|
International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
Coalition pour la surveillance internationale des libertés civiles
December 6, 2025 - 6 décembre 2025
| | The News Digest will return in 2026. La Revue de l'actualité sera de retour en 2026. | |
Updated action Stop Moe Harkat's deportation to torture!
| |
ICLMG 10/12/2025 - December 10, 2025 - ironically International Human Rights Day - will mark 23 years since Mohamed Harkat was arrested and put under a security certificate despite never having been charged, let alone convicted of any crime.
For Mr. Harkat, it's been more than two decades of fighting deportation to torture, harassment and intrusive surveillance, arbitrary detention, solitary confinement, secret trials, PTSD: enough is enough!
We call for justice for Moe Harkat now!
Please send an email to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety - another one if you have already - urging them to stop the deportation to torture of Mohamed Harkat once and for all.
- Your letter will also go to your Member of Parliament, along with the ministers of Justice & of Immigration.
-
Don't hesitate to also sign and share this petition supported by more than 73,000 people!
TAKE ACTION - PASSEZ À L'ACTION
| | Coalition Calls on Government to Withdraw Rights-Violating Hate Crime Bill C-9 | |
ICLMG 03/12/2025 - On December 3rd, 2025, at a news conference in Ottawa, a coalition of civil society organizations call on the Liberal government to withdraw Bill C-9, its proposed legislation aimed at combatting hate crime.
Speaking with reporters are Khaled Al-Qazzaz (Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council), Nir Hagigi (Independent Jewish Voices), Alex Silas (Public Service Alliance of Canada), Tim McSorley (International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group), Rachelle Friesen (Legal Support Committee), and Senator Yuen Pau Woo.
Watch the full press conference here, our National Coordinator’s remarks at 3:52, and/or read the transcript of his remarks below.
ICLMG's REMARKS
[...] While the components of Bill C-9 may appear to be measured and proportionate in order to address hate crimes in Canada, a closer examination of the details of the bill raise significant concerns around threats to free expression, freedom of assembly and the ability for the public to engage in protest and dissent. In short, it would threaten a swathe of Charter protected rights of Canadians and people in Canada.
For example, we are deeply concerned with provisions of the bill that will link the criminalization of the wilful promotion of hatred by the public display of certain symbols to Canada’s terrorist entities list. The public is rightly concerned when individuals call for hate based violence against any community or person, whether through the use of certain symbols or not.
However, these new provisions would go much further, by granting police broad, discretionary powers to arrest individuals based on the police officers’ interpretation of the symbols or signs individuals display at protests.
Over the past several months, we have seen heated arguments and accusations that certain symbols associated with protests in support of Palestinian human rights are either hateful, are associated with a terrorist entity, or both. Peaceful and lawful protests have been unjustly accused of fomenting hate based on the signs and slogans that they carry or chant.
Under this new legislation, police could make a determination, in the middle of a march or protest, not just of what constitutes a symbol associated with one of Canada’s 86 listed terrorist entities. The concept of a symbol that is “used by” or associated with is very open ended, given that terrorist entities may use, adopt or co-opt or even simply use images or slogans that the members of the public may also use. This could include not just the outright display of a flag of a terrorist group, for example, but also an individual wearing a keffiyeh or displaying a disputed symbol or slogan on a sign.
This is made more complicated by the fact that police would be empowered to make the decision that a symbol so nearly resembles the symbol associated with a terrorist entity. For example, would Arabic writing on a sign that a police officer believes is similar enough to writing found on imagery used by a listed terrorist entity be enough to arrest an individual? Or would a banner or even clothing of a certain color, if also used by a terrorist organization, be viewed as violating the law? And this confusion would of course apply to all 86 listed entities, and could impact protests from a broad range of communities across the political spectrum.
These issues raise important questions of “guilt by association” or the tarring of entire movements with suspicion. We have seen this throughout the last twenty years of anti-terrorism measures, and acutely over the last two years during protests or rallies, in academic settings, or even in parliamentary committee meetings.
Finally, we are also troubled by the fact that the symbols in question are based on the Terrorist Entities List, which itself is a problematic tool.
Serious issues with Canada’s terrorist listing procedure include: the imposition of serious financial and possibly criminal consequences on the basis of unaccountable, secret executive listing decisions; the use of secret evidence; and the absence of adequate avenues for challenging listings and obtaining redress. Decisions to list or not list can also be political in nature.
Underlying it all is the ambiguity of the language around in what instances these images would be banned. While the government says it would only be in circumstances where the symbols are used to wilfully promote hatred – and not just the simple display of images themselves. But a careful reading of the legislation, particularly in French, makes it clear that the display of the images themselves could be seen as the incitement to hatred. Combined with the discretionary nature of what is a banned symbol, it escalates the very real possibility of individuals being arrested for simply expressing a political opinion, challenging the Canadian or foreign governments, or speaking out against the status quo.
We are also greatly concerned that instead of addressing this overreach and the chill on free speech it will entail, both Conservative and Liberal MPs are proposing, in committee at clause by clause right now, to add new provisions that will further entrench and escalate these risks.
MPs are proposing a new offence that harkens back to much maligned and protested Bill C-51 under the Harper Conservative government, that the Liberal government eventually overturned. At the time, it was recognized by legal experts, civil liberties and human rights advocates, and MPs themselves, that an offence of “advocating terrorism offences in general” would not survive a charter challenge because of its undue limits on free expression. Now, though, MPs are looking to establish an even broader offence of “promotion of a terrorist group, terrorist activity or activity of a terrorist group.”
Given the discretionary and political nature of what and who defines what is a terrorist group or activity, and the vagueness and overly-broad nature of “promotion”, such an offence would once again certainly violate free expression of people in Canada and send a chill throughout the population. The Canadian criminal code already outlaws the counselling, instructing or assisting in a terrorist activity, or supporting a terrorist organization. These amendments are going in the wrong direction, and we are urging MPs to reverse course immediately. Source
UPDATED ACTION Withdraw Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act: a threat to our rights and freedoms!
+ Share the action on Bluesky + Instagram + Facebook + Twitter
ACTION CMPAC phone call campaign to reject C-9
Joint statement: Bill C-9 Should Not Be Passed: A Cross-Country Multi Faith Canadian Call to Defend Civil Liberties
Le projet de loi contre la haine menace le droit de manifester pacifiquement au Canada
| | Rights Groups Issue Urgent Warning Ahead of Critical C-12 Vote | Blocked From Testifying, Civil Society Groups Urge Withdrawal of Bill C-12 Citing Threats to Human Rights and to Fundamental Justice | | |
ICLMG 24/11/2025 - At a news conference in Ottawa, a coalition of civil society groups call for the withdrawal of the federal government’s border security bill (C-12). Watch it here.
Speaking with reporters are Gauri Sreenivasan (Canadian Council for Refugees), Tamir Israel (Canadian Civil Liberties Association), Louis-Philippe Jannard (Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes, Front Commun Contre le Projet de Loi C-12), Nick Boyce (Canadian Drug Policy Coalition), Tonny Muzira (Centre for Black Development Options Canada), and Karen Cocq (Migrant Rights Network).
As a member of the network of organizations holding today’s press conference, the ICLMG supports the ongoing call to withdraw Bill C-12, which will significantly undermine the Charter rights and civil liberties of people across Canada, and especially migrants and refugees already facing threats to their safety.
“It is unacceptable that the Liberal government continues to use the excuse of protecting ‘national security’ to justify laws that will make people across Canada less safe, that threaten our privacy, that erode protections for migrants and refugees, and that will force people back to countries where their lives and rights are threatened. MPs must vote against this bill, and the government must recommit to meeting its domestic and international human rights obligations towards migrants and refugees,” said Tim McSorley, ICLMG national coordinator.
PRESS RELEASE
[...] “This deeply concerning and highly controversial legislation will put many refugees in danger, risking their return to persecution in violation of rights protected under the Charter and international law,” said Gauri Sreenivasan, Co-Executive Director of the Canadian Council of Refugees. “And yet the bill is moving at break neck speed through Parliament while those with expertise and lived experience who want to advise on its dangers are shut out of the process. Neither the law nor the public interest is being served.”
