|
International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
Coalition pour la surveillance internationale des libertés civiles
February 25, 2023 - 25 février 2023
| |
ICLMG: Feds must immediately suspend CSIS threat reduction powers following latest watchdog report
| |
|
ICLMG 16/02/2023 - The latest National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA) report on the Canadian Security Intelligence Service’s threat reduction activities shows once again that the spy agency cannot be trusted to follow the law or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when they are granted secret powers to disrupt the lives of Canadians.
"We have said from the beginning that we cannot trust a spy agency that operates in secret with tangible threat reduction measures, especially if they get to decide what amounts to needing a warrant or not. Especially with what we know of CSIS’ troubling internal culture around the warrant process. NSIRA’s report is proof that our concerns are valid,” said Tim McSorley, national coordinator with the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group.
It is completely unacceptable that CSIS believes it can ask third parties, like private companies, to take action against individuals based on a secret risk assessment without taking responsibility for the possible impacts. It shows they cannot be trusted with these powers. The fact that CSIS also disagrees with NSIRA’s recommendation that it take the actions of these third parties into account when deciding to seek out a warrant proves that the service continues to skirt the law and should no longer be trusted with these powers. [...]
Other troubling revelations in NSIRA’s report include:
- A lack of clarity and specificity in the information disclosed to third parties that CSIS was leveraging to take a threat disruption action
- Concerns that CSIS is not appropriately taking into account the impact of threat disruption measures on the individuals targeted as well as their families
- That NSIRA was unable to properly assess the outcome of threat reduction measures carried out by third parties, because CSIS’ “reporting system was inadequate or that these reports were improperly filed or non-existent”
- That CSIS is employing threat reduction measures outside of Canada that may violate Charter Rights, but that this was beyond the scope of this NSIRA report
- The government continues to censor the number of threat reduction measures requested by CSIS and those carried out. This information poses no threat to national security and should not be redacted from NSIRA reports (while this is not an NSIRA finding, the government censorship is revealed through what is redacted from the report).
The ICLMG has opposed CSIS, an intelligence agency, being granted threat reduction powers since they were first introduced in 2015. The reforms implemented by the federal government in 2019 did not solve the severe threat to fundamental rights that come about when an agency that operates in nearly complete secrecy can carry out real world, tangible actions against individuals. This was true when the McDonald Commission found in 1981 that there must be a division between intelligence services and law enforcement services, and it remains true today.
Given all this, it is imperative that the federal government intervene by suspending CSIS’ use of threat reduction measures and referring this issue to the Federal Court. ICLMG also reiterates its call that CSIS’ threat reduction powers should be abolished. Read more - Lire plus + Partager sur Facebook + Twitter + Instagram
CSIS failed to fully consider human toll when disrupting threats, watchdog says
| |
Baljit Nagra & Paula Maurutto: CSIS targeting of Canadian Muslims reveals the importance of addressing institutional Islamophobia | |
|
The Conversation 16/02/2023 - There has been an uproar recently among politicians who have called for the resignation of Amira Elghawaby, Canada’s first special representative on combating Islamophobia. The position was created in January 2023 to address the longstanding discrimination, hate crimes and intolerance faced by Muslim communities across the country. In recent years, Canada has witnessed the highest number of Muslims killed in hate-motivated attacks out of all the G7 countries. The controversy stems over Elghawaby’s 2019 criticism of Québec’s Bill 21. The law prohibits public servants from wearing religious symbols like hijabs, turbans, yarmulkes and crosses.
The bill has been criticized for unfairly impacting Muslim communities — particularly Muslim women. There was also criticism of remarks Elghawaby made in response to an opinion piece that said French Canadians were the largest group in Canada to be victimized by British colonialism. In response, Bloc Québécois leader Yves-François Blanchet, has called on the federal government to scrap the position of the special representative on combating Islamophobia altogether. However, our research on the treatment of Canadian Muslim communities by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), shows how vital it is to address institutional Islamophobia. In our recent study we interviewed 95 Muslim community leaders living in five major Canadian cities to learn about their experiences with CSIS. This study is the first of its kind to map the anti-Muslim tactics employed by CSIS in its racialized surveillance of Muslim communities.
Muslims face mass surveillance
We found that CSIS adopts specific surveillance practices that are informed by Islamophobic tropes. This works on the premise that Islam and any expression of religious devotion to it represents a potential terror suspect. Consequently, CSIS engages in mass surveillance that brings entire Muslim communities under suspicion. It relies on false radicalization assumptions that depict Muslim communities as hotbeds of extremism that must be contained through aggressive surveillance strategies. CSIS engages in mass surveillance with devastating and prolonged effects on Muslim communities. We found that mosques have been transformed into sites of surveillance rather than a safe place for religious worship and community gatherings.
CSIS treats mosques as sites of radicalization and incubators of extremism in order to legitimize its intensive policing and infiltration. CSIS monitors who enters and exits them, and members, especially imams, are subject to interrogation and forced to provide intelligence on their congregations. We found there is a persistent deployment of CSIS operatives at mosques. Muslim youth in particular are heavily targeted by CSIS. Those who attend mosques, are involved in Muslim student organizations, attend Muslim gatherings or summer camps are frequently interrogated by CSIS, often without their parents’ permission. Muslim university students who we spoke to informed us they have found recording devices in their campus prayer spaces, and had their social media scanned. The result is that Muslim youth are subjected to extreme forms of state surveillance. At the University of Toronto, faculty and lawyers have even set up a support line to help Muslim students and provide representation when they are contacted by CSIS.
CSIS relies on coercive techniques
A key CSIS tactical strategy is the use of coercive techniques to pressure ordinary citizens to become informants. We were informed that CSIS threatens to show up at the workplaces of individuals who refuse to talk to them. They particularly seek out refugees or those with precarious immigration status. They also use aggressive tactics such as making unannounced visits to people’s homes in the middle of night; actions that intimidated entire families, including children. We were informed that this is a common practice as individuals are unable to access legal counsel or community support at such times.
Political activism targeted
Those politically active and critical of the Canadian state found themselves at higher risk for interrogation. In our study, we found those who criticize state policies — particularly concerning politics in the Middle East — come under increased surveillance. We were informed of the deep chilling effect this has on Muslim communities. Those we interviewed spoke about being fearful of voicing their concerns regarding state practices, as they believe this would incur CSIS surveillance. This level of political suppression directly violates the CSIS Act. This act prohibits investigation of lawful advocacy and dissent. The result for Muslim communities is a culture of suspicion and internal fear. We were informed of the common suspicion that others in the community are working for CSIS. Furthermore, some concealed being approached by CSIS because they believe they could be ostracized within their own communities.
