|
|
January 2010 ebulletin
January 19th, 2010
|
Changes to airport security closely monitored by CCLA
|
|
 In the weeks following the attempted Christmas day bombing of an intercontinental Delta Airlines flight, numerous new security measures have been implemented and announced at Canadians airports. While some of these measures are relatively benign, others threaten to unduly impact the privacy and civil liberties of air travellers. Enhanced security measures are appropriate in the context of air travel, however, when such measures significantly undermine the rights of the travelling public, they must be closely monitored to ensure that their purported benefits warrant the degree of invasiveness that they impose.Of the various measures announced, the one that has received the most attention is the full body scanners that the federal government will be purchasing for use in major Canadian airports. These scanners, which produce strikingly graphic images of subjects’ clothingless bodies, have provoked calls to the CCLA from both the media and members of the public. CCLA had been monitoring the issue for several months and had requested a copy of the report of the pilot conducted at the Kelowna airport. After evaluating the conclusions of the report, CCLA has expressed concerns about both the invasiveness and effectiveness of these machines, and has insisted that they be subject to the most stringent of safeguards. Full body scanners should only be used if they are sufficiently effective, if there are few other alternatives, and if they can be implemented in a manner that infringes the right to privacy as little as possible. At this stage, it is unclear whether their effectiveness warrant the privacy intrusion. We will continue to monitoring the way in which they are installed and operated in the coming months.
Suggestions that Canada may be further amending its security protocols in order to comply with new U.S. requirements are also troubling. This could mean that the information of all Canadians flying over the United States would be passed along to U.S. authorities, even if they won`t be landing at an American airport. It could also mean subjecting travellers from specific countries of origin to heightened scrutiny simply because of where they were born, a practice that could lead to discriminatory racial profiling.
While it is not yet clear to what extent Canada will pursue such measures, it`s certain that the coming months will present a host of complex and challenging questions about how we, as Canadians, will strike a balance between the security and civil liberties of air travellers. This is a debate that the CCLA will be watching closely.
|
|
CCLA celebrates freedom of expression victory in Supreme Court
|
|
 The Supreme Court of Canada released two companion land-mark rulings in December that modified defamation law to create a new ‘responsible public interest communication defence’. CCLA, represented by Patricia Jackson, Andrew Bernstein and Jennifer Keating-Conroy of Torys LLP, intervened in both cases, urging the Court to increase protections for those Canadians who speak out on matters of public interest. Traditionally, the majority of defendants in defamation suits have had to prove that all their factual statements were true. Many statements made in the public interest are simply not capable of meeting this threshold, even though the speaker or writer may be speaking out in the public interest and may have taken all reasonable means available to verify the accuracy of the information. The Court agreed with the CCLA that defamation law was not sufficiently protective of freedom of expression, and we are hopeful that the new defence will go a long way towards rectifying this imbalance.You can read the judgments here: Quan v. Cusson, Grant v. Torstar Corp. |
|
CCLA Intervenes in Pie in the Face case to Bolster Accountability of State Agents
|
|
| When agents of the state breach Charter rights, courts must be empowered to ensure that appropriate redress occurs. This was the essence of the CCLA’s submissions before the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of City of Vancouver, et al. v. Alan Cameron Ward, et al., which dealt with the availability of monetary damages for Charter breaches. This case arose out of a 2002 incident in which Mr. Ward, a member of the public, was detained and strip searched because police suspected he was going to throw a pie at Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. No pie was ever found and, after four and a half hours of detention, Mr. Ward was released without being charged. He subsequently launched a law suit in which he sought damages as a result of the affronts to his dignity which he had suffered. The government responded that Mr. Ward should not receive damages, because the police had not acted in bad faith or committed an abuse of power, which should be a prerequisite to the awarding of damages for a Charter breach.
In CCLA’s view, there should be no restrictions placed on when a monetary award can be given for a Charter breach, as courts need to have whatever tools they require at their disposal to ensure that Charter rights are respected and protected. An award of damages may be necessary to vindicate a Charter right, to deter similar breaches in the future or to express disapproval of unconstitutional conduct and courts must be free to craft remedies that redress the loss of dignity or moral harm associated with Charter breaches. As the facts of this case highlight, the rights of individuals, such as protesters, can at times be vulnerable. To the extent that society allows breaches of these rights to go unremedied, we risk undermining the vital role that they play in Canada’s democratic culture. The CCLA thanks Stuart Svonkin and Jana Stettner (Tory’s LLP) for the excellent representation they provided in this case. To read CCLA’s factum before the Supreme Court click here. To watch the hearing click here.