The bill will deny many refugees access to fair and independent assessment and full appeal of their claims by the Immigration and Refugee Board because of arbitrary time limits and exclusions. This approach will not streamline Canada’s processing of refugee claims, but will lead to lower quality decisions while shifting backlogs to our already overburdened Federal Courts and to IRCC.
The bill will also compound harm arising from the Canada-US Safe Third Country Agreement, which abandons many refugees to the U.S. immigration system at a time when well documented human rights violations have become the dominant feature of that system.
”Bill C-12 would deny protection to vulnerable people irrespective of changes to their personal circumstances or political conditions back home. So many people like me, who sought safety here and have made lives here, would be shut out by this Bill. This isn’t just policy, it’s people’s lives,” said Tonny Muzira, Co-Founder & Director of Advocacy and Partnerships Centre for Black Development Options Canada. “Canada cannot turn its back on those seeking safety.”
Under Bill C-12, the government will also be able to cancel or suspend immigration documents and applications based on an undefined assessment of the “public interest”. This power grants dangerous discretionary power to the government without any individualized assessment or procedural safeguards.
“The bill sets up open-ended powers with little thought to the consequences and inevitable abuse”, said Louis-Philippe Jannard, of the Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes (TCRI). “We haven’t seen such broad, discretionary powers in our immigration system since the 1970’s, when their abuse led to rampant discrimination and fatal decisions.”
Bill C-12 would also authorize the government to share highly sensitive immigration information with few limitations. This includes changes in gender identity and the status of any refugee claimants, exposing vulnerable people in Canada to severe risk.
“Broad dissemination of sensitive personal information can place migrants and refugees at significant risk of discrimination and persecution in Canada and abroad”, said Tamir Israel, Director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association’s Privacy, Surveillance and Technology Program. “Despite this significant potential for abuse, Bill C-12 lacks minimum safeguards like the need to ensure information sharing is necessary and proportionate.”
Bill C-12 also doubles down on prohibition-based drug policy that has demonstrably failed to protect public health and safety.
“Instead of funding affordable housing and other health and social supports, Canada is supporting U.S.-led militarized drug enforcement,” said Nick Boyce, from the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition. “If Canada follows this path, it will be complicit in violations of international human rights law.”
In disregard of the dire risks posed by this legislative proposal, the bill has been fast-tracked and received minimal consideration in Parliament. It is scheduled for a final vote by the Standing Committee on Public Safety tomorrow—just three weeks after its study of the bill began.
Despite the highly attenuated timeline, dozens of refugee and migrant groups, human rights groups, labour organizations, health advocacy groups, representatives of the Black community, gender based violence groups, legal professional bodies, drug policy groups and others requested to speak at committee hearings but were denied. They have also submitted briefs expressing concern regarding Bill C-12’s consequences.
These groups were largely absent from committee proceedings and MPs will not have the time to consider the long list of concerns raised by these submissions. In contrast, MPs heard repeatedly from border and policing agencies and officials. The end result is that the voices of those most impacted by Bill C-12 have not been heard.
“MPs and the public should be extremely concerned that the government is fast-tracking legislation that will only multiply the possibility of discrimination, exploitation, and violations of human rights,” said Karen Cocq of the Migrant Rights Network. “ This government got elected promising to reject Trump-style politics, but Bill C-12 is the opposite of that. This bill cannot be fixed, it must be withdrawn.” Source
Bill C-12 could return to the House after a problematic committee study next week!
NEW ACTION STOP Bill C-12: Call Your MP Now!
NOUVELLE ACTION NON au projet de loi C-12: appelez votre député-e maintenant!
The Liberal government is bringing back Bill C-2, the "Strong Borders" Act, at 2nd reading in Parliament next week! Please take action again to remind them that we don't want the rights-violating Bills C-2 and C-12!
Stop Bill C-2, Bill C-12 and protect our rights! + Share on Bluesky + Facebook + Instagram + Twitter
| | Mapping the Threat: How Recent Federal Bills Would Erode Our Rights and Freedoms | | |
Centre for Free Expression TMU 26/11/2025 - In a series of its first proposed laws, the Carney government seems to be targeting essential rights and freedoms long valued in Canada -- Strong Borders Act (Bill C-2), Act respecting Cybersecurity (C-8), Combatting Hate Act (C-9), and Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act (C-12). What may appear as isolated legislative changes form a broader picture of creeping restrictions on privacy, expression and civic participation essential in a democratic society. Why is the government doing this? Are there better alternatives? Join a panel of leading experts exploring these questions.
Cosponsored by PEN Canada.
Panelists:
- Karen Cocq, Co-Executive Director, Migrant Workers Alliance for Change
- Tamir Israel, Director, Privacy, Surveillance and Technology Program, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
- Tim McSorley, National Coordinator, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
- Rizwan Mohammad, Senior Advocacy Officer, Government Affairs & Public Policy, National Council of Canadian Muslims
Moderator: Matt Hatfield, Executive Director, OpenMedia
Cosigned by more than 40 lawyers and legal practitioners: Carney’s Bill C-12 brings back a dark chapter in Canada’s immigration policy
‘Unprecedented’: Canada’s new border bills pave the way for American law enforcement overreach
Video: Is Lawful Access Back? With comments on the govt's' disinformation-filled attempt to revive it
| | Pour un rejet du paradigme du «terrorisme» | |
Une contribution co-présentée au Rapporteur Spécial sur les droits humains et la lutte antiterroriste.
The contribution should be posted on our website in English in the new year.
| |
ICLMG & LDL 05/12/2025 - La Ligue des droits et libertés et la Coalition pour la surveillance internationale des libertés civiles ont présenté, le 1er décembre 2025, une contribution au Rapporteur spécial sur les droits de l’homme et la lutte antiterroriste intitulée Pour un rejet du paradigme de « terrorisme », dans le cadre de son appel à contributions : définitions des termes « terrorisme », « organisation terroriste » et « extrémisme violent. »
Table des matières
1. Rejeter le paradigme du « terrorisme » en droit international
Un exercice vain.
Un exercice non nécessaire.
2. Canada: une Loi antiterroriste dangereuse et instrumentalisée.
Une législation inutile.
Une législation dangereuse.
La liste canadienne des entités terroristes : carte blanche à l’arbitraire.
Projet de loi C-9 : nouveau recul des droits s’appuyant sur la liste des entités terroristes.
3. Une dérive observable mondialement, sous prétexte de lutte au terrorisme.
Conclusion
1. Rejeter le paradigme du « terrorisme » en droit international
À l’automne 2025, le Rapporteur spécial des Nations unies sur les droits de l’homme et la lutte antiterroriste a lancé un appel à contributions visant à « identifier un modèle de définition internationale du terrorisme conforme au droit international, y compris le droit international des droits humains, le droit international humanitaire et le droit international des réfugiés »[1]. Le Rapporteur spécial formule dix questions détaillées auxquelles les intervenant·es sont invité·es à répondre afin d’établir les balises d’une telle définition.
La « lutte contre le terrorisme » et la multiplication des définitions du terme « terrorisme » sont une cause majeure de violations des droits humains ainsi que du droit international à travers le monde[2]. La Ligue des droits et libertés et la Coalition pour la surveillance internationale des libertés civiles (CSILC), deux organisations de défense des droits humains basées au Canada, soumettent qu’il est non seulement vain de tenter de proposer une définition du « terrorisme » qui pourrait être universellement reconnue en droit international, mais que cet exercice n’est pas nécessaire, car le terme « terrorisme » n’est pas une notion nécessaire et essentielle en droit international.
Un exercice vain
D’une part, cet exercice serait vain, en raison de la politisation et de l’instrumentalisation du terme « terrorisme » à des fins d’intérêts géopolitiques par les États. Cela n’est pas étranger au fait que les travaux et les négociations sur le projet d’une convention générale contre le terrorisme international n’ont pas abouti depuis 2001.
