|
December 15, 2010 - No. 215
Criminalization of Dissent at the G20
Hold the Authorities Accountable!
Criminalization of Dissent at the G20
• Hold the Authorities Accountable!
• Defendant Submits Application to Disqualify
Crown Counsel for Bias
In the Parliament
• Canada Surrenders Sovereignty and Privacy to
U.S. "Secure Flight Program" - Dana Gabriel
• For Your Information -- Strengthening
Aviation Security Act
Blacklists and Security Certificates
• Day of Action in Solidarity with Abousfian
Abdelrazik and Against UN Blacklist
• Abolish Security Certificates -- Justice for
Mohamed Harkat
Criminalization of Dissent at the G20
Hold the Authorities Accountable!
The Ontario Ombudsman issued a damning report of the
Ontario government invoking war measures legislation by regulatory
Cabinet decree last summer to suppress political dissent of the G20
summit held in Toronto. The report details that police and government
officials knowingly acted in violation of the
rule of law, democracy and the rights of citizens and strategized how
to do so with impunity. Equally damning, if not more so, is that even
when they are Caught in the Act, as the Ombudsman's report is
entitled, those responsible are not held legally accountable.
This is unacceptable. What is to be done? Draconian
so-called anti-terrorism laws have been passed and used against the
people under the hoax that democratic freedoms and liberties have to be
balanced against public security. This conspiracy of government,
police and other security officials to
break the law, suspend individual and collective rights and unleash a
wave of violence and terrorism -- which continues to this date in the
unjust, trumped
up "conspiracy" and other charges against G20 protestors -- are to go
unpunished!
To be sure, that was not the mandate given to
André
Marin, the Ombudsman of Ontario. He was asked to investigate and report
on Regulation 233/10, made under the Public Works Protection Act
(PWPA), a 1939 war measures act, that gives police extraordinary powers
of
search, arrest and
detention. The "regulation was discussed and voted on at a special
five-member meeting of Cabinet" on June 2 and "the following day the
Lieutenant Governor formally signed off on it."
The Ombudsman concluded the regulation was illegal and
that the powers given to police do not even exist under the PWPA
because they were used not to protect public places but to suppress
public dissent. In other words, by regulatory decree, the Cabinet of
the Government of Ontario illegally invoked
the PWPA, violated people's right to dissent and unlawfully extended
extraordinary powers of detention, search and arrest upon the police.
The investigation also reveals that both police and
government officials were aware that using the PWPA as it was used
during
the G20 in Toronto was illegal and unconstitutional. They took great
pains to hide their activity from public scrutiny. This
also explains why everyone from Vic
Toews, Federal Public Safety Minister and cabinet minister in charge of
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) which headed up the Integrated
Security Unit (ISU) for the G8
and G20, to the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) swear they knew nothing
and only heard about
Regulation 233/10 from the news media. Meanwhile the Ontario ministers
and spindoctors deny
everything even in the face of irrefutable evidence. As early as May
31, the Ontario Cabinet had formalized a "mitigation strategy" which
was not to disclose what they were up to and if caught, "to be low key
and reactive." Today's denials are further evidence of that strategy in
action!
The Ombudsman's Report does not close the book on what
happened at the G20 in Toronto. Far from it. For one thing even the
five cabinet ministers and Toronto Police Chief Blair are not held
accountable for their activities. Another serious matter is that the
role of the ISU, comprised of the RCMP, OPP, and Canadian
Armed Forces (represented by Canada Command, which includes U.S.
Northern Command) is dismissed simply because ISU spokespersons say
they knew nothing of Regulation 233/10 and had no responsibility for
the police violence unleashed on demonstrators and pedestrians alike in
Toronto. They claim this
was due to a "communications breakdown" with the Toronto Police. A
public inquiry into the ISU, its composition and its role in the G20
violence is in order if the full extent of the involvement of U.S. and
Canadian governments and security forces is to be known. More
importantly, if the aim of the public inquiry
is not to hold the authorities to account and provide redress, then the
breakdown of the rule of law will continue unchecked.
