set of tech experts and industry that have been participating so far. When the issue is contentious, as technology is, and the approaches to take are uncertain, as they are with AI, this realm is a bizarre place for the normally conservative Canadian establishment to be taking such quick and unformed steps.
Secondly, ISED is asserting the certain future-state cross-sectoral ubiquity of AI in order to drum up legitimacy for the industry. Its position is that because AI exists it needs to be regulated. It would be more accurate to say that we’re at an important point in time to talk about AI. This would include a fulsome look at how pre-existing laws and policies might be brought into regulatory conversation prior to establishing an entirely new set.
It’s easy to write laws. It’s much more difficult, and expensive, to create functional access to justice regimes to make sure they are upheld.
Even if AIDA were to be heavily edited and corrected, it won’t be able to escape its founding intent: the broader goal of normalizing AI’s use across all sectors of society. Canadians have not agreed to this. This is a matter of consent. Technology feels inevitable because of the type of law that AIDA represents. It’s counter-intuitive in some ways, but when we focus on the harms and risks of AI for regulatory purposes, we rarely stop to understand the consequences of the much larger expansion of AI use that then gets defined as normal. What ISED deems “good” or “fine” or “permissible” for industrial expansion via AIDA may be anything but for workers, students, residents, refugees. For everyone else.
This is not to say there aren’t real and urgent harms to attend to regarding the current use of AI. From bias and racism in a range of AI uses to dehumanizing labour conditions, from art theft to an inability to know if you’re speaking to a machine or a person when accessing a service. But the reality is that most of these issues could be addressed with pre-existing laws if there really was interest to address them.
Beyond these ever-expanding current harms, we also need to think about what it means to live together with an ever-increasing amount of automation and predictive technology woven through our relationships. What it means, socially, to continue to put so much stock in the quantified and efficient life. But because AIDA is being created as part of ISED’s remit, it’s difficult to invoke cultural arguments. ISED isn’t mandated to deal with culture and society.
ISED is right to look at the parts of this conversation that relate to industry. But those parts of the conversation constitute a minority of the broader set of implications of the use of AI. Beyond this structural problem with ISED as convener, the process that ISED followed to rationalize this bill needs intense scrutiny. What triggered a bill with no public consultation to be written? Why? Who wrote it? What are we doing about the fact that most of the core private infrastructure that AI is reliant upon isn’t Canadian? Read more - Lire plus
Artificial intelligence must be grounded in human rights, says UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
EU: Civil society calls for rights to be prioritised in secret AI Act "trilogue" negotiations
UK: Legal analysis shows gaps in effective protection from AI harms
| |
Palestinian teenager killed by Israeli sniper during Jenin raid was unarmed, CCTV footage shows | |
|
The New Arab 11/07/23 - Video evidence has emerged showing that a Palestinian teenager who was fatally shot during a brutal Israeli military raid last week in Jenin was unarmed, according to an investigative report by a UK newspaper. Abdulrahman Hasan Ahmad Hardan, 16, was shot and killed by an Israeli sniper on 4 July as he stood outside Jenin's Al-Amal hospital, with the intention of donating blood following calls from his local mosque for volunteers.
The teenager’s parents, as well as eyewitnesses, verified the CCTV evidence published by The Times, which obtained the footage from a shop adjacent to the hospital. Israeli forces claimed that the young Palestinian boy was carrying an automatic weapon, despite the CCTV footage suggesting otherwise. The video shows the empty-handed 16-year-old leaning forward as he looks down the street outside the Jenin hospital. He then suddenly falls to the ground after he was shot by the sniper on the second day of Israel's aerial and ground assault on the city, which left at least 12 Palestinians dead and scores more injured. Four of the Palestinians killed were under the age of 18.
"My son hadn’t even turned 17 yet," his mother, Kifaya Hardan, told The Times from the family home in the occupied West Bank village of Fahmeh. "The occupation killed him in cold blood and accused him of taking part in armed confrontations. He wasn’t carrying a gun or anything. He was a child," she continued. The 16-year-old went into surgery soon after the shooting and died five hours later, his family stated.
His mother said she had "no reason" to believe her son would be in danger as the Israeli raid was carried out in the Jenin camp, while the hospital is located outside of the area, in an interview with The Times. "He was an ordinary boy, he was not a terrorist like they are saying," his mother said. "Every Palestinian in their eyes is a terrorist, armed or not." The large-scale incursion, which saw Israeli forces use drone strikes and armoured bulldozers, was described as one of the worst in two decades. Read more - Lire plus
Indepedent Jewish Voices: Canada must take concrete action following Israel’s assault on Jenin
EU envoy to Palestinian territories criticizes Jenin counter-terror operation
Israeli Forces Blindfold & Handcuff Palestinian Reporter Who Filmed Settler Attack in Masafer Yatta
ACTION: Urge Your MP to Support JUSTICE For Palestinian Children!
ACTION: Canada must denounce Israel’s attack on the Jenin refugee camp
ACTION: Tell Scotiabank to Divest Now from Elbit Systems
| |
The Cost of Consensus in the Eighth Review of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy | |
|
Just Security 17/07/23 - On 22 June, member states prioritized consensus adoption of the United Nations’ (UN) eighth biennial Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy review resolution over furthering the promotion of human rights and protection of civic space. The negotiations were heated, with some member states threatening to revise existing language in an attempt to deprioritize human rights and civil society engagement, while promoting their own interests and agendas. The resulting document is largely a technical roll-over with minimal changes, raising questions about whether international consensus on the counterterrorism agenda has reached its limits. But even after the adoption, one member state spoke scathingly of the process and dissociated itself from its result.
