View as Webpage

International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group

Coalition pour la surveillance internationale des libertés civiles

June 21, 2024 - 21 juin 2024

Charter Rights Under Threat as Parliament Fails to Fix Foreign Interference Bill

ICLMG 20/06/2024 - Last night, the Senate passed Bill C-70, the Countering Foreign Interference Act, without amendment and it will soon receive Royal Assent. It's disappointing, but not surprising, that no further changes were made to tighten safeguards to protect civil liberties and charter rights.

As we have shared throughout the expedited study of the bill, addressing harms caused by foreign interference is necessary. But many proposals in C-70 are overly broad, lack safeguards and transparency, and go much further than foreign interference.

We will share more analysis of the bill soon, but our position laid out with colleagues in our recent open statements & our appearance at committee, and in our brief stands.

A bill of this importance, complexity & potential impact requires, & deserves, more than six weeks of study. No prior consultations can replace taking time to analyze and debate the actual text of a bill. The rushed study of C-70 was unacceptable, and makes the law weaker and more dangerous for it.

We will have more analysis to share in the coming days, and are committed to continuing to monitor the development, implementation and impacts of the wide-ranging parts of Bill C-70. Source

Some media coverage of our joint statements:

The Canadian Press: Senators approve bill to fight foreign interference after voting down amendment

Dimitri Lascaris: Bill C-70: Trudeau's latest assault on free speech

The Hill Times: Civil society groups argue ‘mad dash’ leaves no time for proper study of foreign influence registry bill

The Globe and Mail: Civil-liberties groups raise alarm as Ottawa votes on foreign-interference bill

Canadian Dimension: Opposition to stampeding Bill C-70 through Parliament grows

Canadian universities say foreign influence registry could harm research partnerships

Video: Senator Marilou McPhedran shares "some grave concerns about the application, scope and means of this rushed bill, entitled Countering Foreign Interference Act"

Fahad Ahmad & Jeffrey Monaghan: Painting Arabs and Muslims as a threat to Canada is irresponsible

The relentless killing of Palestinians has unfolded in real time and yet, Parliament hosts a hearing of bluster and deflection about 'radicalization'.

Ottawa Citizen 10/06/2024 - At the antisemitism hearings in the House of Commons justice committee in May, one witness accused “radicalized faculty” of indoctrinating university students. A speaker from the advocacy group Secure Canada raised unsubstantiated fears of “radicalized kids” and “Islamists who also love Hitler.”

These allegations should give us serious pause. Uninformed, bad faith arguments obscure what many see as Israel’s indiscriminate violence in Gaza. The “radicalization” discourse, which emerged in the wake of 9/11 and continues to echo through these proceedings, relies on racist stereotypes of dangerous Arabs and Muslims to cast them and the larger pro-Palestinian movement as a threat to Canadian society.

As Independent Jewish Voices has stated, the Commons committee hearings are not a genuine interrogation of antisemitism. They propagate the idea that people showing solidarity toward Palestinians have predispositions towards irrational violence.

“Radicalization” is an evocation of the value-laden terminology that emerged during the “War on Terror” to stoke fear about Muslims and Arabs. In the mid-2000s, state security agencies became almost singularly focused on so-called “homegrown terrorism”: acts of political violence by Muslim-identified perpetrators who were born or raised in western countries. In this context, radicalization, as anti-racist scholar Arun Kundnani notes, came to be understood as a “psychological or theological process by which Muslims move towards extremist views.”

Radicalization was incorrectly understood as a precursor to terrorism, where religious (specifically, Islamic) ideas propel individuals into committing violence. Radicalization “theories” were bolstered by the 9/11 attacks, which were seen to be irrational acts by religious fundamentalists who hated “the American way of life.” The “Clash of Civilizations” theory, with the civilized West on one hand and allegedly barbaric Muslims on the other, loomed large in this framing.

Simplistic models of radicalization suggest there is a linear and identifiable pathway to radicalization. This contradicts extant scholarship in criminology, which views violence and crime as having complex reasons. Few scholars think behaviours or attitudes can be definitively identified before acts of violence. Even when violence appears probable, cautionary claims are made. This caution is abandoned with “radicalization.”

Over the last two decades, policing and national security agencies have adopted radicalization theories with enthusiasm. They believe that radicalization indicators can be identified by police and adjacent actors and, thereby, neutralized. In most cases, police determined that there was something inherent in Islam driving radicalization and, in this way Muslims, or those identified as Muslims, became targets of state security agencies. Muslims and Arabs faced increased surveillance. Children became targets based on the premise they have the potential to become radicalized in the future.

Our research on RCMP training workshops on radicalization revealed how Muslim-ness gets pathologized. Change in appearance (such as growing a beard, for example), in friends, or in religious practice could be identified as signs of radicalization, resulting in people becoming ensnared in the national security nexus. CSIS has made many warrantless visits to homes and workplaces of Arabs and Muslims, interrogating them about family members, friends, and acquaintances.

It is essential to understand how the “radicalization” discourse is being mobilized as part of Israel’s deadly military campaign in Gaza. Remarks at the House of Commons committee and by Israeli state officials maintain that most Palestinians are “radicalized” to hate Jews. This false and one-sided claim dangerously conflates antisemitism with criticism of Israel. It draws on racist ideas about inherently violent Arabs and Muslims to justify the killing of children in Gaza or to delegitimize any form of pushback against the occupation of Palestinian territory. At the House of Commons committee hearing, the spectre of “radicalized” faculty and kids calls upon the state machinery and public opinion to sanction force against pro-Palestinian protesters across the country.

