View as Webpage

International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group

Coalition pour la surveillance internationale des libertés civiles

October 11, 2024 - 11 octobre 2024

ICLMG condemns one year of genocide, reiterates call for permanent ceasefire, respect for life and human rights

ICLMG 08/10/2024 - October 7, 2024, marked one year of genocidal attacks by Israel on Gaza which have killed at least 41,000 in Gaza alone. Erasing more than 100 years of colonization and dispossession of the Palestinian people, these attacks are too often framed as a legitimate response to the Hamas-led attacks of October 7, 2023.

As a coalition that came together in 2002 to protect and promote human rights in the context of the so-called ‘war on terror’, the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG) reiterates its opposition to human rights violations, violence against civilians and the curtailing of fundamental freedoms.

Not only has Israel attempted to justify its apartheid regime and occupation of Palestinian territory, partly, as a way to protect itself from “terrorism”. Not only did the so-called ‘war on terror’ draw upon legal and political legacies for criminalizing Palestinian resistance to Israel. But Hamas and other groups’ attack on October 7^th was described by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and US President Biden as “Israel’s 9/11” – thus giving Israel the same permission the US gave itself to commit mass-scale human rights and international law violations, violence and atrocities in the name of the “war against terrorism”. However, genocide can never be justified.

We therefore repeat our call for Canada to push for a permanent ceasefire, to suspend all arms transfers and military support to Israel (including support via the US). Moreover, we call upon Canada to meet its obligation under international law to do everything in its power to stop the genocide. The Canadian government must stop considering all Palestinians as potential security threats and must welcome the Gazan families of Palestinian Canadians who have applied to the “emergency” program to escape life threatening conditions.

We also denounce the smear campaigns, surveillance, harassment, fining and criminalizing of people, in Canada and abroad, expressing support for the rights of Palestinians, and their opposition to the decades-long Israeli occupation and to the ongoing genocide. In particular, we condemn:



• the conflation of Charter-protected expression and dissent with “support for terrorism”;
• the arrest of eleven people for protesting against a charity that supports IDF soldiers;
• the heavy fining and arrests of pro-Palestine protesters in Ottawa and Calgary;
• the Ontario legislature’s keffiyeh ban;
• the police violence against people at protests and campus encampments;
• the laying of criminal charges against three Palestinian Canadian protestors demanding action from Immigration Minister Marc Miller to bring their Gazan family members to safety, as one – a child – died only weeks before getting approved by the Canadian government;
• the arrest of Montreal journalist Savanna Craig while covering a pro-Palestinian protest (who thankfully has seen her charges dropped).

We are outraged that settler-colonial Canada has not only done nothing to prevent the ongoing genocide, but has actively supported it (particularly through ongoing arms exports), making itself complicit in the murder of thousands of civilians. Canada’s complicity is further amplified by its ongoing political repression of people taking action and calling for an end to the violence and human rights violations. We remain committed, alongside so many others, to the defence of human rights and international law. Source & Share on Facebook + Twitter + Instagram

Oxfam: More women and children killed in Gaza by Israeli military than any other recent conflict in a single year

The Year After October 7th Was Shaped by the 23 Years After September 11th

NEW Ottawa Protest: Gaza Will Rise! Sat Oct 12 at 2PM

NEW Tell Trudeau: Stop Israel's war machine!

Global Affairs Knew ‘Non-Lethal’ Israel Exports Claim Was Hollow

CJPME webinar recording: Organizing to Reunite Palestinians from Gaza with their Families in Canada

“The Path Forward”: Palestinian and Israeli Activists Working Toward Peace Featured in New Film

What To Do About Foreign Interference: Nick Robinson in conversation with Tim McSorley

CFE 02/10/2024 - Canada’s hastily adopted Bill C-70: Countering Foreign Interference Act raises serious civil liberties’ concerns in its plans for a foreign influence registry, new powers for CSIS, and significant changes to our Criminal Code and Security of Information Act.

Watch Nick Robinson, Senior Legal Advisor for the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law and author of a new report on foreign influence registry laws globally in a conversation with Tim McSorley, National Coordinator of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group about effectively addressing foreign interference while protecting fundamental rights. 

Co-sponsored by BC Civil Liberties Association, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, PEN Canada

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

We launched our 20th anniversary publication "Defending Civil Liberties in an Age of Counter-terrorism and National Security" on Sept 11, 2024. You can read the full PDF or get a physical copy here. Over the next few months, we will be sharing two texts from the publication per News Digest to make sure they all get the attention they deserve.

ICLMG 2024 - TWENTY YEARS TOO MANY

As odd as this might sound, we wish ICLMG would never have had to be created and that we would not need to still exist 20 years after our foundation. We continue to face many long, drawn-out battles and new challenges, along with what we call “national security creep,” all of which mean we must keep going.

Since the beginning, we have fought against:

• The Anti‑terrorism Act of 2001 and its gradual expansion;

• The granting of new powers to Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and Communications Security Establishment (CSE) and information-sharing between states;

• State surveillance and racial, religious and political profiling;

• The No Fly List and the Terror Entities List;

• Security certificates, secret trials and specifically the deportation to torture of Mohamed Harkat;

• Laws that undermine rights and due process, including “lawful access,” and the Extradition Act and its devastating impact on Hassan Diab;

• The criminalization of the provision of humanitarian and international assistance, notably in Afghanistan;

• The myriad more ways in which the global ‘War on Terror’ has impacted human rights and civil liberties in Canada and internationally – several of which will be touched on in this publication.

Increasingly, Canada is framing the climate crisis and economic instability as primarily national security threats to the state – rather than to the wellbeing of people. As a result, resources needed to address the root of these issues are being misdirected towards the already over-inflated state security apparatus.

Furthermore, after heavily contributing to the rise of white supremacism with its own racist anti-terror policies, the state is now positioning its security agencies as best placed to fight racism, including through the expansion of said racist anti-terror tools. This national security creep comes with new dangerous tools such as facial recognition/ biometrics, artificial intelligence, mass online surveillance, attacks on encryption, which we have increasingly opposed. As the security state constantly expands what constitutes threats to its existence, we do not expect to close shop any time soon. Read more

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

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

Le 11 septembre 2024, nous avons lancé notre publication 20e anniversaire « Défendre les libertés civiles à l’ère de la sécurité nationale et de la guerre au terrorisme ». Vous pouvez lire le PDF complet ou obtenir une copie papier ici. Au cours des prochains mois, nous partagerons deux textes de la publication dans chaque Revue de l'actualité pour nous assurer qu'ils reçoivent tous l'attention qu'ils méritent.

ICLMG 2024 - In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the United States, and Canada under pressure from its neighbour, rushed into the adoption of a series of anti-terrorism laws and other counter-terrorism measures, notably in the area of border control, air transportation and terrorist listing. That opened the door for the unprecedented deployment of surveillance technologies and data collection on individuals, and enabled practices of social sorting and profiling, virtually putting an end to privacy protection regimes until then viewed as a fundamental right in so-called democracies.