Islamophobia institutionalized in Canada
CSIS is just one institution that racially targets Muslims. There are a host of other counter-terrorism laws and practices that also operate to reproduce racist perceptions and assumptions about Muslims. For example, our previous research has documented how Canada’s no-fly list and security practices at Canadian border crossings function as endemic practices of institutionalized racism. They target Canadian Muslims, exacerbate racial profiling and subject people to demeaning treatment. Contrary to the demands for Elghawaby’s dismissal, our work speaks to the vital need for a special representative on combating Islamophobia and to make addressing Islamophobia an urgent priority. Read more - Lire plus
| |
UN Special Rapporteur Fionnuala Ní Aoláin and Anne Charbord: Repatriating Alleged ISIS-Linked Men from Northeast Syria: The Start of Judicial Responses to the Political Stalemate
| |
|
Justi Security 16/02/2023 - The plight of women and children detained in camps in northeast Syria since the collapse of the self-styled Islamic State’s “caliphate” has received significant attention, and some are finally being brought back to their home countries after unconscionable years-long delays by multiple countries, including Western States. By contrast, the fate of more than 10,000 boys and men deemed “associated” with the group (also known as ISIL/ISIS/Daesh), including approximately 2,150 third-country nationals, has been mostly ignored by governments and international organizations, with the exception of independent United Nations human rights experts’ offices. But recent judicial decisions are beginning to break a logjam in which countries that claim to abide by the rule of law must reckon with the consequences of not returning men, including the denial of due process to the accused and justice to their victims.
The recent earthquake that devastated parts of southern Turkey and northwest Syria thankfully caused few casualties and only limited infrastructure damage in northeast Syria, so this should not hinder Western efforts to address the human rights crisis of the detainees. But the disaster has increased the humanitarian needs of populations and the challenges of humanitarian access across northern Syria. So it is especially crucial for the States of the detainees’ origins to assist the de facto authorities in northeastern Syria by removing the burden of detention to allow them to focus on providing the needed humanitarian relief.
Thousands of men and boys captured between 2017 and 2019 have been held indefinitely by the Syrian Democratic Forces, backed by what is now known as the Global Coalition Against Daesh. The detainees are confined in more than 15 makeshift detention centers, mostly converted schools and hospitals, throughout northeast Syria. The men and boys are held in overcrowded cells (in some cases more than 30 in cells built for six individuals), and they lack food, drinkable water, and medical care. They are most often portrayed as dangerous “terrorist fighters” and “jihadis” who deserve to be treated as “sub-humans,” certainly not considered as worthy of repatriation to their countries of citizenship, notably because of an alleged risk they would pose there.
But none of these men have ever been brought before a judge to determine whether they are rightfully and lawfully detained, and there is no law that would legally underpin their detention. Some were children at the time of their detention. Most have never been charged with any specific offense, and there is no prospect of a trial in the region (more on that later). [...]
Instead of finding legally sound solutions to their entrenched and protracted arbitrary deprivation of liberty in inhumane conditions, including repatriations to their countries of origin for those who should receive a fair trial for offenses committed, the practice of arbitrary detention is becoming entrenched. [...] It is also worth noting that, while many States have stressed the dangers posed by repatriation of these individuals, studies consistently show that the recidivism rate for terrorist offenders is very low.
Judicial Decisions Begin to Move the Ball
Against this backdrop, however, judicial decisions are beginning to shift the scenario. Canada’s Federal Court decision of Jan. 20, for example, requires Canadian authorities to assist in the repatriation of four Canadian men held by the Syrian Defense Forces as de facto authority in northeast Syria. It is a landmark decision, with its focus on the legal obligations of States to their male detainees. By tackling the situation of the men from a rights-based perspective and reinstating them as rights-holders under the Canadian Constitution, the court clearly departs from seeing them solely as security risks.
In that highly significant case, led by a campaign known as “Bring Our Loved Ones Home” (BOLOH), the lawyers for four men languishing in prisons in Al-Hasakeh province had repeatedly made requests for repatriation to the Canadian authorities since February 2021. In every instance, the government failed to respond. Based on article 6(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, enshrining the right of all Canadians to enter, remain in, and leave Canada, the judge concretely decided that, given the willingness of the Kurdish authorities to repatriate foreign nationals to their countries of origin if certain formal requirements are met, the Canadian authorities must, as soon as reasonably possible, make formal requests to the authorities in northeast Syria to allow the voluntary repatriation of the men. The court found that the Canadian government had an obligation to provide them with passports or emergency travel documents, and to appoint someone to accept their handover from the Kurdish authorities. The judge noted that the “foundational right” to enter Canada is a right that allows “few, if any, limitations.” Implementing this right in his view required positive implementation measures. Not doing so would be to interpret the right “in an unreal world.”
Notably, the decision contains a damning criticism of Canada’s policy drawn up in February 2021 (“Government of Canada Policy Framework to Evaluate the Provision of Extraordinary Assistance”) that set out “threshold criteria” that applicants for repatriation had to meet before Canadian authorities would advance repatriation efforts. The decision criticizes not only the secrecy surrounding the policy — even the applicants and the lawyers were not informed about it for nine months — but also its deliberate intention to exclude the possibility of repatriation for men, unless there is “credible information indicating that the individual’s situation has significantly changed since the adoption of the Policy Framework.” The court’s decision suggests the policy is unacceptable from a rights perspective, an important assessment because it is likely that many other States have very similar policies used to stall repatriations.
In examining Canada’s international obligations, the judge relied heavily on a communication sent to Canada by one of us (Fionnuala), the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, concerning the case of Jack Letts (one of the four men whose situation is addressed by the ruling). The mandate has also addressed the feasibility of trials in the course of proceedings. Quoting much of the Special Rapporteur’s findings verbatim, the judge highlights the position that “the urgent voluntary repatriation of all citizens is the only international law compliant response to the complex and precarious human rights, humanitarian and security situation faced by those detained in inhumane conditions in overcrowded prisons or other detention centers in North-east Syria, with limited food and medical care, putting detainees lives at increased risk.” Source
Shamima Begum loses appeal against removal of British citizenship
CAGE calls for an end to the ordeal of Sufyan Mustafa
TAKE ACTION: Call/Write to Ensure Ottawa Obeys Court Order to Bring Canadian Detainees Home from Syria ASAP
TAKE ACTION: Canada must repatriate all Canadians detained in NE Syria now!
Please share on Facebook + Twitter + Instagram
| |
Emergencies Act inquiry report should tackle the racist origins of national security | |
ICLMG's note: This piece was written and published before the POEC report was released on February 20 but its content is still very much relevant. | |
|
The Conversation 15/02/2023 - The Public Order Emergency Commission investigated the federal government’s use of the Emergencies Act in response to blockades by the so-called Freedom Convoy in Ottawa, Windsor and western Canada in February 2022. Justice Paul Rouleau will soon release a report on the inquiry’s findings. He will no doubt focus on whether the blockades were sufficiently serious to justify emergency measures.
However, any discussions of national security demand consideration of a much broader set of questions. What is national security? Whose national security matters? What counts as a national security threat? And should national security policing powers be expanded?
These questions need to be considered in all conversations on national security policy alternatives. Yet, such sustained conversations have yet to happen.
What is national security?
In September 2022, we organized a conference in Windsor, Ont., that was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Entitled “Critical Reflections on Security, 9/11 and the Canadian Settler Colony,” the conference brought together scholars, lawyers, community activists and students. Participants reminded us of a fundamental tenet of critical security studies: defining security is not objective. State security officials testifying before the Emergencies Act inquiry themselves acknowledged that definitions and understandings of security can vary. Canada has a long history of invoking national security or public order to disenfranchise Indigenous peoples, take their lands and subject them to surveillance and criminalization.
Canada’s history also illustrates that “outsiders” are often viewed as threats. Those who aren’t white, settler, able-bodied, heterosexual and male risk being regarded as outsiders.
