|
International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
Coalition pour la surveillance internationale des libertés civiles
March 29, 2024 - 29 mars 2024
| |
URGENT: Send a message to Mélanie Joly | |
|
Justice for Hassan Diab 29/03/2024 - Minister Joly is going to France on April 2 to "strengthen Canadian-French relationships." Let her know we want Hassan's story to be on her agenda to make it clear there will not be another extradition of this innocent man: melanie.joly@parl.gc.ca.
Here is a sample letter: Dear Minister Joly,
On your visit to France next week, please raise the issue of France's unsubstantiated declaration (vs legal finding) of Dr. Hassan Diab's involvement in the bombing at the Copernicus Synagogue in October 1980.
Their highly questionable in absentia court process of April 2023 followed 3 years of intensive French investigations which found no evidence to even justify a trial, much less a conviction. Experienced magistrates confirmed as well that Dr. Diab was in Beirut at the time of the bombing in 1980 and released him in January 2018 after 3 years in essentially solitary confinement in a French prison!
On June 20 2018, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stated, “I think, for Hassan Diab, we have to recognize first of all that what happened to him never should have happened."
Amnesty International a demandé aux autorités françaises d’abandonner les charges contre Hassan Diab dans l’affaire de l’attentat à l’explosif contre la synagogue de la rue Copernic à Paris, en 1980, et de mettre fin aux poursuites judiciaires à son encontre juste avant le procès en avril 2023.
Bernie Farber, the chair of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network and former CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress, on April 21 2023 tweeted, the resulting verdict by the French Court was “a Shanda,” an outrage.
Please use your time in France to work toward an understanding with France that there will be no extradition in this case. Dr. Diab and his family deserve to live their lives without the shadow of arrest constantly hanging over him.
Sincerely,
Share on Facebook + Twitter
ACTION: Please Phone Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Urging Him to Protect Hassan Diab
| |
Ensemble pour Gaza et la Palestine! Ensemble pour la justice et la paix! | |
Cet appel a été produit par la Coalition du Québec URGENCE Palestine et endossé par 231 organisations - dont la CSILC - et 155 personnalités publiques en date du 27 mars 2024 | |
|
Ligue des droits et libertés 23/03/2024 - Depuis plus de cinq mois, ce qu’Israël inflige à la population palestinienne de Gaza nous révolte et révolte une grande partie de la population québécoise : bombardements incessants; 31 819 personnes tuées,
7 000 disparues sous les décombres, 73 934 blessées (en date du 19 mars 2024); infrastructures civiles massivement détruites; ambulances, personnels de santé et journalistes ciblés; déplacements forcés de
85 % de la population; blocus plongeant toute la population dans des conditions d’insécurité alimentaire aigüe, voire de famine, et les privant d’eau potable, de médicaments et de carburant.
En seulement trois mois, 10 000 enfants avaient déjà été tués à Gaza, soit 20 fois plus qu’en Ukraine en 18 mois (500). Et, selon des experts de l’ONU, il est « sans précédent qu’une population civile entière souffre de la faim aussi complètement et aussi rapidement ».
Le 26 janvier, la Cour internationale de Justice (CIJ) a statué qu’il était plausible qu’Israël commette des
actes de génocide à Gaza. La CIJ a ordonné à Israël de prévenir de tels actes et de « permettre la fourniture des services de base et de l’aide humanitaire requis de toute urgence ». Mais depuis, la situation a empiré, et Israël s’apprête maintenant à assiéger la ville de Rafah, à l’extrême sud de la bande de Gaza, et à forcer l’expulsion de 1,5 million de personnes qui y ont cherché un refuge ultime.
La position du Canada est honteuse
Face à ces crimes, le Canada a exprimé des « préoccupations » pour le sort de la population civile, mais il continue d’invoquer le droit d’Israël de « se défendre » sans condamner Israël pour ses innombrables
violations du droit international. Depuis octobre dernier, il a autorisé un montant record d’exportations
militaires vers Israël. Le Canada a suspendu son financement à l'agence de l’ONU pour les réfugié·e·s
palestiniens (UNRWA), puis l’a récemment rétabli. Mais au lieu d’exiger qu’Israël laisse entrer toute l’aide
humanitaire, déjà disponible depuis longtemps, par la voie terrestre via l’Égypte, le Canada a annoncé sa participation à un corridor maritime, jugé inefficace notamment par l’ONU. Les actions du Canada révèlent sa complicité dans l’assaut criminel d’Israël contre Gaza et l’hypocrisie de son discours.
Pour la vie, la justice et la paix
Nous appelons la population québécoise à soutenir le droit à la vie du peuple palestinien en exigeant :
- un cessez-le-feu immédiat et la libre circulation de l’aide humanitaire dans toute la bande de Gaza
- l’arrêt des exportations militaires canadiennes, directes et indirectes, vers Israël
- la levée du blocus de la bande de Gaza par Israël
Nous appelons aussi la population québécoise à exiger la fin de l’occupation militaire et de la colonisation israéliennes en Palestine qui durent depuis des décennies et qui sont le fondement de la crise actuelle.
Depuis 30 ans, les « processus de paix » bidon n’ont abouti qu’à plus de dépossession, de violence et
d’humiliation à l’égard du peuple palestinien. Une solution juste et durable doit venir maintenant. Comme société civile québécoise, nous pouvons y contribuer en nous inscrivant, entre autres, dans le mouvement international de boycott, désinvestissement et sanctions (BDS).
Il n'est pas antisémite de défendre les droits du peuple palestinien! Source & liste de signataires
Parliament votes to end authorization and transfer of arms exports to Israel in watered-down motion
Trudeau Government Will Not Revoke Existing Permits For Israel Military Exports
Stat Can Data Raises More Concerns About ‘Non-Lethal’ Israel Exports
NEW ACTION: Mélanie Joly: instate an airtight arms embargo without delay
United States implored Canada behind the scenes to keep supporting UNRWA: Minister of International Development, Ahmed Hussen
Inside Palestinian-Canadians’ fight to save family members trapped in Gaza
ACTION: Save This Gaza Family: Palestinian Refugees Must be Allowed to Bring Loved Ones to Canada
Les manifestant·es pro-Palestine à la merci de la répression policière
Open Letter: BCCLA urges immediate withdrawal of charges against Toronto human rights activists
| |
States must adhere to obligations under Genocide Convention to prevent further loss of life in Gaza, says Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese | |
|
UN News 26/03/2024 - Francesca Albanese was speaking at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, where she presented her latest report, entitled ‘Anatomy of a Genocide’, during an interactive dialogue with Member States.
“Following nearly six months of unrelenting Israeli assault on occupied Gaza, it is my solemn duty to report on the worst of what humanity is capable of, and to present my findings,” she said.
“There are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating the commission of the crime of genocide…has been met.”
Citing international law, Ms. Albanese explained that genocide is defined as a specific set of acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.
“Specifically, Israel has committed three acts of genocide with the requisite intent, causing seriously serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, and imposing measures intended to prevent birth within the group,” she said.
Furthermore, “the genocide in Gaza is the most extreme stage of a long-standing settler colonial process of erasure of the native Palestinians,” she continued. [...]