It is beyond hypocritical for defenders of Israel to weaponize “radicalization” while Israel appears to flagrantly violate international law. The relentless killing of Palestinians has unfolded in real time and yet, Parliament hosts a hearing of bluster and deflection — even justification — of Israel’s aggression in Gaza. This a spectacle of moral bankruptcy. Source

Pro-Palestine community members detail police brutality and suppression; BCCLA to pursue legal avenues

Inside the ‘shocking’ police operation targeting pro-Palestine activists in Toronto

CAUT, CFS-O, and CFE jointly granted intervenor status in the University of Toronto’s request for an injunction to clear a pro-Palestinian encampment on its main campus

In Canada, a pattern of police intimidation of journalists is emerging

The FBI is infiltrating protests. Congress wants to sic it on students.

America’s Campus Witch Hunts Are Only the Second Worst Thing Happening to Professors Right Now

Hardline Likud MK calls anti-government protesters a ‘branch of Hamas’

States and companies must end arms transfers to Israel immediately or risk responsibility for human rights violations: UN experts

OHCHR 20/06/2024 - The transfer of weapons and ammunition to Israel may constitute serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian laws and risk State complicity in international crimes, possibly including genocide, UN experts said today, reiterating their demand to stop transfers immediately.

In line with recent calls from the Human Rights Council and the independent UN experts to States to cease the sale, transfer and diversion of arms, munitions and other military equipment to Israel, arms manufacturers supplying Israel – including BAE Systems, Boeing, Caterpillar, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Oshkosh, Rheinmetall AG, Rolls-Royce Power Systems, RTX, and ThyssenKrupp – should also end transfers, even if they are executed under existing export licenses.

“These companies, by sending weapons, parts, components, and ammunition to Israeli forces, risk being complicit in serious violations of international human rights and international humanitarian laws,” the experts said. This risk is heightened by the recent decision from the International Court of Justice ordering Israel to immediately halt its military offensive in Rafah, having recognised genocide as a plausible risk, as well as the request filed by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court seeking arrest warrants for Israeli leaders on allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity. “In this context, continuing arms transfers to Israel may be seen as knowingly providing assistance for operations that contravene international human rights and international humanitarian laws and may result in profit from such assistance.”

An end to transfers must include indirect transfers through intermediary countries that could ultimately be used by Israeli forces, particularly in the ongoing attacks on Gaza. The UN experts said that arms companies must systematically and periodically conduct enhanced human rights due diligence to ensure that their products are not used in ways that violate international human rights and international humanitarian laws.

Financial institutions investing in these arms companies are also called to account. Investors such as Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach-Stiftung, Amundi Asset Management, Bank of America, BlackRock, Capital Group, Causeway Capital Management, Citigroup, Fidelity Management & Research, INVESCO Ltd, JP Morgan Chase, Harris Associates, Morgan Stanley, Norges Bank Investment Management, Newport Group, Raven'swing Asset Management, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, State Street Corporation, Union Investment Privatfonds, The Vanguard Group, Wellington and Wells Fargo & Company, are urged to take action. Failure to prevent or mitigate their business relationships with these arms manufacturers transferring arms to Israel could move from being directly linked to human rights abuses to contributing to them, with repercussions for complicity in potential atrocity crimes, the experts said.

“Arms initiate, sustain, exacerbate, and prolong armed conflicts, as well as other forms of oppression, hence the availability of arms is an essential precondition for the commission of war crimes and violations of human rights, including by private armament companies,” said the experts. They said the ongoing Israeli military assault is characterised by indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on the civilian population and infrastructure, including through extensive use of explosive and incendiary weapons in densely populated areas, as well as in the destruction and damage of essential and life-sustaining essential civilian infrastructure, including housing and shelters, health, education, water and sanitation facilities. These attacks have resulted in more than 37,000 deaths in Gaza and 84,000 injured. Of these deaths and injuries, an estimated 70 per cent are women and children. Today, children in Gaza are the largest group of amputee children in the world due to grave injuries sustained in the war. These operations have also resulted in severe environmental and climate damages.

“The imperative for an arms embargo on Israel and for investors to take decisive action is more urgent than ever, particularly in light of states' obligations and companies' responsibilities under the Geneva Conventions, the Genocide Convention, the international human rights treaties, and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights,” the UN experts said. The experts paid tribute to the sustained work of journalists who have been documenting and reporting on the devastating impact of these weapons systems on civilians in Gaza, and human rights defenders and lawyers, among other stakeholders, who are dedicated to holding States and companies accountable for the transfer of weapons to Israel. They have also engaged with States, as well as the involved businesses and investors on these issues. Source

Une coalition demande des sanctions du Canada contre Israël

NEW Ottawa die-in & march on Sat June 22 at 2pm

Israel’s desert torture camp faces legal challenge

Owen Schalk: Canada is still blocking aid to Afghanistan

Canadian Dimension 09/06/2024 - [...] Throughout every point during its mission, the Canadian government claimed to put the wellbeing of Afghans first. Canadian leaders justified the war on the basis that Western powers were bringing democracy and gender equality to Afghanistan, and that military force was required to protect these gains from a barbarous terrorist group.

Now that the Taliban govern Afghanistan (again), Ottawa’s concern for Afghans seems to have evaporated. After the Biden administration’s theft of Afghanistan’s central bank reserves—and reports of desperate Afghans selling organs and marrying their child daughters for dowry payments simply to survive—the Canadian government made the decision to prevent much-needed food and medical aid from entering the country. In one case, Ottawa blocked a World Vision Canada shipment that would have fed 1,800 children.

Canada blocked these deliveries on the basis that their distribution may have incurred taxes to the Taliban, a federally recognized terrorist organization. The federal government threatened aid workers with criminal prosecution for bringing aid to Afghans—the very people Ottawa claimed to be protecting during the occupation.

In December 2022, amidst pleading from aid groups to allow their operation in Afghanistan, International Development Minister Harjit Sajjan announced unspecified “tweaks” to Canada’s anti-terrorism laws. Inaction followed in the first half of 2023. Then, in June of that year, Parliament passed a bill offering blanket exemptions to terrorism financing laws for those delivering life-saving aid during emergencies. The exemption applies to “humanitarian” work as opposed to “development” work, a distinction that has left many aid workers confused as to what they are legally allowed to do inside Afghanistan.