While many issues at the United Nations are polarizing, the counterterrorism agenda has long benefited from a high degree of consensus among member states. Although the consensus adoption of the Strategy and all its biennial review resolutions sent an important message of unity, it also forces a more political than strategic process for determining substance and priorities, arriving at the lowest common denominator among states. This has resulted in an extremely broad document covering a variety of different issues, rather than a strategic guide for achieving rights-compliant counterterrorism.
The root of these abuses can partially be explained by the lack of an internationally agreed upon definition of terrorism. As a result, governments handed themselves carte blanche in General Assembly and Security Council resolutions to define terrorism and violent extremism as they wished in their national legislation and corresponding measures. On ostensible national security grounds, governments have applied exceptional powers without sunset clauses, infringed systematically on privacy rights, violated the right to due process, criminalized expression and peaceful assembly and held minority groups in detention facilities en masse.
The misuse and abuse of measures to prevent violent extremism, counterterrorism, and address its financing have contributed to these significant human rights abuses. Among the consequences are a severe shrinking of civic space and reprisals directed at human rights defenders, women’s organizations, and journalists. But many member states turn a blind eye to counterterrorism abuses due to a reluctance to constrain their own freedom of action.
The review, facilitated by the Permanent Representatives of Canada and Tunisia, went through several intense, pendulum-swinging rounds. While earlier versions pressed the proposal to establish an independent human rights oversight mechanism forward (again), others included divisive additions such as criminalizing Koran burning and removing previously-agreed upon gender and human rights language. In the end, consensus was reached on the final eighth review resolution by largely rolling over the text of the seventh review with minimal changes.
The next Strategy review process will mark its twentieth anniversary. Its original, unanimous adoption in 2006 was in many ways a landmark event. The Strategy outlined a comprehensive approach to preventing and countering terrorism through addressing the conditions conducive to its spread and defining the relationship between counterterrorism and the protection of human rights as “complementary and mutually reinforcing.”
Much like the twentieth anniversary of 9/11, the Strategy’s anniversary provides an opportunity to soberly assess the shortcomings of its promise to normatively reset counterterrorism efforts and prevent future abuses. Member states must also seriously analyze and address the size, scope, and focus of UN counterterrorism efforts given other violence prevention and sustainable development priorities. Read more - Lire plus
| |
Countering counter-terrorism policies: tools of ‘repression and reprisal’ | |
|
IFEX 07/07/23 - Last month’s UN Counter-Terrorism Week saw civil society organisations engage in a critical conversation on the impact of counter-terrorism policies on human rights in the region.
IFEX members the Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR), Human Rights Watch (HRW), and the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS), as well as the Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism shed light on how counter-terrorism policies have been adopted by states to undermine the rule of law and restrict basic rights and freedoms under the pretext of protecting national security.
The Executive Director of GCHR, Khalid Ibrahim, pointed to how oppressive governments in the region have used counter-terrorism laws to target civil society, with many journalists, political opponents, and human rights defenders, including women, facing arbitrary arrests and detentions, torture, and handed prison sentences based on fabricated charges. Ibrahim also underscored the role governments and surveillance technology companies in the West play in providing unconditional support to oppressive states in the MENA region, calling it: “one of the main reasons why our colleagues are still in prison.”
On the sidelines of the UN event, Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, released the first independent global study detailing the impact of counter-terrorism measures on civil society and civic space. The study reveals how the widespread and systematic targeting of civil society has undermined the effectiveness of counter-terrorism efforts.
CIHRS welcomed the study’s release and called for the development of monitoring and documentation mechanisms at the national and international levels to counter the entrenched patterns of human rights violations, and hold perpetrators accountable. As part of its contributions to the report, CIHRS highlighted the cases of Algeria, Egypt, Libya and Palestine as countries in the region that “clearly exemplify the trend of governments exploiting the permissive counter-terrorism environment to label as terrorist non-violent critics, political activists and human rights defenders, as a tool of repression and reprisal.” Read more - Lire plus
| |
A new global cybercrime treaty risks becoming yet another legal instrument to punish and muzzle the press | |
|
International Press Institute 09/07/23 - For journalists and rights advocates, much is at stake as UN-member states gather in New York next month to hammer out the final points of a new global treaty to combat cybercrime. The treaty being negotiated could hand authorities far-reaching surveillance and investigatory powers both at home and abroad — and give repressive governments even more tools for targeting and muzzling the press.
The list of states that originally backed the treaty is enough to raise alarm bells. The resolution to develop the treaty was initially sponsored by Russia, then joined by Belarus, Cambodia, China, North Korea, Myanmar, Nicaragua, and Venezuela — a who’s who of despotic regimes with some of the worst records on press freedom and online censorship in the world.
The treaty comes at a time when a growing number of governments are already abusing domestic cybercrime laws to target journalists, as part of a wider pattern of “lawfare” against the press. Often enacted under the guise of combating terrorism, the spread of “disinformation,” religious hatred, and other forms of harmful speech, cybercrime laws in practice have become much-abused catch-alls to punish critics and journalists.