The outsider label fuelled racism against Japanese-Canadians and Chinese-Canadian communities. They were denied citizenship rights and labelled threats to the nation. Throughout Canadian history, racialized ideas of nation and belonging have framed key components of Canadian identity. They’ve also tainted national security practices. We have not escaped this reality in the 21st century.
Whose national security?
The events of Sept. 11, 2001 deepened the view held by some that Islam is incompatible with western values. Arabs and Muslims in Canada were viewed as national security threats. Racist assumptions that Arabs and Muslims are violent, untrustworthy and barbaric have played a major role in post-9/11 security policing. Such stereotypes have had wide-ranging consequences for racialized people. They also reinforce pre-existing social stigmas. Our conference heard that Somali Muslims are subjected to both anti-Black racism and Islamophobia. Muslim women wearing the hijab, in particular, have become highly visible targets.
The social stigmas, in turn, contribute to tolerance for abuses in the name of national security. The government of Canada’s actions have contributed to the dehumanization of Muslim life. Canadian officials were complicit in the abuse of hundreds of Muslim men detained without charge in Guantanamo Bay. More recently, Canadian citizens — mostly women and children — accused of having links to ISIS were abandoned under deplorable conditions in Syria before finally being considered for repatriation. They were not even thought worthy to stand trial in Canada. This list of examples highlight how national security labels applied to Muslims corrode rights and dignity, subjecting them to feelings of not belonging anywhere. A surge in white supremacist violence has also sparked attacks on Muslim, trans, Black, Indigenous, Asian and other vulnerable groups.
What’s a threat?
National security agencies have been paying closer attention to far-right movements over the last few years. Some right-wing groups have even been listed as terrorist organizations. The call to curb right-wing violence is urgent and compelling. But how should we approach it? The possibility of further expanding national security measures was raised in testimony to the Emergencies Act commission. The commission has provided a new platform for these calls, according to what security officials see as emerging threats. Among these threats is right-wing extremism. This partial shift of resources towards policing the far right has helped security agencies quell criticism about their own Islamophobia and racism. But can we trust police to truly address right-wing violence and white supremacy? Our answer to this question is unambiguous: No, we cannot.
Resisting security expansion
The discussions at the “Critical Reflections on Security” conference suggest that a national security policing approach has harmed racialized and minority groups, and it would be short-sighted to ignore this in any security expansion. Maintaining order as the baseline response to violent right-wing groups does not help us meet the challenges presented by them. Simply put, maintaining order does not address the authoritarian and racially charged sentiments that drive right-wing movements. Social and community-oriented approaches are required to address systemic racism and transform deep-seated settler colonial institutions and values.
It’s also unrealistic to expect security agencies to transform so quickly. Their roots have been firmly grounded in Indigenous disenfranchisement and other forms of racism. Security agencies will not be redirected easily simply due to new mandates. It’s also worth recalling that racialized and Indigenous peoples have rarely benefited from calls for greater public order or safety. At best, public safety and security have been selectively made available to these communities. The conference provided a record of Canadian history. It also encouraged a much-needed public conversation about Canadian settler colonialism and racism as we continue to grapple with vexing questions about public order and security. One thing is clear. Approaches to contemporary security issues need to be informed by the dire histories of what happens under the banner of national security. Source
| |
Webinar: Out of sight: Ending Canada's armed drone purchase | |
Currie, Harrington and Neve: Overhaul Canada’s unjust approach to extradition | Robert Currie is a professor in the faculty of law at Dalhousie University. Joanna Harrington is a professor in the faculty of law at the University of Alberta. Alex Neve is a Senior Fellow in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa. | |
|
The Ottawa Citizen 21/02/2023 - Canadian extradition law is in desperate need of reform. Hearings underway at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights offer an opportunity to do just that.
Extradition is an important criminal justice tool and helps ensure that suspects cannot evade justice by fleeing to another country. But if the process is almost entirely weighted in favour of the state seeking extradition, with little regard for the rights of the person facing extradition, grave injustices will occur. That is an apt description of the present state of extradition law in Canada.
Consider two glaring examples:
• In 2014, Canadian citizen Hassan Diab, of Ottawa, was extradited to France, accused of carrying out a horrific terrorist bombing in Paris in 1980. He was extradited even though the judge found that “the prospects of conviction in the context of a fair trial, seem unlikely.” He was held in solitary confinement in a maximum-security prison for more than three years before he was released and returned to Canada, because investigating judges found no evidence to justify bringing him to trial. In fact, they uncovered evidence confirming he could not have been in Paris at the time of the bombing. During the extradition process Canadian and French government lawyers failed to disclose that his fingerprints did not match the fingerprints on a key piece of evidence.
• In 2019, Canadian citizen Michele Messina committed suicide in a Quebec jail while awaiting extradition to the United States. In 2010, she had fled from Georgia to Quebec with her three children, to escape a violently abusive spouse and father. She was accused of interfering with her spouse’s custody rights. The extradition was upheld even though, in a trial in Georgia, she would not be allowed to argue that she had acted to protect her children from imminent harm, a defence open to her in Canada. When justice closed its door to her, she took her life.
There have been many other instances of unjust extradition. That is why, when we appeared before the Justice Committee earlier this month, we called for an overhaul of extradition law in keeping with the Halifax Proposals, a blueprint for reform that emerged from an experts colloquium at Dalhousie University.
Changes should include the following:
- Canada’s international human rights obligations, including gender equality, protection against torture, and safeguards against arbitrary arrest, unlawful detention and unfair trials, should be incorporated into the Extradition Act.
- Many states do not allow their own nationals to be extradited. France is one such country, but has no compunction about expecting Canada to turn over its own citizens. Citizens have the right to “remain in Canada” under section 6 of our Charter. Whenever possible Canadians should be tried here, rather than extradited.
- An extradition hearing should incorporate the presumption of innocence. Our courts should not be bound to accept a simple summary of the requesting state’s evidence as reliable; the person sought should have a meaningful opportunity to challenge the case against them. Exculpatory evidence should be disclosed. And defences allowed in a Canadian trial must be taken into account.
- Extradition should only be permitted if the requesting state is ready to go to trial. It is not meant to be a fishing trip; there are other tools available if a government is still investigating.
- Change is also needed within the Department of Justice. Lawyers in the International Assistance Group work within a silo designed to meet the needs of a requesting state. Restructuring should make it clear that their role is to ensure a fair and just result, not simply to win the case.
- There is a pressing need for more oversight of and transparency about extradition cases. And Canada’s extradition treaties, many of which are stale dated, need to be reviewed. We should have no treaties with countries with problematic human rights records that include unfair trials, discriminatory justice, and torture and ill-treatment.
The time is ripe. The committee’s study was championed by NDP justice critic Randall Garrison, and we sensed interest and concern from all parties. Thousands of Canadians have sent letters and signed petitions calling for reform. Extradition can be pivotal in delivering justice. We cannot countenance it causing injustice. Read more - Lire plus
New video: Imagine a Life Like This: The Relentless Persecution of Hassan Diab
TAKE ACTION: Justice for Hassan Diab!
| |
An Afghan military interpreter made it to Canada — but his siblings were forced back to Afghanistan | |
|
CBC News 24/02/2023 - For a year, Asad Ali Afghan waited for the federal government to push through the paperwork giving him a new lease on life in Canada, the country he served as an Afghan military interpreter. After he and five members of his family fled Afghanistan for Pakistan in November 2021, they waited nine months in a cramped hotel room in Islamabad while Ottawa approved travel. They all made it to Winnipeg last August and settled in Delta, B.C. a month later.