By November 2023, Canada’s choice to maintain a highly restrictive aid regime continued hampering the work of international organizations. That month, the CBC reported that “Canadian aid groups say Ottawa hasn’t cleared roadblocks that bar them from getting aid into Afghanistan, despite Parliament passing legislation this spring.” Martin Fischer, policy director for World Vision Canada, described himself as “frustrated and bewildered” by the restrictions. It is now midway through 2024, and Ottawa is still restricting the operation of aid programs throughout Afghanistan.

There is no justification for doing this. The prior rationale for blocking aid—that the terrorist Taliban government would derive resources from the deliveries—no longer exists, by Ottawa’s own admission. If it did, why would the federal government be busy reforming its anti-terrorism laws to allow aid in?

Despite these minimal reforms, Canada continues blocking aid, even as the United Nations notes that 23.7 million people in Afghanistan require humanitarian assistance.

In late April 2024, Asma Faiza, head of the Afghan Women’s Organization, told Global News: “groups are trying to address a wide spectrum of issues—from hunger and disease to political repression—and remain confused about which projects should fit into either category [humanitarian or developmental].” For example, there is a lack of clarity about how to legally categorize initiatives such as vaccination programs, mental health projects, and direct aid to women and girls. In other words, bureaucratic delay is obstructing progress and blocking the fulfillment of these essential programs.

Faiza added that Canadian organizations are “ready, willing and able to work” in Afghanistan, but “they are prohibited” by the federal government. Martin Fischer said that “there’s still this passing of responsibility” in Ottawa. “General exemptions for a few organizations are not enough.” Ontario Senator Ratna Omidvar has criticized the government’s constraints on Afghan aid since the Taliban takeover. In April, she told Global News: “Canadians need to understand, accept and acknowledge that we were complicit in all of this… But we can be front of the line in terms of aid, humanitarian and developmental.”

Omidvar is right: Canada is partly responsible for Afghanistan’s multifaceted humanitarian plight. By shunning the Taliban regime, Ottawa is isolating Afghanistan at a time when it needs international cooperation more than ever: to rebuild its infrastructure, relieve mass hunger, and mitigate the impacts of climate change. As Graeme Smith and Ibraheem Bahiss wrote in Foreign Affairs, “the world has no choice but to work with the Taliban.”

From 2001 onward, Canada chose to involve itself in Afghan affairs, directly influencing the country’s security and economic policies. Canada ran the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team from 2005 to 2011, engaging in deadly special forces missions, large-scale ground combat, psychological operations, and more. The Canadian military’s heavy hand, including its documented complicity in torture, turned many Afghans against us. Canada made extensive development promises to Afghans during this period: the high-profile Dahla Dam, a polio eradication campaign, and school construction. As I outline in my book, Canada in Afghanistan, none of these aid projects lived up to their promises.

Canadians helped draft the Afghan National Development Strategy (ANDS), which endorsed widespread privatization as a pillar of the new economy. Canadian companies then poured into Afghanistan to take advantage of these policies, making substantial profits from a system imposed on the country through military occupation. Ultimately, Canadian advisors helped build a military, judicial, and economic system in Afghanistan that many Afghans viewed as corrupt, unaccountable, and repressive. Many Western participants in the occupation knew this fact very well. As one former security advisor told the Toronto Star: “If I were Afghan, I too would join the insurgency in a heartbeat. Compared to the [Western-backed] Karzai group, the Taliban comes across as Robin Hood.”

During the occupation, Canada claimed to be in Afghanistan for the good of Afghans—for democracy, women’s rights, and economic development. The heavy-handedness of the military, and the profit opportunities created for Canadian capital, were not mentioned, as they would have undermined the image of Canadian benevolence that Ottawa so carefully manages. Canada was quick to wash its hands of events in Afghanistan after 2014, refusing to take responsibility as the Taliban grew in strength and the new state became more discredited locally.

After the Taliban seized power in August 2021, Canada blocked aid deliveries as the situation grew more dire by the day. And despite pleading from charities, there seems to be no political will in Ottawa to reform the laws that are still restricting aid deliveries to Afghanistan. The government’s current plan—to achieve “full operational capacity by late 2024”—reveals a total lack of urgency, and a glaring lack of interest in the lives of people whom Ottawa claimed for years we intervened in Afghanistan to defend.

Every day, the Canadian government makes the active decision to deprive Afghanistan of much-needed aid. If Ottawa wants to maintain the illusion that it cares about Afghans, it needs to unblock aid—now. Read more - Lire plus

Federal government just launched: Authorization regime and humanitarian exception for activities in terrorist group controlled areas - Section 83.03 Criminal Code

'In prison because of our parents': Children of alleged ISIS fighters coming of age in detention ask what they're being punished for

CNN 11/06/2024 - He had had visitors just once before, years ago when he first arrived in prison at 14. Blindfolded and led into a room by a masked guard, he said he was made to sit on a plastic chair under a cold fluorescent light and questioned by American officials.

Stefan Uterloo, now 19, told them he had an uncle in the United States but couldn’t remember where. He suspects they lost interest when they realized he wasn’t American but instead from Suriname, a small, former Dutch colony in South America Five years later, Uterloo still spends every day with 25 other young men in a single cell in Panorama, a maximum-security prison in northeastern Syria, where CNN interviewed him

Built with funding from the US-led coalition against ISIS and run by the coalition’s ally, the Syrian Democratic Forces or SDF, a Kurdish-led militia, Panorama holds some of the most dangerous ISIS members captured in 2019 after the fall of the group’s so-called caliphate that, at its height, stretched across eastern Syria and western Iraq.

Also among the nearly 4,000 ISIS male detainees that the SDF says are held there are an estimated 600 boys and young men detained as boys, according to Amnesty International. Like Uterloo, many were brought to Syria, through no fault of their own, by their parents to live under ISIS rule. Now they are coming of age in prison. Many have no idea why they are being held, or what will happen to them.

