|
The CCLA seeks to ensure that police powers are used in a manner that is necessary, proportionate and consistent with constitutional standards. Specific police powers that the CCLA has focussed on include detention and arrest, the use of force, and search and seizure. Police Powers is part of the Public Safety program. You can find more information about it on its main program page. |
|
|
Police Powers
By Communications on May 16, 2012
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CCLA Demands Accountability for G20 Rights Violations in light of Scathing OIPRD Report into G20 Police ConductCalls for Immediate Action from Chief, Police Services BoardTORONTO, May 16 2012 – The Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) today released its systemic review into policing during the 2010 Toronto G20. The Report confirms the position that Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) has held from the outset: that mass violations of fundamental rights occurred throughout the downtown Toronto core over the G20 weekend. These rights violations were the result of systemic planning and training failures leading up to the G20, and specific orders and statements made by senior commanding officers during that weekend. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association calls on the Ontario government and police services to commit to a full and immediate implementation of the OIPRD recommendations, issue an unconditional apology, proactively pursue disciplinary measures for officers implicated in misconduct, and pursue criminal charges where appropriate. The Chief and the police services board need to take action against senior command officers responsible for the decisions that violated the civil liberties of hundreds of Canadians on June 26th and 27th. CCLA continues to believe that, given the severity of the rights violations that occurred on the G20 weekend, full political and police accountability is vital to rebuilding public trust in law enforcement and democratic institutions. “We know what happened during the G20. We know that there were rights violations on a massive scale. What we need now is accountability,” said Abby Deshman, Public Safety Director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. “Transparency without accountability is unacceptable. We have multiple reports documenting in detail massive rights violations over that weekend. The individuals who were in charge need to accept responsibility and be held accountable. The Toronto Chief of Police needs to acknowledge what has happened, and apologize. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association calls on all police services to proactively pursue meaningful disciplinary measures for all officers implicated in misconduct that weekend. The Chief and the police services board need to take action against senior command officers responsible for the decisions that violated the civil liberties of hundreds of Canadians on June 26th and 27th.” -30-
By Communications on May 16, 2012
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has written to the Mayor of Montreal, and to city councillors, to express its concerns regarding the City of Montreal’s proposed adoption of amendments to a bylaw that would make it illegal to wear a mask during a public demonstration, and that would require demonstrators to provide prior notification to police authorities of their meeting place and route.
By Communications on May 14, 2012
May 14, 2012 CCLA: Report into RCMP G20 Complaint Bolsters CCLA Concerns, Highlights Need for Answers from Toronto, Ontario PoliceTORONTO, May 14, 2012 – The Canadian Civil Liberties Association welcomes the long-awaited report into RCMP conduct during the 2010 G8 and G20 summits. This report was produced by Commission for Public Complaints Against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (“the Commission”) and responds to the concerns set out in CCLA’s G20 complaint, filed over a year and a half ago. Click here to read the Report by the Commission. This report’s release is an important step in the effort to achieve post-G20 accountability and transparency. The report provides new information that bolsters a number of concerns raised by CCLA in the wake of the G20 and strengthens the call for answers from the outstanding review processes focused on the conduct of the Toronto Police Service (TPS) and the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP). The report also makes several key recommendations, which CCLA strongly urges the RCMP to act upon immediately. CCLA is also concerned about some of the report’s findings which approve of RCMP conduct despite RCMP use of police tactics contrary to RCMP policy, planning failures and insufficient documentation on questionable arrests Several of the disclosures in the report shed new light on police conduct and raise significant concerns regarding the propriety of police actions during the G20 summit:
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has been calling for a public inquiry into the G20 since June 2010. Specifically, CCLA has been asking for a public inquiry to look into some of the aspects that no single review to date has been able to fully evaluate because of the limited scope of their mandate – the interplay between various police forces from different jurisdictions, as well as issues of chain of command, communications, training and leadership that lead to the mass violation of civil liberties we witnessed. The significant gaps in the Commission’s Final Report, many of which point directly to TPS and OPP conduct, highlight the need for a comprehensive, inter-jurisdictional review. Given the well-documented scale of civil liberties violations that took place in June 2010 in Toronto, CCLA maintains that rebuilding trust in our institutions will require nothing short of a comprehensive, federal-provincial inquiry with a broad mandate. >> Click here for CCLA’s full analysis of the report + links and resources -30-