“I implore Member States to abide by their obligations which start with imposing an arms embargo and sanctions on Israel, and so ensure that the future does not continue to repeat itself,” she concluded. Read more - Lire plus
UN Security Council's Gaza Cease-Fire Resolution Is Not Enough—But It's a Start
That Ceasefire Resolution Is Absolutely Binding on Israel
EU-funded drone technology being used in war on Gaza
NEW ACTION: Call on US government to suspend weapons transfer to Israel
UN top court orders Israel to open more land crossings for aid into Gaza
As Gaza Faces Famine, Israel Cuts Ties with UNRWA and U.S. Halts Funding for Critical Aid Agency
ACTION: Israel: Ensure Humanitarian Aid Delivery to Gaza
Let’s Name It: Not Just Islamophobia, but Anti-Palestinianism
New documentary: The Palestine Exception: The crackdown on Palestine advocacy on US campuses
| |
Canadian spy agency’s big data program is breaking the law: review body | |
ICLMG has been opposed to the datasets regime from the beginning. We welcome the NSIRA report and call on Parliament to rein in CSIS's data collection and better protect Canadians' privacy. Moreover, MPs should oppose further changes that CSIS is pushing for - this time, in the recent Public Safety consultation on foreign interference - to yet again increase its data collection powers. | |
|
Global News 28/03/2024 - Canada’s domestic spy agency violated its own rules by holding onto “tens of thousands of entries of Canadian personal information” harvested from foreign sources, an independent review body has ruled.
That finding was just one in a scathing report by the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA), which highlighted significant problems with the way the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) approaches big data.
“The review concludes that CSIS has failed to adequately operationalize the dataset regime,” NSIRA’s report read. “Absent an internal commitment to adequately operationalize, resource and support the implementation of a new legal regime, any such regime will fail no matter how fit for purpose it is perceived.”
This is not the first time CSIS has run afoul of the law in its collection of personal information.
In 2016, the Federal Court ruled the intelligence agency illegally kept and analyzed data on people who posed no threat to national security for almost a decade. CSIS used that data to analyze “specific, intimate insights into the lifestyle and personal choices” of an unknown number of “third party” and “non-threat” individuals since 2006. [...]
CSIS disagreed that its data operations aren’t complying with federal law. [...]
“The Government of Canada included consideration of the Dataset Regime in the recently concluded public consultations on potential CSIS Act amendments. The amendments under consideration intend to address the interpretative ambiguity, as well as some of the errors and inefficiencies, of the Dataset Regime that underlie NSIRA’s interpretive approach.” Read more - Lire plus
| |
Families of Canadians Detained in Northeast Syria Ask Supreme Court for Reconsideration of Appeal | |
|
Homes Not Bombs 26/03/2024 - Following the Supreme Court of Canada’s mid-November refusal to hear the appeal of four Canadian men arbitrarily detained for up to 7 years under dire conditions in Northeast Syria, their families and legal team are taking the rare step of seeking a reconsideration and full hearing before the country’s highest court.
“These men face ongoing cruelty and indefinite detention under the threat of death. Canada’s refusal to repatriate them gives rise to legal issues of public importance,” reads the appeal brief filed on March 15, 2024. “The circumstances in which these men find themselves are of a rare severity, yet the Court of Appeal’s ruling [rejecting repatriation] leaves them with no assurance of any effort on the part of their government to assist them, even though it is the only actor that can help them. The hopelessness of their situation is itself a trigger of deep psychological pain.”
The timing of the appeal dovetails with significant international developments. On March 15 the governments of France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States released a joint statement calling on "the international community to rally around the remaining tasks to ensure durable solutions” for the detainees held in prisons and detention camps in Northeast Syria. The U.S. has repeatedly called on its partners to engage in repatriation, with President Joe Biden offering resources to assist in the return of foreign nationals detained in Northeast Syria.
On March 19, the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic published a damning indictment of the failure to repatriate children, Punishing the Innocent: Ending Violations against Children in Northeast Syrian Arab Republic, which found "The failure to provide even basic medical care, water or food to interned women and children also constitutes a violation of the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, which may amount to a war crime,” adding, "Releasing, repatriating and reintegrating children into their home communities, with their mothers, is long overdue.”
There are currently 9 Canadian men, 4 women and 13 children who are still detained in Northeast Syria; 26 have been returned in seven separate instances. Three of the women are non-Canadian mothers of Canadian children who have applied for temporary resident permits.
Sally Lane, mother of the longest held Canadian detainee, Jack Letts, declared that, “Right now, we have an immoral stalemate. The Federal Court of Appeal says this is a government matter, while the government refuses to act unless ordered to do so by the courts. While both sides argue over who bears responsibility, the detainees are slowly dying. Does Canada really expect family members to shrug their shoulders and just accept the fact our loved ones are going to die in a foreign prison? It’s shocking the government has been allowed to get away with this inhuman outrage for so long.”
According to Matthew Behrens of Stop Canadian Involvement in Torture, which leads a public campaign for repatriation, “there’s over a year’s worth of compelling new evidence that was not before the court when this matter was first heard in late 2022. The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear their appeal abandoned the detainees to exile even as Canada is implicated in the mistreatment of these Canadians. Ottawa has refused to repatriate them when asked to do so by their jailers, which is a violation of the Geneva Convention and its protocols.”
Much of that new evidence is contained in a detailed affidavit by Alex Neve, a Senior Fellow at the University of Ottawa’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs and former Secretary General of Amnesty International Canada. Neve was part of a civil society delegation led by Senator Kim Pate that traveled to the region last August, meeting with Kurdish officials and several of the men, in addition to visiting women and children detained in the Al Roj prison camp. The appeal clearly points out that the delegation could have received the men from their Kurdish detainers if the Canadian government had authorized them to do so, but it had refused. [...]
As indicated in the January 2023 ruling by Federal Court Justice Brown that ordered repatriation, no evidence has ever been presented publicly that would implicate the men in any illegal or violent activities. The reconsideration brief reminds the Supreme Court of this, noting “Canada has presented no evidence of the particular political, religious or ideological views of these men that would make them a threat to Canada. The evidence indicates that Canada has exercised its discretion to repatriate women and children in the same circumstances, leaving the only distinction between these Applicants and those repatriated to be age and gender.”
Neve’s affidavit outlines the significant health concerns of those detained, the ongoing lack of Canadian consular access (and lack of access to legal counsel and family contact), unending FBI interrogations of the men (for whom their families did not even have proof of life when the court proceedings were initiated), the complete lack of any legal process in NE Syria that the men could access to challenge their arbitrary detention, the detainees’ willingness to face any allegations that might exist against them in a fair and transparent Canadian court proceeding, and the rapidly deteriorating security environment in the region as the US plans a military withdrawal from NE Syria by year’s end. [...]
Also included in the application is a year’s worth of public statements made by Prime Minister Trudeau, Global Affairs Minister Melanie Joly and other officials that provide the impression that the government believes it has a responsibility to help its citizens in perilous situations abroad. Its refusal to do so for the Northeast Syria cases is, according to Neve, “either disingenuous, represents a conscious decision to select only some Canadians as deserving of its assistance, or reflects a developing expansive, but inconsistently applied understanding of its obligations towards its citizens” under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. [...]