“I don’t know about the big guys,” Uterloo said. “But if you’re speaking about the kids, and if you want to know the truth, we don’t even know why we are always punished. It’s like five years in this prison … We don’t even know what we’ve done. We’ve been in prison because of our parents.”

The United Nations and rights groups have long warned of the humanitarian and legal crises facing the children of ISIS fighters, who have been kept in camps and detention facilities in northeastern Syria for years. But there has been little consensus on what to do with them. Now, as the US raises the alarm that the militant group is trying to reestablish itself and launch attacks on the West, it is renewing efforts to repatriate fighters and their families to face justice at home.

According to Amnesty, the estimated 30,000 children currently held in at least 27 detention facilities and two detention camps – Al-Hol and Al-Roj – in northeastern Syria represent the highest concentration of children arbitrarily detained and deprived of their freedom anywhere in the world.

CNN was granted extremely rare access inside detention camps and facilities for suspected ISIS fighters and their family members, including Panorama prison. It was the first time the SDF had allowed journalists inside Panorama since 2021 and came just a month after Amnesty released a report accusing the SDF of holding detainees in “inhumane conditions.” The advocacy group cited detainees who said they were subjected to torture and denied access to adequate food and medical care in Panorama, leading to a severe outbreak of tuberculosis inside the prison.

The SDF has been quick to dispute the claims of widespread and systematic abuse. Its top commander Mazloum Abdi told CNN that the group’s allegations, “are not mirroring the reality.”

“Instead of these organizations condemning what we are doing and calling it human rights violations, these organizations should give us help when it comes to our program that we have in place for years,” Mazloum said

In the two cells that CNN was allowed to view under SDF supervision, detainees appeared to be in decent physical condition, sitting cross-legged in clean, recently built, air-conditioned spaces. But the SDF did admit that tuberculosis is rampant in the prison, accounting for five deaths per month, and coughing was audible in the hallways.

Officials told CNN that detainees spend up to 23 hours per day in their cells and are held indefinitely without charge. Advocacy groups say the circumstances amount to “a legal black hole,” even worse than the US’ Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Read more - Lire plus

NEW ACTION: Call to save and repatriate Jack Letts and other Canadians illegally detained in NE Syria!

ACTION: Email to urge Canada to repatriate all Canadians detained in NE Syria now!

New UN Special Rapporteur’s Report Underscores Risks of Abusive Counterterrorism

Just Security 12/06/2024 - For the past few years, the policy focus on counterterrorism has waned in the face of rising threats from great power competition, a global pandemic, and climate change. However, in the wake of the March terrorist attacks in Moscow – as countries across Europe raised their terror alert levels, amid speculation that the war in Gaza could inspire attacks elsewhere and as The Guardian warned a “new wave of terrorism” may be on the horizon – counterterrorism, it seems, is once more coming to the forefront of political and policy debates. 

If the past is indeed prologue, then renewed concerns about terrorism may lead to renewed counterterrorism abuses and overreaction. The fact that the Russian authorities seemed to take pride in the acts of torture allegedly inflicted on the individuals arrested after the Crocus City Hall attack is a stark reminder of such abuses. The incident, however, is only an anecdotal example of a much larger and persistent global problem (e.g. here or here). In the midst of these developments, Ben Saul, the recently appointed United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on Counterterrorism and Human Rights released his first report. It provides a timely occasion to reflect on how counterterrorism has evolved in recent years, and what challenges lie ahead. 

Saul succeeded Irish scholar and Just Security Executive Editor Fionnuala Ní Aoláin as Special Rapporteur in November 2023, and presented his report to the U.N. Human Rights Council in March. The report reflects on the state of global counterterrorism and outlines what he intends to focus on for the coming years. Overall, the document offers many interesting insights as to Saul’s approach to the mandate, but it mostly paints the picture of a busy term ahead.

While committing to maintain continuity with Ní Aoláin’s work – for instance on the impact of counterterrorism on the civic space, on the dangers of mass surveillance, or on the detention of terrorist suspects in Guantanamo and in Northeast Syria, to cite just a few – Saul also revealed he would focus on five new topics: the role of regional and subregional counterterrorism cooperation, the risks stemming from the use of “administrative measures” to restrict individual liberties, the role of non-State actors, as well as that of specialized international bodies in counterterrorism, and the sensitive question of accountability and reparation for large-scale violations of human rights in the name of countering terrorism.

As far as his geographical focus is concerned, the report also suggests Saul may turn his attention to west Africa and the Asia-Pacific region. Finally, the question of the lack of adequate funding for his mission is also addressed – an elephant in the room, given the incredibly broad mandate given to him and his ambitious agenda.

The report’s single most important contribution, however, is perhaps to serve as a sobering reminder of the little progress made despite years of advocacy and the urgent need to take the protection of human rights in the fight against terrorism seriously, before the adverse effects of some practices become irreversible. After adding some necessary context, this post provides a succinct breakdown of the key takeaways from the report, and some reflections on additional emerging concerns and what to expect from Saul’s term in office. [...]

Much of the response to this increasingly complex landscape has consisted of expanding and hardening existing policies and tactics rather than developing more innovative approaches. Yet, in addition to their disputed effectiveness, some of these strategies sometimes stretch the law and raise concerns as to their impact on the rule of law, human rights, and even democracy.

Whenever they are hit by terrorist attacks, many nations also continue to display a willingness to opt for rushed and harsh – and often disproportionate – responses, therefore repeating some of the well-known mistakes of the post-9/11 “war on terror.” The most striking recent example being Israel’s deadly military response to the October 7 attacks – which has killed more than 36, 000 people in Gaza, displaced millions, and led to allegations of genocide, which the International Court of Justice found “plausible,” as well as a request for arrest warrants by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.