Truth has not yet been fully revealed. Justice has by
no means been served. Even if the Ombudsman's recommendations to review
the PWPA and for government to "ensure proper communication" of
future Cabinet-decreed regulations that effectively increase police
powers is fully implemented, it does not detract from the fact. It
is clear that not one of the Cabinet Ministers involved at the federal
or provincial level, nor any of the police, military and other security
officials involved took a stand when circumstances called for it, to
defend democratic principles, the rule of law or individual and
collective rights of the members of society!
Political renewal that vests sovereignty in the people
and guarantees the rights of all is clearly the order of the day. TML
calls on Canadians to support the G20 defendants and demand the
government and police agencies and courts put an end to their cover-up
and
impunity.
G20 Regulation of
"Dubious Legality" --
Citizens Unfairly Trapped by Secret Expansion of Police Powers
- Press Release, Ontario
Ombudsman, December 7, 2010 -
The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional
Services quietly promoted the use of a likely illegal regulation to
grant police
"extravagant" powers on the eve of the G20 summit, Ontario Ombudsman
André Marin says in his latest report, released today.
The controversial measure -- Regulation 233/10 under the
71-year-old Public Works Protection Act (PWPA) -- "was of
dubious legality and no utility" and resulted in a mass violation of
civil rights, Mr. Marin says in Caught
in the Act. The Toronto Police
Service, which had requested the regulation
because it was responsible for policing the areas around the security
fence in downtown Toronto, compounded matters through its
miscommunication about the reach of the regulation's extraordinary
powers, he said.
The Ombudsman found the Ministry, which had decided not
to publicize the new legal measure, was "caught short" when Toronto
Police misapprehended the regulation's reach and used the authority of
the PWPA to arrest or detain people who were simply in the vicinity of
the security fence. Throughout the
weekend of the G20 summit, police exercised their powers under the Act
well beyond the limits of the security perimeter, even after the
misinterpretation had been corrected.
It was "opportunistic and inappropriate" to use the PWPA
-- a "war measure" that allows "extravagant police authority" to arrest
and search people in the name of protecting public works -- for this
purpose, Mr. Marin said. "Here in 2010 is the province of Ontario
conferring wartime powers on police officers in
peacetime. That is a decision that should not have been taken lightly
or kept shrouded in secrecy, particularly not in the era of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms."
Going into the weekend of the G20 summit, no one knew
about the regulation -- not the public, not the press, city
administrators or even key members of the Integrated Security Unit
(ISU) in charge of management and co-ordination of summit security, the
Ombudsman's investigation found.
Worse, the Ministry's decision not to publicize the
regulation entrapped citizens who took the trouble to inform themselves
of their rights and wound up "caught in the Act's all but invisible
web," Mr. Marin said. "By changing the legal landscape without warning,
regulation 233/10 operated as a trap for those
who relied on their ordinary legal rights."
The Ministry also failed to ensure that police were
adequately trained on the regulation, which contributed in part to the
"chaos and confusion" on city streets during the summit, he said. "The
Ministry simply handed over to the Toronto Police inordinate powers,
without any efforts made to ensure those powers
would not be misunderstood."
Ordinary citizens were shocked to discover that police
had the power to detain and search even people who did not try to
breach the fence or who declined to produce ID and tried to walk away,
he noted. "Apart from insiders in the government of Ontario, only
members of the Toronto Police Service knew that
the rules of the game had changed, and they were the ones holding the
‘go directly to jail' cards."
The Ombudsman's investigation was conducted by the
Special Ombudsman Response Team (SORT) and involved 49 interviews with
senior government officials and numerous stakeholders, including
several of the 167 complainants who came forward. The team also
reviewed hundreds of pages of internal government
documents and emails and, for the first time, a wealth of evidence
obtained via social media such as YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.
Mr. Marin recommended the Public Works Protection Act be
revised or replaced, and that the Ministry examine whether any of the
sweeping police powers it confers should be included in any new
version, particularly whether it is appropriate to give police the
authority to arrest those who have already been
excluded entry to secured areas. He also said the Ministry should
develop a protocol calling for public information campaigns whenever
police powers are modified by subordinate legislation.
