CCLA Called Upon Minister of Foreign Affairs to Assist Nazia Quazi
Nazia Quazi, a twenty-four year old Canadian citizen, was trapped in Saudi Arabia for over two years because she is a woman.
Under Saudi custom, a woman must have the consent of her male guardian to travel. Although Ms. Quazi and her father are not Saudi citizens, her father was able to prevent her return to Canada by refusing to sign her exit visa.
CCLA believes that gender restrictions on a woman’s right to travel are an unlawful restriction of her mobility and equality rights guaranteed in Canadian and international law.
CCLA wrote to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lawrence Cannon, in April 2010, calling upon Canada to protect Ms. Quazi’s rights guaranteed by the Charter and the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Woman. CCLA called upon Canada to press Saudi Arabia, as a co-signatory of CEDAW, to waive the male consent requirement. Within days, Ms. Quazi was contacted by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister, Deepak Obhrai.
Ms. Quazi was able to leave Saudi Arabia with both her parents on May 10th, 2010, although we presume her exit visa was not waived, but signed by her father. She intends, we are told, to return to Canada. CCLA is following up on her case, and more generally on the duty Canada owes to citizens abroad whose human rights are being unlawfully curtailed.
CCLA is concerned by proposed pardon reform
The CCLA has written to Minister Toews to suggest changes to the government’s efforts to significantly alter Canada’s pardon system. Bill C-23, Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act, was introduced into the House of Commons on May 11, 2010. The proposed scheme would significantly delay a person’s ability to apply for a pardon and would render one category of offenders (i.e. those convicted of sexual offences against children) ineligible to apply. The CCLA is opposed to the extension of delays and the elimination of the possibility of pardon for one type of offender, as it would significantly undermine offenders’ efforts at rehabilitation and re-integration into society. There is also good reason to doubt that the proposed reforms would do anything to render the public safer. The National Parole Board reports that, since 1970, 96% of the pardons granted remain in force, indicating that the persons receiving the pardons did not re-offend.
While the CCLA intends to oppose attempts to delay or deny pardon eligibility, it welcomes aspects of the proposed legislation that will provide the public with a better understanding of the purpose and scope of a pardon. In particular, the Bill proposes changing the term from “pardon” to “record suspension”, which is a more accurate reflection of what a pardon actually does.
Random Breath Testing would blow away Charter rights, CCLA submits
On April 30, CCLA delivered its submissions concerning the Department of Justice’s discussion paper, “Modernizing the Transportation Provisions of the Criminal Code.” The DoJ’s paper proposes a number of changes to the criminal justice system, related primarily to drinking and driving offences, including altering counsel and disclosure rights in such cases. Of greatest concern to CCLA is the proposed introduction of Random Breath Testing in Canada.
Presently, police are required to form a reasonable suspicion that a driver has been drinking before demanding that he or she submit to a breath test. Before a roadside breath test is required, there must be some indication from a person’s driving or answers to routine questions that suggests he or she has been drinking. Random Breath Testing would eliminate this requirement. Police would be given the power to pull over any driver, at any time, in any place, and compel them to take a breath test. In its submissions, CCLA argued that this undermines the Charter protections against arbitrary detention and unreasonable search and seizure. The introduction of RBT also represents a symbolic shift: the presumption of innocence would be replaced with a presumption of guilt. The CCLA pointed out that such powers are characteristic of police states, not free and democratic societies.
The CCLA’s submissions demonstrate that the apparent positive impact of RBT in countries such as Australia does not stand up well to scrutiny, and that Canada has already made significant progress on the prevention of drinking and driving through the introduction of similarly effective but less intrusive measures. To read CCLA’s submissions, click here.
G20 security measures and protesters’ rights
As the G8 and G20 meetings bear down on Toronto, CCLA has growing concerns regarding whether the security arrangements will provide room and respect for fundamental democratic rights – particularly freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly. A democracy cannot operate without ensuring that there is possibility for dissenters to be heard. As the proposed security measures are unveiled, which include significant security fences, a ‘designated protest zone’, the installation of closed circuit cameras throughout the downtown core, and an enlarged security presence, described by one Integrated Security Unit liaison officer, as “a massive — absolutely massive — presence of police and security on the ground like you’ve never seen before”, one cannot help but wonder how much room there will be for basic individual rights.
Any security arrangements must start from the premise that peaceful expression and assembly are fundamental rights to be protected and facilitated. The entire city of Toronto is a ‘free speech zone’. Our constitution ensures that it stays that way, even during large international events. The vast majority of protesters are entirely peaceful. The police should support the democratic rights of protesters, not attempt to scare them away.
CCLA will be closely monitoring all restrictions on expressive freedoms, both leading up to, during and after the G20 and G8 meetings.