The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG) was born out of concerns about the impacts of these laws and measures on civil liberties, human rights, refugee protection, international humanitarian law, racial justice, political dissent and the justice system.

The coalition was created in May 2002, six months after the adoption of Canada’s Anti‑terrorism Act (ATA) in 2001 to serve as a forum for information-sharing, collective action and the development of common policy positions to protect the rule of law, civil liberties and human rights from attacks in the name of national security. It brought together international development and humanitarian NGOs, unions, professional associations, faith groups, environmental organizations, human rights and civil liberties advocates, as well as groups representing immigrant and refugee communities in Canada.

A central focus of our work was to analyze legislation, monitor its application and document the impacts of the so- called ‘War on Terror’ with a view to intervening during the parliamentary review of the ATA scheduled to take place five years after its adoption.

To carry this out, we proactively developed collaborations and alliances with international counterparts. Domestically, we reached out to other civil liberties groups, grassroots organizations, and collaborators in the legal and academic communities. Nurturing relationships and building networks became a feature of the ICLMG’s work in the many campaigns waged over the next 20 years. And throughout our journey we ended up collaborating with some of the best and most committed activists, researchers, jurists and human rights lawyers in Canada.

Very early on, we also engaged with policy makers and the press, and soon became a credible voice on the Hill. The ICLMG appeared before numerous parliamentary committees over the years and has been present in the country’s mainstream media to this day.

But while immersed in research and policy work, we were soon confronted with the human face of anti-terrorism, which drove our agenda for the next 20 years.

In the fall of 2002, we were introduced to Monia Mazigh during a meeting at Amnesty International Canada. The CIA had disappeared her husband and sent him to Syria where he was being tortured under the US rendition program. The case of Maher Arar revealed and confirmed the existence of this infamous program. Over the next year, the ICLMG and its members supported Monia in a relentless campaign for his repatriation, against efforts by CSIS and the RCMP to block his return to Canada.

Then, in December 2002, a security certificate was issued against Mohamed Harkat. His case, along with that of four other men, marked the beginning of many of the ICLMG’s interventions on the issue of ‘secret trials’ and deportation to torture. These and more individual cases will be discussed in the following texts. Read more

Version française : Roch Tassé : Les débuts de la CSILC et les commissions d’enquête

Canada's terror list targeted against those opposing Israeli terror

CFPI 10/10/2024 - In recent days there’s been a major escalation in efforts to criminalize opposition to Israel’s endless war crimes with a bid to list the Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network as a terror entity. Lawyer Yavar Hameed joined Talking Foreign Policy: a critical look at Canada’s role abroad to discuss how the list works and its anti-Palestinian character. Watch - Visionnez

Time to face truth — Canada’s terrorist list enables terrorism

Craig Mokhiber: No, Israel does not have a right to defend itself in Gaza. But Palestinians do.

Video: CSIS targets anti war academic

Police in Canada warn lawyer about her social media posts

NEW Take action: Toronto Sun calls Palestine protesters "Nazis" and "terror supporters"

Judge grants order banning disruptive pro-Palestinian protests at McGill

Universities must respect peaceful activism and revise repressive policies targeting pro-Palestine solidarity movement: UN expert

Ford asks education ministry to probe TDSB field trip to protest

A Netpol report on the policing of resistance in Britain against Israeli genocide in Palestine

France: Pro-Palestine activist held in custody over 'intifada in Paris' speech

Extradition Reform and the Hassan Diab Case: An Interview with Don Bayne

This article is part of the Special Issue: The Case for Reform of Canada’s Extradition System

PKI Global Justice Journal October 2024 - PKI: It is really a complex case with much to discuss and you touched on a few of the injustices. Could you speak more broadly about some of the ways that you believe Canadian law or the actions of Canadian government lawyers contributed to the injustices experienced in the case. 

Inherent in extradition is that our system takes away people’s liberty in Canada without any sworn evidence. Years ago, the Extradition Act was changed from requiring sworn evidence to simply having an unsworn signed statement from a foreign official, all hearsay, stating that they have a case against the person. 

The Supreme Court of Canada has identified liberty as the most important thing that the Charter protects. Yet we've set up a system in Canada where it is just that paper document that can deprive someone’s liberty and then the onus shifts to the person to prove their innocence. In Dr. Diab's case there was no sworn evidence on which the Canadian court could rely, just a document from the French investigating magistrate making certain claims, some of which we now know to be untrue. 

For example, the claim in the document, which is called the Record of the Case, was that when the bomber signed into his hotel on September 22^nd, before the bombing in Paris, he filled out a registration card and printed five words in capital letters — PANADRIYU, ALEXANDER, LANARCA, TECHNICIAN and CYPRUS — all of which were a fake identity. None of it was in script writing, all of it was in block printing. The world's leading experts, from Canada, the US, Great Britain, and Switzerland, all said you cannot conduct a reliable handwriting comparison when it is not handwriting but printing and there's not enough of it to draw any kind of a conclusion. 

That didn't deter the French because they had an opinion from two so-called experts in France claiming that they could identify the printing as being Hassan Diab’s. But unfortunately for them, they were actually using the wrong handwriting. They were comparing the printing on the registration card to another person, not Dr. Diab. The comparison writing they were using was actually his girlfriend in Lebanon at the time in question. So they effectively identified her, not Dr. Diab, as the 40-year-old bomber who signed in at the hotel. She was a young university student in Beirut at the time. That's how incompetent this opinion was. 

The second thing about the Canadian extradition system is that this document provided by a foreign official without being sworn evidence is presumed by our system to be reliable evidence. The onus then falls on the accused person to rebut that presumption. It reverses the presumption of innocence which is at the heart of our criminal justice system and it reverses the onus of proof that is fundamental in criminal matters. It even effectively makes unsworn evidence more powerful than sworn evidence, which is not presumed to be reliable. That regular sworn evidence has to show its reliability. 

So you've got a problem of no sworn evidence. Further, that unsworn evidence is presumed to be reliable evidence. Thirdly, the accused person has to prove that the document is “manifestly unreliable”. The courts in Canada have made that a practically unattainable standard. It is practically impossible for an accused person to show that a document coming from another country, where they may never have been, is manifestly unreliable. 

In Dr. Diab's case, I would assert that he did show it was manifestly unreliable. The world's leading experts on handwriting said it was completely, totally manifestly unreliable. But the judge said the term manifestly unreliable is a very high standard and even if it makes no sense, with this handwriting opinion I feel bound and I have to commit him. 