The Ministry has accepted all the recommendations and
agreed to report back to the Ombudsman on its progress in implementing
them. The Minister's response, included in the report, notes that the
enactment of the regulation could have been better handled and that in
future it will take greater care to ensure
the public is informed.
Defendant Submits Application to
Disqualify Crown Counsel for Bias
G20 defendant Alex Hundert presented an application to
the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto on December 6 to disqualify
any Crown counsel employed by the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney
General from being involved in prosecuting the most recent charge laid
against him, namely attempting to "intimidate
a justice system participant."
Hundert was arrested on the charge on October 23 for
allegedly writing down the licence plate number of Crown attorney
Catherine Rhinelander after she and Crown attorney Stephen Byrne left
court earlier in the week following a court appearance dealing with
Hundert's bail conditions on earlier charges.
Hundert's lawyer, John Norris, said there is no
evidence a licence plate was written down and no notebook was ever
seized.
The two complaining
witnesses in the case are colleagues of all fellow prosecutors employed
by the Ministry of the Attorney General in Ontario.
The court application of December 6 seeks to
disqualify any Crown Attorney in Ontario from prosecuting Hundert on
the charge, and to have an independent prosecutor appointed, on the
grounds of potential bias and lack of objectivity on the part of the
prosecution.
According to Yogi Acharya, a member of the organization
No One Is Illegal-Toronto and a supporter of Hundert, "These charges
are baseless and there is no clear evidence to substantiate them. The
charges are being laid by the same Crown Attorneys of the Guns and
Gangs Initiative who have been
trying to keep Alex behind bars, most recently for supposedly breaching
conditions by speaking on a public panel. There is a motion to
disqualify this Crown's office since two Crown attorneys are themselves
charging Alex now, which reveals their and their office's particular
bias against him."
Since his initial pre-emptive arrest on June 26 on
charges of conspiracy, Hundert has spent more than three months in
jail,
pending bail hearings on one charge after another. "I am deeply
concerned that Alex Hundert continues to be targeted. This is his third
arrest under questionable circumstances," says
Ryan White, a lawyer with The Movement Defence Committee.
From jail, Hundert had this to say: "The targeting and
ongoing harassment of me by the Crown and police is not unique, nor an
act of incompetence. Their actions are intentional, and an inherent
part of how the criminal injustice system works to silence dissent
across communities."
Acharya continues: "Inventing ludicrous pretexts and
charges to keep Alex in jail clearly demonstrates the malicious nature
of the Crown's office. Perhaps they are afraid that Alex's views on
state repression are resonating with the general public as more people
are becoming angry at the police violence
during the G20 summit. The fact that, for example, the Special
Investigations Unit recently cleared officers of blatantly violent acts
highlights the disturbing reality of intensifying police impunity."
Since Hundert's arrest on the morning of June 26, he
was re-arrested on September 17 for allegedly violating a bail
condition that barred him from participating in any political
demonstration. The allegation was based on the fact that he had spoken
at a university panel discussion. He was released
a month later on even more restrictive conditions, including no
expressing views on any political issue. Those conditions were
condemned by the Canadian Association of Journalists, Canadian Civil
Liberties Association, Canadian Labour Congress and Ontario
Confederation of University Faculty Associations. Hundert
intended to challenge those conditions, but was re-arrested a week
later on the "intimidation" charge.
According to Rachel Avery, member of the group Anti-War
@ Laurier,
"Alex's continued detention and targeting is symbolic of the state's
intention to quash those who challenge its systems of exploitation.
This has become more visible in recent weeks, as in the case of Adam
Nobody and actions of the Ottawa
Police. But as these injustices continue, opposition only continues to
mount as more people see the impropriety of the police and legal
system, and our conviction to fight for justice is strengthened."
In the Parliament
Canada Surrenders Sovereignty and Privacy
to U.S. "Secure Flight Program"
- Dana Gabriel*, November 29, 2010 -
Canada is under pressure from U.S. officials to further
comply with American security rules which in some cases, threatens its
sovereignty and the privacy of its citizens. As a result of the war on
terrorism, the U.S. government now has more power to restrict air
travel and is not only dictating North American,
but also international security measures.