It is therefore unsurprising that Saul’s report opens with the recognition, as a matter of “deep regret,” that not only have many human rights violations identified by his predecessors over the past 18 years not been remedied, but most of them have, in fact, worsened. 

The report goes on to explain how vague definitions of terrorism, sweeping national and international legal frameworks, emergency regimes, excessive sanctions, aggressive criminal justice and law enforcement strategies, and mass surveillance – to cite just a few – continue to cause violations of human rights around the world. The problem does not only affect those suspected of terrorism, Saul notes, but also political opponents, human rights defenders, the media, civil society, minorities, and vulnerable communities, who are the most common collateral victims of overzealous counterterrorism policies. [...]

Outside of the list of issues he set out to focus on, Saul acknowledged many other challenges that stakeholders who had responded to his call for input pointed out: from the impact of widespread discrimination to the continued ambiguity of many counterterrorism legal frameworks, the specific vulnerability of children, persisting and complex gender-related issues, as well as enduring problematic tactics in counterterrorism law enforcement and military operations. Humanitarian and development actors have also noted the continued obstacles they face in carrying out their activities in certain areas or for the benefit of populations suspected of terrorist activity.

While this is already plenty to keep Saul busy, some other issues could be worthy of his attention. Specifically, while terrorism – and abusive counterterrorism – continue to affect most dramatically developing, unstable, or conflict-hit nations in the Global South, recent trends in Western liberal States are a cause for concern.

One of the most glaring examples is the rapid expansion of counterterrorism towards countering “extremism” and “radicalization,” and the confusion that sometimes arises between countering “terrorism” as such and merely protecting States’ “public order.” In addition to even more far-reaching yet vague legal frameworks, this evolution has been accused of enabling the growing securitization of political activism and social movements. Read more - Lire plus

UAVs continually kill civilians, but the U.S. military wants to expand its arsenal with an army of new, mass-produced kamikaze AI drones

The Intercept 17/06/2024 - [...] The new robot planes will mark a shift from the Defense Department’s “legacy” drones which DIU says are “over-engineered” and “labor-intensive” to produce. The four contractors chosen for the program are Anduril Industries, Integrated Solutions for Systems, Leidos Dynetics, and Zone 5 Technologies, which were selected from a field of more than 100 applicants.

The goal is to choose one or more variants of what look to be suicide drones (weapon-makers prefer “loitering munitions”) that can be mass produced through “on-call” manufacturing and churned out in quantity as needed. (DIU did not offer clarification on whether all prototypes are expected to be strictly kamikaze aircraft.) These drones will likely be smaller than the MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper drones — which were used extensively as ground-launched, reusable, missile-firing assassination weapons during the first decades of the war on terror — and more versatile, since the new ETVs must include an air-delivered variant that can be dropped or launched from cargo aircraft.

For the last 25 years, uncrewed Predators and Reapers, piloted by military personnel on the ground, have been killing civilians across the planet, from Afghanistan and Libya to Syria and Yemen.

To highlight just one instance, a 2018 U.S. drone strike in Somalia killed at least three, and possibly five, civilians — including 22-year-old Luul Dahir Mohamed and her 4-year-old daughter Mariam Shilow Muse — as revealed by a 2023 investigation by The Intercept, prompting two dozen human rights organizations and five members of Congress to call for the Pentagon to compensate Luul and Mariam’s family for the deaths. 

Experts worry that mass production of new low-cost, deadly drones will lead to even more civilian casualties. “The clear danger is that these drones will be used at a greater scale, raising questions about the possibility of civilian harm,” Priyanka Motaparthy, the director of the Project on Counterterrorism, Armed Conflict and Human Rights at Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute, told The Intercept. “We need to know if these drones might be used in situations that put civilians at risk. We need to know how risks will be assessed.”

WHILE U.S. DRONES have relied on human operators to conduct lethal strikes — many times with disastrous results — advances in artificial intelligence have increasingly raised the possibility of robot planes, in various nations’ arsenals, selecting their own targets. Electronic jamming by Russia in the Ukraine war has spurred a shift to autonomous drones that lock on a target and continue their mission even when communications with a human operator have been severed. [...]

The use of autonomous weapons has been subject to debate for over a decade. Since 2013, the Stop Killer Robots campaign, which has grown to a coalition of more than 250 nongovernmental organizations including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, has called for a legally binding treaty banning autonomous weapons. 

Pentagon regulations released last year state that fully- and semi-autonomous weapons systems must be used “in accordance with the law of war” and “DoD AI Ethical Principles.” The latter, released in 2020, only stipulate, however, that personnel will exercise “appropriate” levels of “judgment and care” when it comes to developing and deploying AI.

But “care” has never been an American hallmark. For the last century, the U.S. military has conducted airstrikes demonstrating a consistent disregard for civilians: casting or misidentifying ordinary people as enemies; failing to investigate civilian harm allegations; excusing casualties as regrettable but unavoidable; and failing to prevent their recurrence or to hold troops accountable.

During the first 20 years of the war on terror, the U.S. conducted more than 91,000 airstrikes across seven major conflict zones — Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen — and killed up to 48,308 civilians, according to a 2021 analysis by Airwars, a U.K.-based airstrike monitoring group. Read more - Lire plus

International People's Tribunal: US, Marcos & Duterte Guilty of Massive War Crimes

ICHRP 18/05/2024 - The International People’s Tribunal in Brussels heard harrowing testimony from victims and experts detailing widespread human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law committed by the Philippine government and its military forces under the Marcos and Duterte Regimes and backed by the U.S. government.

“The International Coalition for Human Rights in the Philippines (ICHRP) is honored to endorse this International People’s Tribunal on the Philippines in 2024 to investigate alleged violations of international humanitarian law and war crimes against the Filipino people,” stated ICHRP Global Chairperson Peter Murphy. “The witnesses displayed the courage and determination of the Filipino people to assert their basic human rights to life, freedom, self-determination and genuine development.”