There is another requirement from criminal procedure that is missing in extradition, that is the duty of full disclosure, so the person knows the case they have to meet. There is no such duty in extradition. States can simply cherry pick a few pieces of evidence and bury other evidence that shows innocence. From the start they actually excluded from the Record of the Case evidence that pointed to the accusation against Dr. Diab being untrue. There was in fact a fingerprint on the bomber's hotel card. It had been checked against many people, including Hassan Diab, and they knew it was not him. Rather than disclosing that, which would have obviously made a manifest difference to a judge, they said there was no fingerprint evidence, which was clearly not true and they knew it was untrue. 

While Dr. Diab was still in Canada the RCMP did further fingerprint tests. The French sent the police statement from when the bomber had been arrested in Paris on a shoplifting charge and had left a number of fingerprints on the statement he signed at the police station. They were checked in Canada against Dr. Diab. About eight of the 12 prints were smudges, but at least four were good prints, suitable for comparison. All four of those good prints excluded Dr. Diab. It was not him, scientifically. And they — the French and the Canadian justice lawyers prosecuting the case on behalf of France — did not disclose that to the extradition judge and did not disclose that to the defence at the extradition hearing. There was no requirement in law that they had to make such full disclosure, which protects innocence. 

Finally, and ironically in this case involving France, extradition is said to be based on a principle called comity, which is the mutual recognition by nations of the laws and customs of each other. The problem is that while Canada respects and credits French law to try Canadian citizens, the French do not acknowledge or credit Canadian law to try French citizens. There is quite simply no comity with France. Yet the Ontario Court of Appeal relied on this principle in saying we must extradite based on comity. 

There is no comity with France. Just recently there has been a case in Canada of a French priest, Johannes Rivoire, who was accused of having sexually abused multiple Inuit children over 20 years. He was back in France and Canada asked France to extradite him, something Inuit people have long demanded. The French refused, in part because they do not extradite their own citizens, unlike Canada. He has now passed away. It is ironical that we will do for France what France will not do for Canada. There is, in truth, no comity with France. 

That is a long explanation of many of the things that are wrong with Canadian extradition law. And they are seriously wrong. They lead to injustice. 

PKI: In an interview with CBC in April 2023, you described that 2023 French court ruling as a political result. Could you elaborate on that a little bit? 

There is really no other rational explanation for conviction given the evidence in this case. Physical descriptions do not match. The man who carried out the bombing was a man in his 40s. Hassan Diab was in his mid-20s in October of 1980. He was shown to be in Lebanon writing exams at the university when the bomber was in France. The French court suggested that the bomber perhaps did not travel by land but instead might have flown to Paris and then flown right back after the bombing. There is absolutely no evidence of that. In fact, we know the bomber was in Paris from September 22nd to October 3rd. This wasn't an overnight fly in and fly out operation. Evidence is all to the contrary. 

And then, of course, you had the French investigative judges themselves, very unusually, going to the court to say: you cannot register a conviction, there's no valid evidence, the evidence shows he is innocent. The court went ahead and convicted anyway. 

There's no basis for a conviction other than politically to satisfy the lobby groups that were raising such noise in Paris, anxious to find a scapegoat for a very serious terrorist bombing that the French had never been able to solve. Read more - Lire plus

ACTION Canada must take immediate action to end the injustice against Dr. Hassan Diab

What's in Bill C-63, and why we are alarmed

BCCLA 30/09/2024 - Legislation to develop online protections for privacy, and against harmful online activity has been long-awaited. However, the legislation tabled by the federal government on February 26, 2024 – Bill C-63 – isn’t hitting the mark.  



With Parliament back in session, it’s likely that Bill C-63 will soon be brought back for its second reading.  

For this reason, the BCCLA has prepared a three-part deep dive series on Bill C-63 to outline our concerns, with a focus on Part 2 of the Bill and its proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, as we renew our plea for the government to sever Part 2 from the legislation. 

What’s in Bill C-63? 

Bill C-63: An Act to enact the Online Harms Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts. 

Bill C-63 is an omnibus bill – a type of bill which combines a range of separate issues – and currently has four distinct Parts¹: 

• Part 1 proposes to address the issue of online harms. For example, non-consensual distribution of intimate images, content that induces children to harm themselves, and content that incites violence or terrorism.  
• Part 2 proposes to make several amendments to the Criminal Code, increasing penalties for hate-speech related crimes, the worst among these being life imprisonment as a potential penalty for all crimes and all federal offences, if a new hate-motivation offence is attached. It would also introduce a new peace bond that aims to restrict people from potentially hateful behaviour before they have done anything illegal. 
• Part 3 will reintroduce a section of the Canadian Human Rights Act to enable human rights complaints for Internet communications.  
• Part 4 will create mandatory reporting measures for Internet child pornography.

In the BCCLA’s opinion, there are some welcome developments in Parts 1 and 4. However, Parts 2 and 3 are both problematic, diverting valuable debate needed around Parts 1 and 4, and should be severed from the Bill.  

While this deep dive series primarily focuses on Part 2, let’s take a quick look at Part 3. In the BCCLA’s view, the reintroduction of a problematic section of the Canadian Human Rights Act would only serve to flood the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal with complaints beyond its capacity. Countless insults, offensive remarks, threats, and genuinely problematic statements are posted daily on social media; the Tribunal can’t possibly sort through them all, or even through the fraction of complaints that would likely be filed.  

According to Part 3 of Bill C-63, complainants could request to be anonymous or could potentially include a large number of people who see a viral post, while the Tribunal’s monetary rewards could rise to $20,000. There is a real danger that people will use the new provision to gain money or to carry out a grudge. Given how ineffective this would be, the BCCLA has also urged the government to sever Part 3.   

Now back to Part 2, which is the most deeply alarming and problematic, and which we believe should not be enacted. The overreaches of the Criminal Code provisions under Part 2 have been a major point of concern across Canada, with strong opposition from advocacy groups across a wide political and social spectrum. 

The BCCLA feels, and other critics of the Bill agree, that Part 2 of Bill C-63 will create draconian rules,¹ cause chilling effects on free expression meaning that people may fear speaking out even when they have a constitutional right to do so,² and will distract from the needed debate and discussion on Parts 1 and 4 of the Bill.³ More than this, the BCCLA feels that Part 2 will likely harm some of the people who are most often targeted by hatred, people who this Bill purports to protect. 

In this first of a three-part deep dive into Bill C-63, we share with you some of our overall concerns with Part 2 and why we think it should be struck from the Bill entirely.

New Life Imprisonment Penalties Are Unacceptable and Unnecessary 

Part 2 of Bill C-63 would introduce a new hate-motivation offence, which could create penalties up to life imprisonment for any crime or federal offence, if found to be motivated by hate. This means spray-painting racist words on a wall could be considered as bad as murder, and worse – at least, more harshly punishable – than sexual assault.  