“Ultimately, Canada only acts when the courts or threat of court action requires it to do so,” explains Behrens. “In almost every incidence of prior repatriations, it was the threat of going to court that made a difference to bring home 26 women and children. We need the Supreme Court to responsibly exercise its role here and uphold the human rights of these long-suffering arbitrary detainees.”
As the Supreme Court examines the reconsideration brief, other nations dealing with the issue of repatriation will no doubt be paying close attention as well. As the brief points out, “This Court is at the apex of the Canadian judicial system. Its refusal to hear the Applicants’ appeal constitutes a failure of its guardianship role. This is compounded in the international context where the issue of a state’s responsibility to assist a severely distressed and vulnerable citizen is recognized as an evolving area of international human rights law. Other states and international agencies are grappling with the question of whether a state has a positive obligation to repatriate its citizens where this is possible and where not to do so leaves them subject to cruel treatment. The failure of this Court to hear the appeal constitutes a failure of the Court to fulfill the important role it plays in the development of human rights internationally.” Read more - Lire plus
Sen. Kim Pate, Alex Neve, Scott Heatherington, Hadayt Nazami: Jack Letts and other Canadians held in Syria deserve proper justice
Syria camps: Repatriations stall as instability brings new dangers for detainees
Shamima Begum loses first bid to challenge citizenship removal at Supreme Court
ACTION: Canada must repatriate all Canadians detained in NE Syria now!
NEW EVENT: Reasonable Cause to Suspect: Brockville Book Launch and Discussion on a Hidden Human Rights Crisis April 13th 2PM
| |
How Can There Be a Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference When Much Relevant Information Is Classified “Top Secret”? | |
|
Center for Free Expression 18/03/2024 - In September, the Federal Government called a public inquiry into allegations of foreign interference in Canadian elections. From outset, the inquiry presented a paradox: How do you have a public inquiry when most of the relevant information is classified “top secret”? At the end of January, the inquiry held a week of hearings trying to answer that question, which it called the “national security hearings”. (We had the privilege of representing the Centre for Free Expression.)
The inquiry was required to hold the national security hearings because most of the relevant information about election interference comes from classified intelligence sources, both domestic and imported. In addition to its own intelligence agencies (primary CSIS and the Communications Security Establishment, or “CSE”), Canada receives intelligence from its allies. Canada is a member of the “Five Eyes”, an alliance of the intelligence agencies in the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Top secret information is closely guarded for many reasons. Some of them are obvious. No one wants a Canadian intelligence agent or asset to be placed in danger or killed. Nor does the government want its adversaries to know what conversations it is recording. A possibly less-obvious reason, but one emphasized at the inquiry: Canada cannot disclose classified information from its allies without their permission. Throughout the national security hearings, current and former government officials described Canada as a “net importer” of intelligence. In other words, Canada gets more intelligence than it gives.
The government went to great lengths to explain how important the Five Eyes relationship is, and how damaging it might be if Canada’s allies believed that our government would disclose their intelligence, even within the context of a public inquiry. As the hearings continued, it became apparent that this concern was a overstated. Canada is not at risk of being seen as intelligence sieve. Quite the opposite: as compared to its allies, Canada has a culture of over-claiming and overprotecting classified information. Richard Fadden, a former CSIS director and national security advisor to the Prime Minister, told the inquiry that “our close allies are much, much more open than we are.”
One simple example is the process of automatic declassification. In the US, classified records are declassified automatically after 25 years. The UK has moved to a 20-year declassification rule, which replaced a prior 30-year rule. Many other Western countries also have automatic declassification programs. In doing so, these governments recognize the important role of declassification on fostering accountability for its intelligence institutions.
As CSIS Director David Vigneault pointed out during the inquiry, intelligence agencies are created to have secrets. Secrets, however, can be abused to hide government embarrassment and misconduct. Automatic declassification recognizes two important principles. First, as time passes the public interest in protecting that information diminishes. Second, citizens have the right to know about the operations, successes, and failures of its intelligence agencies. Regrettable decisions might be hidden for now, but not forever.
Despite being common among its allies, Canada has no automatic timeframe for declassification. What does that mean? Well, as the Globe and Mail has reported, it means that the Government may deny university researchers access to 100-year-old records relating to conscription and WWI. Those documents only finally get released after six years of complaints to the Office of the Information Commissioner. Absent that effort, the default is the government’s secrets stay secret, even after their disclosure no longer presents a harm to national security.
Canada’s austere approach to declassification has perplexed the Information Commissioner of Canada, whose office bears the brunt of information requests for historic documents. In 2022, the Information Commissioner of Canada stated that “Canada is in urgent need of a declassification system”. This statement followed a 2020 report that set out a declassification strategy, which has not been implemented.
Declassification is not a top-of-mind issue for Canadians, but it is an important one. Classification is a powerful tool, and one that can be abused. Where real-time accountability is not possible, it is critical there is a mechanism for subsequent study and review, even if it comes a few decades later.
Perhaps the Foreign Interference Inquiry’s success (or lack thereof) in pulling back the curtain on the secrets of election interference will call more attention to Canada’s dysfunctional regime.
Change, after all, is not hard. The obvious and easy starting point is automatic declassification. Canada had automatic declassification before the government enacted the Access to Information and Privacy Act in 1983, as the Globe reported. If it works for our allies that supply Canada with its intelligence, it should work for Canada. It is odd we guard our allies’ secrets more closely than they do. Source
Justice Marie-Josée Hogue resumes foreign interference inquiry, warning some details will be kept secret for national security
Yves Engler: Please ignore our subversion there — focus on their ‘interference’ here
NEW EVENT: Online Launch: Canada's Long Fight Against Democracy by Yves Engler & Owen Schalk, April 3, 7PM ET
| |
Chief Na’Moks: The RCMP’s specialized C-IRG unit exists to crush Indigenous resistance | |
|
ricochet 25/03/2024 - This month marks one year since the RCMP’s civilian watchdog, the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, launched an investigation into C-IRG. The RCMP’s Community Industry Response Unit (C-IRG) was created to police Indigenous peoples like me who protest against exploitative oil and gas projects on our territory.
The review is investigating whether C-IRG’s operations and activities respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Last month, audio recordings of C-IRG brutality were played in a British Columbia courtroom, including audio of the RCMP ridiculing Indigenous women wearing red handprints to symbolize our missing and murdered. They called us “ogres.” They taunted men for responding to pain when beaten. On the stand, RCMP Superintendent James Elliott agreed that the C-IRG officer’s behaviour violated Indigenous land defender’s charter rights.
Yet, the unit was not suspended during the systemic review nor will any public hearings be held. It’s been over a year and we have heard nothing, though this is no surprise, and our expectations are not high. The RCMP was created to control Indigenous peoples, and remove us from our home lands. C-IRG is a new tool that enables this legacy of racist discrimination to continue to this day. It’s long overdue to abolish C-IRG. [...]