Alors que jusqu’à la fin du 19e siècle, le terme « terrorisme » désignait les actes de violence d’un gouvernement contre sa propre population (« terrorisme d’État » ou « terrorisme parrainé par l’État »), son sens a subi une transformation de sorte que son sens dominant « se situe à l’antipode de ses racines ». Il est associé principalement à l’action d’acteurs non étatiques[3], incluant souvent des mouvements de libération nationale et de décolonisation. […]
Mentionnons également que sur le plan politique, le terme « terrorisme » est souvent utilisé par des gouvernements pour discréditer des groupes et mouvements contestataires, sans égard à la nature de leurs actions.
Un exercice non nécessaire
D’autre part, cet exercice ne nous apparait pas nécessaire, car le terme « terrorisme » n’est pas essentiel et nécessaire en droit international. En effet, tel que le démontre la professeure de droit international de l’Université du Québec en Outaouais Camille Marquis Bissonnette : « [L]e terme « terrorisme » n’est pas essentiel au paysage juridique international en ce qu’il comprend des phénomènes et des crimes qui sont tous englobés par d’autres termes juridiques existants[4] ». Nous distinguons à cet égard les actes commis en « temps de conflit armé » et ceux commis en « temps de paix » :
En temps de conflit armé, par exemple, ce qui est couramment désigné par les médias ou les États comme du terrorisme est généralement couvert par d’autres qualifications du droit international humanitaire, qui peuvent qui plus est constituer des crimes de guerre : prise d’otages, attaque indiscriminée, attaque contre la population civile, attaque contre des biens culturels, usage de boucliers humains, etc. […]
En temps de paix, par ailleurs, les actes désignés comme terroristes sont déjà criminalisés en droit commun sous d’autres noms : meurtre, enlèvement, détournement de moyens de transport, trahison, destruction de propriété, atteinte aux agents de l’État, etc.[5]
[…] Enfin, et tel que le documentent de nombreux rapports du Rapporteur spécial, les multiples législations nationales relatives au « terrorisme » à travers le monde sont une source importante de violations des droits humains et du droit international.
Nous sommes ainsi d’avis qu’une définition de « terrorisme » en droit international échouerait à prévenir ce genre d’instrumentalisation politique, d’arbitraire et de traitement différencié, dans son application par les États. La voie à suivre pour éviter que le concept de « terrorisme » soit utilisé pour justifier des violations des droits et libertés serait plutôt de rejeter le paradigme qu’il sous-tend, sachant que des infractions criminelles, moins sensibles aux aléas politiques et à l’arbitraire existent déjà en droit commun.
2. Canada: une Loi antiterroriste dangereuse et instrumentalisée
La Loi antiterroriste a fait l’objet de vives critiques de la société civile depuis 2001. De nombreuses organisations, dont les nôtres, se sont opposées à son adoption et ont demandé son abrogation à plusieurs occasions. Cette loi, adoptée dans la précipitation en décembre 2001, a modifié une vingtaine de lois, principalement le Code criminel, la Loi sur la preuve et la Loi sur les secrets officiels. Il s’agit d’une législation inutile et dangereuse pour les droits humains.
Une législation inutile
Elle est d’une part inutile, car le Code criminel et la législation canadienne contiennent amplement de dispositions permettant aux forces policières d’intervenir. À cet égard, l’Association du Barreau canadien a compilé en 2001 une longue liste de lois en vigueur permettant déjà de faire face à des actes pouvant relever du « terrorisme »[7].
Il convient de mentionner que l’auteur de la tuerie de masse islamophobe la plus importante survenue au Canada depuis 2001 a été poursuivi et accusé en vertu de dispositions du Code criminel n’ayant pas trait au terrorisme, soit meurtre avec préméditation et tentatives de meurtre. L’événement a eu lieu le 29 janvier 2017, lorsqu’un jeune homme blanc se rend au Centre culturel islamique de Québec, à l’heure de la prière, et décharge son arme sur les personnes présentes. Il tue 6 hommes musulmans et en blesse 19 autres. Cet attentat islamophobe n’a pas été traité comme un acte terroriste, bien qu’il ait été motivé par une haine antimusulmane. Plusieurs ont critiqué le traitement différencié dans la désignation des crimes violents, soulignant que si le meurtrier avait été musulman, des accusations en vertu de la législation sur le terrorisme auraient certainement été déposées, illustrant à nouveau le caractère arbitraire du concept de « terrorisme ».
Une législation dangereuse
La Loi antiterroriste est d’autre part dangereuse pour la protection des droits humains. Au nom de la « lutte contre la terreur », elle nie ou affaiblit considérablement la protection de plusieurs droits et libertés au fondement d’une société libre et démocratique. Tel que nos organisations en font état dans plusieurs mémoires au sujet de cette législation, il s’agit notamment de la présomption d’innocence; du droit à la vie privée et à la protection contre les fouilles, perquisitions et saisies abusives, entre autres intrusions; du droit de ne pas être importuné, interrogé, arrêté et détenu sur la base d’un simple soupçon ou d’un profilage racial, religieux ou ethnique; du droit à un procès public, juste et équitable, et du droit d’appel; du droit à une défense pleine et entière; du droit d’être protégé contre l’emprisonnement arbitraire et la torture; du droit au cautionnement en attendant son procès et de faire contrôler la légalité de son incarcération par habeas corpus; du droit d’asile; du droit à l’information et à la liberté de la presse; de la liberté d’expression, dont le droit de manifester publiquement et collectivement[8].
Également, dans le domaine de l’immigration et de la protection des personnes réfugiées, un mécanisme particulièrement préoccupant consiste à déclarer interdit de territoire, sur la base de « motifs raisonnables de croire », toute personne non citoyenne présumée appartenir à une organisation ayant commis des actes « terroristes »[9]. Fréquemment utilisé contre des personnes demandeuses d’asile, ce mécanisme entraîne leur déportation sans examen de la demande d’asile, y compris vers des situations où elles courent un risque réel de persécution, de torture ou même de mort, alors qu’aucune participation personnelle à des actes de violence n’a à être démontrée. De nombreuses personnes érythréennes ont ainsi été déclarées interdites de territoire au Canada pour le seul motif d’avoir, d’une manière ou d’une autre, soutenu la libération de l’Érythrée, y compris par des activités purement civiles et non violentes[10]. Cela illustre comment la notion de « terrorisme » sert à contourner les garanties du droit des personnes réfugiées et justifier l’exclusion de personnes en quête de protection. [...]
3. Une dérive observable mondialement, sous prétexte de lutte au terrorisme
La situation au Royaume-Uni est particulièrement inquiétante pour les défenseur·ses des droits humains. Après avoir désigné « entité terroriste » le groupe militant « Palestine Action », qui avait perturbé les installations d’Elbit Systems – un fabricant d’armes utilisées par l’armée d’occupation israélienne – le Royaume-Uni a procédé à l’arrestation de centaines de citoyen·nes pacifiques, dont des personnes âgées, des personnes en situation de handicap et des vétérans, pour le simple fait d’avoir affiché une bannière ou un vêtement avec la mention « I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action »[19].
Le Royaume-Uni et les États-Unis sont aussi des exemples de la nature problématique du concept d’ « extrémisme violent ». Non seulement le terme extrémisme est aussi malléable que le terme terrorisme, mais son étymologie se prête parfaitement à villifier les idées éloignées du statu quo, et donc capture souvent les critiques du statu quo, notamment l’opposition aux « valeurs britanniques », telle que le parlementarisme[20] (opposé par exemple par l’anarchisme au profit de la démocratie directe) et l’anti-capitalisme, les opinions « extrêmes sur la migration, la race et le genre » ainsi que les opinions « anti-américanistes »[21].