Likewise, offences in federal legislation could be turned into indictable crimes punishable by life imprisonment, if found to be motivated by hate. This covers a very wide range of activities, including refusing to answer an official census, falsifying business documents, or obstructing customs officers. The BCCLA considers this enormous expansion of potential carceral and life imprisonment penalties to be unacceptable. 

This new hate-motivation offence itself is also unnecessary. Hate-motivation is already an aggravating factor that can lead to higher sentences, and we already have criminal offences for public incitement of hatred, willful promotion of hatred, and willful promotion of antisemitism. We also have criminal offences for harassment, nuisance, mischief, assault, non-consensual distribution of intimate images, aiding or abetting more serious crimes, and most other problematic behaviour connected to acts of hatred.  

The issue here is that these existing laws are not being enforced. Introducing harsher criminal penalties will not resolve this enforcement problem. Read more - Lire plus

CCLA Testifies On Bill C-20 Before Senate Standing Committee on National Security, Defence, and Veterans Affairs

CCLA 10/10/2024 - On October 7, 2024, Shakir Rahim, Director of the Criminal Justice Program, and Harini Sivalingam, Director of the Equality Program, testified before the Senate Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs (SECD) in their study of Bill C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission.



The CCLA highlighted the urgent need to improve oversight of the RCMP and establish oversight for the CBSA, and proposed targeted amendments to Bill C-20.

You can watch the CCLA’s testimony below. Click here to read CCLA’s written brief on Bill C-20 and our previous joint release with civil society organizations [including the ICLMG] here. Source

Legal action underway to force Canadian Forces to release propaganda documents

Ottawa Citizen 02/10/2024 - A professor is taking the Department of National Defence to court in an effort to force it to release records about the Canadian military’s program to target members of the public in various propaganda schemes.

The application for a judicial review was filed in federal court Sept. 27 in Vancouver on behalf of Emma Briant, an associate professor at Monash University in Australia and an expert in military propaganda.

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada has already ruled that DND violated Briant’s rights for failing to disclose the documents. The application filed in Vancouver is for the courts to review DND’s decision and is the next step in Briant’s efforts in trying to uncover the records about military’s propaganda schemes aimed at the Canadian public.

Briant declined to comment as the issue is now before the courts. But her application to the federal court, contends that DND’s response to the her privacy request for records “misrepresented facts, misinterpreted the Act, and misled the Applicant. The Department responded with a series of positions and assertions that can only be described as the proverbial ‘run-around’. “

DND spokesperson Alex Tétreault said information on privacy requests can only be discussed with the individual making such a request. “We endeavour to respond to privacy requests as quickly as possible and in some cases there may be delays beyond the expected timelines,” he said in an email. “And we work to resolve these as quickly as possible.”

In 2020, Briant, writing for a non-governmental group called the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, exposed details about the Canadian Armed Forces spending more than $1 million on training on how to modify public behaviour. That training was similar to that used by the parent firm of Cambridge Analytica, the company at the centre of a 2016 scandal in which personal data of Facebook users was provided to then-presidential candidate Donald Trump’s political campaign.

Around the same time, the Ottawa Citizen reported the Canadian military had tested new propaganda techniques during the COVID-19 pandemic and had concocted a plan to influence the public’s behaviour. A Canadian military intelligence unit monitored and collected information from people’s social media accounts in Ontario, claiming such data-mining was needed to help troops working in long-term care homes during the pandemic.

Other initiatives revealed by the Ottawa Citizen included military efforts to keep tabs on members of the public including those involved with the Black Lives Matter movement as well as a plan to use similar propaganda tactics to those employed against the Afghan population during the war in Afghanistan. An internal investigation by the Canadian Forces determined that some of the efforts violated government rules but no military personnel were ever charged or disciplined. Briant’s request for records, submitted in February, was prompted by efforts inside the Canadian Forces to deflect blame for a bungled propaganda exercise.

In October 2020, a military exercise involving creating fake letters about wolves on the loose, which caused panic in one community in Nova Scotia, was a propaganda test gone awry. It generated embarrassing news coverage across Canada and in some U.S. media outlets. Despite knowing almost immediately the Canadian Forces was at fault for the wolf exercise debacle, some inside DND headquarters in Ottawa suggested trying to falsely label the incident as a creation of “Russian disinformation.”

One of the records Briant and the Ottawa Citizen obtained indicates that Canadian military public affairs officers were linked to a U.S. propaganda expert who tried to push the fabricated claim the Russians were behind the wolf letter. The name of the woman who concocted that scheme was censored from the records. But her communications with Canadian Forces public affairs officers also appears aimed at trying to discredit Briant and her previous research.

Concerns about Russian and Chinese disinformation have reached a fever pitch in western nations in recent years, with various militaries and spy agencies sounding the alarm over such activities. But western militaries and governments have also used claims of Russian disinformation in attempts to undercut media reports and the work of academics that they don’t like. Read more - Lire plus

The killing of Hassan Nasrallah and how the west legitimised its use of assassination

The Conversation 03/10/2024 - When the Israel Defense Forces assassinated Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, in an underground bunker in Beirut on September 27, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu defiantly claimed reponsibility for the killing. “Nasrallah was not a terrorist,” he boasted. “He was the terrorist.”

Similarly defiant messages came from the White House. The US president, Joe Biden, called the assassination “a measure of justice for his many victims”. Meanwhile a State Department spokesperson called his killing “an unalloyed good”. Neither Israel nor the US government lamented the fact that as many as 300 civilians were killed in the attack. Perhaps they saw them as acceptable “collateral damage”.

But while many world leaders condemned the escalation of violence in the region, reactions were more muted when it came to condemning the assassination itself. Except for Hezbollah’s allies, most governments either remained silent or accepted the argument that the assassination had been “just”. In fact, the reaction to Nasrallah’s assassination suggests that western governments have grown increasingly comfortable with the use of targeted killings, to the point that a brazen, acknowledged assassination failed to trigger meaningful condemnation.

For Israel, “targeted killings” emerged as official policy in the early 2000s as part of its effort to confront the so-called “al-Aqsa intifada”. As late as July 2001, Israel’s claims that strikes against Palestinian militants did not amount to assassination were largely rejected even by US officials, who called them “extrajudicial killings”. Israel wasn’t deterred. As Israeli authorities later admitted, they launched a concerted campaign to reshape international law. “If you do something for long enough,” as one official put it, “the world will accept it.”

Targeted killings

Having banned political assassinations in 1976 after a Congressional inquiry, in the 1980s the US government started developing legal arguments that permitted the targeting of terrorists regardless of the ban. Washington’s posture changed again in the aftermath of 9/11. The Bush administration came to consider “targeted killing” as an important component of its “global war on terror”. In 2002, the US carried out the first successful drone strike outside an area of active hostility in Yemen. The strike killed Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi, one of the terrorists responsible for the attack on the USS Cole, as well as an American citizen travelling with him.

The US government only referred obliquely to the strike, but US officials dismissed the UN’s criticism.