Bill C-42, An Act to
amend the Aeronautics Act would
require Canadian airline carriers that fly over the U.S. to provide the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with passenger information. This
includes name, date of birth, gender, as well as passport and itinerary
details when applicable. Airlines
landing in the U.S. already have to supply this information, but
allowing personal data to be shared on passengers who are only flying
through American airspace essentially shreds existing Canadian
protection and privacy laws. Bill C-42 complies with the Transportation
Security Administration's (TSA) Security
Flight Program which would take effect globally at the beginning of
next year. Most Canadian commercial flights pass over the U.S. while en
route to Latin America, the Caribbean and Europe which in many cases
would give the DHS the final say on who is allowed to travel to and
from Canada.
Under Canada's Passenger Protect Program, "airlines must
compare passenger's names against a list that is controlled and managed
by Transport Canada before a boarding pass is issued." Secure Flight
transfers that authority from airlines to the DHS. TSA will be
responsible for pre-screening passengers
and their personal information against federal government watch lists.
According to the Secure Flight Final Rule document issued in 2008, "If
necessary, the TSA analyst will check other classified and unclassified
governmental terrorist, law enforcement, and intelligence databases,
including databases maintained
by the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, National
Counter Terrorism Center, and Federal Bureau of Investigation." With
many well documented issues surrounding the accuracy of security watch
lists, U.S. mistakes could further prevent more Canadians from flying
to foreign destinations.
There are also concerns that data collected on Canadian citizens will
be readily accessible to a broad range of U.S. agencies and just what
might be done with the information.
Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart recently appeared
before a committee examining Bill C-42. She acknowledged privacy
concerns caused by increased aviation security measures which, "have
resulted in the creation of massive government databases, the use of
secretive no-fly lists, the increased
scrutiny of travellers and airport workers and greater information
sharing with foreign governments." Stoddart explained that Bill C-42,
"will allow American or other authorities to collect personal
information about travellers on flights to and from Canada that fly
through American airspace and this, in turn, will allow
American authorities to prevent individuals from flying to or from
Canada." Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has insisted that the U.S
would only use the personnel data for air security purposes, but
Stoddart admitted, "our understanding is that information collected can
be disclosed and used for purposes other than
aviation security, such as law enforcement and immigration purposes."
The Canadian government has failed to sufficiently safeguard the
privacy of its citizens and there are fears any information collected
could be misused.
In October, NDP Member of Parliament Don Davies warned
that Bill C-42 would give U.S. security agencies unprecedented access
to Canadians' personal information. He addressed a whole subset of data
that could be obtained by U.S authorities through the passenger name
record created when booking
with travel agents. This includes, "credit card information, who we are
travelling with, our hotel, other booking information such as tours or
rental cars, any medical condition of the passenger that may have been
disclosed, dietary preferences, our email address, our employer
information, our telephone information,
our baggage information." Davis also added, "This bill would
effectively allow the United States to determine when Canadians can
leave Canada to fly to many destinations in the world that have nothing
to do with the United States. This bill violates Canadians' freedoms.
It violates Canadians' mobility rights." Bill
C-42 is an encroachment on sovereignty and gives the U.S. unprecedented
power over who can board planes that fly over its airspace.
In January of this year, following the failed underwear
bombing and at the request of the U.S., Canada installed full body
scanners at its major airports. So far, the Canadian government
maintains that they will not institute aggressive TSA-style pat-downs,
but another incident could change that. The
new airport security measures can only be described as intrusive and
degrading with some critics also labelling them as ineffective. In the
U.S., there has been a growing public backlash against the use of naked
body scanners and other invasive TSA security procedures. In an effort
to prevent this discontent from
spreading across the border, Canadian Transport officials have begun
installing private search areas at designated airports. Booths set up
at security checkpoints will give passengers the option of private
pat-downs. In the near future, airport security practices could be
expanded to other modes of public transportation.