|
|
Don’t allow extradition to possible persecution, CCLA argues before the Supreme Court
|
|
| On January 13, 2010, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Tiberiu Gavrila v. Minister of Justice (Canada) to argue that Canada’s human rights obligations not to return refugees to countries where they are at risk of persecution supercede our obligations under extradition treaties. A member of the Roma minority, Tiberiu Gavrila was found to be a refugee in 2004 after fleeing Romania. However, Romania requested his extradition for forging visas in that country. Mr. Gavrila appealed the decision of Canada’s Minister of Justice to have him extradited while the threat of persecution still loomed.Consistent with Canada’s commitments under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment, CCLA advanced the position that the principle of non-refoulement – the duty not to remove people to countries where they may face torture or persecution – is paramount. Our human rights commitments, CCLA asserted, should be respected.The principle of non-refoulement is also reflected in Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which states that Canada should provide a safe haven for those with a “well-founded fear of persecution based on reasons of race, nationality, religion, membership in a social group and political opinion.” The outcome of this case will have a critical bearing on the application of the non-refoulement principle in Canada. To watch the hearing click here. |
|
Regina votes unanimously to repeal, anti-panhandling by-law
|
|
| The Regina City Council voted unanimously to repeal its “Tag Day Bylaw,” which was being used to ticket individuals who panhandled in that city without a permit. In a September letter to the Council, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association had suggested that the use of the by-law in this way represented unsound social policy and could violate the Charter guarantee of freedom of expression. There is little difference between the upturned hat of a homeless person and a politically expressive banner or a loud advertisement. Asking for charity is a form of expression. CCLA applauds the town’s decision to repeal the by-law, and suggests that the issue of panhandling, homelessness and poverty will need to be addressed in a more comprehensive manner. |
January 2010 ebulletin
January 19th, 2010
|
Changes to airport security closely monitored by CCLA
|
|
| In the weeks following the attempted Christmas day bombing of an intercontinental Delta Airlines flight, numerous new security measures have been implemented and announced at Canadians airports. While some of these measures are relatively benign, others threaten to unduly impact the privacy and civil liberties of air travellers. Enhanced security measures are appropriate in the context of air travel, however, when such measures significantly undermine the rights of the travelling public, they must be closely monitored to ensure that their purported benefits warrant the degree of invasiveness that they impose.Of the various measures announced, the one that has received the most attention is the full body scanners that the federal government will be purchasing for use in major Canadian airports. These scanners, which produce strikingly graphic images of subjects’ clothingless bodies, have provoked calls to the CCLA from both the media and members of the public. CCLA had been monitoring the issue for several months and had requested a copy of the report of the pilot conducted at the Kelowna airport. After evaluating the conclusions of the report, CCLA has expressed concerns about both the invasiveness and effectiveness of these machines, and has insisted that they be subject to the most stringent of safeguards. Full body scanners should only be used if they are sufficiently effective, if there are few other alternatives, and if they can be implemented in a manner that infringes the right to privacy as little as possible. At this stage, it is unclear whether their effectiveness warrant the privacy intrusion. We will continue to monitoring the way in which they are installed and operated in the coming months.
Suggestions that Canada may be further amending its security protocols in order to comply with new U.S. requirements are also troubling. This could mean that the information of all Canadians flying over the United States would be passed along to U.S. authorities, even if they won`t be landing at an American airport. It could also mean subjecting travellers from specific countries of origin to heightened scrutiny simply because of where they were born, a practice that could lead to discriminatory racial profiling.
While it is not yet clear to what extent Canada will pursue such measures, it`s certain that the coming months will present a host of complex and challenging questions about how we, as Canadians, will strike a balance between the security and civil liberties of air travellers. This is a debate that the CCLA will be watching closely.
|
|
CCLA celebrates freedom of expression victory in Supreme Court
|
|
| The Supreme Court of Canada released two companion land-mark rulings in December that modified defamation law to create a new ‘responsible public interest communication defence’. CCLA, represented by Patricia Jackson, Andrew Bernstein and Jennifer Keating-Conroy of Torys LLP, intervened in both cases, urging the Court to increase protections for those Canadians who speak out on matters of public interest. Traditionally, the majority of defendants in defamation suits have had to prove that all their factual statements were true. Many statements made in the public interest are simply not capable of meeting this threshold, even though the speaker or writer may be speaking out in the public interest and may have taken all reasonable means available to verify the accuracy of the information. The Court agreed with the CCLA that defamation law was not sufficiently protective of freedom of expression, and we are hopeful that the new defence will go a long way towards rectifying this imbalance.You can read the judgments here: Quan v. Cusson, Grant v. Torstar Corp. |
|
CCLA Intervenes in Pie in the Face case to Bolster Accountability of State Agents
|
|
| When agents of the state breach Charter rights, courts must be empowered to ensure that appropriate redress occurs. This was the essence of the CCLA’s submissions before the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of City of Vancouver, et al. v. Alan Cameron Ward, et al., which dealt with the availability of monetary damages for Charter breaches. This case arose out of a 2002 incident in which Mr. Ward, a member of the public, was detained and strip searched because police suspected he was going to throw a pie at Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. No pie was ever found and, after four and a half hours of detention, Mr. Ward was released without being charged. He subsequently launched a law suit in which he sought damages as a result of the affronts to his dignity which he had suffered. The government responded that Mr. Ward should not receive damages, because the police had not acted in bad faith or committed an abuse of power, which should be a prerequisite to the awarding of damages for a Charter breach.