Targeted killings, primarily via drone strikes, expanded radically during Obama’s first term. More importantly, under Obama, the US government engaged more explicitly in an effort to justify drone strikes under international law. Politically and strategically, members of the administration described targeted killings as “surgical”. They were presented as better than other forms of bombing and – definitely – better than conventional warfare.

On the legal side, successive US governments developed an expanded notion of self-defence and imminence, arguing – in part – that the US could strike a terrorist even if they did not pose an immediate threat. The US government would often refer to Israeli jurisprudence in its legal arguments. These and other questionable interpretations of the laws of armed conflict and human rights law were used by the US to give itself (and its allies) an effective green light to target (suspected) terrorists in countries around the globe.

The Trump administration’s killing of Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani in January 2020 adapted these arguments for the targeting of a state official. Administration officials initially made claims surrounding self-defence and the imminence of Soleimani’s threat to justify the hit. But these were quickly dropped. American officials claimed instead that Soleimani had US blood on his hands, an argument that hinted more at revenge than self-defence.

And yet, the assassination elicited little international condemnation. In fact, a joint statement by the British, French, and German governments two days after Soleimani’s death simply condemned what it described as Iran’s role in the violence in the region. It failed to even mention Soleimani’s killing. These notions endured. In 2021, Joe Biden partly justified the withdrawal from Afghanistan through the availability of “over-the-horizon” capacities to “act firmly and decisively if needed”. A year later, the United States National Security Strategy hailed the killing of al-Qaeda leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, in Kabul at the end of July 2022 as a proof of concept.

Whose justice?

By this point, the US government had stopped engaging in elaborate legal justifications. Instead it would claim that “justice had been delivered”. This was the same rhetoric used by Barack Obama in his speech announcing the death of 9/11 mastermind Osama Bin Laden, which had stated that “justice has been done”.

Although, from a legal perspective, both the assassinations of Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri were highly controversial, the US did not feel the need to provide a justification under international law for either.

As Nasrallah’s killing demonstrates, legitimising efforts by Israel and the US have been so successful in normalising assassination that, even when they acknowledge assassinations, they rarely engage in legal justifications anymore. Instead they simply talk of “justice”.

Two main dynamics have contributed to the normalisation of assassination and targeted killings.

Firstly there are more of them. In the conduct of their (covert) foreign policies, some countries now regularly resort to assassinations and targeted killings. They present them as “surgical” and better strategic alternatives to ground attacks and broader aerial bombing (although these routinely also take place alongside “targeted assassinations”).

Second, several states – but particularly Israel and the US – have been at the forefront of an effort to justify their conduct as compatible with international law. The deadly legacy of this process is that a strike can now be openly claimed as an “assassination”, neither “surgical” nor an alternative to ground war, with little fear of international repercussions. Source

New Report: Israel Systematically Attacked Aid Workers

Blinken Approved Policy to Bomb Aid Trucks, Israeli Cabinet Members Suggest

The Palestine Laboratory Podcast: A New Investigative Series from Drop Site News

CAGE International to Launch War Crimes Complaint Against Robert Jenrick and Ben Wallace

Kabul Drone Strike Survivors Give First Interview in the U.S. to Drop Site

Karen Greenberg: After 23 Years. It's Time to End the War on Terror for Good

Tom Dispatch 03/10/2024 - September marked the 23rd anniversary of al Qaeda’s 2001 attacks on the United States, which left nearly 3,000 people dead. For the two decades since then, I’ve been writing, often for TomDispatch, about the ways the American response to 9/11, which quickly came to be known as the Global War on Terror, or GWOT, changed this country. As I’ve explored in several books, in the name of that war, we transformed our institutions, privileged secrecy over transparency and accountability, side-stepped and even violated longstanding laws and constitutional principles, and basically tossed aside many of the norms that had guided us as a nation for two centuries-plus, opening the way for a country now in Trumpian-style difficulty at home. [...]

Terrorism Prosecutions

Notably, prosecutions of alleged international terrorists have declined precipitously since the Bush administration years (and some of the convictions then have been reversed or altered). In a 2009 report, the Justice Department stated that, “since September 11, 2001, the Department has charged 512 individuals with terrorism or terrorism-related crimes and convicted or obtained guilty pleas in 319 terrorism-related and anti-terrorism cases.” Soon after that, however, the decline began. TRAC, a database that monitors such cases, reported that, in October 2014, “[t]here were no prosecutions recorded that involved international terrorism.” By 2022, TRAC was reporting that the number of domestic terrorism prosecutions far outnumbered international terrorism cases, due in large part to the charges leveled against those involved in the January 6th insurrection. And that trend has only continued. This year, as TRAC indicated, “Overall, the data show that convictions of this type are down 28.6 percent from levels reported in 2019.”

And when it comes to terrorism prosecutions, something unthinkable not so long ago has now happened. Several judges have recently given early release or simply overturned cases involving individuals convicted and sentenced in jihadi-inspired terrorism cases during the first decade of the war on terror. In July 2024, Eastern District of Virginia Judge Leonie Brinkema threw out 3 of 10 charges against and overturned a conviction carrying a life sentence for Ali Al-Timimi, a U.S.-born computational biology scholar sentenced in 2004 for soliciting treason by inspiring his followers to commit acts of violence abroad to defend Islam. Judge Brinkema reversed her decision following a 2019 U.S. Supreme Court decision that found the term “crime of violence” to be “unconstitutionally vague.” Al-Timimi’s fate on the other counts is now on appeal. Having been released to home confinement after the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, he now no longer faces a life sentence, though, as The Associated Press reports, he could potentially see “decades of prison time beyond the 15 years he already served.”

Nor was this Brinkema’s first reversal in a terrorism case. In 2018, she ordered the release of two prisoners convicted in what was known as the Virginia “Paintball Jihad” case following two Supreme Court rulings that held the charges in those cases to be similarly unconstitutionally vague.

And Judge Brinkema was not alone in reviewing and reversing post-9/11 terrorism convictions. This year, in two controversial cases, judges reassessed rulings they had once made, releasing from prison those they had sentenced in the war on terror years. Judge Colleen MacMahon granted “compassionate release” to James Cromitie, after six months earlier ordering the release of his three codefendants, commonly referred to collectively as the “Newburgh Four.” At sentencing, MacMahon had indicated her disagreement with the initial outcome of the case which led to 25-year sentences for the defendants convicted on charges that involved plotting to bomb synagogues and shoot down American planes with stinger missiles, describing their crime as that of “allegedly planting ‘bombs’ that were packed with inert explosives supplied by the FBI.” She further chastised the FBI in her compassionate release ruling, claiming, “Nothing about the crimes of conviction was of defendants’ own making. The FBI invented the conspiracy, identified the targets, manufactured the ordnance, federalized what would otherwise have been a state crime…, and picked the day for the ‘mission.’”