The same governments that approved the creation of C-IRG, and continue to fund its expansion, also claim that their hands are tied due to the injunctions. But it’s all funded by taxpayer dollars. C-IRG spent $49.9 million of taxpayer funds between 2017 to July 2023 trying to squash protests over Coastal Gas Link, Trans Mountain pipeline, and Fairy Creek. In one year alone $11 million was spent patrolling a road on Wet’suwet’en territory. Ballooning costs and an investigation into human rights violations weren’t enough to deter the B.C. government from handing C-IRG another $36 million in taxpayer funds.
In 2019, the Guardian obtained notes from a strategy session for a militarised raid on Wet’suwet’en territory that showed the RCMP were prepared to shoot Indigenous land defenders. C-IRG’s mistreatment of Indigenous peoples is a blight on Canada’s international reputation. Amnesty International documented C-IRG’s intimidation and harassment of unarmed Indigenous land defenders. In 2022, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination issued its third rebuke to BC and Canada over escalating force and intimidation against Wet’suwet’en land defenders, and demanded C-IRG’s immediate withdrawal from our unceded territory. The UN committee was once again ignored.
C-IRG is getting a shiny new name – the Critical Response Unit (CRU). Rebranding won’t hide the fact that politicians’ lofty speeches on reconciliation will continue to ring hollow as long as the RCMP are allowed to harass and intimidate our peoples on behalf of greedy oil and gas companies that want to destroy our land. This week, I’ll be in Vienna during the European Gas Conference. As gas executives meet, I’ll be sounding the alarm to ensure Europeans know that Canadian gas, British Columbia gas, is not clean or ethical. It’s awash with violence and the state-sanctioned trampling of Indigenous rights. Source
Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chief Na’Moks speaks at the People’s Summit in Vienna about RCMP C-IRG violence
Trans Mountain pipeline to be operational by Canada Day; cost should include RCMP repression of Indigenous resistance to the megaproject
Brandi Morin: In oil country, First Nation accuses government of ‘regulated murder’
| |
Attempt to Advance Environmental Consultation for Atico’s Mine in Ecuador Brings Renewed Criminalization, Police Repression, and Militarization | |
|
MiningWatch Canada 26/03/2024 - Ecuadorian and international human rights organizations are denouncing renewed violence over the past three weeks around Atico Mining’s project in southwestern Ecuador.
Atico, a Canadian mining company headquartered in Vancouver, has been attempting to develop its La Plata gold-copper-zinc-silver project since 2019 in Sigchos, in the province of Cotopaxi. Despite significant local opposition to the proposed mine – particularly from the directly affected communities of Las Pampas and Palo Quemado – the company is supporting the advancement of a process for environmental consultation that has been widely denounced by local and national Indigenous organizations for being a rubber stamp to permit mining, imposed under the conditions of militarization, intimidation, and police violence.
On March 4, speaking at the world’s largest mining conference put on annually by the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada (PDAC), a representative from Atico Mining told attendees that the environmental consultation was set to begin for the La Plata project the following week. Atico eagerly spoke about how the project is making a positive impact in Cotopaxi and how the company is taking a responsible approach when it comes to mining – failing to mention that previous attempts to advance the environmental consultation were suspended following significant police repression against local communities. The following day, Atico announced it had secured an investment agreement whereby the Ecuadorian government committed to “assist and expedite the progress of La Plata mining project.”
By March 11, communities were already denouncing the company and the government’s attempt to re-launch the consultation. The Alianza por los derechos humanos del Ecuador (Alliance for Human Rights in Ecuador) – a national body which brings together 14 Ecuadorian human rights and environmental organizations – has denounced the presence of armed paramilitary intimidating people who oppose the project, as well as the presence of state security forces who have allegedly used tear gas and rubber bullets to quell protests.
In their statement released on March 20, the Alianza amplifies reports from the Frente Nacional Antiminero (National Anti-Mining Front) that police and military are being housed within Atico Mining’s compounds. Seventy-two community members from Las Pampas and Palo Quemado have been slapped with unfounded legal charges and accused of being “terrorists” in an effort to criminalize their legitimate protest and prevent them from continuing to document the acute violence facing communities since the environmental consultation resumed.
On March 25, an Ecuadorian court provisionally suspended the consultation process, accepting a legal action for Protective Measures filed by the mayorship of Sigchos. The Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas del Ecuador - CONAIE (Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador), the Frente Nacional Antiminero, and the Movimiento Indígena y Campesino de Cotopaxi - MICC (Indigenous and Campesino Movement of Cotopaxi) said in a public statement: “The Judge has recognized that the acts of resistance in the territory demonstrate the people’s opposition to the La Plata mining project, which directly affects the population of Las Pampas and Palo Quemado, [and recognizes] the seriousness of the acts of violence against the population and the imminent likelihood of the violation of their constitutional rights.”
The organizations, who are calling this temporary victory “the fruit of the tireless struggle and the resistance of Palo Quemado and Las Pampas,” are already denouncing continued police repression and are calling on national and international bodies to stay vigilant as further attempts to develop this project are certain. [...]
Appeals to the Canadian Embassy to reign in Canadian mining companies
As when the environmental consultation was first attempted – and suspended – in 2023, the Canadian Embassy has been silent in the face of ongoing police repression in support of a Canadian mining company. The Alianza is calling on the Canadian Embassy to take swift action regarding the “violation of the constitutionally-recognized rights of individuals, collective rights, and the rights of nature by Canadian mining companies operating [in Ecuador].” They emphasize, “Silence in the face of the violation of these rights, while promoting and glorifying Canadian mining investment in Ecuador, renders the State of Canada complicit.” Read more - Lire plus
| |
Rampant abuse of counter-terrorism laws threaten human rights globally, warns UN expert | |
OHCHR 12/03/2024 - Over two decades of prolific global efforts to counter terrorism have not been matched by an equally robust commitment to human rights, warned the recently appointed UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, Ben Saul.
In his first report to the Human Rights Council, the Special Rapporteur painted a counter-terrorism landscape strewn with human rights violations, including unlawful killings, arbitrary detention, torture, unfair trials, privacy infringements from mass surveillance, and the criminalisation of freedoms of expression, assembly, association and political participation. “The misuse of counter-terrorism measures not only violates the rights of suspected criminals but can also jeopardise the freedoms of the innocent,” Saul said.
He condemned the rampant weaponisation of overly-broad terrorism offences against civil society, including political opponents, activists, human rights defenders, journalists, minorities, and students. Unjustified and protracted states of emergency continue to undermine human rights, the expert warned.
“Excessive military violence in response to terrorism also destroys fundamental rights, including through violations of international humanitarian law and international criminal law,” Saul said. “Cross-border military violence is increasingly used by states even when it is not justified under the international law of self-defence.”
“Many states have also failed to address the root causes of terrorism, including state violations of human rights – while impunity for those violations is endemic,” he said. Saul said regrettably, the UN has been part of the problem, by encouraging authoritarian regimes to strengthen counter-terrorism laws in the absence of a rule of law culture or human rights safeguards. “The UN must also do better to meaningfully consult civil society on counter-terrorism,” he said.