In CCLA’s view, there should be no restrictions placed on when a monetary award can be given for a Charter breach, as courts need to have whatever tools they require at their disposal to ensure that Charter rights are respected and protected. An award of damages may be necessary to vindicate a Charter right, to deter similar breaches in the future or to express disapproval of unconstitutional conduct and courts must be free to craft remedies that redress the loss of dignity or moral harm associated with Charter breaches. As the facts of this case highlight, the rights of individuals, such as protesters, can at times be vulnerable. To the extent that society allows breaches of these rights to go unremedied, we risk undermining the vital role that they play in Canada’s democratic culture. The CCLA thanks Stuart Svonkin and Jana Stettner (Tory’s LLP) for the excellent representation they provided in this case. To read CCLA’s factum before the Supreme Court click here. To watch the hearing click here.
|
|
Don’t allow extradition to possible persecution, CCLA argues before the Supreme Court
|
|
| On January 13, 2010, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Tiberiu Gavrila v. Minister of Justice (Canada) to argue that Canada’s human rights obligations not to return refugees to countries where they are at risk of persecution supercede our obligations under extradition treaties. A member of the Roma minority, Tiberiu Gavrila was found to be a refugee in 2004 after fleeing Romania. However, Romania requested his extradition for forging visas in that country. Mr. Gavrila appealed the decision of Canada’s Minister of Justice to have him extradited while the threat of persecution still loomed.Consistent with Canada’s commitments under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment, CCLA advanced the position that the principle of non-refoulement – the duty not to remove people to countries where they may face torture or persecution – is paramount. Our human rights commitments, CCLA asserted, should be respected.The principle of non-refoulement is also reflected in Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which states that Canada should provide a safe haven for those with a “well-founded fear of persecution based on reasons of race, nationality, religion, membership in a social group and political opinion.” The outcome of this case will have a critical bearing on the application of the non-refoulement principle in Canada. To watch the hearing click here. |
|
Regina votes unanimously to repeal, anti-panhandling by-law
|
|
| The Regina City Council voted unanimously to repeal its “Tag Day Bylaw,” which was being used to ticket individuals who panhandled in that city without a permit. In a September letter to the Council, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association had suggested that the use of the by-law in this way represented unsound social policy and could violate the Charter guarantee of freedom of expression. There is little difference between the upturned hat of a homeless person and a politically expressive banner or a loud advertisement. Asking for charity is a form of expression. CCLA applauds the town’s decision to repeal the by-law, and suggests that the issue of panhandling, homelessness and poverty will need to be addressed in a more comprehensive manner. |
|
|
In the weeks following the attempted Christmas day bombing of an intercontinental Delta Airlines flight, numerous new security measures have been implemented and announced at Canadians airports. While some of these measures are relatively benign, others threaten to unduly impact the privacy and civil liberties of air travellers. Enhanced security measures are appropriate in the context of air travel, however, when such measures significantly undermine the rights of the travelling public, they must be closely monitored to ensure that their purported benefits warrant the degree of invasiveness that they impose.Of the various measures announced, the one that has received the most attention is the full body scanners that the federal government will be purchasing for use in major Canadian airports. These scanners, which produce strikingly graphic images of subjects’ clothingless bodies, have provoked calls to the CCLA from both the media and members of the public. CCLA had been monitoring the issue for several months and had requested a copy of the report of the pilot conducted at the Kelowna airport. After evaluating the conclusions of the report, CCLA has expressed concerns about both the invasiveness and effectiveness of these machines, and has insisted that they be subject to the most stringent of safeguards. Full body scanners should only be used if they are sufficiently effective, if there are few other alternatives, and if they can be implemented in a manner that infringes the right to privacy as little as possible. At this stage, it is unclear whether their effectiveness warrant the privacy intrusion. We will continue to monitoring the way in which they are installed and operated in the coming months.
The Supreme Court of Canada released two companion land-mark rulings in December that modified defamation law to create a new ‘responsible public interest communication defence’. CCLA, represented by Patricia Jackson, Andrew Bernstein and Jennifer Keating-Conroy of Torys LLP, intervened in both cases, urging the Court to increase protections for those Canadians who speak out on matters of public interest. Traditionally, the majority of defendants in defamation suits have had to prove that all their factual statements were true. Many statements made in the public interest are simply not capable of meeting this threshold, even though the speaker or writer may be speaking out in the public interest and may have taken all reasonable means available to verify the accuracy of the information. The Court agreed with the CCLA that defamation law was not sufficiently protective of freedom of expression, and we are hopeful that the new defence will go a long way towards rectifying this imbalance.You can read the judgments here: Quan v. Cusson, Grant v. Torstar Corp.