Four years earlier, in late 2019, a federal judge in Lodi, California overturned the conviction of Hamid Hayat, convicted in 2006 for attending a terrorist training camp in Pakistan and plotting an attack on this country, on the grounds that his counsel had ineffectively assisted him. Following that vacated conviction, the National Security Division at the Department of Justice reviewed the case and decided against filing new charges concluding “that the passage of time and the interests of justice counsel against resurrecting this 15-year-old case.” Having served 14 years of a 24-year sentence, Hayat was released.

The “passage of time” in these cases had led to a rethinking of the uses of justice and law after 9/11. Sadly enough, it has not resulted in sunsetting two of the major initiatives of the war on terror—the authorization for the initial military response to the 9/11 attacks that led to this country’s disastrous military engagements in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and the creation of the Guantánamo Bay Detention Facility.

The 2001 AUMF

One glaring element of the war on terror that has defied any sense of ending is the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, or AUMF, passed by Congress in the days just after 9/11, which initially green-lit the invasion of Afghanistan. It’s still on the books.

Unlike prior authorizations for war, the 2001 authorization included no temporal limits, no geographical boundaries, and no named enemy. It was a classic blank check for launching attacks anywhere in the name of the war on terror and has indeed been used to justify attacks in dozens of countries throughout the Middle East and Africa, including against “unspecified organizations and individuals connected to international terrorism,” as a Council on Foreign Relations overview reports. As Georgetown professor  Rosa Brooks has pointed out, the temporal open-endedness of that AUMF defied international law and norms in which “a state’s right to respond to an armed attack is clearly subject to some temporal limitations; it does not last indefinitely.” Or at least it shouldn’t.

Year after year, Congress has indeed considered sunsetting that 2001 AUMF, as well as the 2002 authorization for war in Iraq. After all, the landscape of international terrorism has changed vastly since the post-9/11 years. While the threat hasn’t disappeared, it has been transfigured. As the 2024 Annual Threat Assessment issued by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence points out, “While al Qaeda has reached an operational nadir in Afghanistan and Pakistan and ISIS has suffered cascading leadership losses in Iraq and Syria, regional affiliates will continue to expand.” [...]

It has so far made no difference that a 2022 National Security Strategy issued by the Biden White House pledged “to work with the Congress to replace outdated authorizations for the use of military force with a narrow and specific framework appropriate to ensure that we can continue to protect Americans from terrorist threats.” To date, no such narrowed framework has come into existence. And while Congress has repeatedly tried to sunset that piece of legislation, largely under the leadership of California Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee (the sole member of Congress who insightfully opposed it in 2001 on the grounds of its expansive overreach), such efforts have failed year after year after year. With Lee’s departure from office this coming January, the possibility of such a sunset will lose its most ardent proponent. Read more - Lire plus

Government Forfeited Right to Seek Death Penalty Against Accused 9/11 Mastermind, Including By Cancelling the Plea Deals

20 Months of Global Vigils for the Closure of Guantánamo

Jammu & Kashmir: New report details India’s land rights violations since the abrogation of statehood

fidh 02/10/2024 - In a new report released on 2 October 2024, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) documents the widespread human rights violations that have resulted from the legal changes implemented in Jammu & Kashmir since the Indian government’s unilateral revocation of its special status in August 2019.

Paris, 2 October 2024. The 50-page report, titled "Your Land is Our Land – India’s land rights violations in Kashmir", analyses the consequences of the abrogation of Jammu & Kashmir’s statehood on land-related laws and documents the impact of such changes on a range of socio-economic and political rights.

"The Indian government’s obliteration of Jammu & Kashmir’s legal framework, which had protected land rights for decades, has already had a disastrous impact on the Kashmiri people. Thousands have already been evicted from their lands and lost their homes. Key European Union and United Nations institutions, including the UN Human Rights Council, must wake up to this human rights crisis and start putting public pressure on the Indian government to adhere to its own international legal obligations", said FIDH Asia Desk Deputy Director Juliette Rousselot.

On 5 August 2019, the Indian government unilaterally revoked the special status of Jammu & Kashmir, which had been protected by Articles 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution since 1950. These constitutional safeguards had been a key feature of Jammu & Kashmir’s relationship with India and had also been central to the protection of land rights in Jammu & Kashmir.

By October 2020, the majority of Jammu & Kashmir’s progressive land laws had been either amended or repealed, resulting in evictions, destruction of property, and land confiscation that affected thousands of Kashmiris in violation of international human rights laws and standards.

The report also details the increased repression of civic space and violations of human rights that have taken place in Jammu & Kashmir since August 2019, including the criminalisation of civil society, and arrests and detentions of human rights defenders and journalists under draconian counter-terrorism legislation.

"Jammu & Kashmir has often been used by the Indian government as a testing ground for its tactics of repression. Human rights violations and attacks on civil society in Jammu & Kashmir must be a matter of serious concern in India and beyond, as Delhi’s abusive policies and actions risk having far-reaching and long-lasting effects", said FIDH Vice-President Fatia Maulidiyanti.

The report is dedicated to Khurram Parvez, a Kashmiri human rights defender and FIDH Deputy Secretary General, who has been arbitrarily detained since November 2021 over politically motivated charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Mr. Parvez and his colleagues at the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS) and the Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons (APDP) (an FIDH member organisation), have long faced attacks and reprisals by the Indian authorities for documenting the grave human rights violations that have been committed in Jammu & Kashmir. Read more - Lire plus

Pakistan: Authorities must immediately revoke ban on Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement

Amnesty International 08/10/2024 - The Pakistan government’s ban on the Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement (PTM) and the use of anti-terrorism laws to target activists and peaceful protesters from minority groups is an affront on the rights to freedom of association and peaceful assembly in the country, said Amnesty International today.

The PTM is a grassroots movement peacefully advocating for human rights of Pashtuns who have long been subjected to harassment and violence by the Pakistani authorities. On 6 October 2024, in a new government notification, the PTM was designated as a ‘proscribed organization’ by placing it under the First Schedule for ‘List of Proscribed Organizations’ of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.

“The listing of the Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement as a proscribed organization, days ahead of their gathering scheduled on 11 October, is part of a systematic and relentless clampdown by the Pakistani authorities on peaceful protests and assemblies by dissenting groups. This latest arbitrary ban under over-broad powers of the terror law is only the tip of the iceberg – for years the Pakistani authorities have suppressed such movements from marginalized regions by resorting to unlawful use of force, enforced disappearances, and media bans on the coverage of protests or rallies,” said Babu Ram Pant, Amnesty International’s Deputy Regional Director for South Asia.

Criminalizing dissent through anti-terror laws

Under the wide powers of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), the Pakistan government can designate any organization as proscribed “on the basis of information received from any credible source.” However, the government has failed to provide any concrete evidence in this regard about the PTM. The Act also allows for the decision to be made ‘ex parte’, without a hearing or representations of those being proscribed.