De plus, les régimes de prévention de l’« extrémisme violent », tel que Prevent au Royaume-Uni, ont été sévèrement critiqués, notamment par Amnesty International UK qui a récemment déclaré :
Conçu comme un outil de « prévention du crime », le programme Prevent est censé nous protéger en identifiant les personnes susceptibles de se radicaliser et de basculer dans le « terrorisme », et en les en empêchant de passer à l’acte. Or, dans les faits, la grande majorité des personnes signalées dans le cadre de ce programme ne représentent aucune menace et ces signalements n’entraînent aucune suite. Prevent porte gravement atteinte à la vie et aux libertés de milliers d’innocent·es et pousse nombre d’entre eux et elles à l’autocensure par crainte d’être dénoncé·es[22]. [notre traduction]
Qui plus est, le fait que les régimes de prévention de l’extrémisme violent se concentrent sur les idées et idéologies des personnes, plutôt que seulement sur les intentions d’user de violence contre autrui, ont mené à des évènements tragiques qui auraient pu être évité – tel que le meurtre de trois enfants, dont l’auteur avait été préalablement signalé trois fois à Prevent en raison de son obsession pour la violence, mais la police n’a pas fait de suivi, ne le considérant pas comme extrémiste en raison d’une « absence d’adhésion à une seule idéologie radicale[23] » – et détourne de précieuses ressources pour la prévention de la violence contre des personnes dans d’autres contextes, tels que les violences racistes et basées sur le genre, qui sont endémiques.
Conclusion
Enfin, au vu de ce qui précède, il nous parait clair que l’usage du terme « terrorisme » sert trop souvent à justifier des atteintes aux droits humains et au droit international, sans être un outil juridique nécessaire et essentiel.
Il convient plutôt, selon nous, de rejeter le paradigme du « terrorisme » et de mettre tous les efforts sur le plan international pour reconnaitre les droits des peuples à l’autodétermination, pour assurer l’exercice des droits civils et politiques, et pour protéger les organisations de la société civile de l’arbitraire, rappelant le droit de défendre les droits. Lire plus - Read more
Bondi orders US law enforcement to investigate 'extremist groups'
Amnesty International UK: The Prevent duty and its chilling effect on human rights
Misuses of the UK Terrorism Act
| | World BEYOND War’s Canada Organizer’s Home Raided By Police | |
WBW 26/11/2025 - WBW Canada Organizer Rachel Small and three other peace activists had their homes raided by police before dawn on Tuesday, with the apparent purpose to frighten and intimidate.
Five people have been charged with crimes for having nonviolently stood up to war criminals at the London Ontario arms fair last month held by Elbit, Lockheed, and other weapons companies.
On Tuesday October 21 more than a hundred people gathered at dawn in London, Ontario, to disrupt one of Canada’s leading military trade shows. Catching the “Best Defence Conference” by surprise, they blockaded entrances, locking out the companies, military, and government reps who had been arming genocide and profiting from war.
The action exposed Canada’s complicity in war crimes at home and abroad, and uplifted the demand for an arms embargo on Israel and an end to Canada’s military expansion. It was covered by major local and national media outlets from CBC, CTV, and the Toronto Star, to London Free Press and the Canadian Press.
Now people with the decency to protest the arming of a genocide are facing enormous legal bills. A fund to assist them has been set up by Showing Up for Racial Justice (SURJ) – Toronto.
__________
UPDATE November 28, 2025: The number of arrestees is six. Rachel Small has been released. Electronic devices were seized indefinitely. Source
Israel increasing violence in Palestine despite Trump’s ‘peace’ deal
PRESS CONFERENCE: Canada's Motion to Strike Genocide Case
ACTION Two Minute Tuesday: Please Help Reunite Palestinian Families from Gaza With Canadian Loved Ones
ACTION Phone Script: Call your MP: Vote YES for the No More Loopholes Act
Liberals Fear Closing Arms Export Loophole Would Anger U.S.
The Ontario Federation of Labour Adopts a “Hot Cargo” Resolution Against Israel
Minister ‘Can’t Confirm’ If Canadian Officers Went To Israeli Seminar
Along with me, public’s right to petition state officials on trial
CJPME alarmed by viral article making unverified and sensational claims linking Canadians to Hamas
EVENT IJV webinar: Global Sanctions Coalition on Dec 16 at 7:30 PM ET
| | Intelligence watchdog facing cuts as Liberals seek new powers for national security agencies | NSIRA says it'll have to reduce investigations, anticipates staffing cuts | |
CJPME Foundation 03/12/2025 - One of the watchdogs meant to keep Canada's intelligence and security activities in check says its ability to scrutinize those powerful organizations will be hindered due to government spending cuts.
The warning from the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA) comes at the same time as the Liberals look to increase, in some cases significantly, the resources of its defence and national security agencies.
NSIRA is an independent body set up in 2019 to review intelligence and security activities conducted by the federal government — including the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) — to make sure it's "lawful, reasonable and necessary." It also reviews public complaints.
During a media briefing Wednesday, the agency said it's part of the government's spending review requiring a 15 per cent budget cut within three years.
NSIRA vice-chair Craig Forcese said that means the team will have to reduce the number of reviews it takes on.
"We'll have to make difficult decisions," he said.
The cut to the review body comes as the Liberal government looks at granting its intelligence agencies more powers to gather information on Canadians during investigations through Bill C-2, is hiring more RCMP and Canada Border Services Agency officers and is pledging historic spending in defence, including cyber operations.
Over the past few years, NSIRA has called out CSIS for mischaracterizing how it uses new technology to collect information, pointed to bias at the Canada Revenue Agency when it comes to audits tied to terrorism and suggested CSE's use of polygraphs may be violating the Charter.
NSIRA has a statutory mandate to review CSE and CSIS, but Forcese suggested wrongdoing outside that scope may no longer get as much attention.
The agency told reporters it is trying to minimize layoffs, but does anticipate some cuts to staff. It's staffed by experts in national security, policy, technology, law, civil liberties and human rights.
Forcese said he's written to Prime Minister Mark Carney seeking more funding, but hasn't heard back. The letter was first reported by the National Post.
Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree says the government worked to shield "core" public safety agencies from cuts — like the RCMP and the border agency.
"Like many organizations within the government, NSIRA is one that will be impacted," he said. "I look forward to working with them to ensure that while there will be expenditure reductions, it's not in areas that will impact their future." Source
Intel watchdog cancelled CSIS review because of lack of legal protection for staff
Prime Minister Carney announces an appointment to the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency
Une Gendarmerie royale laissée sans surveillance
| | Canada court upholds immigration bar on Iranian over IRGC conscription | |
Iran Intl 26/11/2025 - Canadian federal judge has upheld an immigration officer’s decision to deny permanent residency to an Iranian asylum seeker because of his mandatory military service in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
In a decision issued on Monday, Justice Anne Turley dismissed Mohammadreza Vadiati’s application for judicial review, finding that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) had acted fairly and reasonably when it ruled him inadmissible under section 34(1)(f) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), which bars members of terrorist organizations.
Vadiati, who served two years as a conscript in the IRGC before seeking asylum in Canada, argued that his service was involuntary and that immigration officials failed to account for coercion or the impact on his family.
The court rejected those claims, saying he was given a full opportunity to respond to officials’ concerns.
“The applicant has failed to establish any procedural unfairness in the decision-making process,” Justice Turley wrote, concluding that conscription in the IRGC “does not negate membership in the group” under the immigration law.
Ottawa formally listed the IRGC as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code in June 2024.
Under Canada’s anti-terrorism laws, membership in or support for a listed terrorist entity can result in inadmissibility, asset freezes, and criminal penalties.
The listing of the IRGC – which Canada blames for human rights abuses and the 2020 downing of flight PS752 – has broad implications for thousands of Iranian nationals who performed compulsory service.
Canadian politicians, including MP Kevin Vuong and Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc, have said the listing aims to curb Tehran’s influence in Canada and prevent IRGC-linked individuals from operating on Canadian soil.
The court also confirmed that humanitarian or family reunification arguments cannot override terrorism-related inadmissibility findings under the IRPA. Source
| | Trump’s halting of asylum claims prompts fresh calls to suspend Safe Third Country Agreement | |
The Globe and Mail 02/12/2025 - Lawyers and refugee experts say U.S. President Donald Trump’s announcement that his country will halt all asylum claims should prompt the Canadian government to suspend the Safe Third Country Agreement, which they say is now unworkable.
The agreement mandates that asylum seekers must make a claim in the first country they arrive in, which allows Canada to turn away potential refugee claimants who enter the country from the United States as it is considered safe there.
Mr. Trump said last week that his administration would suspend asylum claims after the shooting of two National Guard soldiers in Washington. The suspect has been identified as a 29-year-old Afghan national who worked with the CIA during the Afghanistan War.