The IPT is a quasi judicial mechanism whereby evidence is presented to a panel of jurors to render judgment on specific charges, in this instance war crimes committed in the conduct of the civil war in the Philippines. The Jurors included: Lennox Hinds professor of Law at Rutgers University and former legal counsel for the African National Congress, Suzanne Adely President of the National Lawyers Guild (US), Severine De Laveleye member of the Chamber of Representatives of Belgium, Julen Arzuraga Gumuzio member of the Basque Parliament and Archbishop Joris Vercamen former member of the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches. The panel of eminent jurists heard two days of testimony from 15 witnesses covering specific violations of International Humanitarian Law.

Violations of International Humanitarian Law Under Duterte

On day one, victims provided chilling first-hand accounts of extrajudicial killings, torture, enforced disappearances, and attacks on indigenous communities defending their ancestral lands from mining and corporate plunder, under President Duterte’s regime. These included testimony from Brandon Lee, a U.S. citizen turned activist in Ifugao province who was shot by suspected state agents after being red-tagged, threatened, and surveilled. Lee survived and is now a quadriplegic, but in his words, “continues to use his voice” for social change.

Ariel Casilao spoke of the brutal murder of Peace Consultant Randall Echanis in his home while he slept in August of 2020. “The brutality, barbarity, and ruthlessness of the killing of Ka Randy is a crystal clear violation of International Humanitarian Law and all existing laws in the Philippines,” Casilao added, “Let me emphasize, Ka Randy was an unarmed NDFP consultant. He was a key figure in the peace negotiations.”

Eufema Cullamat testified about the killing and dehumanization of her daughter, Jevilyn Cullamat, by soldiers. Cullamat shared that soldiers photographed her daughter’s corpse as a “war trophy.”

Witness Jeany Rose Hayahay described how public schools for indigenous children in Mindanao have been branded as “communist” recruitment hubs and relentlessly targeted, their volunteer teachers killed or slapped with terrorist charges. Martial law in Mindanao enabled further militarization, restriction of movement, and normalization of impunity against the Lumad peoples. [...]

After careful consideration of the extensive evidence, the tribunal unanimously found defendants Ferdinand Marcos Jr., former President Duterte, the Philippine government, Joseph R. Biden, and the United States government guilty of the alleged war crimes and violations of international humanitarian law. This unequivocal verdict resoundingly condemns the defendants’ flagrant defiance of international rules of armed conflicts and fundamental human rights.

In wake of this critical ruling, ICHRP calls upon its members, network and people inspired by this tribunal to immediately hold a week of action in response, from May 21-27, mobilizing the broadest solidarity support for the Filipino people against the intensive, US backed counterinsurgency campaign that causes deep suffering and oppression in the Philippines. Read more - Lire plus

4 years later, 7 arrested anti-terror law activists, bystander still face legal battle

Arundhati Roy ‘anti-terror’ charge part of a push to silence Modi’s critics

The Conversation 20/06/2024 - Narendra Modi recently won a third term as Indian prime minister after his BJP was party was returned to power, albeit as part of a minority government leading the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) coalition. Having expected to win another majority from which to pursue his Hindu nationalist – or Hindutva – agenda, Modi will have to operate within the constraints of a considerably reduced mandate.

His government – dubbed “Modi 3.0” in India – has plenty to do including completing its programme of reforms and reworking foreign investment policy. Yet barely had the new government been sworn in, than the BJP’s lieutenant governor of New Delhi was given the go-ahead for the prosecution of the noted author and public intellectual, Arundhati Roy, for remarks she made as far back as 2010 about the disputed territory of Kashmir.

Roy and Sheikh Showkat Hussain, formerly professor at the Central University of Kashmir, have been charged under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) – an anti-terrorism measure. The charges relate to “provocative” speeches they made at a seminar in October 2010, which apparently “propagated the separation of Kashmir from India”.

But all this was 14 years ago, before the BJP took power nationally in 2014. So why is the Modi government risking international opprobrium by persecuting such an internationally famous figure about what she said years in the past? The answer is that picking a fight over Kashmir is an easy win for Modi’s style of Hindu nationalism. Anyone who insists on raising the myriad problems of militarisation, mismanagement, human rights abuses and repression in Kashmir tends to be accused of being anti-national, seditious, pro-Pakistani or terrorist. [...]

Targeting a globally prominent figure such as Roy in such a vindictive manner is part of a multi-pronged political strategy aimed at baiting and discrediting opponents of Modi’s Hindu nationalist ambitions. [...] So the prosecution of Roy and Sheikh Showkat Hussain for speaking out on the issue is also intended to galvanise the BJP’s own support base. And it’s a message to other Modi critics: if someone with Roy’s profile can be targeted, so can you.

Becoming a target

Its indicative of a wider pattern in Indian politics under Modi. This sort of targeting is particularly pronounced for those who defend democratic values and critique Modi’s authoritarianism – but who have also spoken in support of Kashmiri people’s rights or aspirations at any time in the past. I know this from bitter experience. I’m an academic and author of Kashmiri origin focusing on democracy and human rights in India and beyond. In 2019, I provided testimony at a US congressional hearing on Kashmir, that pro-Modi government news agencies sought to suppress.

In February 2024, I was invited by the Congress-run state of Karnataka to a constitutional convention. But when I arrived in India, I was denied entry by immigration, despite holding all the valid papers. “Orders from Delhi”, was all I was told. I was detained under armed guard and deported. Several weeks later, I was sent a notice of intent to revoke my overseas citizenship of India (OCI).

All the while I was subjected to coordinated and vicious attacks on social media from prominent right-wing individuals and Modi-supporting accounts. The chorus of online hate focused on a 2010 tweet of mine relating to Kashmir, which was cited as proof of my anti-national views. When Congress leaders spoke in my support, the Karnataka BJP referred to me as a “Pakistani sympathiser who wants India’s break up” and criticised “#AntiNationalCongress” for having invited me.