Speaking with Amnesty International, Zubair Shah Agha, a member of the PTM’s Central Committee, said “there is a long and concerted effort to criminalize our movement through the Anti-Terrorism Act.”

Last month, it was revealed that at least 137 individuals had been listed as ‘prescribed persons’ under the ATA. This included many members of the PTM and Baloch activists belonging to the Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC), by mischaracterizing them as members of militant organizations. Speaking to Amnesty International, members of PTM and BYC in this list confirmed that they were not given any opportunity to challenge the same which has resulted in severe restrictions on their rights to privacy, freedom of movement and peaceful assembly.

Unlawful force, arbitrary arrests and detention

The ban comes days ahead of the Pashtun Qaumi Jirga (Pashtoon National Court), a gathering scheduled from 11 October in the Khyber District, citing “activities which are prejudicial to the peace and security of the country.”

Responding to this as a tactic often used by the Pakistani Government, Zubair said, “In the past, members of our movement have also been targeted under the Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) Ordinance before and after public gatherings.”

On 1 and 2 October, authorities used teargas and firearms to dismantle a peaceful protest camp in Jamrud, Khyber district. Nearly 100 PTM activists have been arrested and detained since 1 October under the MPO. The MPO Ordinance allows for preventative detention and up to three years of imprisonment for ‘any speech that can cause fear or alarm to the public.’

Further, 16 students from University of Malakand, who were canvassing and preparing to join the PTM gathering, were arrested on 4 October under charges of obstructing a public official on duty, criminal conspiracy, breach of peace and ‘public mischief’ under the Pakistan Penal Code. PTM leader Ali Wazir remains under detention since 3 August 2024. Last week, he was released on bail but re-arrested from outside the jail despite the Lahore High Court declaring illegal his detention under the MPO.

“The Pakistan government must immediately course correct and put an end to the criminalization of peaceful protests and assemblies. It must stop its witch-hunt of dissenting groups on the basis of their ethnicity and reverse their decision designating PTM under the Anti-Terrorism Act,” said Babu Ram Pant. “Amnesty International urges the Pakistani authorities to respect the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and refrain from obstructing the Pashtun Qaumi Jirga. All PTM activists and supporters who have been arbitrarily detained and arrested must be immediately released.” Source

Pak's anti-terrorism court sends 130 supporters of Imran's party to jail

Govt notifies 137 names put on Fourth Schedule for alleged links to BLA, TTP

Baloch Yakjehti Committee condemns Pakistan's anti-terrorism laws targeting peaceful activists

Punjab police files new terrorism cases against Imran Khan following protest call

Niger: New Terrorism Database Threatens Rights

HRW 30/09/2024 - A new Niger government ordinance creating a database of people suspected of terrorism undermines fundamental rights enshrined in national and international law, Human Rights Watch said today. The ordinance sets out overbroad criteria for inclusion in the database, deprives those listed of due process and an adequate redress mechanism, and puts protection of personal data and other privacy rights at risk.

On August 27, 2024, Gen. Abdourahamane Tiani signed Order No. 2024-43, establishing “an automated data processing file containing personal data of people, groups of people or entities involved in acts of terrorism.” On September 6, Justice and Human Rights Minister Alio Dauda told the media that the ordinance relies on “a solid legal framework, both nationally and internationally,” includes provisions of the Nigerien penal code, and reflects United Nations Security Council resolution 1373, the counterterrorism resolution adopted after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

“Niger’s new counterterrorism order allows people to be labeled suspected terrorists on vague criteria and with no credible evidence,” said Ilaria Allegrozzi, senior Sahel researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The government should suspend the database until grounds for inclusion and other provisions meet international human rights standards.”

Human Rights Watch wrote to the Niger justice and human rights minister on September 12 and Gen. Tiani on September 13 to raise concerns about the ordinance and request responses to specific questions. Neither official has responded.

Under the ordinance, people or entities can also be listed in the database if suspected of “activities that may disrupt public peace and security,” or for “disseminating data or comments likely to disturb public order.” Such vaguely worded criteria facilitate unlawful restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression and association.

A Nigerien lawyer, Moussa Coulibaly, told Human Rights Watch that under this ordinance, “the standards are set so low that unverified sources of information can serve as the basis for putting someone in the database.”

Those included in the database face severe consequences, including being denied the ability to travel nationally and internationally, and finding their assets frozen. They may be stripped of their Nigerien nationality, increasing the risk of statelessness. Niger is a party to the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, which prohibits depriving someone of their nationality if it would leave them stateless. Read more

Version française: Niger : Une nouvelle base de données sur le terrorisme menace les droits

EU: Definition of “potential terrorists” opens door to broad information-sharing

EU member states can now collect and share information on “potential terrorists”. This category is based on a new informal definition that was agreed with no democratic scrutiny. While claiming to target those who may engage in political violence, there is potential for far broader application.

Statewatch 02/10/2024 - The EU and its forerunners have targeted radicalism and “radicalisation” for decades. This agenda gained a firmer hold in 2011, when the European Commission established the Radicalisation Awareness Network.

In June this year, the Commission launched a new €60 million (pdf) “Knowledge Hub” to further expand the agenda. The hub aims “to collaborate in a new way at the EU level to address the challenges posed by radicalisation.”

Around the same time, the Belgian Council presidency circulated a document (pdf) which “sums up the Presidency focus areas and initiatives for the past six months in the domain of counter-terrorism (CT)”. It says:

“Member States should continue their efforts to recognise and handle, at an early stage, public security threats stemming from individuals considered by national law enforcement authorities to constitute a violent extremist/terrorist threat.”

This would rely on information on these individuals being entered into EU databases, such as the Schengen Information System or Europol’s files. The document says information should be entered “where possible and in line with national and EU legislation.”

Informal definition of “potential terrorist”

These plans build upon a recent “shared understanding” of who EU authorities consider a "potential terrorist or violent extremist threat,” a concept encapsulated in the document by the German term Gefährder. The German authorities introduced the phrase and the topic of “potential terrorists” into EU institutions. The Council’s internal security committee (COSI) approved this “shared understanding” in May this year (pdf).

By framing it as a “shared understanding”, COSI avoided legal reforms. This would have required lengthy negotiations, as well as an opportunity for democratic scrutiny.

The document that sets out the definition (pdf) notes:

“The criteria are strictly non-binding and do not affect the existing mechanisms and procedures already established at European and national level. Their goal is to promote entering such individuals into the European databases and information systems by the Member States subject to the legal requirements governing these systems.” (emphasis in original)

As previously reported by Statewatch, the criteria consist of three points.