Fen Hampson, president of the World Refugee & Migration Council and a professor of international affairs at Carleton University, said Mr. Trump’s decision “puts our government on the horns of a real dilemma.”
“The U.S is no longer providing equivalent protection and Canada faces a significant moral and potentially legal obligation to offer asylum to those who cannot get protection in the U.S.,” he said.
“The Canadian government must now decide whether it wishes to exercise its authority to suspend the agreement, create a broader exemption or stick with the status quo,” he said in an e-mail. “With tens of thousands of asylum claims still pending in Canada and fears that suspending the [agreement] could lead to increased irregular border crossing, the government may prefer to do nothing.”
The Safe Third Country Agreement with the U.S. took effect in 2004. Initially, it applied only to official ports of entry, but in 2023 was expanded to cover the entire land border to discourage irregular border crossings. The agreement gives either signatory the ability to suspend it if they believe the circumstances require it.
Joseph Edlow, the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said last week on X that the government would pause refugee claims “until we can ensure that every alien is vetted and screened to the maximum degree possible.” That announcement came after Mr. Trump declared he would “permanently pause migration” from all “Third World countries.”
Immigration Minister Lena Diab said she is aware of the policy changes in the United States, though she suggested there are no plans to shift Canada’s participation in the agreement. “As of now, our advice is, we have a safe third-party agreement, and Canada will honour that,” Ms. Diab said in an interview. “For now, we have a plan,” she added. “We’re comfortable with that plan, we’re going to execute that plan.”
The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario have launched a judicial review of the Safe Third Country Agreement, seeking to declare it invalid. Maureen Silcoff, a lawyer who is representing plaintiffs in that case with lawyer Sujit Choudhry, said the agreement requires countries to follow the UN Refugee Convention, but the U.S. has chosen to stop adjudicating asylum claims.
“The agreement itself anticipated that a situation may arise that requires a suspension,” Ms. Silcoff said.
“That day has arrived. The basis for the agreement has evaporated. It was predicated on the U.S. having a functional asylum system. The U.S. suspension of asylum determination means that the very foundation of the agreement has disappeared.”
Lawyer James Yousif, who was policy director to former immigration minister Jason Kenney, said the U.S. government’s decision to halt all refugee claims would likely lead the Federal Court to strike down the Safe Third Country Agreement, which requires what he describes as a “functioning” asylum system.
“The extent of a President’s ability to halt asylum without legislation is unclear. But if asylum is halted and deportations begin, the consequences for Canada will be immediate,” he wrote in an e-mail.
If the pact is struck down, Mr. Yousif said, that would allow millions of people currently in the U.S. who are covered by the Safe Third Country Agreement to apply for asylum here.
Sharry Aiken, a professor at Queen’s University specializing in immigration and refugee law, said Mr. Trump’s latest edict on halting asylum claims is “the nail in the coffin” of the Safe Third Country Agreement.
She said other anti-migrant policies he has enacted should have already prompted the Canadian government to revisit whether it is still valid.
“If we had any doubts before, we shouldn’t now,” she said. “The agreement is predicated on responsibility-sharing, and that people have access to asylum in the U.S.”
Prof. Aiken predicted suspending the agreement is not going to lead to Mr. Trump being “upset with Canada” or a big influx of asylum seekers coming from the U.S.
“If necessary, we need to ensure that the IRB [Immigration and Refugee Board] is adequately resourced to deal with a potential increase in the number of claims,” she said. Source
Trump administration pauses all immigration applications from 19 non-European countries
Trump Collectively Punishes Afghan Community After Wednesday Shooting
“Imperial Blowback”: Suspect in D.C. Shooting Was Part of CIA Death Squad in Afghanistan
“Making America White Again”: Trump Further Restricts Immigration, Ramps Up ICE Raids
Amnesty International report: Torture and Enforced Disappearances in the Sunshine State: Human Rights Violations at “Alligator Alcatraz” and Krome in Florida
| | ICE Wants to Go After Dissenters as well as Immigrants | | |
Brennan Center for Justice 21/11/2025 - U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has embarked on a spending spree, signing contracts worth up to $25 million for a smorgasbord of spy technology: social media monitoring systems, cellphone location tracking, facial recognition, remote hacking tools, and more.
It’s nothing new for ICE to use these to find people to deport, a practice that raises a host of concerns, including heightened surveillance of immigrant communities and the wide-ranging capture of Americans’ personal data.
What’s new is that the federal government now openly says it will use its supercharged spy capabilities to target people who oppose ICE’s actions. Labeled as “domestic terrorists” by the administration, these targets include anti-ICE protesters and anyone who allegedly funds them — all of them part of a supposed left-wing conspiracy to violently oppose the president’s agenda.
This serious threat to free speech and privacy rights protected by the First and Fourth Amendments is not hypothetical, as administration officials are making no secret of their intentions.
In September, President Trump issued a memo ordering federal law enforcement to focus on ideologies that are supposedly motivating “domestic terrorism,” including “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender,” as well as opposition to “foundational American principles (e.g., support for law enforcement and border control).” The memo also highlights anti-ICE activities.
Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons said in a recent interview that his agency intended to probe anti-fascist and anti-ICE protesters and those that support them. “We are going to track the money. We are going to track these ringleaders.” He went on to claim, without evidence, that many of the protesters in Chicago were “professional agitators that are being brought in.”
Lyons said that ICE would be using its powerful but lesser-known Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) division for this effort. This part of ICE usually investigates transnational crimes such as drug trafficking and related money laundering, human smuggling, and customs violations.
Violence against ICE agents or facilities must be investigated, but there is no evidence of any coordinated campaign. The administration has not even provided any support for its oft-repeated claim that assaults against ICE officers have increased by 1,000 percent. Indeed, as evidenced by multiple videos, ICE officers too often use excessive force when interacting with the public. Rather than hold these officers accountable, the administration has pursued multiple cases against the victims of its agents’ violence, claiming that they are terrorists who assaulted, resisted, or impeded federal agents.
In any event, it is unlikely that ICE will restrict itself to investigating physical attacks on its facilities and personnel. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has said that revealing the identities of agents and videotaping them on operations constitutes “violence.” Court documents reportedly show that Border Patrol chief Gregory Bovino believes that all protesters are “violent rioters” and has instructed officers to arrest protesters “who make hyperbolic comments.”
Over the past two decades, the staggering increase in government surveillance abilities has come with warnings that this power could be used to run roughshod over Americans’ free speech and privacy rights. With the Trump administration’s explicit campaign of using federal law enforcement — including ICE — to target its political opponents, that time has come.
Social Media Monitoring
Social media provides government agencies with a wealth of information about Americans: political and religious views, personal and professional connections, health and sexuality, and more. ICE has been acquiring social media surveillance tools for years and has a track record of monitoring protests against its operations.
Homeland Security Investigations recently signed a multimillion dollar contract for a social media monitoring platform called Zignal Labs that claims to ingest and analyze more than 8 billion posts a day. The agency is also paying millions to Penlink for monitoring tools that gather information from multiple sources, including social media platforms, the dark web, and databases of location data. According to the contracts, HSI will use these tools to gather intelligence for investigations into organized crime, trafficking, and terrorism — categories newly expanded by the president’s recent memo to include potentially anyone expressing views the administration dislikes.
ICE’s August 2025 privacy impact assessment for social media monitoring analytic tools says that they will be used to track threats to the agency. But a recent press release shows that the agency is searching not for threats but for any anti-ICE statements. Read more - Lire plus
The number of non-criminal detainees arrested by ICE has surged by 2,000% under Trump. These charts show who's in detention.
A Canadian Company Is Supplying Armoured Cars to ICE
Is Canada Adopting ICE Anti-Migrant Tactics?
“Real” America Is Turning Against Trump’s Mass Deportation Regime
| | The War on Terror Set the Stage for Deadly Caribbean Boat Strikes | | |
Inkstick 04/12/2025 - It appears to be a shocking war crime. According to a recent report, United States Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave orders to “kill everyone” as the military carried out strikes on alleged drug-running boats alleged in the Caribbean Sea . And, it appears that these orders were followed, as a second strike killed survivors of the first known strike. Lawmakers have rightfully reacted with alarm and condemnation. No matter how you look at it, it is critically important not to lose sight of a central truth: Norms built on a bipartisan basis in the post-9/11 era helped this happen.