Early negotiation drafts of the UN treaty replicated many of the problems found in domestic cybercrime laws, with a wide range of overly broad criminal provisions giving governments vast powers to target and punish critical voices — including a section of vaguely defined content-based crimes, such as disseminating material that could incite “terrorism”.
While the latest draft of the convention removed a number of problematic content-based crimes, still absent are the strong human rights safeguards and independent checks necessary to ensure that this treaty does not end up weakening existing global expression, privacy, and security standards and protocols.
Moreover, the current draft gives states sweeping and unchecked surveillance and investigatory powers, both within and across their borders. The draft treaty asks states to enact laws allowing authorities investigating cybercrimes to intercept communications data in real time and to access stored data and communications. Requirements for independent judicial authorization and oversight over these incredibly intrusive investigatory powers are notably absent.
The treaty also compels member states to assist other countries in investigations of cybercrimes, with similarly invasive surveillance powers. At present, the treaty does not allow states the right to refuse to provide “mutual legal assistance” on grounds of potential human rights abuses or concerns.
The lack of such safeguards puts journalists and civil society at risk of increased surveillance by governments, many of which are already targeting media and advocacy groups using commercial surveillance and spyware tools, such as Pegasus. It could also have grave implications for the growing number of journalists and rights advocates who are seeking safe refuge in other countries to escape persecution or harm back home.
Given such high risks, plans to develop a global convention on cybercrime should be scrapped altogether. Read more - Lire plus
| |
Closing Guantanamo Bay Prison Won’t Erase the Crimes Committed Against Muslims | |
|
The Daily Beast 17/07/23 - In a speech the first week of June, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) asserted the need to close Guantanamo Bay prison, citing the extraordinary costs of keeping the prison open and the lack of justice for 9/11 families as a result of the long drawn out military commissions. Senator Durbin has expressed similar sentiments before, for example, in a September 2022 interview with The Wall Street Journal when he stated that “holding people without charge or trial for years on end cannot be reconciled with the values we espouse as a nation, and has deprived the victims of 9/11 and their families of any semblance of justice or closure.”
Conspicuously absent from these statements, however, were any clear calls for justice for the men who remain detained. This has been a consistent theme in official and/or mainstream narratives around Guantanamo—neglecting to call for justice for the men detained, as if this is an unreasonable demand that would diminish the legitimacy of the overall call to close the facility. [...]
Since the opening of the prison at Guantanamo, numerous Supreme Court cases have been won granting the detainees the narrow right to challenge their detention through habeas corpus. In 2009, Lakhdar Boumediene, the lead plaintiff in the famous case of Boumediene v. Bush, was ordered released by a federal court and was subsequently transferred to France. In the Department of Justice’s press release announcing Boumediene’s departure from Guantanamo, there were no details about his case, much less anything that would cast doubt on his guilt or vindicate him. Guantanamo, after all, is fundamentally a place that consigns even the men lucky enough to get out with a degree of guilt hanging over their heads. Additionally, the law, as this case demonstrates, could only go so far to guarantee justice—particularly for those it was never meant to protect.
Abdul Latif Nasser was a Moroccan man who spent nearly 20 years at Guantanamo Bay prison before being the first prisoner to be released by President Joe Biden. Though Nasser had been cleared for release in 2016, administrative delays by the Obama administration and the fact that Trump vowed to keep the prison open (releasing just one prisoner during his term) meant that he ended up spending an additional five years detained. When Nasser was finally released, in July 2021—without being charged or convicted—the Department of Defense issued a press release stating merely that his detention “no longer remained necessary to protect against a continuing significant threat to the national security of the United States.” After almost 20 years, in other words, Nasser left Guantanamo stained—with eternal unquestionable guilt stamped on his back, and no acknowledgement of his victimization. [...]
As Guantanamo Bay prison moves towards its 22nd year in operation, we should continue to call for the prison’s closure. However, we should also robustly challenge how the Islamophobic discourse surrounding Guantanamo has perpetuated a narrative of unequivocal guilt, even after the men have been transferred. The U.S. cannot absolve itself from responsibility just because it's managed to so thoroughly criminalize the men that their existence has been rendered inconvenient and disposable. If justice is an actual concern of the U.S. government, then there must be accountability for those who the U.S. has disregarded as justified collateral damage to protect the American “homeland.” Guantanamo's men cannot be made visible when it comes to punishment, yet invisible when it comes to justice. Read more - Lire plus
Guantanamo Prison Set to Remain Open as Congress Debates New Year of Funding
The first-ever independent investigator to visit Guantánamo Bay says she arrived 'too late'
Biden Must Act on Landmark UN Special Rapporteur Guantanamo Report
Bali blast suspect Hambali’s family pleads for his release from Guantanamo Bay: ‘charge him, or let him go’
Showtime feared ‘political consequences’ of airing documentary on DeSantis record at Guantanamo, report says
| |
FBI hired social media surveillance firm that labeled BLM organizers "threat actors" | |
|
The Intercept 06/07/23 - The FBI's primary tool tool for monitoring social media threats is the same contractor that labeled peaceful Black Lives Matter protest leaders DeRay McKesson and Johnetta Elzie as “threat actors” requiring “continuous monitoring” in 2015. The contractor, ZeroFox, identified McKesson and Elzie as posing a “high severity” physical threat, despite including no evidence that McKesson or Elzie were suspected of criminal activity.