By Abby Deshman on April 19, 2012
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association is appearing before the Ontario legislature’s Standing Committee on Justice Policy to make submissions on Bill 34, the Security for Courts, Electricity Generating Facilities and Nuclear Facilities Act. The Bill contains the long-awaited repeal of the Public Works Protection Act and CCLA applauds the government’s commitment to passing targeted legislation that specifically addresses the identified security needs of court houses and power generation facilities. The Association, however, continues to have concerns regarding Bill 34’s courthouse security provisions. The open court principle is essential to the maintenance of a fair and functional justice system and must be a central consideration when planning courthouse security. Moreover, the conferral and exercise of police powers, including the right to demand information or search a person or place, engages s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and must be fully justified with reference to context-specific security needs. Security measures must also provide reasonable accommodations to disparately impacted minorities in order to comply with other Charter guarantees such as freedom of religion. The powers provided for in Bill 34, which include the ability to demand identification, search vehicles, and make inquiries of individuals entering or inside courthouses to determine if they are ‘security threats’, are neither reasonable nor justifiable. An examination of the legislative framework governing court security in other Canadian jurisdictions shows that the powers proposed in Bill 34 drastically exceed what other provinces and territories have considered necessary. These examples should be carefully studied, as each provides a model of significantly more tailored approach to this issue. CCLA will appear before the Committee to strongly urge amendments to amend Bill 34 that would provide tightly constrained powers that are responsive to the demonstrated, everyday security needs of courthouses. Specifically, the Committee should:
To read CCLA’s full brief click here.
By Noa Mendelsohn Aviv on April 10, 2012
At Thursday’s meeting of the Toronto Police Services Board, CCLA’s Equality Program Director Noa Mendelsohn Aviv addressed the Board over the documented practice of racial profiling by the police. CCLA’s submissions expressed concern not just with “carding” – the recording of names and identities of black male youth – but also with unwarranted stops by police of these individuals. Stating that such stops are unacceptable and unconstitutional, CCLA called on the police to deal with this matter urgently and proactively. CCLA supported the recommendation of the Police Services Board Chair to commence an independent investigation into this practice, while also insisting that the police remain responsible to deal with this matter without delay, and must prohibit unwarranted stops and questioning, demanding and recording of identities, intimidation and searches. CCLA was encouraged by further motions put forward by Board Vice Chair Michael Thompson, which included a requirement that the police Chief report regularly to the Board on this matter, including with respect to steps taken to address issues that arise, and a requirement that individuals who are stopped must receive a copy of information recorded about them, which should include reasons for the stop. Though cautiously encouraged by the Board’s proposed motions to address this practice, CCLA will wait to see how motions passed will be implemented. CCLA also remains concerned that the practice of unwarranted stops has not yet been prohibited. We will continue to monitor and advocate around these and related issues. For CCLA’s Statement and Recommendations to the Board, click here. Minutes of the Toronto Police Services Board meeting (setting out the motions passed) are not yet available, but will be posted here once they become available.
By Abby Deshman on February 22, 2012
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association applauds the government’s repeal of the Public Works Protection Act (PWPA), the Second World War-era law used to drastically curtail individuals’ civil liberties during the Toronto G20 Summit, and welcomes the limited scope of the intended replacement legislation. The CCLA was involved in consultations with the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services during the development of the legislation introduced to the provincial parliament and strongly feels that the introduction of this legislation is a step in the right direction. We will be studying the specific powers conferred in the Act in greater detail to ensure that they are not overly broad and open to abuse. The CCLA also calls on the provincial government to formally apologize for its role in the surreptitious use of the PWPA to violate constitutionally-protected rights during the G20 Summit. The secretive passage of regulations under the PWPA undermined the principle of the rule of law and ensured that individuals would not know that extraordinary powers had been granted to the police until arrests had already started to take place. The provincial government owes an apology to the general public, both for the fundamental rights violations that took place under this law, and for the breach of public trust that occurred leading up to and during the G20. A copy of A Breach of the Peace, the CCLA’s post-G20 report that addresses the Public Works Protection Act can be downloaded here.