Upon returning to the Oval Office earlier this year, US President Donald Trump administration made targeting transnational cartels a day-one priority of his second term. In a series of executive orders he signed the day of his inauguration, he denounced cartels’ alleged role in facilitating unauthorized immigration and trafficking drugs into the United States as “insurgency and asymmetric warfare,” a “campaign of violence and terror,” and an “invasion” placing the US under “attack.”
His administration has turned this rhetoric into policy by designating cartels as “terrorists” and launching military strikes against speedboats in international waters the administration claims contain “narco-terrorist” members of designated cartels, without providing evidence. Thus far, such strikes have killed more than 80 people.
The administration’s purported legal authority for this military force has been sparse. What we do know is that the administration has told Congress, and appears to have documented in a secret memo, that it believes the US is engaged in an actual “armed conflict” with the cartels, using the international law term “non-international armed conflict.”
Hegseth himself has said, “These cartels are the Al Qaeda of the Western Hemisphere,” threatening that “they will be hunted, and killed, just like Al Qaeda.” Translation: These killings aren’t murder; they’re just a normal part of war.
Clearly, the Trump administration is claiming war authorities where none exist, as anyone can see that there is no actual state of war. Under international law, a president cannot merely declare an “armed conflict.” Rather, the term is meant to be a factual description of what is happening on the ground when organized parties fight one another at a certain level of intensity. Only in those circumstances do the relatively permissive laws of war actually apply.
The US, however, is no stranger to inappropriately relying on a war paradigm. After the Sept. 11 attacks, it was a policy choice and not an inevitability to launch an actual war in response to a devastating attack that resembled a crime more than a military attack. The idea of the “War on Terror” may have satisfied the vengeful bloodlust many Americans felt after the attack. In practice, though, it was something new, different, and controversial. Conducting an actual war against diffuse networks of nonstate actors was a project determined to fail, which has become all too clear more than two decades later. At the conclusion of the decades-long war on Afghanistan, the Biden administration continued to take the position that some nebulous “armed conflict” still existed.
Of course, once the United States actually invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, this created an actual state of armed conflict on the ground. Conservative estimates indicate the resulting “forever wars” directly killed just shy of a million people directly and indirectly killed more than four million people. These invasions and occupations also displaced tens of millions more.
Still, even within the context of conventional warfare, the US government bent the rules. The Obama administration created a drone “playbook” that twisted the law to claim some of the more expansive targeting rules of the laws of war outside the actual warzones, including in remote areas of Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. As part of the drones program, the US government continued to creatively interpret concepts like “battlefields” and “combatants” beyond recognition. These strikes targeted individuals the administration placed on its kill list based on secret criteria, resulting in the assassination of scores of civilians.
Even “successful” strikes that hit their intended targets were often dubiously justified, as those killed were often not individually proven to be involved in violence against the United States and instead simply fit a profile for so-called “signature strikes” that targeted “three guys doing jumping jacks” or “military-aged males.” Follow-up “double-tap” strikes killed people who sought to rescue those targeted in the original strikes. A strike even targeted and killed an American citizen, and a subsequent strike killed his teenage son, who was also a US citizen. By way of explanation, the Obama administration suggested the child should have had a “more responsible” father.
These rather appalling practices have been strengthened by Congress’s failure to place meaningful checks on the executive branch’s targeted killing power and the courts’ refusal to question presidential decisions around “national security.” Even the family of the American citizens targeted by drone strikes had their cases thrown out of court when they tried to challenge the killings, with the judge declaring, “In this delicate area of warmaking, national security, and foreign relations, the judiciary has an exceedingly limited role.”
From the practice of torture to warrantless surveillance to drone strikes, those victimized by the War on Terror have been stonewalled in the courts by US administrations asserting “state secrets” to block them, and courts deferring to the executive.
There are echoes of this legacy in the Trump administration’s blatant illegalities. We see it in the claims of war authority outside warzones, the use of military force where law enforcement tactics are more appropriate, the targeting of people because their actions suggest illegality rather than in reliance on publicly-available evidence of their individualized wrongdoing, and in the brutality of follow-up strikes to kill people who survived the first.
To be sure, what the Trump administration is doing is a new level of criminality beyond what we’ve seen in the past, based on outright lies and without any real effort to justify themselves on the facts or with the law. But the Trump administration’s vile actions are less of an aberration and more of a continuation and intensification of the War on Terror. Although its claims of warfare and “terrorists” and double-tap strikes are more brazen and preposterous than those of its predecessors, they are built on the same foundation. Perhaps this will be the wake-up call that policymakers need to put real checks on executive killing power, and to finally dismantle the remnants of the War on Terror once and for all. Source
Spencer Ackerman: The South American boat strikes are plainly murders. Pete Hegseth And Adm. Mitch Bradley Belong In Prison
U.S. Has Limited Knowledge of Those It Kills in Boat Strikes
If Trump Cares About Drug Trafficking, Why Is He Pardoning a Convicted Drug Trafficker?
| | Trump Administration Starts Process to Designate Muslim Brotherhood Chapters as Terrorist Organizations | |
Charity and Security 26/11/2025 - The latest in the series of Executive Orders that push false narratives about political movements the Trump administration does not like was released on Nov. 24, 2025: Designation of Certain Muslim Brotherhood Chapters as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) and Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs). Despite the title, the Executive Order does not designate any person or group. Instead, it sets up a process for the Secretaries of State and Treasury to do so after submitting a report to the President within 30 days on Muslim Brotherhood “chapters or other subdivisions, including those in Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt” as FTOs, followed by a 45-day period in which they “take all appropriate action” consistent with the legal authorities for FTO and SDGT designations. The White House also released a Fact Sheet about the process. Like similar Executive Orders signed by Trump this year, it has a political and not a national security purpose.
The Executive Order claims the Muslim Brotherhood chapters in Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt “engage in or facilitate and support violence and destabilization campaigns that harm their own regions, U.S. citizens and U.S. interests.” For evidence it provides no specific actions led or executed by these groups. Instead, it makes general claims about incidents following the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attacks, without substantiation, as material support to Hamas.
The unusual format of the Executive Order – setting up a process for future designations of Muslim Brotherhood chapters and “other subdivisions” – tries to circumvent the legal and practical guardrails to these designations that have stopped numerous similar proposals for over a decade.
The Executive Order raises the same concerns the Charity & Security Network (C&SN) and 80 other organizations cited in a 2018 statement expressing concern about the potential harm to Muslim civil society if the Muslim Brotherhood is designated as a terrorist organization. Numerous scholars, national security and foreign policy experts from across the political spectrum, and faith-based organizations have voiced concern regarding the validity of such a designation. A designation would continue the current smear campaigns against prominent American Muslims and organizations working on human rights, humanitarian missions, and peace building activities across the MENA region using “six degrees of separation” accusations.
Context
The Muslim Brotherhood is a political organization, not an armed group. It is not a single organization, but a loosely affiliated and decentralized network with more than 1,500 branches, whose respective ties to the founding group in Egypt vary widely. In some U.S.-allied countries like Morocco, Turkey, Jordan and Kuwait, Muslim Brotherhood members are government officials. In other countries they are part of professional unions and create social welfare programs. The breadth of the Muslim Brotherhood across the Arab world, and the legitimacy of many of its members, means that Muslim and non-Muslim organizations from around the world operating in those areas will have contact with lawful, legitimate and peaceful elements of the Muslim Brotherhood for legitimate and lawful purposes.