“It’s been almost a decade since the referenced 2015 incident and in that time we have invested heavily in fine-tuning our collections, analysis and labeling of alerts,” Lexie Gunther, a spokesperson for ZeroFox, told The Intercept, “including the addition of a fully managed service that ensures human analysis of every alert that comes through the ZeroFox Platform to ensure we are only alerting customers to legitimate threats and are labeling those threats appropriately.”
The FBI, which declined to comment, hired ZeroFox in 2021, a fact referenced in the new 106-page Senate report about the intelligence community’s failure to anticipate the January 6, 2021, uprising at the U.S. Capitol. The June 27 report, produced by Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, shows the bureau’s broad authorities to surveil social media content — authorities the FBI previously denied it had, including before Congress. It also reveals the FBI’s reliance on outside companies to do much of the filtering for them.
The FBI’s $14 million contract to ZeroFox for “FBI social media alerting” replaced a similar contract with Dataminr, another firm with a history of scrutinizing racial justice movements. Dataminr, like ZeroFox, subjected the Black Lives Matter movement to web surveillance on behalf of the Minneapolis Police Department, previous reporting by The Intercept has shown. Read more - Lire plus
| |
"Only good part of the NDAA": New Legislation Would Close a Fourth Amendment Loophole
| |
|
Brennan Center for Justice 06/07/2023 - The Fourth Amendment prohibits government officials from performing “unreasonable searches and seizures.” Courts interpreting this requirement have ruled that the government must obtain a warrant before seizing or searching information in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, courts have also said that there is generally no reasonable expectation of privacy when a person voluntarily shares information with others. For example, the government cannot intercept your private phone calls without first obtaining a warrant. But because you share the phone numbers you dial with your phone company (which needs the numbers to complete your calls), you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in those numbers, and the government can obtain them from the phone company without a warrant — even though the content of those calls is protected. This is known as the third-party doctrine.
Carpenter examined the government’s warrantless acquisition of a week’s worth of location information from a robbery suspect’s cell service provider. Narrowing the third-party doctrine, the Supreme Court ruled that the government violated the Fourth Amendment by not obtaining a warrant, because the location information provided a comprehensive picture of the suspect’s life and because he had no choice but to share that information with his cell phone company (as cell phones are a necessity in modern life). Under Carpenter, the government must get a warrant before accessing information about a person — even when the person shares that information with a third party — if the information is sufficiently sensitive and sharing it is effectively mandatory.
Closing the Data Broker Loophole
Since Carpenter was decided, federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies have increasingly purchased Americans’ information from commercial data brokers. While this practice violates Carpenter’s spirit, if not its letter, agency lawyers have argued that a warrant is required only when the government compels a third party to produce information — not when the third party is paid to produce it. Using this flimsy justification, government agencies have purchased a broad swath of incredibly sensitive information such as email metadata (for instance, the time, source, and destination of emails) and browsing history. Indeed, several law enforcement and intelligence agencies, including the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense, have purchased cell phone location information — the same data that was at issue in Carpenter.
The Davidson-Jacobs bill, which was introduced last week as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, would put a stop to these privacy invasions. The bill prohibits federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies from purchasing Americans’ location information, web browsing history, internet search history, or any other information protected by the Fourth Amendment, and requires these agencies to get a court order before obtaining this data. Other agencies may purchase this information in anonymized form, provided the data cannot reasonably be re-identified and they do not share it with federal, state, or local law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
The amendment strikes a reasonable balance between the government’s legitimate need to acquire information and Americans’ privacy interests. The protected information could reveal intimate details about a person’s life, such as their political beliefs, whether they have substance abuse problems, and whether they have sought reproductive health care. The government should not be able to access such sensitive information without a warrant. Read more - Lire plus
House Republicans used $886 billion (!) NDAA as a pitchfork for a culture-war witchhunt. That just scratches the surface of what's wrong with this thing.
| |
Trump revives "Muslim Ban" while GOP courts Muslim voters for 2024 | |
|
The Intercept 11/07/2023 - The culture war raging throughout American politics has, of late, created an unexpected alliance between the Republican Party and some conservative Muslim Americans. Once derided as terrorist fifth columnists, a growing number of Muslims have joined the GOP base in protests opposing sex and gender education programs in public schools, with many even featured sympathetically on outlets like Fox News.
The shift represents a stark contrast with the hostile relations between Republicans and Muslims over the past two decades, as well as the integration of many younger Muslim Americans into progressive politics. The GOP’s outreach, reported on recently by Semafor and other outlets, also comes at a moment when the current Republican presidential frontrunner is tripling down on the most directly anti-Muslim government policy in U.S. history: the so-called Muslim ban. At a campaign speech in Iowa last Friday, former President Donald Trump promised that he would bring back the controversial policy. “When I return to office, the travel ban is coming back even bigger than before and much stronger than before,” Trump said.
The notion of a ban was first introduced by Trump early in his 2016 presidential campaign, when it was marketed explicitly as a prohibition on all Muslims entering the United States. After Trump was elected, he instated a ban targeting travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries, prompting chaos in airports and inside the government. Later, the Trump administration began referring to the policy more antiseptically as a “travel ban,” modifying it to include restrictions on some non-Muslim countries like Venezuela and North Korea. Yet in his speech in Iowa last weekend, Trump made very clear that the target of his policy would be Muslims, conflating Islam with terrorism and extremism. “Under the Trump administration, we imposed extreme vetting and put on a powerful travel ban to keep radical Islamic terrorists and jihadists out of our country,” Trump told the audience to applause.