1. A “minimum materiality threshold”. This requires “objective and verifiable… information suggesting that a criminal offence, or future criminal offence, has a certain degree of seriousness.”
2. A “basic indicative criterion”. This requires “objective, verifiable information” leading to a belief that the individual in question “will in the future commit, facilitate, support or engage in terrorist or violent extremist offences.”
3. A series of “indicative auxiliary criteria”. This could be involvement in terrorist offences, sharing terrorist content online, or being the subject of an EU entry ban.

This Council initiative comes at the same time as the EU’s rollout of new information systems and an updated Europol mandate. These developments will massively expand the EU’s collection of information on “risky” individuals.

Through this “shared understanding”, the Council of the EU has created space for a new, informal practice. It will likely permit the collection and sharing of data on far more people than those involved in terrorism and violence.

The effects on asylum-seekers and refugees

The Belgian Presidency document outlines categories of people who this new practice may cover. These include asylum seekers and refugees, as well as climate and environmental activists. The document notes the “limited” number of asylum seekers and refugees involved in terrorism and violence, but the new initiative adds to others that frame them as suspects.

As Statewatch reported in March, this includes an expanded intelligence-sharing plan introduced by the Belgian Presidency. This seeks to “strengthen cooperation and exchange of information between immigration and asylum authorities and between CT [counter-terrorism] authorities,” likely to be policing and intelligence agencies.

They justify this as a response to “terrorist attacks in Europe” that have “triggered a debate on how to better prevent future attacks.”

The effects on climate and environmental activists

The EU’s interest in “radicalisation” also targets climate and environmental activists. The recent Belgian Presidency document states:

“Climate activism is on the rise, together with an increased willingness to use violence, marking a shift from environmental activism to environmental extremism” (emphasis in original).

To back this up, the document refers to a report by the EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator, which purportedly examined “the role climate change and environmental concerns play in the ideologies and narratives of violent extremists and terrorists in the EU.”

Yet, the report itself said it was largely speculative:

“The potential for terrorism and violent extremism linked to the environment and climate change is at this moment limited but might become more significant in the coming years.”

The Belgian Presidency document included a similar note on the “limited” number of asylum seekers and refugees involved in terrorism and violence. Yet, both groups remain targets of the EU’s agenda against “radicalisation”.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Environmental Defenders under the Aarhus Convention has issued a warning that:

“…the conflation of peaceful climate activism with radicalisation and terrorism may increase polarisation by wrongly labelling activists as radicals and trivialising terrorism.”

Harsh sentences are being handed down to peaceful climate protesters by both EU member states and the UK. The latter remains closely tied to the EU’s policing structures through its cooperation with Europol.

For example, at the end of August, Climate Rights International reported:

“…a German court sentenced 65-year-old Winfried Lorenz to 22 months in prison without parole, for his involvement in a climate protest that blocked a road. It is believed to be the longest sentence ever imposed in Berlin against a climate activist.” Source

OTHER NEWS - AUTRES NOUVELLES

Anti-terror & national security legislation

Législation antiterroriste et de sécurité nationale

Germany Rushes to Expand Biometric Surveillance

Artificial intelligence

Intelligence artificielle

How California politics killed a nationally important AI bill

Attacks on dissent

Attaques contre la dissidence

Indigenous land defenders from Ecuador face the risk of reprisal after speaking against Canadian mining companies

Campement pour le logement bloqué par la police : le droit de manifester menacé à Québec?

Charities

Organismes de bienfaisance

Report #4 of the Advisory Committee on the Charitable Sector – October 2024

Criminalization of dissent

Criminalisation de la dissidence

Indian Authorities Unlawfully Detain Himalaya Climate Activist

Egypt Should Release Prominent Activist Alaa Abdel Fattah

Encryption

Chiffrement

EFF: Salt Typhoon Hack Shows There's No Security Backdoor That's Only For The "Good Guys"

European data protection authorities urged to take action on new cybercrime convention

Freedom of speech

Liberté d'expression

Facebook and Instagram Restrict the Use of the Red Triangle Emoji Over Hamas Association

Freedom of the press

Liberté de la presse

“I Pled Guilty to Journalism”: WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange Speaks Publicly for First Time Since Prison Release

Committee expresses deep concern at harsh treatment of Julian Assange, warns of its chilling effect for the press

Islamophobia

Islamophobie

ACLU: An appeals court just ruled that three Muslim Americans plausibly established a pattern of discriminatory questioning by U.S. border officers

Uncovering the Bias and Prejudice in Reporting on Islamist and Non-Islamist Terrorist Attacks in British and US Newspapers

Migrant and refugee rights

Droits des migrant.es et réfugié.es

“Separated”: Film Shows How Trump Tore Immigrant Families Apart, 1,300 Kids Still Alone

Surveilling Europe’s edges: detention centres as a blueprint for mass surveillance

Police

NEW Join us in demanding justice for Indigenous Peoples

Inside the Federal Protective Service, Homeland Security’s Domestic Police Force

Limiting the Military’s Role in Law Enforcement

Privacy and surveillance

Vie privée et surveillance

ICE Signs $2 Million Contract With Spyware Maker Paragon Solutions amid the Biden administration’s years-long crackdown on commercial spyware vendors

Surveillance Technologies at European Borders: Evros

Terror lists

Listes terroristes

Biden’s Cuba Policy Leaves the Island in Wreckage

Transparency

Transparence

UK - Hillsborough duty of candour law will be introduced before next anniversary, Starmer to say

Miscellaneous

Divers

Overwhelmed by workload, public sector integrity commissioner asks for more money

Independent panel calls for removal of Homeland Security watchdog

ICLMG ACTIONS DE LA CSILC

Uphold rights and liberties at protests and encampments across Canada!

Please join us in calling for the following:

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

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

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

Canada: Do not purchase armed drones

The ICLMG is a member of the No Armed Drones campaign

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

CSIS isn't above the law!

In recent years, at least three court decisions revealed the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) engaged in potentially illegal activities and lied to the courts. This is utterly unacceptable, especially given that this is not the first time these serious problems have been raised. CSIS cannot be allowed to act as though they are above the law.



Send a message to Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino demanding that he take immediate action to put an end to this abuse of power and hold those CSIS officers involved accountable, and for parliament to support Bill C-331, An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act (duty of candour). Your message will also be sent to your MP and to Minister of Justice David Lametti.

Canada must protect Hassan Diab!

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

Letter in English + Lettre en français

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

Petition in English + Pétition en français

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

Canada must repatriate all Canadians detained in NE Syria now!

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

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

Please share on Facebook + Twitter + Instagram

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

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

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

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

Reform Canada's extradition law now!

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



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

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

Phone PM Justin Trudeau

TAKE ACTION: Justice for Hassan Diab!

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

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.

December to June 2024 - Décembre à juin 2024

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

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

What we have planned for the rest of 2024!

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

Les opinions exprimées ne reflètent pas nécessairement les positions de la CSILC - The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the positions of ICLMG.