But while he's now safe from the Taliban, three of his loved ones still have targets on their backs. "I talk to them every day, every night, because I am very worried about them," Afghan said. Two of his brothers and one of his sisters fled to Pakistan themselves. They were hoping to come to Canada under a special immigration program designed for former employees of the Canadian government or military in Afghanistan and their families.
When Afghan applied on his siblings' behalf, the only response he received from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) was that the process was underway. But Canadian authorities never assigned case files to his brothers and sister, he said. When authorities in Pakistan caught them in the city of Quetta, they had no way to prove they were on their way to Canada. Less than a month after they arrived in Pakistan, they were back in Afghanistan, hiding out in the border village of Spin Boldak.
CBC News reached one of Afghan's brothers in Spin Boldak. CBC has agreed not to identify him, due to the dangers he faces. "The Taliban have arrested, tortured and flogged many Afghans," he said. "They are known to murder those who have helped foreign militaries." He said he and his siblings seldom leave the house. They spent 25 days in Pakistan, he said, before police told them they had three days to get out of the country.
"We are very concerned about the human rights violations experienced by Afghans waiting around," said Zosa De Sas Kropiwnicki-Gruber, a director of policy, advocacy and research at Amnesty International Canada. Her organization's global head office wrote to Islamabad in December, warning it against deporting undocumented Afghans. "It's just taking too long and there are too many hurdles and there is a lack of regularization for Afghans waiting in this situation and there are rights violations happening every day," De Sas Kropiwnicki-Gruber said.
The department also said it has received applications for most of the 18,000 spots in the Special Immigration Measures program, and referrals for the remaining available spots. "IRCC continues to send out invitations to apply to these additional referrals," it said. Both the NDP and Conservative immigration critics told CBC News they have heard of other Afghans hoping to come to Canada who have been sent back to Afghanistan. "What we're hearing on the ground from people is that people are getting deported, they are not getting to safety," the NDP's Jenny Kwan said. Her party is calling on the Canadian government to lift the 40,000 cap on the number of Afghans it wants to bring here, calling it an arbitrary limit. Read more - Lire plus
TAKE ACTION: Canada Must Save At-Risk Afghan Women’s Rights Advocate Sadia: Issue Entry Permits ASAP!
| |
Adnan Khan: The Toronto 18 case still skews our views on ‘radicalization’ and terrorism | |
|
The Globe and Mail 11/02/2023 - On June 2, 2006, around 400 members of the RCMP and local police services were deployed on homes in Toronto and throughout the GTA. They arrested 10 men and five youth. Along with two already in prison on weapons charges, and another taken into custody later, the group came to be known as the Toronto 18. [...]
A swift publication ban was imposed by courts, but details snuck out, including footage of two men unloading what they thought was the explosive material ammonium nitrate from the back of a truck parked in downtown Toronto. Photographs of the suspects show sullen young men in various degrees of Islamic garb, and there is talk of a training camp in the woods where they learned how to kill.
The race toward moral panic was on. “The jihadis among us,” railed the National Post; “Your neighbour, the terrorist,” warned the Ottawa Citizen. Everything was up for grabs, as a Toronto Star headline noted: “Immigration, diversity under the microscope.” Columnist Christie Blatchford wrote in The Globe and Mail that “the accused men are mostly young and mostly bearded in the Taliban fashion. They have first names like Mohamed, middle names like Mohamed and last names like Mohamed.”
Front and centre was the existential question Muslims raised for some in the West. The debate disregarded the political issue the accused say motivated them – the war in Afghanistan – and instead focused on the perceived fit of a specific minority population. As Mark Steyn articulated in Maclean’s: “One can simultaneously be Canadian and Jamaican and gay and Anglican and all these identities can exist within your corporeal form in perfect harmony. But for most Western Muslims, Islam is their primary identity, and for a significant number thereof, it’s a primary identity that exists in opposition to all other.”
It wasn’t only the media. Battling accusations that Canada had been soft on terrorism in the aftermath of 9/11, the government was eager to do its part. John Miller, former professor of journalism at Toronto Metropolitan University (previously Ryerson), combed through 1,700 pages of government correspondence – obtained by The Globe through an Access to Information and Privacy request – and wrote that it showed “scenes of controlled chaos – a small army of communications officers crafting talking points, hurriedly updating speeches and correcting their bosses’ miscues. They also reveal meticulous government monitoring of virtually every media account of the arrests, as well as a consistent focus on getting all key players in Ottawa to echo the same talking points about the Conservative government’s dedication to fighting terror.”
The actions of the Toronto 18 and the subsequent shaping of their story by government and media embedded deep into the Canadian consciousness, and continued to find expression nearly two decades later. “Radicalization” became a buzzword with momentum, spawning the global multibillion-dollar Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) industry, involving government, universities and think-tanks, all dedicated to examining “radical” and “homegrown” threats. Yet its usefulness is questioned by its own practitioners. After all that money spent, there is still no clear understanding of what factors will lead someone from being radicalized – holding extreme thoughts, motivated by political, religious or ideological grievances – toward violence.
Six months after the arrests, polling from Environics showed that six out of 10 Canadians believed an act of terrorism by a Muslim Canadian would be imminent. The Islamophobia that cut to the surface in the immediate aftermath of the 2006 arrests stayed. Between 2016 and 2021, more Muslims were killed in targeted hate attacks in Canada than any other Group of Seven country, most notably in the 2017 Quebec mosque shooting and the 2021 London, Ont., truck rampage. And yet, despite all the handwringing about homegrown terrorism and the radical threat, there have only been six successful jihadist attacks in Canada between 2000 and 2020, with a fatality rate far lower than that of far-right inflected terror.
After the initial shock and awe of the arrests, the narrative became complicated. Unbeknownst to the members of the Toronto 18, there was a kind of safety net for the public in place. Police informants knew about the Toronto 18′s planning from the early stages. One informant, Mubin Shaikh, led a training camp, purchased bullets for the crew and even last year described the Toronto 18 as being “at a very low level of capability. Their reach did exceed their grasp.” Shaher Elsohemy, who had earlier applied to work at CSIS, hoping it would be “like the movies,” was paid an unprecedented $4.1-million, and befriended major member Shareef Abdelhaleem early, going on vacation with him to Morocco in 2005. He remains in witness protection. Most of the members were young: Three could not be named as they were under 18; the youngest was 15. Another turned 18 in between the “training camps.” Zakaria Amara, alleged ringleader and gas-station attendant, was 20 when arrested. The depth of the police informants’ involvement came under heavy scrutiny: One admitted to drug use and another was accused of settling scores. [...]