Announcing his priorities for his three-year term, the Special Rapporteur said his focus would include ensuring regional organisations respect human rights when countering terrorism; all coercive administrative measures used to prevent terrorism comply with human rights; and States are held accountable for large-scale violations of human rights resulting from counter terrorism – and victims receive full and effective remedies.
Saul will also continue the efforts of his predecessor on preventing the abuse of counter-terrorism measures against civil society; protecting the 70,000 people arbitrarily detained in north-east Syria in the conflict against ISIL; protecting detainees and transferees from the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; ensuring that the UN safeguards human rights in its counter-terrorism work, regulating new technologies used in counter-terrorism; and protecting the victims of terrorism. Source
| |
Rethinking Risk: Reducing Harm to Nonprofits in the Push to Counter Terrorism Financing | |
Just Security 28/02/2024 - Nonprofit organizations and human rights defenders and their vital work worldwide are getting tangled in a web of legislative, regulatory, and policy strictures set up to combat financial crime but that too often result in “unintended consequences,” hampering everything from humanitarian aid to community conflict prevention. The sector has been battling for decades to mitigate the impacts, and one of the key culprits, intended or not, is the still relatively opaque Financial Action Task Force (FATF), established in 1989 to set anti-money laundering standards but given superpowers in the aftermath of 9/11 to fight the financing of terrorism.
After years of frustrated attempts to raise the alarm over the detrimental side effects of the FATF’s power, the nonprofit sector now is more determined than ever to push for another way to encourage the needed course correction. In a recent report, we explored three key elements of the problem and whether the most effective method of achieving change in the FATF’s approach is to continue on the current gradual, “evolutionary” path or take a more “revolutionary” tack, requiring a more radical shift.
The 9/11 attacks changed the international security landscape by defining terrorism, rightly or wrongly, as the preeminent threat to society, and making countering it a security mainstay. Building on regulations that predated 9/11, countering terrorism included investigating the money flows that prop up terrorists and their networks. This task was given to the FATF. As a result, the body of now 39 members (including the European Union and the Gulf Cooperation Council)# was transformed from a standard setter on anti-money laundering to being newly tasked with also setting and seeing to the implementation of standards that all countries are effectively required to follow to counter terrorism financing.
Yoking those two very different kinds of financial-integrity risks was problematic from the start. In the case of money laundering, in which money that is generated illegally is sought to be integrated into the legal financial system, it is the source of money that needs investigating. For terrorism financing, on the other hand, the source of the money could be legal or illegal, and it is the purpose to which that money is put (terrorist activity) that is illegal. Also problematic was that the FATF was not — and is still not — a treaty body; it seats only the large economies at the policymaking table, even though all countries worldwide are forced to comply because failure to do so has tangible impact on trade, aid, and investment.
Based on patchy empirical evidence, the FATF singled out nonprofits as a sector from the beginning of the newly enlarged mission in 2001. The FATF saw them as “particularly vulnerable” to terrorism financing. Nonprofits were the only legal entities to merit their own “Recommendation,” the term the FATF uses for its normative standards (which, of course, essentially become mandatory). Now known as “Recommendation 8” in the current version of the Recommendations, it was one of nine new ones related to terrorism financing that were appended to the existing 40 anti-money laundering provisions.
In the last two decades-plus, this unusual attention to nonprofits has led to the overregulation and suppression of the sector, as well as challenges for civil society in accessing financing. Among the hurdles they face is the practice of “de-risking,” in which financial institutions close accounts, delay or block transfers, or otherwise break ties with clients perceived as high risk for money laundering or terrorism financing abuse, regardless of whether they have done – or are likely to do — anything wrong.
Amid the drive to counter terrorism, nonprofit organizations have been consistently vulnerable to abuse and mischaracterization in various contexts. Legal and regulatory provisions, for example, often restrict nonprofit activity (whether humanitarian, development, peacebuilding, or human-rights related). Repressive measures target lawful, nonviolent activists or groups. Access to financial resources or foreign funding for nonprofits may be limited, if not eliminated entirely. And governments sometimes mount smear campaigns, with the objective of delegitimizing groups they see as opposed to their narrow interests by loosely characterizing them as “terrorists.” [...]
Questions of Accountability and Transparency of the FATF
There are larger questions, too, about the accountability and transparency of the FATF as a body. As a task force and not a treaty body, the organization is too ambiguous to be held meaningfully or legally accountable. Some have explored the idea of transforming the legal status of the FATF into an international organization, which could provide a way for those affected to take legal action against it. Our interviewees expressed concern that this might impact the organization’s agility and that formalization is not the answer at this stage. This does not, however, preclude the necessity of instituting accountability and redress mechanisms, due to the simple fact that a non-institution creating soft-law standards should not have as much power as the FATF has without the appropriate checks and balances.
Ironically, FATF’s own funding also is opaque, with some countries using their overseas development assistance budgets to support it, citing the U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goal 16 on tackling illicit financial flows. This is problematic, given the FATF framework itself is being deliberately misused in many countries to undercut those and many other development goals.
Conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East have once again served to harden counterterrorism rhetoric, but it is crucial to remember the lessons of the overreach that followed 9/11 and the need for States to act in a proportionate manner and within the law. Without adherence to international human rights and humanitarian law in response to even egregious acts of violence, States will only help create the conditions that are conducive to further violence, thus perpetuating a never-ending cycle.
We live in complex times and in an increasingly multipolar world, but the disproportionate focus on nonprofits and terrorism financing in the last two decades has been to the detriment of nonprofit/philanthropic/human rights imperatives as well as the financial integrity agenda. A course correction is required, and it should advance coherent policy across the goals of financial integrity, financial inclusion, and efficient and effective delivery by nonprofit organizations of humanitarian assistance, sustainable development, human rights protection, and peacebuilding. Read more - Lire plus
Tunisian civil society fears plan to limit foreign funding
| The changing face of protest | |
|
Rest of World 27/03/2024 - On March 13, 2022, 34-year-old English teacher Yulia Zhivtsova left her Moscow apartment to meet her friends at the mall. Bundled up against the freezing cold, she entered the metro at the CSKA station on the Bolshaya Koltsevaya line, passing through station barriers that let travelers pay by scanning their faces.
But when she went down to the platform, two police officers plucked her out of the crowd. “Hey!” said one, and then addressed her by her full name, including the Russian patronymic. “Yulia Maksimovna. Come with us.”
The officers looked back and forth between Zhivtsova and an image on their smartphones. They seemed unsure if they had the right person. Catching a glimpse of the screen, Zhivtsova recognized a photo of herself taken the month before, when she was detained for protesting Russia’s war in Ukraine. Her hair looked different: In the photo it was faded blue, but that day it was back to a gleaming teal. “I do tend to change my hair color a lot,” Zhivtsova told Rest of World.
After a while, the officers decided to trust the image on their smartphones. Another anti-war demonstration was taking place in Moscow that day, and even though Zhivtsova didn’t plan to attend, they detained her preventively, holding her for a few hours.