The Muslim Brotherhood is identified with political opposition in some countries. In Jordan, the largest opposition political party, the Islamic Action Front, is the political arm of Muslim Brotherhood. In Egypt it was a political party until the military takeover of the government in 2013, when the new regime designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group. Human Rights Watch criticized the designation as politically motivated and aimed at expanding a crackdown on the Brotherhood’s peaceful activities. The Egyptian government has since arbitrarily arrested tens of thousands of people, and carried out widespread torture, arbitrary detention and execution, and enforced disappearances of Muslim Brotherhood members and alleged supporters. A U.S. designation of the Muslim Brotherhood could further inflame these violent crackdowns overseas. Read more - Lire plus
| | The Feds Want to Make It Illegal to Even Possess an Anarchist Zine | |
The Intercept 21/11/2025 - Federal prosecutors have filed a new indictment in response to a July 4 noise demonstration outside the Prairieland ICE detention facility in Alvarado, Texas, during which a police officer was shot.
There are numerous problems with the indictment, but perhaps the most glaring is its inclusion of charges against a Dallas artist who wasn’t even at the protest. Daniel “Des” Sanchez is accused of transporting a box that contained “Antifa materials” after the incident, supposedly to conceal evidence against his wife, Maricela Rueda, who was there.
But the boxed materials aren’t Molotov cocktails, pipe bombs, or whatever MAGA officials claim “Antifa” uses to wage its imaginary war on America. As prosecutors laid out in the July criminal complaint that led to the indictment, they were zines and pamphlets. Some contain controversial ideas — one was titled “Insurrectionary Anarchy” — but they’re fully constitutionally protected free speech. The case demonstrates the administration’s intensifying efforts to criminalize left-wing activists after Donald Trump announced in September that he was designating “Antifa” as a “major terrorist organization” — a legal designation that doesn’t exist for domestic groups — following the killing of Charlie Kirk.
Sanchez was first indicted in October on charges of “corruptly concealing a document or record” as a standalone case, but the new indictment merges his charges with those against the other defendants, likely in hopes of burying the First Amendment problems with the case against him under prosecutors’ claims about the alleged shooting.
It’s an escalation of a familiar tactic. In 2023, Georgia prosecutors listed “zine” distribution as part of the conspiracy charges against 61 Stop Cop City protesters in a sprawling RICO indictment that didn’t bother to explain how each individual defendant was involved in any actual crime. I wrote back then about my concern that this wasn’t just sloppy overreach, but also a blueprint for censorship. Those fears have now been validated by Sanchez’s prosecution solely for possessing similar literature.
There have been other warnings that cops and prosecutors think they’ve found a constitutional loophole — if you can’t punish reporting it, punish transporting it. Los Angeles journalist Maya Lau is suing the LA County Sheriff’s Department for secretly investigating her for conspiracy, theft of government property, unlawful access of a computer, burglary, and receiving stolen property. According to her attorneys, her only offense was reporting on a list of deputies with histories of misconduct for the Los Angeles Times. [...]
Despite the collapses of the Cop City prosecution and the Lau investigation, the Trump administration has followed those dangerous examples, characterizing lawful activism and ideologies as terrorist conspiracies (a strategy Trump allies also floated during this first term) to seize the power to prosecute pamphlet possession anytime they use the magic word “Antifa.”
That’s a chilling combination for any journalist, activist, or individual who criticizes Trump. National security reporters have long dealt with the specter of prosecution under the archaic Espionage Act for merely obtaining government secrets from sources, particularly after the Biden administration extracted a guilty plea from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. But the rest of the press — and everyone else, for that matter — understood that merely possessing written materials, no matter what they said, is not a crime.
Guilt by Literature
At what point does a literary collection or newspaper subscription become prosecutorial evidence under the Trump administration’s logic? Essentially, whenever it’s convenient. The vagueness is a feature, not a bug. When people don’t know which political materials might later be deemed evidence of criminality, the safest course is to avoid engaging with controversial ideas altogether.
The slippery slope from anarchist zines to conventional journalism isn’t hypothetical, and we’re already sliding fast. Journalist Mario Guevara can tell you that from El Salvador, where he was deported in a clear case of retaliation for livestreaming a No Kings protest. So can Tufts doctoral student Rümeysa Öztürk, as she awaits deportation proceedings for co-writing an opinion piece critical of Israel’s wars that the administration considers evidence of support for terrorism.
At least two journalists lawfully in the U.S. — Ya’akub Ira Vijandre and Sami Hamdi — were nabbed by ICE just last month. The case against Vijandre is partially based on his criticism of prosecutorial overreach in the Holy Land Five case and his liking social media posts that quote Quranic verses, raising the question of how far away we are from someone being indicted for transporting a Quran or a news article critical of the war on terror.
Sanchez’s case is prosecutorial overreach stacked on more prosecutorial overreach. The National Lawyers Guild criticized prosecutors’ tenuous dot-connecting to justify holding 18 defendants responsible for one gunshot wound. Some defendants were also charged with supporting terrorism due to their alleged association with “Antifa.” Anarchist zines were cited as evidence against them, too.
Sanchez was charged following a search that ICE proclaimed on social media turned up “literal insurrectionist propaganda” he had allegedly transported from his home to an apartment, noting that “insurrectionary anarchism is regarded as the most serious form of domestic (non-jihadi) terrorist threat.” The tweet also said that Sanchez is a green card holder granted legal status through the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
The indictment claims Sanchez was transporting those materials to conceal them because they incriminated his wife. But how can possession of literature incriminate anyone, let alone someone who isn’t even accused of anything but being present when someone else allegedly fired a gun? Zines aren’t contraband; it’s not illegal to be an anarchist or read about anarchism. I don’t know why Sanchez allegedly moved the box of documents, but if it was because he (apparently correctly) feared prosecutors would try to use them against his wife, that’s a commentary on prosecutors’ lawlessness, not Sanchez’s.
Violent rhetoric is subject to punishment only when it constitutes a “true threat” of imminent violence. Even then, the speaker is held responsible, not anyone merely in possession of their words.
Government prosecutors haven’t alleged the “Antifa materials” contained any “true threats,” or any other category of speech that falls outside the protection of the First Amendment. Nor did they allege that the materials were used to plan the alleged actions of protesters on July 4 (although they did allege that the materials were “anti-government” and “anti-Trump”).
Even the aforementioned “Insurrectionary Anarchy: Organizing for Attack” zine, despite its hyperbolic title, reads like a think piece, not a how-to manual. It advocates for tactics like rent strikes and squatting, not shooting police officers. Critically, it has nothing to do with whether Sanchez’s wife committed crimes on July 4.
Being guilty of possessing literature is a concept fundamentally incompatible with a free society. We don’t need a constitutional right to publish (or possess) only what the government likes, and the “anti-government” literature in Sanchez’s box of zines is exactly what the First Amendment protects. With history and leaders like Vladimir Putin and Viktor Orbán as a guide, we also know it’s highly unlikely that Trump’s censorship crusade will stop with a few radical pamphlets. Read more - Lire plus
Foreign anti-fascist groups named as US terror threats ‘barely exist’, experts say
| | How Universities Used Counterterror Intelligence-Sharing Hubs to Surveil Pro-Palestine Students | |
The Intercept 21/11/2025 - From a statewide counterterrorism surveillance and intelligence-sharing hub in Ohio, a warning went out to administrators at the Ohio State University: “Currently, we are aware of a demonstration that is planned to take place at Ohio State University this evening (4/25/2024) at 1700 hours. Please see the attached flyers. It is possible that similar events will occur on campuses across Ohio in the coming days.”
Founded in the wake of 9/11 to facilitate information sharing between federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, fusion centers like Ohio’s Statewide Terrorism Analysis and Crime Center, or STACC, have become yet another way for law enforcement agencies to surveil legally protected First Amendment activities. The 80 fusion centers across the U.S. work with the military, private sector, and other stakeholders to collect vast amounts of information on American citizens in a stated effort to prevent future terror attacks.
In Ohio, it seemed that the counterterrorism surveillance hub was also keeping close tabs on campus events.
It wasn’t just at Ohio State: An investigative series by The Intercept has found that fusion centers were actively involved in monitoring pro-Palestine demonstrations on at least five campuses across the country, as shown in more than 20,000 pages of documents obtained via public records requests exposing U.S. universities’ playbooks for cracking down on pro-Palestine student activism.
As the documents make clear, not only did universities view the peaceful, student-led demonstrations as a security issue — warranting the outside police and technological surveillance interventions detailed in the rest of this series — but the network of law enforcement bodies responsible for counterterror surveillance operations framed the demonstrations in the same way.