Eventually, seven pleaded guilty, four were convicted for various crimes at trial, and four adults plus three youth had their charges stayed. The most severe, like Mr. Abdelhaleem, were handed life sentences. Others received time-served for shoplifting camping gear for the apparent training camps. This counted as a much-needed War on Terror win. Only three years earlier, the RCMP botched Project Thread, arresting 22 South Asian Muslims after a seven-month-long operation before eventually releasing them, leading then-RCMP commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli to admit that “there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that there is any terrorist threat anywhere in this country related to this investigation.” There were other blunders; by 2007, Maher Arar would receive an apology and $10.5-million from the Canadian government for its role in his 2002 extraordinary rendition and torture. Despite the severity of some of the charges, prison sentences were not the end of the Toronto 18. A life sentence in Canada allows for the possibility of release through parole. And 16 years after the arrests, Toronto 18 members are leaving prison and moving on with their lives.
Mr. Amara and Mr. Abdelhaleem had difficulty obtaining parole. In both instances, the spectre of “radicalization” and the path to “deradicalization” hovered over the men. How could the Parole Board of Canada be convinced that these men had successfully rehabilitated their minds from radical Islam? This is a crucial question, as a bedrock of Canadian sentencing principles is rehabilitation toward the eventual reintegration of offenders into society. The problem: Correctional Services of Canada (CSC) offers little to no deradicalization programming, geared toward radical Islam or otherwise. [...] Ottawa-based lawyer Reem Zaia has looked extensively into this odd situation CSC finds itself in. In 2016, she submitted an ATIP for CSC correspondence regarding rehabilitative programs tailored to inmates convicted of terrorism offences. Her findings were stark: While CSC acknowledges the merits of these programs, a cost-benefit analysis suggested not applying them.
If the CSC will not administer deradicalization programming, where can the Parole Board go from there? They can keep offenders in prison, trapped in the same situation, or can reignite old tropes connecting Islam to terrorism. In the same study, Ms. Zaia noted that while the Parole Board admits there is insufficient evidence to support it, around half the decisions impose the mandatory condition that the offender undergo religious counselling in place of a treatment plan. This despite there being no evidence that it is strictly religious motivation, rather than grievance toward the West’s foreign policy, that pushed those convicted of terrorism offences toward violence. As Ms. Zaia wrote in the Manitoba Law Journal, “In many cases, the Board’s decision presupposes that religion is the underlying issue associated with the inmate’s grievances, and that re-engineering one’s thoughts is required for successful integration into the community. Without evidence that this nexus is in fact possible, the imposition of religious counselling amounts to no more than a wild guess.”
And so Mr. Amara and Mr. Abdelhaleem’s religion, and its proximity to terrorist violence and radicalization, gave the Parole Board pause – fitting, as it was the Toronto 18 case itself that marked a significant movement in Canada toward domestic terrorism being linked closely, and almost exclusively, to Islam. For the Noor Cultural Centre, legal academic Azeezah Kanji studied post-9/11 Canadian media, and its approach to language around terrorism. Her study showed that the intercepted 2013 Via Rail bomb plot was labelled terrorism in 96 per cent of mentions, and Abdulahi Hasan Sharif’s failed 2017 truck attack in Edmonton 68 per cent of the time; both had zero fatalities. Alexandre Bissonnette’s Quebec mosque shooting, which killed six, was labelled terrorism by media only 13 per cent of the time; in only 1 per cent of the mentions for the Moncton RCMP shootings, which claimed three lives, was it called terrorism. In general, according to Ms. Kanji, acts of violence perpetrated by Muslims generated 1.5 times more coverage than those linked to right-wing extremists, and were more likely to be labelled terrorism, even though right-wing extremists caused 11 times more deaths. Despite fatalities and ideological evidence, the Quebec mosque shooter, the Toronto van attacker of 2018 and the Moncton RCMP shooter were not prosecuted under terror legislation. The Via Rail plotter and Toronto 18 were.
Muslims in Canada feel like they constantly have to prove their worth as Canadians; Muslims are depicted as risky and deviant, unable to adapt to Western society. This condition, which scholar Nadine Naber calls “an internment of the psyche,” has a profound impact on the Muslim population. In dozens of interviews conducted by University of Ottawa sociologist Baljit Nagra, Muslims used the terms “accidental Canadian,” or “hyphenated-Canadian” to describe the distance they felt and its impact on them – distance pressed on them from the majority. They reported feeling like they would never be allowed to integrate and participate the way “white” Canadians would. Yet these same Muslims reported being proud to be Canadian and to participate in Canadian society and feeling like their identities can co-exist. Read more - Lire plus
ACTION: Bring Abdulrahman El Bahnasawy Home
| |
The Narwhal Is Suing the RCMP | |
|
The Tyee 13/02/2023 - A non-profit online news magazine announced today that it is pushing back against a “troubling lack of regard” for press freedom by Canadian police by filing a lawsuit over the RCMP’s 2021 arrest of one of its journalists.
In an announcement Monday at the B.C. Supreme Court, editors for the Narwhal and photojournalist Amber Bracken said they have filed a lawsuit against the RCMP for damages, wrongful arrest, wrongful detention and violation of Charter rights. Bracken was taken into custody and held for three days while covering the Coastal GasLink pipeline conflict in November 2021.
The Coastal GasLink pipeline, which will stretch 670 kilometres from northeast B.C. to the LNG Canada export facility in Kitimat, began construction in 2019 despite opposition from the Wet’suwet’en Nation’s traditional leadership. The dispute has led to several high-profile police actions, the first in early January 2019.
At the time of her arrest, Bracken had been covering the pipeline conflict on Wet’suwet’en territory for three years, since tensions boiled over after B.C. Supreme Court issued an injunction to the pipeline company in late 2018, prohibiting anyone from blocking pipeline access roads or worksites. Bracken covered three police actions, which took place in 2019, 2020 and 2021. “I felt kidnapped,” Bracken recalled at Monday’s announcement. “I’d never been arrested before and it’s the best word I can think of to describe being taken so abruptly from my life and from my work and in violation of my Charter rights.” Read more - Lire plus
RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki is stepping down
Head of BC First Nations Justice Council says RCMP ‘covered up’ Prince George allegations
Complaints commission condemns RCMP for lack of investigation into allegations Mounties abused First Nations girls
| |
Outrage Soars in Occupied West Bank After Israel Kills 11, Injures 500 Palestinians in Nablus Raid | |
Turkey Doesn’t Need F-16s. It Needs Humanitarian Aid. | |
|
Jacobin 14/02/2023 - The earthquake in Turkey and Syria is one of the worst natural disasters of this century. The death toll has now risen to a staggering thirty-five thousand people — though that number is expected to rise significantly. Tens of thousands more have been injured, overwhelming the already-strained hospitals in Syria and Turkey. Large swaths of Northern Syria and Southern Turkey have been reduced to rubble, and millions are in desperate need of humanitarian relief.
Yet even in the immediate aftermath of this humanitarian crisis, at a time when resources, personnel, and state assistance is gravely needed, Turkey continues to attack the Kurds. According to reports from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and statements from the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), on February 12 (less than one week after the earthquake), Turkey bombed an SDF vehicle in Kobanî, a Kurdish-majority city in Northern Syria, and bombed Kurdish forces in Tel Rifaat, north of Aleppo. There is no indication that these bombings are going to stop. In sharp contrast to Turkey’s abysmal, dysfunctional initial response to the earthquake, Turkish militarism seems as functional as ever.