I have travelled to India numerous times since 2010. The issue wasn’t my 2010 tweet – which I explained in some detail. It was my more recent work on problems such as the increasing authoritarianism under Modi, use of anonymous political funding instruments called electoral bonds, and the treatment of dissent by the BJP government. Though I grew up in, and work on, India, I cannot know when I will see my only living parent again – an elderly and ailing mother unable to travel to me.

Various other authors, journalists, academics and activists have been similarly targeted. Many who have spoken up from Srinagar or from Delhi have been imprisoned. Roy’s persecution is part of this wider pattern which attempts to delegitimise any criticism of Modi and his government and clamp down on freedom of speech, while trying to trap the opposition into being called anti-national. Roy and Showkat’s persecution must be seen for what it is: a chess move that is part of a strategy designed to continue the undermining of democracy in India. Read more - Lire plus

Detention Of Amritpal Singh Under Anti-Terror Law Extended By A Year

Anti-terrorism court judge accuses Pakistan's spy agency ISI of harassing him and his family to get desired verdicts

Economic Times 13/06/2024 - An anti-terrorism court judge, hearing the cases related to attacks on military installations in May last year by workers of jailed former prime minister Imran Khan's party, has accused Pakistan's powerful intelligence agency ISI of harassing him and his family members to get desired verdicts.

Anti-Terrorism Court Judge (Sargodha) Muhammad Abbas has written a letter to Lahore High Court Chief Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan informing him how spy agency Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) official harassed him and his family members. The judge has been hearing the cases against Opposition Leader in Parliament Omar Ayub and other workers of Imran Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) related to attacks on military installations in May last year.

Ayub had alleged that last week at a hearing in a case in Sargodha ATC Judge Abbas was made hostage by the intelligence agencies. In March, six judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) reached out to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) informing alleged intrusion of intelligence operatives in judicial matters. The six judges - out of a total strength of eight - wrote a letter to the Supreme Judicial Council members, regarding alleged attempts to pressure judges through abduction and torture of their relatives as well as secret surveillance inside their homes. All judges of IHC also unanimously acknowledged that intelligence agencies are interfering in their judicial functions. Read more - Lire plus

Paris Olympics crowd scans fuel AI surveillance fears

Context 12/06/2024 - French plans to use artificial intelligence (AI) to scan the thousands of athletes, coaches and spectators descending on Paris for the Olympics is a form of creeping surveillance, rights groups said. French authorities have tested artificial intelligence surveillance systems at train stations, concerts and football matches in recent months. When the games open in late July, these systems will scan the crowds, check for abandoned packages, detect weapons, and more.

French officials say these tools will not be fully operational ahead of the games, but from then on police, fire and rescue services, and some French transport security agents will use them until March 31, 2025. 

Campaigners worry AI surveillance could become the new normal. "The Olympics are a huge opportunity to test this type of surveillance under the guise of security issues, and are paving the way to even more intrusive systems such as facial recognition," Katia Roux, advocacy lead at Amnesty International France, told Context.

Train stations and Taylor Swift

The French government has enlisted four companies in the effort - Videtics, Orange Business, ChapsVision and Wintics. The security platforms of these companies measure eight key metrics: traffic that goes against the flow, the presence of people in prohibited zones, crowd movement, abandoned packages, the presence or use of weapons, overcrowding, a body on the ground, and fire. Depeche Mode and Black-Eyed Peas concerts, as well as a soccer match between Paris Saint-Germain and Olympique Lyon, have been test sites for the software.

More tests were run on crowds travelling through the Nanterre Préfecture and La Défense Grande Arche metro stations to see Taylor Swift, and the 40,000 attendees of the Cannes Film Festival. Cannes Mayor David Lisnard said the town already had the "densest video protection network in France", with 884 cameras - one for every 84 residents. Across France there are about 90,000 video surveillance cameras, monitored by the police and the gendarmerie, according to a 2020 report.

"One overarching concern is that while the majority of these use cases may not seem to involve revealing the identity of, or profiling, individual people, they still require the deployment of a surveillance infrastructure that is always one software update away from being able to do the most invasive kinds of mass surveillance," said Daniel Leufer, a senior policy analyst at digital rights group AccessNow. "Members of the public will have little to no oversight about what types of things these systems are monitoring, what updates are made etc, and so we will get the inevitable chilling effect that comes from this type of public surveillance," he said.

Olympics become an AI playground 

French lawmakers have attempted to assuage criticism with a ban on facial recognition. Authorities say it is a red line not to be crossed. Matthias Houllier, the co-founder of Wintics, said the experiment was "strictly limited" to the eight use-cases outlined in the law, and that features like crowd movement detection could not be used for other processes like gait detection, whereby a person's unique walk can identify them. Houllier said it was "absolutely impossible" both for end-users and advanced engineers to use Wintics for facial recognition due to its design.  Representatives from Videtics, Orange Business and ChapsVision did not respond to requests for comment.

Experts have concerns that the way the government is measuring the success of these tests, and the precise way this technology works, has not been made available to the public. "There is nowhere near the necessary amount of transparency about these technologies. There is a very unfortunate narrative that we cannot permit transparency about such systems, particularly in a law enforcement or public security context, but this is nonsense", Leufer said. "The use of surveillance technologies like these, especially in law enforcement and public security contexts, holds perhaps the greatest potential for harm, and therefore requires the highest level of public accountability," he said.