By Communications on February 16, 2012
Op-ed originally published by PostMedia News on February 16, 2012. Minister Toews has tabled the much vilified Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act, a bill that provides additional powers to law enforcement to obtain information from Internet providers, at times without warrant. The Bill is flawed because it makes the ISP providers agents of the police to facilitate the detection of crime, not only child pornography or Internet fraud but for all law enforcement purposes. Warrants are not a mere administrative hurdle or nuisance for police. They constitute a fundamental safeguard against potential abuse. They serve to ensure that there is an objective assessment of the need for the police to search and obtain private information. The Bill replaces the judicial pre-authorization of the warrant with a decision-making power within the police force. This is very dangerous. Despite the best of intentions, police officers are ill-placed to balance the need for privacy with the necessity of a search for their colleagues. Institutionally, this is not the right way to do it. We risk normalizing the practice of obtaining Internet identification, not only for suspects but for everyone having an interaction with the police: witnesses or potential jurors. One can easily imagine that nosy journalists, critics of the police, or even politicians that are debating budget for the police could be subject to cyber-surveillance if there is no judicial oversight. Demanding respect for warrants and for judicial pre-authorizations is not being anti-police, or pro-child pornographers, it is demanding that police be provided with power that have sufficient safeguards to be legitimately exercised. It is being pro-democracy. We should not expand police powers without accountability. In a way, the government is asking us to sacrifice our privacy in fundamental ways to facilitate police work. But privacy is not a luxury. It is fundamental to democratic life because it reinforces basic principles: that governments’ interventions into peoples’ lives should be limited by law and done only when necessary; that individuals have choices as to how much or how little they want to disclose about themselves to others. Privacy is also about preserving the capacity to innovate and dissent. It is not only an individual right but also a social good. Societies with little and no privacy are less innovative and less daring in their thoughts, ideas, or artistic expression. Without even a virtual room of one’s own, people may not be able to challenge social norms, to debate or criticize. Without proper safeguards, why should we give police the powers to know who is criticizing them on the web? There are many ways that the Bill could be targeted more reasonably: it could be limited to the very serious crimes (child pornography or Internet fraud), it could provide for notice to third parties as is done in wiretap, it could have after the fact reporting or audits to ensure that the power is not abused, and it should absolutely maintain the need for warrants, except in exigent circumstances. There are avenues for compromises here and the government should take them.
By Communications on February 15, 2012
Boing Boing’s Cory Doctorow posted this interview on their blog under the headline “Canada’s bull-moose civil libertarian on Canada’s new domestic spying law“. We couldn’t think of a better way to introduce this interview, from TVO’s Search Engine with Jesse Brown. Listen: Alan Borovoy interviewed by Jesse Brown (Feb 14 2012)
By Communications on February 14, 2012
Show some love for online privacy – Send Vic Toews a ValentineThe writing is on the wall (or in this case perhaps it’s the homepage) – the Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act is on the federal government’s Order Paper, and according to media reports, will be introduced in Parliament today. Although we still don’t know the details of the bill, the government had previously promised that it would re-introduce its ‘lawful access’ legislation without any major changes, and this appears to be it. As has been pointed out by others, ‘lawful access’ is a gross misnomer. Terms others have used include “online spying” and “e-snooping.” Ontario’s privacy commissioner prefers to describe it simply as “a system of expanded surveillance.” CCLA, which had named the last version of this legislation the Cyber-surveillance Bill, agrees. Previous versions of these bills gave law enforcement more powers to access, track and monitor a host of online and wireless information. The government argues that Canadian law enforcement must have investigative tools that are equipped to deal with 21st century technologies. We can all agree that this is true. Investigative tools without accompanying oversight such as full warrants, however, is not what we need. There are good reasons to require the police to obtain warrants and seek judicial oversight before invading individual privacy. The advent of the Internet, email, cell phones and smart phones has not changed Canadians’ basic rights to privacy and freedom from unwarranted government surveillance. On February 14th tell Minister Toews that you love your online privacy by sending him this valentine.
 Click the image to send Vic Toews a Valentine
Learn more : Do more :
By Abby Deshman on January 12, 2012
CCLA counsel appeared before the Ontario Court of Appeal in two cases, R. v. Cuttell and R. v. Ward, to argue that Canadians have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their anonymous internet activity. Specifically, CCLA advocated that under the Charter police are generally required to obtain a warrant before they can access private subscriber information held by an Internet Service Provider. An individual’s activities on the Internet can reveal highly personal and intimate information about them, providing considerable insight into the user’s interests, habits, predilections and, by implication, their very thoughts. Gaining access to otherwise private subscriber information pierces the anonymity that is usually supplied by an IP address. This step is the key to gaining access to a vast repository of highly personal information regarding an individual’s online activity. Section 8 of the Charter affords individuals the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. CCLA argued that, in order for the police to gain access to the subscriber information behind an IP address, absent exigent circumstances, they are constitutionally required to request a warrant before obtaining this private information. Read CCLA’s submissions to the Ontario Court of Appeal here. |
|
|
Copyright © 2012 Canadian Civil Liberties Association - All Rights Reserved |
||