Implementation of a high-tech control grid would further restrict,
track and trace our movements.
Although the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP)
may no longer be active (in name only), the harmonizing of some of its
key priorities in areas such as traveller, cargo and aviation security,
as well as others continues through different initiatives. Part of the
SPP agenda also called for merging
no-fly lists into a single North American database. In an effort to
keep travel and trade moving across the border, Canada will be further
pressured to adopt a single security strategy dominated by U.S.
interests.
For Your Information
Strengthening Aviation Security Act
On June 17, then Minister of Transport, Infrastructure
and Communities, John Baird, introduced Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act
(short title: Strengthening Aviation
Security Act). According to Parliament's Information Service,
the "bill amends the Aeronautics Act
to create an exception from the application of another statute, the Personal Information Protection and
Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), for operators of aircraft.
"PIPEDA is the main federal legislation governing
privacy rights and obligations in the private sector. To date, its
application in the aviation context has mainly concerned the handling
of personal information of passengers flying on Canadian aircraft." It
prevents operators of aircraft from collecting or disclosing
information about its passengers to third parties without their
consent. Currently, the Aeronautics
Act exempts air carriers from this restriction when the laws of
a foreign state require disclosures about passengers on board a flight
that is landing in that state.
Canadian airlines are currently required to provide U.S.
authorities
with passengers' personal information when flying to U.S. destinations
but Bill C-42 would extend U.S. access to personal
information of Canadian air
travellers when merely traversing U.S. airspace.
At first and second reading: "Bill C-42 amends this
section to expand its application -- it would now apply not only with
respect to foreign states in which the flight is landing, but also to
any foreign states that the flight would travel over. Accordingly,
whether or not the foreign state that a flight lands in requires the
disclosure of any personal information, under this bill, an air carrier
would be able to provide disclosure without consent (or other
restrictions to which it would normally be subject under PIPEDA) if the
laws of a foreign state on the flight path require it." (Information
Service, Parliament of Canada) This expanded application would apply to
any Canadian flight whether it originates in Canada or not.
The bill passed Second Reading with 241 in favour and 34
against on October 26. It was referred to the Standing Committee of
Transport, Infrastructure and Communities where it was further amended
on December 7 to replace "or fly over a foreign state and land outside
Canada" with "or fly over the United States and land outside
Canada" thus restricting air carriers to providing passenger
information solely to the United States when flying over but not
landing within its borders. The Committee submitted its report to
Parliament on December 8.
By amending the Aeronautics
Act to exempt Canadian airlines from compliance with Canada's
privacy laws, Bill C-42 will bring Canada into compliance with U.S.
Homeland Security's Secure Flight program which requires airlines to
submit personal information about passengers 72 hours before a flight's
departure. Secure Flight is already mandatory for U.S. airlines but
U.S. Homeland Security wants it implemented internationally by the end
of 2010.
Blacklists and Security Certificates
Day of Action in Solidarity with Abousfian Abdelrazik
and Against UN Blacklist
On December 10, 1948, the UN General Assembly approved
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and established that day as
the International Day of Human Rights. To mark the day this year,
Project Fly Home
held a rally in solidarity with Abousfian Abdelrazik and against the UN
1267 blacklist regime.
  
Montreal, December 11,
2010: "Demand the repeal of the 1267 list."
The People's
Commission Network explains the UN blacklist:
"The 1267 List is an international tool which imposes a
travel ban and an asset freeze on listed individuals and organizations.
The list is managed by the United Nations Security Council but
implemented by each UN member nation, such as Canada. It represents a
new global regime of political control, in which
states cooperate across borders to impose politically-motivated
sanctions on individuals or organizations." This regime of political
control is a clear violation of human rights. The People's Commission
Network provides the following background information.