Over the past decade, there has been a steep rise globally in law enforcement using facial recognition technology. Data gathered by Steven Feldstein, a researcher with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, found that government agencies in 78 countries now use public facial recognition systems. But while authorities generally pitch facial recognition as a tool to capture terrorists or wanted murderers, the technology has also emerged as a critical instrument in a very particular context: punishing protesters.
The last 20 years have shown that mass demonstrations can have real impacts. [...] In countries where demonstrating can come with physical or political risk, large-scale protests have historically offered a degree of anonymity, and, with it, a level of protection. Mass protests are a way for citizens to express dissent as a collective — often under the assumption that “they can’t arrest us all.” But in the last decade, the spread of facial recognition technology has changed that equation: A lone face in a crowd is no longer anonymous; facial recognition allows authorities to capture people’s identities en masse.
It’s no coincidence that the widespread adoption of the technology has evolved in parallel with increasingly draconian laws against protest. As part of its “Protect the Protest” project, Amnesty International tracks repressive legislation that imposes illegitimate restrictions on protests, with examples across five regions. Facial recognition tech helps enable this repression by offering a way to enforce such regulation on a sweeping scale.
In the U.S., law enforcement used facial recognition at Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, resulting in at least one activist being targeted at their home. In the U.K., the London Metropolitan Police admitted to using facial recognition technology on tens of thousands of people attending King Charles III’s coronation in May 2023.
Often, facial recognition is used to disproportionately target people belonging to a racial, ethnic, or religious minority. “Again and again we see that it’s people who are already targeted by police or subject to severe movement restrictions, or have already been subject within their communities to police brutality, that are most targeted by these tools,” Matt Mahmoudi, a researcher at Amnesty International who specializes in facial recognition, told Rest of World.
Mass demonstrations have become opportunities for authorities to net thousands of faces via CCTV, van-mounted cameras, and police mobile devices, which can then be added to facial recognition databases. In the past month, Indian authorities used the technology to identify people who participated in farmers’ protests, threatening to cancel their passports. A Russian civil society group believes Moscow police used the technology to track down people who attended opposition leader Alexei Navalny’s funeral.
The result is a fundamental shift in the power balance between authorities and the general public that is changing the nature of protest. The most obvious outcome is a chilling effect: Facial recognition technology puts demonstrators at greater risk of persecution, often stymieing efforts to protest before they even occur.
Meanwhile, those still brave enough to take to the streets are finding ways to try to mitigate the threat. Protests in Chile and Argentina saw people donning face masks and balaclavas. Activists in London have painted their faces with so-called dazzle makeup, developed by artist Adam Harvey and designed to confuse algorithms (although experts warn that this may not be effective against newer facial recognition systems). In Hong Kong, during the pro-democracy protests that started in 2019, demonstrators again employed umbrellas, which helped conceal their faces from police surveillance, fired lasers to blind cameras, and felled surveillance towers. In mainland China, protesters demonstrated against the government in November 2022 by holding blank pieces of paper in the air and in front of their masked faces.
Authorities are often secretive about their use of facial recognition at protests. Often, the people arrested are not told whether the technology has played a role in their detention, even if they suspect it. Over six months, Rest of World spoke to researchers, activists, and people targeted by facial recognition systems around the world to track how this technology is upending protest as we know it. We found evidence of facial recognition tools being used at major protests worldwide, often in a way that clashes with civil liberties. The context may vary by location, but the overall outcome is shared: Facial recognition technology is making the act of protest riskier than ever, putting demonstrators at greater risk of persecution, exacerbating the targeting of minority groups, and changing the way people express dissent.
Combined with a rise in authoritarianism in many countries, some activists and civil groups even fear that the increased use of facial recognition could mean an end to protest as we know it. Read more - Lire plus
CAQ accuses Liberals of 'sowing confusion' over use of facial recognition
Israel Deploys Expansive Facial Recognition Program in Gaza
Indian biometric counterterrorism database passes 1B entries
General Assembly adopts landmark resolution on artificial intelligence
ACTION: Canada: Remove the national security exemptions from Bill C-27!
| |
Musk's SpaceX is building spy satellite network for U.S. intelligence agency, sources say | |
|
Reuters 16/03/2024 - SpaceX is building a network of hundreds of spy satellites under a classified contract with a U.S. intelligence agency, five sources familiar with the program said, demonstrating deepening ties between billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk's space company and national security agencies.
The network is being built by SpaceX's Starshield business unit under a $1.8 billion contract signed in 2021 with the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), an intelligence agency that manages spy satellites, the sources said.
The plans show the extent of SpaceX's involvement in U.S. intelligence and military projects and illustrate a deeper Pentagon investment into vast, low-Earth orbiting satellite systems aimed at supporting ground forces. If successful, the sources said the program would significantly advance the ability of the U.S. government and military to quickly spot potential targets almost anywhere on the globe. [...]
"No one can hide," one of the sources said of the system’s potential capability, when describing the network's reach. Read more - Lire plus
Musk made hay of his legal battle against secret surveillance but continued selling X user data to a company that facilitates government monitoring
| |
Spencer Ackerman: The TikTok Ban Is Security State Protectionism | |
|
FOREVER WARS 09/03/2024 - A funny thing happened as the House of Representatives moved in swift, bipartisan fashion to ban TikTok on the grounds that it puts American users' privacy at risk from a malicious state actor. Rep. Mike Turner (R-Oh.), the House intelligence committee chairman, gave a closed-door presentation in December, WIRED's Dell Cameron reported last week, urging the wholesale renewal of the mass-surveillance authority known as Section 702 by citing the need for the FBI to warrantlessly query the NSA's 702-derived databases for information tying pro-Palestinian demonstrators to Hamas.
It's as distilled an example as any of how inherently abusive Section 702 surveillance is to Americans' privacy (and data security). The purpose of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), of which Section 702 became a component in 2008, is to ensure that U.S. intelligence doesn't use its immense powers of intrusion against political dissenters without credible evidence of ties to a foreign power. But Section 702 permits, among other things, the FBI to sift through NSA-collected intelligence without any credible restriction. After 702 became a tool to spy on Black Lives Matter protesters, a U.S. Senator, and even a "judge who alleged civil rights violations by a municipal chief of police," Turner is merely making the subtext explicit.
And for quite a while, Turner—who, I repeat, is the chairman of the House intelligence committee, which oversees the intelligence agencies—has sought to ban TikTok. Among his arguments is that China can manipulate TikTok's algorithm to push propaganda on Americans. Meanwhile, as Dell reports, Turner's non-public presentation derived from conflating two separate protests and a piece of baseless innuendo asserting a Hamas connection by a right-wing reporter turned GOP congressional candidate—the implication being that counterterrorism tools should be used to dry up the finances and ultimately the freedom of Americans who oppose Israel's genocide in Gaza. Whoops!
But of course it's not a Whoops. Protecting the Security State and Silicon Valley's aspirations to a monopoly over U.S. data is the point of the TikTok ban. The point of giving Section 702 its latest lease on life is to protect what the Security State does with the fruits of that monopoly. Whenever U.S. legislators talk about all the nefarious uses to which the Chinese can put TikTok-collected data, I think of the nefarious uses to which Turner seeks to put 702-collected data.