Trump’s statements highlight an awkward contradiction. On one hand, some Muslim Americans, bound by a shared commitment to conservative social values, are enjoying a period of warm relations with the Republican Party and conservative activists who share their opposition to LGBTQ+ education in schools. At the same time, the wildly popular leading Republican presidential candidate — and the center of gravity in the party — is publicly vowing to revive a policy aimed at curtailing the presence of Muslims in the U.S. entirely.
“This will be a challenging moment for the Muslim community, but I do believe that the issue of LGBT education in schools will become a wedge issue,” said Ani Zonneveld, president of Muslims for Progressive Values, a progressive human rights organization. “On a state and local level, many conservative Muslim voters will likely vote for candidates who are anti-LGBT, which will mean mostly Republicans, while on a national level, the same people may choose to vote for a Democrat.”
In one sign of warming relations between Muslims and the Republican Party, major Islamic civil rights organizations have spoken out in support of the recent GOP-supported protests aimed at letting parents opt their children out of LGBTQ+ readings in schools. The Council on American-Islamic Relations has been among the most vocal, collecting hundreds of signatures to demand that parents be allowed to remove their children from gender- and sex-based courses. CAIR has been a favorite target of the Republican Party and conservative activists over the past two decades, with the group being labeled as a front for terrorism and Islamic extremism. On this issue, however, they find themselves aligned, even applauded, by erstwhile foes. Read more - Lire plus
| |
France: Empêcher l'accès à la bassine quel qu'en soit le coût humain | |
Communiqué et rapport des observatoires des libertés publiques et des pratiques policières sur la mobilisation contre le projet de méga-bassine à Sainte-Soline | |
|
Ligue des droits de l'homme 10/07/2023 - Le samedi 25 mars 2023, en dépit d’intimidations de la part des autorités publiques, 18 observateur·ice·s indépendant·e·s étaient présent·e·s à la manifestation contre le projet de méga-bassine à Sainte-Soline.
Après un travail de plusieurs mois fondé sur des observations de terrain, recoupées à l’aide de témoignages et d’éléments matériels, les observateur·ice·s versent au débat public un rapport minutieux relatif à la stratégie de maintien de l’ordre déployée ainsi que le récit précis du déroulement de la manifestation.
Dès le 24 mars 2023, le ministre de l’Intérieur avait averti que l’on verrait « […] des images extrêmement dures, parce qu’il y a une très grande mobilisation de l’extrême gauche et de ceux qui veulent s’en prendre aux gendarmes et peut-être tuer des gendarmes et tuer les institutions ». Les autorités publiques ont alors mis en scène un maintien de l’ordre spectaculaire d’une très grande violence. Derrière une muraille de camions, 3000 gendarmes armés étaient rassemblés autour du chantier de la méga-bassine. Ces derniers ont attendu que les manifestant·e·s arrivent à proximité du chantier transformé en fortin et ont alors déchaîné une violence immodérée, donnant lieu à des images brutales. Face à un ennemi de l’intérieur “éco-terroriste”, construit depuis plusieurs mois par les autorités publiques, l’Etat devait réussir sa démonstration de force. En moins de deux heures, plus de 5000 grenades ont été tirées, occasionnant au moins 200 blessé·e·s.
Interrogées sur cet usage indiscriminé et disproportionné de la force, les autorités publiques ont persisté dans la confrontation et se sont livrées, de manière alarmante, à une réécriture des événements. DEUX RAPPORTS commandés par le ministère de l’Intérieur ont été rédigés et publiés à la hâte dès le 27 mars 2023, visant à accréditer cette version officielle.
Contrairement à ce qui a été affirmé, nos observations de terrains démontrent que ce sont bien les gendarmes, montés sur les quads, qui ont effectué une sortie en se rendant en premier au contact des manifestant·e·s à 12h35 ; que les gendarmes ont bien attaqué les cortèges sans sommation ; que des blessé·e·s et les élu·e·s qui les protégeaient ont bien été pris·e·s pour cibles par des tirs de grenades et que la trêve a bien commencé à 14h08, laissant place au calme durant une heure.
Emportées par leur récit guerrier, les autorités publiques ont choisi de ne pas secourir des blessé·e·s en détresse vitale. Ne pouvant ignorer qu’un déploiement de forces aussi démesuré et l’utilisation de matériels de guerre occasionneraient immanquablement des blessé·e·s, les autorités ont entravé les secours au mépris de la vie humaine.
Pour Patrick Baudouin, président de la LDH : « Depuis Sainte-Soline et malgré de nombreuses alertes, notamment des rapporteurs spéciaux des Nations unies, le gouvernement persiste dans une logique liberticide et autoritaire de criminalisation et de répression des mobilisations sociales. » Lire plus - Read more
| |
The Australian climate protesters cast as extremists | |
|
BBC 20/07/2023 - Emma Sangalli's heart still stops every time she sees a police car. "It's a feeling in your gut like panic. Total panic. "It's hard not to believe that you're a criminal, that you're deserving of this," the Australian climate activist says. Last month, the 25-year-old had her home in Western Australia raided by counter-terrorism police.