Background
Abousfian Abdelrazik
|
"Abdelrazik, a Canadian, was detained on the request of
Canada while on a trip to Sudan. Tortured over the course of several
years, he was released only to find that he had been placed on the 1267
List, which provided Canada with a pretext to block his return to
Canada. Trapped for a full year in the Canadian
embassy in Sudan after going public with his story, Abdelrazik was
finally able to return to Montreal in June 2009. He remains in a prison
without walls; the 1267 regime freezes his assets and imposes a travel
ban. More than a year and a half later, Abdelrazik is still fighting
for his name to be delisted and for the
Canadian officials responsible for his torture, detention and exile in
Sudan to be held responsible. Last year on December 10, International
Human Rights Day, Project Fly Home held a rally in downtown Montreal
demanding that Abdelrazik be delisted immediately. A year later, we are
forced to return to the streets
because he remains on the 1267 List.
"From his initial detention in Sudan to the present,
Abdelrazik has never been charged with any crime. Both Canada's
security agencies declared in 2007 that they have nothing against
Abdelrazik. Abdelrazik's case is not unique. More than 450 people and
organizations remain on the UN 1267 List and more are
on a variety of other terrorist or "no fly" lists. Many of these
people, like Abdelrazik, have never been charged with any crime. Some,
like Abdelrazik, have been imprisoned and tortured in the name of
security. The 1267 list is based upon vague accusations of
"association" and the presumption of guilt, rather than
the presumption of innocence. Listed individuals have no prior
opportunity to challenge their listing and no meaningful opportunity to
get themselves off the list once they have been added. Any Security
Council member can veto a delisting request without providing any
reasons.
"Project Fly Home demands an end to this list and others
like it, which internationalize state control and repression, which
promote racism and Islamophobia, and which encourage an atmosphere of
fear and paranoia."
|
People's
Commission Network Popular Forum
WHOSE
SECURITY?
OUR
SECURITY!
Countering the National Security Agenda
February 4-6, 2011, Montreal
More
information: www.peoplescommission.org/en/forum |
|
Abolish Security Certificates --
Justice for Mohamed
Harkat
 December 10, International Human
Rights Day, marked the
eighth anniversary of the arrest of Mohamed Harkat under the security
certificate regime. On this day, the Justice for Mohamed Harkat
Coalition called a rally at the Human Rights Monument in Ottawa in
support of Harkat and to demand the abolition
of the security certificates in Canada. Security certificates, part of
the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act, enable the federal
government to detain and deport permanent residents and non-citizens
without charge and to deny them access to the evidence related to their
detention.
On December 9, Supreme Court Justice Simon Noël
released his ruling on the "reasonableness" of the security certificate
against Harkat. The "reasonableness" of the case relies on police
accounts of taped telephone conversations, the transcripts of which
were
destroyed by the police. It is totally outrageous that
this is found "reasonable." This decision once again puts Harkat at
risk for deportation to Algeria, where the Canadian government's
unproven allegations that he is associated with terrorism will further
jeopardize his rights.
The federal government held Harkat in detention without
charge from December 10, 2002 to May 23, 2006, including one year in
solitary confinement and time at the Millhaven prison in Ontario in a
facility dubbed Guantanamo North, built specifically for those held
under security certificates. He was released
on $100,000 bail and extremely onerous conditions, making him a virtual
prisoner in his own home.
In June, 2006, the Supreme Court of Canada heard the
case of Harkat vs. Canada on
the constitutionality of security
certificates and on December 22, 2007, Chief Justice Allan Lutfy
granted a judicial review of the original deportation order in Federal
Court.
The case languished in the court after that due to the
Canadian Security Intelligence Service's (CSIS) refusal to hand over
its evidence to the defence. On September 24, 2008, Justice Noël
ruled that CSIS must disclose its "secret" evidence against Harkat, to
him and his lawyers. More than seven months later,
in May 2009, the judge found it "troubling" that CSIS was unwilling to
share its evidence regarding the reliability of an informant against
Harkat, and ordered CSIS to disclose its confidential files to Harkat's
defence lawyers who held security clearance. It came to light at the
same time that CSIS claimed to have
destroyed all original copies of their evidence, thus providing only
copies to the defence. TML condemns the ruling which finds
such tainted evidence "reasonable."
Abolish
the
Security Certificates!
Justice for Mohamed Harkat!
Read The Marxist-Leninist
Daily
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
|
