Canada is a country that needs immigrants, and has been such for many years. Despite this pressing need, the politics and rhetoric around immigration issues have often been marred in discriminatory treatment. There were the “Chinese Head Tax”, the racially discriminatory selection criteria that denied entry to South Asian and African people, and a boat of Jewish people fleeing Hitler’s Germany turned away. We think that all this has passed. Since 1962, when racial selection criteria were abandoned, we have continued to pride ourselves in our progress.
Nevertheless, immigration continues to be a domain where rights and liberties are routinely denied. In this e-bulletin, we invite you to look at the proposed Bill C4 and evaluate its conformity with basic standards of fairness : the bill has a compulsory 12 months incarceration policy for groups of asylum seekers, even children, it denies access to travel documents for 5 years, and eliminates rights of review and appeal.
Best Wishes,
Nathalie Des Rosiers
General Counsel
In this issue:
- Stop Bill C-4
- A Victory In Protecting Political Commentary and Internet Anonymity
- Calling all youth journalists, photographers and artists!
- CCLA appears before Toronto Police Services Board on G20 policing Report
The government is seeking to pass a highly controversial bill (Bill C-4) that would allow the Minister to order the detention and imprisonment of people seeking refugee status. Human smuggling is a serious issue that requires enforcement resources and co-operation with foreign governments to deal with smugglers – but it does not justify constitutional and international law violations.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has asked that the Bill be withdrawn or amended to meet international obligations. We need your support:
- Donate to our fund to support legal and public education actions to defeat Bill C-4 and protect the right to fair process and against arbitrary detention;
- Add your voice by writing to your MP (click here to find his or her contact info) and the prime minister’s office to let them know Canadians do not want Bill C-4
- Inform yourself, and share with others!
Ten things you should know about Bill C-4
- Under Bill C-4, men, women, children in a “designated” group have to be locked up upon arrival in Canada. It is the Minister who decides whether a group of asylum seeker should be designated.
- Everyone who is locked up this way is not allowed a review of their detention for at least 12 months. (In contrast, under the current law, everyone locked up gets independent review of their detention within 48 hours of being detained).
- Putting people in prison without a trial and without the possibility of a review for 12 months violates the right to have the detention reviewed by way of habeas corpus (s. 10) and the protection against arbitrary detention (s. 9) of the Canadian Charter of rights and Freedoms.
- The denial of liberty without due process and the imposition of arbitrary detention are also a violation of s. 9 of the most fundamental civil rights convention in international law – the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
- Punishing people who are seeking refugee status is also a violation of section 31 of the International Convention on the Status of Refugee (The Refugee Convention) that prohibits imposing penalties for the illegal entry of people fleeing persecution.
- Bill C-4 would also deny the designated refugees the right to travel documents for at least 5 years. This again violates the Refugee Convention that provides that people must be given travel documents.
- Permanent residents are also targeted under Bill C-4, which would allow the government to detain a permanent resident on entry into Canada if the officer suspects that the person is inadmissible on grounds of any criminal activity, even if the person has not been charged or convicted.
- Bill C-4 says that its goal is to prevent human smuggling – but most of its provisions have nothing to do with smugglers (most of its provisions punish people who are trying to escape from terrible dangers and looking for safe haven).
- Human smuggling is a serious problem and it requires enforcement of current laws against smugglers, not violations of the Charter and of international law. Our current laws already contain ample provisions for detentions for threat to national security or serious crimes.
- Bill C-4 has not yet passed. If enough Canadians tell the government that it is not what they want, unconstitutional and un-Canadian, maybe it never will become law.
A Victory In Protecting Political Commentary and Internet Anonymity
A recent victory on a motion in Ontario may go a long way in protecting political commentary on the Internet and to ensuring that rights to privacy, including anonymity on the Internet, are not lightly set aside.