Her alleged crime - helping to flood a global fossil fuel giant's office with non-toxic gas. Stench gas, which smells like rotten eggs, is let off in mines to alert workers of danger. In this case, it was used by protesters to empty the Perth headquarters of Woodside Energy, to highlight the climate crisis. Australia's largest oil and gas firm says the protests targeting its brand are "unlawful" activities by "extreme groups". But environmental campaigners say disruptive protest is key to their mission. Meanwhile, lawyers warn that the response to climate activism in Australia has become "increasingly militarised".
Ms Sangalli says officers from Western Australia's State Security Investigation Group (SSIG) - whose duties include counter-terrorism - searched her home for hours, looking for evidence of her involvement in the Woodside protest. Despite facing no formal charges and not being present at the gas evacuation, she was forced to watch as her personal items were seized - including phones and laptops - and a male officer flicked through her diary. "That was the most painful part," she told the BBC. "Violated is a good word for it. You're rendered powerless."
The activist has been involved with two climate protest groups - the global Extinction Rebellion, and the more local Disrupt Burrup Hub, which campaigns against fossil fuel projects on the state's Burrup Peninsula. Both groups follow a "direct action" strategy intended to end climate complacency, which means engaging in activities such as infiltrating fossil fuel conferences, blocking rush hour traffic, and superficially defacing artworks.
Several members of the group are now facing criminal charges over the Woodside protest, with the company alleging four of its employees suffered dizziness, breathing difficulties, rashes, and nausea. "Woodside condemns unlawful acts that are intended to threaten, harm, intimidate or disrupt our employees," the company said. But Disrupt Burrup maintains their protest stunt was carried out safely and was a necessary action against one of Australia's most powerful polluters. Its members are challenging the charges in court. [...]
Gerard Mazza has led protests against Woodside's Pilbara projects, due to their emissions and damage to local ancient Aboriginal rock art. The 31-year-old's home was recently raided by SSIG police for his alleged role in attempting to evacuate Woodside's annual investors meeting in April, also using stench-gas. He now faces charges of aggravated burglary, which carry a maximum 20-year sentence. Mr Mazza argues Western Australia is a "petrostate" designed to "protect fossil fuel companies" due to the money they bring in.
"If it was really all about public safety, the state would be cracking down on Woodside executives making obscene wealth by endangering lives and ecosystems. Instead, they're coming after us." The state government has routinely dismissed such claims, denying any influence. In response to the BBC's questions, it said it is "committed to achieving net zero emissions by 2050". But Western Australia's emissions continue to rise, while other states have recorded significant reductions over the past decade.
A dozen raids - including those on Mr Mazza and Ms Sangalli's homes - have been carried out by the state's counter-terrorism police against climate protesters this year. The SSIG collaborates with federal intelligence agencies on matters of national security and is exempt from Freedom of Information laws, meaning its investigations remain secret. Lawyers such as Julia Grix says politicians and prosecutors are framing climate protesters as a threat to public safety to justify heavy-handed policing. The solicitor - who defends environmental activists - says her clients are increasingly being referred to as "extremists" in court documents. "That sort of language is most commonly applied to organised crime of a very sophisticated kind, which I would associate with bikie (motorcycle) gangs, or terrorism," Ms Grix said.
It's a "demonisation strategy" used to justify "extreme measures never intended for regulating protests", Australian legal scholar Luke McNamara says. The right to protest has long been defended by Australia's courts. In 2017, a landmark High Court case ruled that Tasmania's anti-protest laws were unconstitutional. And in 2020, a Queensland state court overturned suspended prison sentences against two activists who had blocked access to the major Adani coal mine. David Mejia-Canales, a lawyer at the Human Rights Law Centre, an Australian rights group, says those protections are key to a functioning democracy.
The court cases under way in Western Australia are not taking place in isolation.
They are part of a broader national crackdown which has seen Australian states criminalise disruptive protests through new laws, increased jail terms and penalties. This has sparked public outcry. In May, after several Extinction Rebellion protests, the South Australia government introduced a A$50,000 maximum fine and three months jail for anyone "recklessly" obstructing public spaces, while laws passed in New South Wales last year created a two-year maximum prison sentence for acts disrupting major roads or facilities. [...]
According to Ms Grix, these tools were originally intended to deal with gangs and drug dealers. "To apply [that]... to climate defenders, who are protesting about environmental concerns, seems to be a massive overreach," she says. Prof McNamara agrees. "What we see in these situations is the police reaching for whatever is at their disposal," he told the BBC. "Counterterrorism policing units and associated powers were never intended to be used against protesters." In the coming days, several court hearings will determine whether Mr Mazza and some of his peers could face prison. But the 31-year-old says that while "climate and culture" remain under threat, he will "not be deterred" from protesting. Read more - Lire plus
| |
UK police shouldn't have stopped French publisher under anti-terror laws, an independent review says | |
|
AP 21/07/2023 - London police should not have used counter-terrorism powers to question and detain a French publisher at a train station in April on suspicion he might have been involved in violent protests, a report released Friday concluded.
Ernest Moret was on his way to the London Book Fair on April 17 when he was stopped by counter-terror border officers at St. Pancras Station, questioned for nearly five hours and then arrested and held overnight for refusing to provide the passcode to his phone — even though officers concluded he posed no threat to national security.