Though these recent attacks highlight the particular brutality of bombing communities suffering and grieving in the wake of a natural disaster, Turkish attacks on the Kurds are by no means new. Turkey’s record of atrocities against the Kurds is long and well-documented. Though ostensibly fighting the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) — a militant organization pushing for greater autonomy and civil rights for Kurds — Turkey has killed scores of Kurdish civilians in Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. In the 1990s, Turkish forces killed tens of thousands of Kurds in Southern Turkey and in recent years has bombed Northern Iraq hundreds of times.
In Northern Syria, Turkish treatment of Kurds has been particularly brutal. Turkey frequently bombs Kurdish communities in Syria, targeting the PKK-linked People’s Protection Units (YPG) and SDF, Western allies largely responsible for the defeat of ISIS in Syria. In a single weeks-long bombing campaign in January of 2018, Turkey killed over a thousand Kurds in the city of Afrin alone. Over the course of repeated invasions over the last seven years, Turkey has occupied extensive territory in Northern Syria, and Turkish forces have committed widespread and systematic war crimes against the Kurdish population, including ethnic cleansing.
Crucially, a map of Turkish air strikes in Syria produced by Airwars, an organization that tracks explosive weapon use in conflicts around the world, shows that the area most affected by the earthquake is also the area most frequently bombed by the Turkish Air Force in recent years. Given that Turkey has demonstrated its refusal to terminate its attacks on the Kurds even in the midst of one of the worst natural disasters of this century, should the United States continue supplying the very equipment used to carry out this aggression? Read more - Lire plus
Three Greek volunteers were apprehended by Turkey's Anti-Terrorism Service
| |
En Iran, un ressortissant irano-allemand condamné à mort pour «terrorisme» | |
|
RFI 21/02/2023 - La justice iranienne a condamné à mort ce mardi un dissident irano-allemand, kidnappé et emmené de force en Iran selon ses proches, pour son implication présumée dans un attentat, une décision qualifiée « d'inacceptable » par l'Allemagne. Âgé de 67 ans, Jamshid Sharmahd avait été présenté devant un tribunal à Téhéran en février 2022 en étant accusé d'avoir participé à un attentat contre une mosquée à Chiraz, dans le sud de l'Iran, qui avait fait 14 morts en avril 2008.
« Jamshid Sharmahd, le chef du groupe terroriste Tondar, a été condamné à mort pour corruption sur terre en planifiant et en dirigeant des actions terroristes », a annoncé l'agence de l'autorité judiciaire iranienne Mizan Online. La justice lui a reproché en outre d'avoir établi des contacts avec des « officiers du FBI et de la CIA » et d'avoir « tenté de contacter des agents du Mossad israélien ». La sentence a été prononcée par un tribunal de première instance et peut donc faire l'objet d'un recours devant la Cour suprême, a précisé Mizan Online.
L'Allemagne a qualifié la condamnation « d'absolument inacceptable ». « L'application de la peine de mort à Jamshid Sharmahd entraînera une réaction significative », a prévenu la ministre des Affaires étrangères Annalena Baerbock. La famille du dissident disait craindre que ne lui soit réservé le même sort qu'à l'opposant iranien Ruhollah Zam, réfugié en France, qui a été pendu en décembre 2020 en Iran après avoir quitté Paris pour l'Irak, où ses partisans affirment qu'il a été arrêté par les autorités iraniennes.
L'Iran avait annoncé en août 2020 son arrestation lors d'une « opération complexe », sans préciser ni où ni comment ni quand il a été arrêté. Mais selon sa famille, il a été enlevé par les services de sécurité iraniens alors qu'il était en transit à Dubaï, et amené de force en Iran. « Ils ont kidnappé Jamshid Sharmahd et maintenant, ils l'envoient à la mort après un simulacre de procès », a dénoncé ce mardi Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam, le directeur de l'ONG Iran Human Rights (IHR), basée en Norvège. « En fait, la République islamique menace tout simplement de tuer un otage », a-t-il fustigé. « Le traitement réservé à Jamshid Sharmahd témoigne du mépris des droits humains fondamentaux qui est ancré dans les autorités iraniennes », a abondé Amnesty International. Read more - Lire plus
| |
China laid more than 1,400 national security charges since 2018, top prosecutor’s office reveals in a first | |
|
SCMP 15/02/2023 - More than 1,400 charges related to endangering state security were laid in the last five years, China’s top prosecutorial agency said on Wednesday, offering a rare glimpse into the scale of such indictments.
Past disclosures by the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP) only provided the total number of criminal indictments, with no specific data offered on state security charges – which usually relate to the Chinese Communist Party’s efforts against espionage and subversion, with trials mostly held behind closed doors.
Preventing and identifying acts that endanger national and public security was the top priority of prosecutors, SPP deputy director Sun Qian said in announcing the case data for 2018-2022. Another 435,000 cases relating to endangering public security were tried in the same period, he added. “In terms of prosecutions against endangering national security and public security, [the prosecutors aim to] severely punish crimes of infiltration, subversion and secession and we focus on enhancing our ability to prevent and spot these crimes,” Sun said in Beijing. However, the percentage of those indicted of such crimes remained relatively low, he clarified.
Defendants charged with endangering national security made up just 0.03 per cent of total criminal indictments in the past five years, Sun said. Those charged with endangering public security represented 6.3 per cent. However, the total number of criminal prosecutions rose by 9.5 per cent from the previous five years, to 5.83 million cases between 2018 and 2022, he added. Endangering state security is a charge that covers any activities the authorities consider subversive, separatist or that could overthrow the communist authorities. Read more - Lire plus
| |
Tunisia: President Saied must immediately stop his political ‘witch hunt’ | |
|
Amnesty International 17/02/2023 - Tunisian authorities are escalating efforts to crack down on high-profile critics and perceived opponents of President Kais Saied with the arrest of at least ten people in a week of political turmoil, Amnesty International said today. President Saied has branded those arrested as “terrorists” and accused them of conspiring to undermine the state and manipulate food prices to foment social tension, in videotaped remarks posted on 14 February on his official Facebook page. They include political figures, lawyers, a former government minister, and the director of a leading radio station, according to lawyers and family members. “Arresting people on vague claims of conspiracy flies in the face of basic human rights. This latest round of arrests is a deliberate attempt to quash dissent including criticism of the president,” said Heba Morayef, Amnesty International’s Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa.
“President Saied should call off this politically motivated witch hunt. The authorities should focus instead on finding real solutions to help alleviate the suffering of those hit hard by Tunisia’s crumbling economy.” In at least three cases, the authorities have arrested people under a law that could carry the death penalty and, in at least five cases, the authorities failed to present evidence of wrongdoing by those arrested, according to lawyers. The grounds for other arrests remain unclear. Lawyers and family members of five of those arrested described a series of early morning or evening raids on their homes by up to 20 anti-terrorism police. Some were denied access to a lawyer for at least 24 hours. One high-profile arrest was that of Khayam Turki, a former member of the opposition Ettakatol party who now runs a local think-tank. In the early hours of 11 February, anti-terrorism police raided his home in Tunis and later interrogated him about his interactions with opposition politicians, foreigners, and what they described as a visit by foreign diplomats to his house, his lawyer told Amnesty International.