CCLA recently intervened in a motion brought by the former Mayor of the Ontario town of Aurora. The former Mayor was suing some individuals for defamation based on some critical comments they posted about her on an online blog. Although the Mayor had information about some of the bloggers, she brought a motion asking the Court to force those defendants to hand over information to identify several anonymous bloggers whose comments she also claimed were defamatory.
CCLA intervened in the case because of concerns that this defamation suit, brought by a former public official (started when she was still Mayor) was being used as a way to silence critics of the Mayor and her time in office. The CCLA firmly believes that all Canadians have a fundamental right to speak out about their elected officials, even in unflattering terms. Allowing a broad space for commenting on and even criticizing our government and elected representatives is crucial to a democracy. CCLA also believes that while anonymity on the Internet cannot be used to insulate people from accountability for breaking the law, neither should a simple request to the Court allow for full disclosure of identifying information.
In this case, the Court upheld the freedom of expression and privacy interests of the anonymous bloggers. The Court noted that the Mayor had not even specifically laid out which comments on the blog she alleged were defamatory and, as a result, a key component of the test for obtaining disclosure of the identifying information did not exist. The Court also found that, since the bloggers could use a pseudonym when blogging, they had a reasonable expectation that their identities could remain anonymous. In light of all of this, the Court found that expressive and privacy interests of the anonymous bloggers outweighed the Mayor’s interests in obtaining their identities.
CCLA is grateful to Alex Smith of Torys LLP for his hard work as counsel to the CCLA in this case.
Calling all youth journalists, photographers and artists!
To mark International Youth Day on August 12, the Canadian Civil Liberties Education Trust (CCLET) is launching its newest publication for young civil libertarians, Act for Freedom Too.
This zine for and by young people builds on CCLA’s annual Act for Freedom publication, and will feature writing and art from individuals under the age of 18 from around the world who want to shed light on issues of importance to youth in their communities.
August 12 was declared International Youth Day by the United Nations General Assembly in 1999, with the objective of harnessing the potential of youth as partners for peace, democracy and development. This year’s theme is “Dialogue and Mutual Understanding”.
By sharing their experiences and stories through Act for Freedom Too, the voices of our future leaders, law makers and voters will come together in a publication that explores the challenges faced by youth around the world, contributes to better cross-cultural understanding and gives a platform for young people to shine.
CCLA appears before Toronto Police Services Board on G20 policing Report
On July 21, 2011, the CCLA appeared before the Toronto Police Services Board to respond to the Toronto Police Service’s (TPS) Report on its role in policing the 2010 G20 Summit. The Report, which was released around the time of the one year anniversary of the G20, sets out a time-line of the TPS’ involvement in G20 security and makes numerous recommendations about how the TPS could better respond to the challenges of policing major events in the future.
In its comments to the Board, the CCLA made three points about the Report and how it should be viewed by the Board in the context of its overarching review of G20 policing. First, the CCLA noted that the report made helpful recommendations, including several calling for changes to TPS policy and training in relation to major events. CCLA welcomes the implementation of such recommendations but notes that changes to policy and training are only part of the solution. Police already receive training about when they can detain and search people and there is already a policy in place that requires officers to wear identification badges in public. This did not stop police from ignoring some of this training during the G20, which speaks to the need for changes in police culture and more effective means of ensuring that policy and training are respected in the field.
Second, the CCLA pointed out that the Report does not address several key issues or events relating to the conduct of the TPS in the wake of the G20. For example, the report does not mention the dispersal of protesters that occurred in front of the Eastern Avenue detention centre on the morning of Sunday June 27 nor the confirmed reports of excessive uses of force by police. Also missing is a thorough assessment of the widespread allegations of improper detentions, searches, and arrests that have followed the G20. These deficiencies leave some of the most pressing questions about the TPS’ role in G20 policing unanswered. The Report is an important first step and does present the findings of an internal review and, thus, lacks the independence of the external reviews of G20-related issues that have been and will be completed.
The Toronto Police Services Board voted to receive the Report, but will await the results of the Honourable John Morden’s Independent Civilian Review into Matters Relating to the G20 before making any major decisions about how it will respond to the Report.