Surveillance capitalism from the start united the interests of the intelligence agencies and the Silicon Valley data giants. You should read Shoshana Zuboff's book The Age of Surveillance Capitalism for a more thorough accounting of this, but collecting, tracking, commodifying and arbitraging internet data at scale became a new economic frontier at the end of the 20th century. The NSA understood intuitively what an enormous opportunity this economic shift represented. With the data giants employing methodologies traditionally associated with spycraft, all the U.S. surveillance panopticon needed to do was burrow into the ones that Silicon Valley had created, something it exploited the 9/11 era to accomplish. It's also why the CIA's investment arm sunk $2 million, early, into the datamining heavyweight Palantir.
There is a revolving door between the data giants, the intelligence agencies, and the Pentagon—and I know, because some of those who revolve through it are sources of mine. More fundamentally, surveillance capitalism makes it extremely difficult to disentangle economic interests from "national security" interests. To which any good student of imperialism would observe: Duh.
TikTok represents a complication. Its tremendously successful entrance into the American market creates credible foreign competition to U.S. social media companies. And unlike those U.S. social media companies, the data American TikTok users generate does not easily flow from ByteDance servers into NSA repositories, either through cooperation via server mirroring or through siphoning data in transit. (I know this is a hedged construction, but I use it because my experience compels me to hold out the possibility that the NSA secretly penetrates ByteDance.) In a user-operations context, Meta, reflecting the widespread and longstanding western conflation of Palestine and terrorism, censors pro-Palestinian content, whereas TikTok, which doesn't emerge from that same political context, doesn't. Hence the fix that Congress' ban promotes: ByteDance should sell TikTok to a U.S. company. And, wouldn't you know it, Goldman Sachs nepo baby turned Trump Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin is putting together a bid.
Your data is under a far more immediate and enduring threat than the one posed by TikTok and (whatever its relationship actually is with) the Chinese government—a threat that, Ken Klippenstein observes, U.S. officials on close reading frame as a hypothetical threat, rather than a manifested one. In states that outlaw and punish people seeking medical care through abortion, Meta and Google are cooperating with law enforcement to provide evidence against the company's users who may seek to end a pregnancy or aid those who do. The Anti-Defamation League, similar to Turner, seeks to have anti-Zionist student activists investigated for material support to terrorism, which will involve linkages derived through FBI warrantless access to the 702 troves. And of course there's a legislative effort underway, supported by the Biden administration as well as its GOP critics like Turner, to reauthorize Section 702 without a single substantial civil-liberties concession.
The objection, in other words, isn't about what TikTok does. It's about who gets to do the kind of thing that TikTok does, and who doesn't. American Exceptionalism, in practice, insists that America is the one that acts—and is never the one that is acted upon. We should think of the TikTok ban and the 702 reauthorization as two sides of the same surveillance-capitalist coin.
And let’s just pause on the Mnuchin thing for one second, because it shows how American Exceptionalism blinds its practitioners. As Public Citizen's Robert Weissman tells the AP, how blatantly corrupt would the U.S. find it if another country threatened to block a major U.S. company's access to its markets unless the company submitted itself to foreign ownership, and a waiting buyer was an investment group assembled by that country's former finance minister?! Source
Tiktok threat is purely hypothetical, US intelligence admits
A TikTok ban could embolden [more] authoritarian censorship, experts warn
NEW ACTION (for US residents only): Congress Should Give Up on Unconstitutional TikTok Bans
| |
Pakistan says 8 killed in its anti-terror airstrikes in Afghanistan, Taliban condemns attack | |
|
The Indian Express 18/03/2024 - Eight people were killed on Monday in “intelligence-based” airstrikes carried out by Pakistan inside Afghanistan in multiple suspected hideouts of Pakistani Taliban.
While the Pakistan Army said that those killed were “militants”, including a wanted terrorist commander, the Taliban, which described the attack as “reckless”, said the dead included women and children.
The Pakistani army, which issued a statement hours after the airstrikes, said that on the night of March 17-18, the security forces conducted an intelligence-based operation in North Waziristan District on the reported presence of terrorists.
“During the conduct of the operation, after intense fire exchange, eight terrorists including HVT (high-value target) Terrorist commander Sehra @Janan were sent to hell,” the statement said.
“He was involved in orchestrating the terrorist attack on Security Forces’ Post in Mir Ali on March 16 and was highly wanted by the law enforcement agencies.” It said that sanitisation operations are being conducted to eliminate any other terrorists found in the area as the security forces remain determined to wipe out the menace of terrorism from the country.
Afghan interim government spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid condemned the attacks, denouncing them as violations of Afghan territory and urging Pakistan to desist from blaming Afghanistan for its internal issues. Read more - Lire plus
| |
Putin has repeatedly used terror attacks to tighten his grip on Russia | |
|
Atlantic Council 28/03/2024 - The March 22 terror attack on a Moscow concert hall was the deadliest in Russia for almost two decades. While the official investigation into the attack is still underway, it is already becoming increasingly clear that the Kremlin intends to ignore overwhelming evidence of Islamic State responsibility in order to accuse the Ukrainian authorities and their Western partners of orchestrating the killings.
This opportunistic attempt to blame Ukraine is fueling widespread speculation that the attack will lead to an escalation in Russia’s ongoing invasion. Based on past experience throughout Vladimir Putin’s 24-year reign, many also anticipate that the Russian dictator will use the atrocity to launch a further domestic crackdown.
Putin first emerged on Russia’s political stage against a backdrop of terrorist attacks. When he was appointed Prime Minister in August 1999, Putin was largely unknown to the wider Russian public. Weeks later, the country was rocked by a series of apartment bombings in Moscow and southern Russia.
Putin’s hard-line response to these attacks saw him rise to national prominence. This paved the way for his presidential election win in early 2000, while also serving as justification for the Second Chechen War. Putin’s use of macho street slang was welcomed by many, including his famous pledge to flush terrorists “down the toilet.”
In October 2002, armed militants seized a theater in the center of Moscow and held almost one thousand audience members hostage. The ensuing standoff ended in tragedy when a botched intervention by Russian security forces led to the deaths of more than 100 hostages. This incident was to become another key turning point in the Putin era. In the wake of the theater siege, Putin passed a series of anti-terrorism laws restricting civil liberties. He also significantly strengthened Kremlin control over the Russian media, making it far more difficult for journalists to report critically on the authorities. Crucially, Putin sought to frame the theater attack as an act of “international terrorism.” This played an important role in transforming international perceptions of Russia’s fight against Chechen separatism by equating it with the US-led “War on Terror.”
The largest terrorist attack of the Putin era came in September 2004, when militants stormed a school in Beslan during traditional ceremonies to mark the first day of the new academic year. This high-profile crisis ended in carnage and the deaths of more than 300 hostages. The Beslan massacre transformed the political landscape in Russia. In the wake of the tragedy, Putin moved to end the direct election of regional governors and return to a system of appointment by the Kremlin. This reversed what was widely regarded as one of the main democratic achievements of the Yeltsin era.