After the Ohio fusion center’s tip-off to the upcoming demonstration, officials in the Ohio State University Police Department worked quickly to assemble an operations plan and shut down the demonstration. “The preferred course of action for disorderly conduct and criminal trespass and other building violations will be arrest and removal from the event space,” wrote then-campus chief of police Kimberly Spears-McNatt in an email to her officers just two hours after the initial warning from Ohio’s primary fusion center. OSUPD and the Ohio State Highway Patrol would go on to clear the encampment that same night, arresting 36 demonstrators.
Fusion centers were designed to facilitate the sharing of already collected intelligence between local, state, and federal agencies, but they have been used to target communities of color and to ever-widen the gray area of allowable surveillance. The American Civil Liberties Union, for example, has long advocated against the country’s fusion center network, on the grounds that they conducted overreaching surveillance of activists from the Black Lives Matter movement to environmental activism in Oregon.
“Ohio State has an unwavering commitment to freedom of speech and expression. We do not discuss our security protocols in detail,” a spokesperson for Ohio State said in a statement to The Intercept. Officials at STACC didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment.
The proliferation of fusion centers has contributed to a scope creep that allows broader and more intricate mass surveillance, said Rory Mir, associate director of community organizing at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “Between AI assessments of online speech, the swirl of reckless data sharing from fusion centers, and often opaque campus policies, it’s a recipe for disaster,” Mir said.
While the Trump administration has publicized its weaponization of federal law enforcement agencies against pro-Palestine protesters — with high-profile attacks including attempts to illegally deport student activists — the documents obtained by The Intercept display its precedent under the Biden administration, when surveillance and repression were coordinated behind the scenes.
“ All of that was happening under Biden,” said Dylan Saba, a staff attorney at Palestine Legal, “and what we’ve seen with the Trump administration’s implementation of Project 2025 and Project Esther is really just an acceleration of all of these tools of repression that were in place from before.”
Not only was the groundwork for the Trump administration’s descent into increasingly repressive and illegal tactics laid under Biden, but the investigation revealed that the framework for cracking down on student free speech was also in place before the pro-Palestine encampments. Read more - Lire plus
| | OTHER NEWS - AUTRES NOUVELLES | | ICLMG ACTIONS DE LA CSILC | |
NEW The Justice Minister must end the injustice against Hassan Diab!
| | |
In April 2023, despite clear exculpatory evidence, the French Court of Assize conducted an in absentia trial that unjustly declared Dr. Hassan Diab guilty and sentenced him to life in prison. The proceedings amounted to a sham trial and a mockery of justice.
Since that ruling, Dr. Diab and his family have lived in constant uncertainty, facing the ongoing threat that a second extradition request could be made at any time.
Please click below to send a new letter demanding that Justice Minister Sean Fraser categorically refuse any future extradition request and put an end—once and for all—to this ongoing miscarriage of justice.
| | |
UPDATED: The government has now introduced Bill C-12, the Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act. This new bill simply copies over C-2's anti-migrant and anti-refugee provisions. At the same time, Bill C-2 - with its privacy-violating measures absent in C-12 - will continue through Parliament.
Please send a quick email to your MP, the Public Safety Minister, the Justice Minister, the Immigration Minister and the Prime Minister urging them to withdraw these dangerous bills. Thank you!
| |
Canada: Abolish rights-violating terrorist entities list!
| | |
On October 15, 2024, the Canadian government placed the Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network on Canada’s terrorist entities list. While ostensibly a tool to protect the safety and security of people in Canada and internationally, the list is an arbitrary political tool that undermines freedom of association, of expression and due process in the courts. Its effectiveness as a national security tool has never been demonstrated in a manner that justifies its use.
Due to these deep flaws, and more, the ICLMG has consistently called for the list to be abolished since the Canadian coalition’s founding in 2002. Please join us in urging the Canadian government to abolish the rights-violating terrorist entities list once and for all. Thank you!
| | Canada must repatriate all Canadians detained in NE Syria now! | Every day the government fails to bring these Canadians home, it places their lives at risk from disease, malnutrition, violence, and ongoing military conflicts. 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 and arbitrarily detained in northeast Syria without delay. | | 22 years of fighting deportation to torture: Justice for Mohamed Harkat Now! | | 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 the Public Safety Minister demanding that he take immediate action to put an end to this abuse of power and hold those CSIS officers involved accountable. Your message will also be sent to your MP and to the Minister of Justice.
| | Reform Canada's extradition law now! | |
Canada’s extradition system is broken. One leading legal expert calls it “the least fair law in Canada.” It has led to grave harms and rights violations, as we’ve seen in the case of Canadian citizen Dr Hassan Diab. It needs to be reformed now.
Click below to send a message to urge the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and your MP to reform the extradition system before it makes more victims. Thank you!
Version française: Le Canada doit réformer la loi sur l'extradition!
| | Canada must protect encryption! | |
Canada, with other G7 nations, continues to push to weaken our access to strong, reliable encryption, after decades of being supportive of strong encryption. We need encryption to safeguard our data, our online transactions, our communications, and to protect the lives of journalists and human rights activists.
Please send a message to the Prime Minister of Canada, the Minister of Public Safety, as well as your Member of Parliament, to urge them to reverse course and once again commit to protecting encryption.
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 the Prime Minister and the Public Safety Minister calling for a ban now. | | What we’ve been up to from January to May 2025 and our plan for the rest of the year | |
ICLMG 30/05/2025 - Thanks to the support of our members and donors, here is what we were able to work on so far in 2025 :
- Open letter to the new Prime Minister and government
- 2025 federal election and National Security Info Card
- C-20: First independent watchdog for the CBSA
- C-27: Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022
- Online Harms
- Foreign Interference
- Combatting Racism & Islamophobia
- Canada’s terrorist entities list
- Palestine and the right to dissent
- Impacts of Counter terrorism financing
- Hassan Diab & Extradition
- Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights and Counter-terrorism
- And more!
What we have planned for the rest of 2025!
We have our work cut out for us! In response to threats of tariffs and annexation from the Trump administration, the Canadian government has problematically committed to the rapid expansion of border security, surveillance and information sharing with the US, and expanded the use of rights violating anti-terrorism tools. We also cannot ignore the US crackdown on protesters and migrants under the guise of fighting terrorism and protecting national security. We need to ensure that Canada disentangles itself from the US national security regime, resists US pressure to expand surveillance and counter-terror powers and tools at the expense of our civil liberties, and increases protections for privacy, dissent, migrants and asylum seekers.
We will continue our work on these issues and much more:
- 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
- Advocating for restrictions on Canadian information sharing with the US, including the application of the US No Fly List in Canada
- Campaigning for the repeal of secretive and rights violating national security lists, such as the Terrorist Entities List and the Canadian No Fly List
- Halting the rapid expansion of new security measures at the border and continuing to push back against the false narrative depicting migrants and refugees as security risks, and advocating for rights protection and accountability for border agencies, including by monitoring the creation of a new CBSA and RCMP watchdog agency
- Advocating with lawmakers and officials to protect civil liberties from the overall negative impact of national security
- Countering the escalating repression of free expression, dissent and protest in the name of “countering terrorism,” including the crackdown on protests in support of Palestinian human rights and against the genocide in Gaza. This includes countering new “bubble zone” laws at the municipal and federal levels
- Fighting for Justice for Mohamed Harkat, an end to security certificates, and addressing problems in security inadmissibility
- Fighting for Justice for Hassan Diab and reforming Canada's extradition law
- Addressing the impacts of measures to counter terrorism financing on civil society groups, including the CRA’s targeting of Muslim-led charities and restrictions and criminalization of the provision of international assistance and humanitarian aid
- Calling for the return of Canadian citizens and the non-Canadian mothers of Canadian children, who remain indefinitely detained in Syrian camps
- Pushing for restrictions on the implementation of new foreign interference laws
- Keeping you and our member organizations informed via the News Digest
- And much more! Read more - Lire plus
Share on Facebook + Instagram + Bluesky + Twitter
| | 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!
| | | | |