Privacy campaigners say that carve outs in legislation would allow deployment of facial recognition by "competent authorities", for purposes including national security and migration. "This is not a ban. That's actually an authorisation for law enforcement agencies. People have this illusion that because it says we are banning the technology - except in this, this and this situation - it's okay, but these situations are the most problematic ones," Roux said. France's historical use of surveillance has also raised concerns. In November last year, non-profit Disclose found that law enforcement agencies had covertly used facial recognition software from Israeli company Briefcam since 2015. Read more - Lire plus

UK: AI cameras used to detect train passengers’ emotions without them knowing

Man wrongfully arrested in the US warns Ireland against facial recognition tech

How to opt out of Meta’s AI training

AI Governance Needs a Climate Change Strategy

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

ACTION: Protect our rights from facial recognition

New Branding, Same Scanning: “Upload Moderation” Undermines End-to-End Encryption

A statement from Meredith Whittaker, Signal President, in the context of the EU debate

Signal 17/06/2024 - End-to-end encryption is the technology we have to enable privacy in an age of unprecedented state and corporate surveillance. And the dangerous desire to undermine it never seems to die. For decades, experts have been clear: there is no way to both preserve the integrity of end-to-end encryption and expose encrypted contents to surveillance.

But proposals to do just this emerge repeatedly — old wine endlessly repackaged in new bottles, aided by expensive consultancies that care more about marketing than the very serious stakes of these issues. These embarrassing branding exercises do not, of course, sway the expert community. But too often they work to convince non-experts that the risks of the previous plan to undermine end-to-end encryption are not present in the shiny new proposal. This is certainly how the EU chat control debate has proceeded.

In November, the EU Parliament lit a beacon for global tech policy when it voted to exclude end-to-end encryption from mass surveillance orders in the chat control legislation. This move responded to longstanding expert consensus, and a global coalition of hundreds of preeminent computer security experts who patiently weighed in to explain the serious dangers of the approaches on the table — approaches that aimed to subject everyone’s private communications to mass scanning against a government-curated database or AI model of “acceptable” speech and content.

There is no way to implement such proposals in the context of end-to-end encrypted communications without fundamentally undermining encryption and creating a dangerous vulnerability in core infrastructure that would have global implications well beyond Europe.

Instead of accepting this fundamental mathematical reality, some European countries continue to play rhetorical games. They’ve come back to the table with the same idea under a new label. Instead of using the previous term “client-side scanning,” they’ve rebranded and are now calling it “upload moderation.” Some are claiming that “upload moderation” does not undermine encryption because it happens before your message or video is encrypted. This is untrue.

Rhetorical games are cute in marketing or tabloid reporting, but they are dangerous and naive when applied to such a serious topic with such high stakes. So let’s be very clear, again: mandating mass scanning of private communications fundamentally undermines encryption. Full stop. Whether this happens via tampering with, for instance, an encryption algorithm’s random number generation, or by implementing a key escrow system, or by forcing communications to pass through a surveillance system before they’re encrypted. We can call it a backdoor, a front door, or “upload moderation.” But whatever we call it, each one of these approaches creates a vulnerability that can be exploited by hackers and hostile nation states, removing the protection of unbreakable math and putting in its place a high-value vulnerability.

We ask that those playing these word games please stop and recognize what the expert community has repeatedly made clear. Either end-to-end encryption protects everyone, and enshrines security and privacy, or it’s broken for everyone. And breaking end-to-end encryption, particularly at such a geopolitically volatile time, is a disastrous proposition. Source

Policing by design: the latest EU surveillance plan

Australia: ‘You cannot do mass surveillance privately, full stop’: Signal boss hits out at government encryption-busting moves

OTHER NEWS - AUTRES NOUVELLES

Access to information

Accès à l'information

Info watchdog, Defence Minister Blair keep clashing in court cases over access law compliance

Attacks on dissent

Attaques contre la dissidence

Wet’suwet’en land defenders continue their abuse of process claim against the RCMP in Smithers court

Pro-independence leader calls on protesters in New Caledonia to ‘maintain resistance’ against France

Civil society unveils major expansion of UN Declaration protecting human rights defenders

Freedom of expression

Liberté d'expression

ACTION: Tell the Ukrainian Government to Drop Prosecution of Peace Activist Yurii Sheliazhenko

ACTION: Court rejects Kagarlitsky’s appeal - Campaign pledges to redouble efforts for his freedom

Hong Kong uses new national security law against exiled activists

Vietnam national security police confirm arrest of prominent writer Truong Huy San for Facebook post

UK: Major BDS victory as anti-boycott bill defeated

Freedom of the press

Liberté de la presse

Liberties Media Freedom Report 2024

Guantanamo

War crimes hearing gives public virtual look inside a secret CIA prison

Qaeda Commander at Guantánamo Bay Is Sentenced for War Crimes

Islamophobia

Islamophobie

Thank You – Hassan Diab Petition Presented to Parliament!

Social Discord and Second-class Citizenship: NCCM study of the impact of Bill 21 on Quebec Muslim women in light of the COVID-19 pandemic

China has renamed hundreds of Uyghur villages and towns, say human rights groups

Migrant and refugee rights

Droits des migrant.es et des réfugié.es

Automating the fortress: digital technologies and European borders

Privacy and surveillance

Vie privée et surveillance

Public servants uneasy as government 'spy' robot prowls federal offices

OpenMedia: No anticipated final vote on Bill S-210 yet. Over summer, we'll continue talking about Bill S-210's problems, and urge MPs to vote against or send back to committee in Sept.

Is Secret Law the Solution to an Overbroad Surveillance Authority?

Northern Ireland: Police make more than 800 applications for journalist and lawyer phone data

Terror entitites lists

Listes d'entités terroristes

Canada lists Iran Revolutionary Guards as ‘terrorist’ group

Brazilian intellectuals, artists and social movements call for the US to remove Cuba from the list of countries that support terrorism

Miscellaneous

Divers

New book: A Communist for the RCMP The Uncovered Story of a Social Movement Informant

Why the West should stop talking about the “rules-based order”

Time to terminate US counter-terrorism programs in Africa

Pentagon ran secret anti-vax campaign to undermine China during pandemic

Why Are We Ignoring The Genocide in Sudan?

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

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

December 10, 2022 - ironically Human Rights Day - marked the 20th "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.