Throughout the 2010s, Russia experienced sporadic suicide bombings across the country. In 2017, an attack on the St. Petersburg metro system led to new restrictions imposed on the popular Telegram messaging app, after an investigation concluded that the platform had been used by terrorists to coordinate their activities.
With today’s Russia already an increasingly authoritarian state, it is not clear what measures remain available to the Kremlin in response to the recent Moscow attack. Following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the last vestiges of an independent press and civil society have been largely extinguished, while draconian legislation has criminalized any criticism of the war.
Some fear that the Moscow attack may spark a backlash against Russia’s large community of labor migrants, many of whom are Muslims from Central Asia. Meanwhile, some officials are already calling for the reintroduction of the death penalty. Given the scale of the attack and the rhetoric currently coming out of the Kremlin, most expect the response to be severe.
The March 22 attack in Moscow has seriously damaged Putin’s carefully crafted public image as a strongman ruler who offers his subjects security in exchange for restrictions on their personal freedoms. In order to reestablish his credentials, Putin is likely to target his enemies in Ukraine and the West. In line with past practice, he will also look to tighten his grip inside Russia itself. Source
NEW ACTION: Free Boris Kagarlitsky and all Russian anti-war political prisoners!
Two Bar Managers Criminally Charged Under Russia's LGBTQ+ "Extremism" Ban
Three People in Russia Have Already Been Charged for Displaying Rainbows
ACTION: Russia: War Censorship Laws Must Go
| |
Hong Kong's new national security law enforced for first time | |
Nikkei 26/03/2024 - Authorities in Hong Kong have denied early release to a prisoner convicted of national security-related offenses, the first known case under controversial legislation enacted on Saturday.
While the city's law stipulates eligible prisoners can be released before their term ends, the new security law allows the government to deny such rights. The prisoner is Ma Chun-man, a former delivery man who was found guilty of inciting secession on at least 20 occasions in public and on social media between August and November 2020. Ma was accused of chanting slogans advocating independence from China.
Ma, nicknamed "Captain America 2.0" for costumes he wore during demonstrations, was sentenced to five years and nine months in prison in November 2021. The term was later reduced to five years. The case was widely criticized by activists and lawyers as an infringement on free speech. Ma was set to be released on Monday, according to the Prisoners (Release under Supervision) Ordinance, which allows early releases for prisoners who have served over three years and meet certain criteria.
However, the security law grants new discretion to the commissioner of the correctional services to deny early releases. Ma's case is the first publicly known instance of enforcing the law, officially called the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance. Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee acknowledged on Tuesday that the legislation was the reason Ma was denied early release. When asked about Ma's case at a weekly press briefing, Lee said such prisoners "cannot receive remission of their sentence, and it doesn't matter whether the sentence was handed down before or after that bill was passed. This rule will apply."
Lee added, "This means those convicted of national security offenses, which are grave offenses, we need to send a clear message for someone convicted of those offenses. Normally, there is no remission of sentence, and that's the general practice. The new security law is more comprehensive than one that was imposed by Beijing in June 2020 to punish secession, subversion, terrorist activities and collusion with a foreign country or external forces that endangered national security.
The new law includes treason, insurrection, theft of state secrets, sabotage against public infrastructure, including computer systems, and external interference in domestic affairs. The law was passed with extraordinary speed and without amendments, and was unanimously approved in the legislature despite concerns being raised by foreign governments, international organizations and civic groups. Source
Human Rights Watch: Hong Kong: New Security Law Full-Scale Assault on Rights
Hong Kong official warns online criticism could breach new national security law
| |
OTHER NEWS - AUTRES NOUVELLES | |
ICLMG ACTIONS DE LA CSILC | |
Canada Must Oppose Genocide in Gaza and Defend Free Expression at Home | |
The UN Genocide Convention – which Canada has ratified – stipulates that “states that have the capacity to influence others have a duty to employ all means reasonably available to them to prevent genocide.” Canada therefore has the obligation to not only call for a permanent and immediate ceasefire, but to immediately halt any arm 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! | |
Canada must repatriate all Canadians detained in NE Syria now! | |
On January 20, 2023, Federal Court Justice Henry Brown ruled that Canada must repatriate Canadians illegally and arbitrarily detained in northeast Syria. On February 6, 2023, the Canadian government filed an appeal and asked that the Brown ruling be set aside and placed on hold while the appeal plays out. This is unacceptable.
Every day the government fails to bring these Canadians home, it places their lives at risk from disease, malnutrition, violence, and ongoing military conflicts, including bombing by Turkey’s military. United Nations officials have even found that the conditions faced by Canadians in prison are akin to torture. Please click below to urge the federal government to repatriate all Canadians illegally & arbitrarily detained in northeast Syria without delay.
| |
20 years of fighting deportation to torture: Justice for Mohamed Harkat Now! | |
Canada must protect encryption! | |
Canada’s extradition system is broken. One leading legal expert calls it “the least fair law in Canada.” It has led to grave harms and rights violations, as we’ve seen in the case of Canadian citizen Dr Hassan Diab. It needs to be reformed now.
Click below to send a message to urge Prime Minister Trudeau, the Minister of Justice and your Member of Parliament to reform the extradition system before it makes more victims. And share on Facebook + Twitter + Instagram. Thank you!
Regardez la vidéo avec les sous-titres en français + Agir
| |
Protect our rights from facial recognition! | Facial recognition surveillance is invasive and inaccurate. This unregulated tech poses a threat to the fundamental rights of people across Canada. Federal intelligence agencies refuse to disclose whether they use facial recognition technology. The RCMP has admitted (after lying about it) to using facial recognition for 18 years without regulation, let alone a public debate regarding whether it should have been allowed in the first place. Send a message to Prime Minister Trudeau and Public Safety Minister Bill Blair calling for a ban now. | |
July to December 2023 - Juillet à décembre 2023 | |
|
Thanks to your support, in the second half of 2023, we were able to work on the following issues or with the following entities:
- Bill C-20, Public Complaints and Review Commission Act
- Bill C-26, An Act respecting cybersecurity and amending the Telecommunications Act
- Bill C-27, Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022
- Bill C-41: International assistance and anti-terrorism laws
- Canadians detained in Northeastern Syria
- Justice for Dr Hassan Diab & reform of the Extradition Act
- Security certificates & inadmissibility
- Combatting Islamophobia
- National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA)
- Prejudiced audits of Muslim charities
- Federal anti-terrorist financing consultation
- Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
- Canada’s 4th Universal Periodic Review
- Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights and Counter-terrorism
- UN Counter-terrorism Executive Directorate (CTED) Canada assessment
- UN Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights global study on counter-terrorism and civic space
For more details on each item and to see all the media articles we were mentioned in or were interviewed for, click here.
What we have planned for 2024!
Your support, will allow us to continue our work on these issues and much more in the next year:
- 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
- Pressuring lawmakers to protect our civil liberties from the negative impact of national security and the “war on terror”, as well as keeping you and our member organizations informed via the News Digest
- Publishing a collection of essays written by amazing partners on the work of the ICLMG for our 20th anniversary
- And much more!
| |
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!
| | | | |