Jonathan Hall, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said officers should not have used Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which gives them exceptional powers to root out terrorists, to determine if Moret had been involved in the turbulent pension reform demonstrations that had roiled France for months.
“The problem with exercising counterterrorism powers to investigate whether an individual is a peaceful protestor or a violent protestor is that it is using a sledge-hammer to crack a nut,” Hall said. Moret's lawyer said the Metropolitan Police needs to apologize and pay his client for jailing him and damaging his reputation. “The report is a complete vindication of our client’s stance, citing his right to privacy, in refusing to supply his personal data to police,” attorney Richard Parry said. “The police demand was totally unjustified.”
The Metropolitan Police said in a statement it would refer the matter to the Independent Office of Police Conduct that investigates misconduct complaints and would review the findings. Read more - Lire plus
| |
Apple slams UK surveillance-bill proposals | |
BBC 20/07/2023 - Apple says it will remove services such as FaceTime and iMessage from the UK rather than weaken security if new proposals are made law and acted upon. The government is seeking to update the Investigatory Powers Act (IPA) 2016.
It wants messaging services to clear security features with the Home Office before releasing them to customers.
The act lets the Home Office demand security features are disabled, without telling the public. Under the update, this would have to be immediate. Currently, there has to be a review, there can also be an independent oversight process and a technology company can appeal before taking any action. Because of the secrecy surrounding these demands, little is known about how many have been issued and whether they have been complied with. But many messaging services currently offer end-to-end encryption - so messages can be unscrambled by only the devices sending and receiving them.
WhatsApp and Signal are among the platforms to have opposed a clause in the Online Safety Bill allowing the communications regulator to require companies to install technology to scan for child-abuse material in encrypted messaging apps and other services. They will not comply with it, they say, with Signal threatening to "walk" from the UK. Apple has also opposed the plan. The government has opened an eight-week consultation on the proposed amendments to the IPA., which already enables the storage of internet browsing records for 12 months and authorises the bulk collection of personal data.
Apple has consistently opposed the act, originally dubbed a "snooper's charter" by critics. Its submission to the current consultation is nine pages long, opposing:
- having to tell the Home Office of any changes to product security features before they are released
- the requirement for non-UK-based companies to comply with changes that would affect their product globally - such as providing a backdoor to end-to-end encryption
- having to take action immediately if a notice to disable or block a feature is received from the Home Office, rather than waiting until after the demand has been reviewed or appealed against
Apple says:
- It would not make changes to security features specifically for one country that would weaken a product for all users.
- Some changes would require issuing a software update so could not be made secretly
-
The proposals "constitute a serious and direct threat to data security and information privacy" that would affect people outside the UK. Read more - Lire plus
| |
Terrorism trial of 17 Kurdish journalists, media worker begins in Turkey | |
|
CPJ 11/07/2023 - In response to Tuesday’s opening of the trial of 17 Kurdish journalists and a media worker on terrorism charges in a court in Diyarbakır, Turkey, the Committee to Protect Journalists issued the following statement:
“Turkish authorities must immediately release the defendants and drop the terrorism charges, which are solely based on their journalistic work,” said Özgür Öğret, CPJ’s Turkey representative. “Turkish authorities should also take necessary steps to ensure that pretrial arrest cannot be weaponized against the members of the press.”
The journalists and media worker were charged with membership in the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). They are employed by local ARİ, PEL, and PİYA production companies and produce Kurdish-focused shows and content, which the indictment alleged were propaganda for PKK. The government has designated PKK as a terrorist organization. The defendants — 15 of whom have been under pretrial arrest for 13 months — have denied the charges and, if convicted, face up to 15 years imprisonment under Turkey’s anti-terrorism laws.
Turkey was the world’s fourth-worst jailer of journalists, with 40 behind bars at the time of CPJ’s December 1, 2022, prison census. Of those, more than half were Kurdish journalists.
CPJ’s email to the Diyarbakır chief prosecutor’s office did not receive a response.
Editor’s note: On Thursday, July 12, Duvar English reported that the court decided to release 15 of the imprisoned defendants pending trial. CPJ welcomed the releases, but said they should never have been imprisoned in the first place. Source
‘Arbitrary Persecution’: How Turkey Uses Vague Terror Law to Jail its Critics
Sweden’s highest court rejects extradition requests for two men wanted by Turkey
“A Historic Mistake”: Swedish Peace Activist Decries Move to Join NATO & Abandon Neutrality
| |
Philippines government designates as terrorists 4 Cordillera IP activists | |
|
philstar global 11/07/2023 - The Anti-Terrorism Council has designated four leaders of rights group Cordillera Peoples Alliance — who have reported being on the receiving end of harassment for years and who recently had rebellion charges against them dismissed — as terrorists. Activists and human rights defenders criticized the designation, which they said shows how the controversial anti-terrorism law is being used against government critics and to suppress dissent.
In a press statement published on Manila Times Monday, the ATC said it had approved a resolution designating Cordillera activists Sarah Alikes, Jennifer Awingan, Windel Bolinget and Stephen Tauli as terrorists. May Vargas-Casilao and a certain Jovencio Tangbanwan were also designated as terrorists. The council accused them as members of the Communist Party of the Philippines and its armed wing New People’s Army. [...]