Others include Abdelhamid Jlassi, a former senior member of the opposition Ennahda party who has been openly critical of President Saied, and another Ennahda member, Nourredine Bhiri. Bhiri’s lawyers told Amnesty International he was arrested on accusations of “seeking to change the nature of the state” in connection with public remarks they attribute to him calling for resistance against dictatorship. Bhiri had previously been arbitrarily detained for almost 70 days in early 2022 before he was released without charge. Security forces this week also arbitrarily arrested Lazhar Akremi, a well-known lawyer and political figure who has criticised the authorities in the media, and Noureddine Boutar, director of Radio Mosaique, a popular station that has given voice to criticism of President Saied. Boutar, his lawyer told Amnesty International, was questioned about his radio station’s editorial line. On 18 November 2022, the president complained publicly over the station’s coverage of him while speaking to a Radio Mosaique reporter. Amnesty International has reported extensively on President Saied’s power grab of 25 July 2021. Since that time, the authorities have arrested, investigated or prosecuted at least 32 people in relation to their peaceful criticism of the authorities. Source
Tunisia’s former house speaker Ghannouchi questioned again by anti-terrorism unit
Pakistan anti-terrorism court rejects Imran Khan's bail in ECP protest case
| |
2 Pakistanis leave Guantanamo after 20 years without charges | |
|
The Associated Press 23/02/2023 - U.S. officials returned two Pakistani brothers to their home country Thursday after holding them two decades without charges at the Guantanamo Bay military prison.Abdul and Mohammed Rabbani were the latest detainees to be released from U.S. custody as the U.S. moves toward emptying and shutting down the prison. The George W. Bush administration set it up at a naval base in Cuba for extremist suspects rounded up after the Sept. 11, 2001 al-Qaida attacks on the United States.
The two brothers were originally transferred to U.S. custody after Pakistani officials arrested them in their home city of Karachi in 2002. U.S. officials accused the two of helping al-Qaida members with housing and other lower-level logistical support. The brothers alleged torture while in CIA custody before being transferred to Guantanamo. U.S. military records describe the two as providing little intelligence of value or recanting statements made during interrogations on the grounds they were obtained by physical abuse. The U.S. military announced their repatriation in a statement. It gave no immediate information on any conditions set by Pakistan regarding their return there. "The United States appreciates the willingness of the Government of Pakistan and other partners to support ongoing U.S. efforts focused on responsibly reducing the detainee population and ultimately closing the Guantanamo Bay facility," the Defense Department said.
Guantanamo at its peak in 2003 held about 600 people whom the U.S. considered terrorists. Supporters of using the detention facility for such figures contend it prevented attacks. Critics say the military detention and courts subverted human rights and constitutional rights and undermined the United States' standing abroad. Thirty-two detainees remain at Guantanamo Bay, including 18 eligible for transfer if stable third-party countries can be found to take them, the Pentagon said. Many are from Yemen, a country considered too plagued with war and extremist groups and too devoid of services for freed Yemeni detainees to be sent there. Nine of the detainees are defendants in slow-moving military-run tribunals. Two others have been convicted. Read more - Lire plus
Fallon files bill to keep suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay
The Sunshine Imperium: The militarism of Ron DeSantis
Mansoor Adayfi: I was a prisoner in Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp, but who is its biggest captive?
Mansoor Adayfi: Our ‘father’ has finally been released from Guantanamo
| |
An Opportunity to Stop Warrantless Spying on Americans | |
|
Brennan Center 14/02/2023 - This year’s reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) — a law that authorizes broad surveillance of foreigners outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information — will be unlike any previous one. In the past, reauthorization was a foregone conclusion, and civil liberties advocates struggled to secure even minor procedural safeguards. But a series of recent government reports and FISA Court opinions have demonstrated that Section 702 has become a go-to domestic spying tool for the FBI, and that FBI agents are routinely violating statutory and court-ordered limits on accessing Americans’ data “incidentally” collected under Section 702. At the same time, conservative lawmakers have turned against FISA in light of the government’s flawed applications to conduct surveillance of Trump associate Carter Page. With House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan on record opposing reauthorization, it’s clear that Section 702 will not be renewed without a major overhaul.
In public, at least thus far, the Biden administration is acting as if this year’s reauthorization is business as usual. At a recent Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) hearing on Section 702, NSA Director Paul Nakasone’s opening remarks struck a tone-deaf note, reciting boilerplate talking points about balancing national security and civil liberties without any mention of the extensive violations revealed since the last reauthorization. Behind the scenes, though, the government’s anxiety is evident. Intelligence officials have been setting up Hill briefings since at least last fall — several months before this type of advocacy usually begins. They are also endeavoring to rebrand Section 702 as a cybersecurity authority, recognizing that the specter of terrorism no longer serves as a trump card in any conversation about reforms. For their part, lawmakers who support reauthorization are attempting to distinguish Section 702 of FISA from Title I (the part of the law used in the investigation of Carter Page), suggesting — wrongly, as discussed below — that Section 702 is used only against foreigners.
At bottom, intelligence officials and other defenders of broad surveillance authorities are aware that a straight reauthorization is out of the question, and so they are attempting to level-set around a small number of modest oversight provisions. This approach is evident in a recent Lawfare post by Adam Klein, President Trump’s appointee to chair the PCLOB, who has occasionally advocated strengthening oversight mechanisms but generally eschews substantive reforms. Klein’s post does not even mention the most controversial aspect of Section 702, namely, backdoor searches (discussed below). Instead, Klein focuses on improvements to the FISA Court process that would apply mainly in the area of Title I applications. Mike Herrington, an FBI official who spoke at the recent PCLOB hearing, similarly focused on ways in which the FBI is supposedly strengthening its internal oversight processes.
This time, however, lawmakers’ concerns are unlikely to be allayed by a mere bolstering of oversight requirements. For one thing, it’s doubtful that adding new layers of internal oversight will accomplish much, given the government’s 15-year cycle of violations, followed by the adoption of new administrative oversight measures, followed by more violations. At a more fundamental level, though, oversight — whether internal, in the form of FBI training or audits, or external, in the form of FISA Court review — is not an end in itself; it is a means to ensure that the government is following the rules. Where, as here, the rules themselves have been interpreted to permit warrantless searches of Americans’ private communications, all the oversight in the world won’t solve the problem.
Congress must rewrite the rules to ensure that the government cannot rely on its foreign intelligence surveillance authorities to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans. This article is the first in a series that will examine the key reforms Congress should implement, including: (1) imposing a warrant requirement before the government searches Section 702-acquired data for Americans’ communications; (2) closing gaps in the law that permit the collection and use of Americans’ communications and other Fourth Amendment-protected information without any statutory limits or judicial oversight; (3) limiting the permissible pool of Section 702 targets to those who might reasonably have information about foreign threats, which would in turn limit the “incidental” collection of Americans’ communications; and (4) removing artificial barriers to existing judicial review mechanisms established by Congress. Read more - Lire plus
U.S. launches 'disruptive technology' strike force to target 'national security' threats
| |
USA: Supreme Court decision will have global impact on free speech online | |
|
ARTICLE 19 21/02/2023 - On the day of the Supreme Court hearing in the Gonzalez v Google case, ARTICLE 19 warns that limiting the application of Section 230 will incentivise platforms to censor more content by users, not just in the United States but around the world.
Gonzalez v Google and Twitter v Taamneh are landmark cases concerning the foundations of free expression on the internet: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects platforms from liability for content posted by users.
The cases were initiated by families whose loved ones were killed in ISIS attacks in Paris and Istanbul. Both deal with similar questions: should platforms that host and show users terrorist content be held accountable under the Anti-Terrorism Act, and can their immunity from liability under Section 230 be restricted?
Commenting on Gonzalez v Google, Bob Latham, Chair of the Board of ARTICLE 19, said: “Section 230 helped shape much of the global internet we know today: a space where people can organise, share and access information and hold power to account. Preserving its protections is about far more than the interests of Google, Twitter, and other platforms; it is about protecting freedom of expression for all of us. If Section 230 is limited, platforms will be faced with the prospect of thousands of lawsuits if they fail to remove the content that might be labelled as ‘terrorist’, not just in the United States, but anywhere in the world. Companies will do everything in their power to avoid liability. They will likely do so through monitoring everything users post on their platforms and using algorithms to censor content en masse. We know those tools are not capable of understanding nuance or context – especially in languages other than English.”
David Kaye, Former UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Director of the International Justice Clinic at University of California, Irvine School of Law, and ARTICLE 19 Board member, said: “The wrong outcome in this case could transform the internet for everyone, not just in the United States. Its potential consequences are likely to be global. Since these are global companies, we should always be thinking about the impact that domestic regulatory steps have on the hundreds of millions of users outside the USA. This is not to say that Big Tech should not be accountable for their practices or to oppose rights-respecting regulation of internet platforms. However, imposing liability on platforms for their recommendation systems will not guarantee the adoption of better regulation. The only guaranteed outcome will be the curtailment of free expression.” Read more - Lire plus
| |
UK - Press greets Home Office redraft of national security bill with scepticism | |
|
The Guardian 23/02/2023 - A Home Office attempt to redraft controversial espionage legislation to tackle media concerns about its impact on investigative journalism has been greeted with scepticism across key parts of the industry. Ministers put down a series of amendments on Thursday aimed at eliminating concerns that the sweeping national security bill could be used to criminalise both reporters and whistleblowers. But media industry sources, briefed about the changes, said they believed the measures were only incremental and were discussing whether to press for the introduction of a public interest defence.
“There’s a question whether these changes are sufficient to ensure protection for journalists enough to prevent prosecution,” one senior insider said, although any hope for a successful rebellion will depend on Labour support. Peers from several parties had voiced concerns last month that the bill could be used to suppress exposés of British military failures, such as concerns about the poorly armoured Snatch Land Rover, or abuses of power by the intelligence agencies. The key change proposed on Thursday is that a crime will have been committed if disclosure information or publication of a news story would “be likely to” materially assist a foreign intelligence service, ranging from the US’s CIA to Russia’s FSB.
Previously the bill had said an offence carrying a prison term of up to 14 years would take if place if it “may materially” assist another country’s spy agencies – a wording so broad that Conservative peer Guy Black warned last month it could have a “chilling effect” on investigative journalism. One peer who had previously raised objections, the Lib Dem William Wallace, said on Thursday that “we need a public interest defence for journalists and researchers”. Such a clause would allow whistleblowers and journalists to argue that there was a wider value in disclosure or publication. Read more - Lire plus
| |
UK counter-terrorism report author accused of basing conclusions on ‘handful of cases’ | |
|
The Guardian 12/02/2023 - The author of a controversial review into Britain’s counter-terrorism strategy has been accused of failing to do his job properly because he attended only a handful of the thousands of meetings of its key deradicalisation programme.
William Shawcross was appointed to review Prevent, the government’s counter-extremism programme, in January 2021. Last week his controversial conclusion that the programme had concentrated too much on the far right and not enough on Islamist extremism was met with widespread condemnation. Now it has come to light that Shawcross attended only six of the review panels charged with examining the more extreme cases identified by Prevent. This more intensive support, known as Channel, is needed for the small proportion of individuals seen as being at greatest risk.
Between April 2021 and March 2022, almost 1,500 assessments for Channel took place. Critics say Shawcross’s attendance of such a small number of these raises fresh questions over how thorough the research was that led to his conclusions. Layla Aitlhadj, the director and case study lead at Prevent Watch, said her organisation had examined hundreds of referrals for its report last year into the counter-terrorism programme. “We analysed 600 cases of people referred to the programme. Shawcross based his entire report on just six Channel cases.”
Following publication of Shawcross’s review, Britain’s former top counter-terrorism officer, Neil Basu, said parts of the government-backed report appeared to be inspired by rightwing ideology and were “insulting” to professionals fighting to tackle extremism.
Amnesty International dismissed the report as “riddled with biased thinking, errors and plain anti-Muslim prejudice”. Aitlhadj added: “Light on research, poor on analysis and heavy on anti-Muslim bias, the Shawcross review failed in every regard.” Read more - Lire plus
Prevent review: Imam criticised in anti-terror report denies claims
| |
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! | |
Take Action for Justice for Hassan Diab! | |
|
Since the Taliban takeover of a year ago, Canadian aid organizations have faced barriers in sending aid to Afghanistan due to Canadian sanctions and a restrictive interpretation of the Canadian Criminal Code’s anti-terrorism provisions. This is despite the US, the UK, the EU countries and even the UN taking action to ensure sanctions do not interfere with crucial humanitarian assistance.
ICLMG has teamed up with other Canadian organizations to call on Prime Minister Trudeau and the Canadian government to act immediately to remove barriers to the provision of humanitarian assistance. This includes ensuring that sanctions and counter-terror finance and criminal law restrictions do not impede the provision of lifesaving humanitarian aid. This issue isn’t limited to Afghanistan, either, which is why we are also asking the government to address the long-standing issue of ensuring that anti-terrorism laws and sanctions do not interfere with humanitarian assistance. Version française
| |
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 | |
July to December 2022 - Juillet à décembre 2022 | |
|
In case you missed it, we've published our biannual summary of activities last month. Here are the legislation and issues we worked on from July to December 2022:
- Bill C-20, Public Complaints and Review Commission Act
- Bill C-26, An Act respecting cyber security & amending the Telecommunications Act
- Bill C-27, Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022
- "Online harms" proposal
- Countering terrorist financing & prejudiced audits of Muslim charities
- International Assistance and anti-terrorism laws
- Justice for Dr Hassan Diab & reform of the Extradition Act
- CSIS accountability and duty of candour
- Facial Recognition Technology (FRT)
- Canadians detained in Northeastern Syria
- Justice for Moe Harkat and abolish security certificates
- Canada’s armed drone purchase
- Listing of Iranian Canadians
- Ongoing No Fly List problems
For more details on each issue, click here. And here are the issues we plan to work on in the first half of 2023:
- Advocating for changes to anti-terror laws that prohibit Canadian organizations from providing international assistance in Afghanistan and other regions in need;
- 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 privacy law reform;
-
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 40+ Canadian citizens indefinitely detained in Syrian camps, including more than 20 children;
-
The end to the CRA’s prejudiced audits of Muslim-led charities;
- Pushing for Canadian government action on behalf of Iranian Canadians negatively and unjustly impacted by the US terror listing of the IRGC;
- 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;
-
And much more! Read more - Lire plus
| |
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!
| | | | |