‘Activists are not terrorists’
“We condemn in the highest terms these relentless attacks against indigenous peoples activists. Clearly, the ATA is used as an instrument to stifle dissent and target activists,” the CPA—a federation of indigenous peoples’ organizations in the Cordilleras—said in a statement. Bolinget, who chairs the CPA, denied the accusation of the ATC.
“I am not a terrorist. I am proud that I am an activist. Activism is not terrorism. I condemn this ATC designation that I am a terrorist. Those who persecute activists and human rights defenders are the real terrorists. Junk terror law,” he said on Facebook.
The designation was the latest in a string of attacks the four CPA leaders have faced for years.
Earlier this year, the four CPA leaders and three other Cordillera- and Ilocos-based activists were charged with rebellion. The case was dismissed in May. In February 2018, Bolinget was included in a “proscription list” of more than 600 individuals who were allegedly members of the CPP-NPA. His name, as well as the names of most persons that were included in the list, was later removed.
Then in August 2018, police filed murder charges against him and several others for the killing of Garito Tiklonay Malibato in Davao del Norte. The case was dismissed for lack of probable cause in July 2021. Tauli, a member of the regional council of CPA, was abducted near the CPA office on Aug. 20, 2022. According to rights group Karapatan, he was interrogated about his work and was coerced into signing a document stating his position in the CPP-NPA. He was found on the night of August 21.
Meanwhile, Awingan was arrested on rebellion charges on January 30, and was released eight days after posting bail. In February 2017, Alikes was arrested on cases of arson and robbery. She was released on bail after two days in jail, and eventually the charges against her were dismissed.
“The designation list is a virtual hit-list. We condemn the ATC for unjustly, arbitrarily and maliciously designating political activists as terrorist individuals and endangering their lives, safety and security in the process,” Karapatan Secretary-General Cristina Palabay said. CPA has been supporting indigenous communities in Cordillera who are opposing dam projects that will disturb the region’s ecosystems and disrupt people’s livelihoods. Read more - Lire plus
Supreme Court urged to review ‘dangerous provisions’ of anti-terrorism law
| |
Hong Kong Prosecutors Gain New Powers In National Security Trials | |
|
AFP 12/07/2023 - Hong Kong prosecutors on Wednesday gained new powers to challenge High Court judges' decisions to acquit people in national security trials, which allows for defendants to be re-arrested and detained even if they are found not guilty.
Dozens of activists and opposition figures are awaiting trial under Hong Kong's national security law, which was imposed by Beijing in 2020 after the finance hub saw huge and sometimes violent pro-democracy protests. Prosecutors have so far secured a 100 percent conviction rate under the security law, but officials argued that the rule change was needed to plug legal loopholes.
The new rules "prevent possible cases of miscarriage of justice", secretary for justice Paul Lam said Wednesday after the bill passed without opposition in the city's legislature -- which is stacked with Beijing loyalists. A former British colony, Hong Kong follows the common law tradition that features jury trials and rules that forbid a court from trying a person twice for the same crime.
Under the new rules, if a security trial defendant is acquitted by the High Court, prosecutors can challenge the ruling and ask for a retrial. If the appeal is granted, the case will be reheard at the High Court level, with the new verdict overriding the previous one. Previously, prosecutors were barred from appealing certain types of acquittals. Defendants have the right to appeal their conviction and sentence at appellate courts.
Beyond national security cases, the amendment also affects ordinary criminal cases.
Under the new rules, if a High Court judge rules that a defendant can walk free because the case against them is too weak, prosecutors will now be permitted to contest those acquittals -- which are known as "no case to answer". This will trigger a retrial if their challenge succeeds. The new amendments also impose restrictions on media reporting on the appeal "to ensure a fair trial", though the limits could be "relaxed". Source
| |
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. | |
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.
| |
Canada must protect Hassan Diab! | |
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.
| |
20 years of fighting deportation to torture: Justice for Mohamed Harkat Now! | |
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
| |
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. | |
OTHER NEWS - AUTRES NOUVELLES | |
January to June 2023 - Janvier à juin 2023 | |
|
Here is what we worked on so far this year thanks to the support of our members and donors:
- Bill C-20, Public Complaints and Review Commission Act
- Bill C-26, An Act respecting cyber security and amending the Telecommunications Act
- Bill C-27, Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022
- Bill C-41: International assistance and anti-terrorism laws
- Canadians detained in Northeastern Syria
- Justice for Dr Hassan Diab & reform of the Extradition Act
- Combatting Islamophobia
- Countering terrorist financing & prejudiced audits of Muslim charities
- National Security and Intelligence Review Agency
- CSIS accountability and duty of candour
- CSE, surveillance and cyberwarfare
- Facial Recognition Technology (FRT)
-
“Online harms” proposal
- Canada’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR)
- Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights and Counter-terrorism
- UN Counterterrorism Executive Directorate Canada assessment
- UN Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights global survey on counterterrorism and civic space
For more details on each item and to see all the media articles we were mentioned in or were interviewed for, click here.
What we have planned for the rest of 2023!
- 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 transparency and accountability 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
- Pressuring lawmakers to protect our civil liberties from the negative impact of national security and the “war on terror”, as well as 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!
Version française: Ce que nous avons fait jusqu'à présent en 2023
| |
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!
| | | | |
