By Dora Chan
on June 12, 2013
Dear CCLA supporters,
Privacy violations, abusive segregation in prison and discrimination against non-Canadians are the themes for this month’s message. We also celebrate a break-through in Ontario for the protection of freedom of expression and dissent by the enactment of Anti-SLAPP legislation.
Read as well on our Gala. CCLA has again this year a full program of interns giving their time for civil liberties — Merci!
Nathalie Des Rosiers
General Counsel & Executive Director
IN THIS ISSUE
CCLA Celebrates its 3rd Annual Gala
On May 29, 2013, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association held its third annual Celebrating Canada gala. Honourees and 250 guests gathered in the historic Distillery District in downtown Toronto to enjoy an elegant and lively evening in celebration of justice, rights, and freedoms.
Each year, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association honours men and women who courageously contribute to the advancement of human rights, human dignity, fundamental freedoms, and democracy in Canada and worldwide. We recognize extraordinary human rights activists, lawyers, artists, filmmakers, writers, athletes, journalists, and business professionals for their passionate, fearless and unwavering commitment to human rights and human dignity.
Celebrating Canada is a wonderful opportunity to remind all those present to cherish their freedoms and rights. We wish to thank all our sponsors for the evening, guests, and volunteers – we are so grateful for your support of our work. We would also like to extend a special thank you to our honourees, whose examples help to demonstrate the practical application of the contributions which individuals can make in defence of democracy and civil liberties. Read Act for Freedom for a glimpse of honourees and their contributions on the theme of justice.
See some of the photos from the event here, and view more in our online gallery!
Surveillance Methods Cannot Compromise Fundamental Rights
Recent reports of access to mass amounts of personal information via metadata obtained from telecommunications service providers are of serious concern to CCLA.
This week reports emerged that the Canadian Security Establishment Canada (CSEC), the agency responsible for gathering signals intelligence, has been involved in procuring metadata, following on the heels of reports last week that the US National Security Agency (NSA) had been gathering metadata.
CCLA is particularly concerned that we don’t know yet how this information is procured, and its uses. While there have been arguments that metadata (for example –the outline of who you called, and from where, rather than what you actually said) is respectful of privacy rights because it doesn’t actually include the actual communications (i.e. the contents of a phone call or email) — we disagree. Compilation of metadata can provide salient information on people, their whereabouts and their contacts, and can result in the creations of profiles on individuals. When metadata is grabbed as a form of mass surveillance, it means that the personal information of innocent people is caught in the net.
CCLA has held long-standing concerns about information sharing domestically — among Canadian agencies — that do not employ proper legal safeguards, and we have argued that all the policy recommendations of Justice Dennis O’Connor of the Arar Commission be implemented.
In addition to domestic information sharing within Canada, CCLA has held a long-standing concern that invasive surveillance regimes that would be illegal in Canada are employed in foreign jurisdictions, and that the information so-obtained could be shared with the Canadian government. Surveillance regimes frequently allow for more privacy-invasive techniques to be used against ‘foreign’ communications. For example, US laws permit the US to intercept communications of foreign nationals in some circumstances — which of course could include Canadians. But because information may be shared between countries, the results of this invasive surveillance may eventually make its way back to domestic authorities. Such arrangements would effectively bypass privacy safeguards established by national laws.
In 2011 CCLA joined forces with the American Civil Liberties Union and Privacy International to release our suggested 12 Core Legal Principles for the Canada-U.S. Security Perimeter. Point 12 specifically addressed this issue, and urged governments to commit “ensure that domestic law enforcement can never use foreign law enforcement to circumvent legal safeguards that apply to the domestic agency. A law enforcement agency must not carry out surveillance on one country’s citizens on behalf of another country’s law enforcement agencies in circumstances where those agencies are prohibited from carrying out such surveillance on their own.” The recent disclosures about the scope of the American surveillance regime have underscored these concerns.
We understand that surveillance is a crucial tool of effective counter-terrorism, but it must conform with the safeguards of our law and international legal standards. Intelligence agencies should not be able to procure information in a manner that bypasses existing safeguards such as warrants, and accountability procedures including oversight of these processes.
The Ashley Smith Inquest – Segregation in Prisons on Trial
Since the beginning of the inquest into Ashley Smith’s death in custody, the five person jury has heard testimony from front line correctional officers and health care professionals regarding Ms. Smith’s treatment throughout her eleven and a half months in federal corrections. Ms. Smith was transferred 17 times over her eleven and a half months in federal custody, spending time in correctional and psychiatric facilities. Throughout her custody in both the youth and adult correctional systems, she remained largely on segregation status (solitary confinement). Jurors have heard evidence that Ms. Smith’s behaviour demonstrated many of the harmful effects documented in studies on prolonged solitary confinement.
The inquest into her death continued in May, with testimony from health care employees who were employed at Joliette Institution in Quebec during her two short periods of incarceration there, a number of whom injected Ms. Smith with anti-psychotic medication without her consent. Extensive evidence was also introduced regarding two alleged assaults perpetrated against Ms. Smith by correctional staff during her time at the Regional Psychiatric Centre (RPC) in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
Ms. Smith’s experience in the corrections system raises a number of serious civil liberties issues, including questions regarding the use of solitary confinement in modern penal systems, and the role that meaningful and transparent oversight mechanisms should play to protect the fundamental rights of inmates. CCLA is participating in the inquest as a party to address these key civil liberties concerns, and to ensure that there is a full public accounting of the circumstances surrounding Ms. Smith’s death, and that meaningful recommendations for change in the Canadian corrections system are made.
The inquest will continue until June 27th and will break in July and August for a summer recess period. Please stay tuned for further updates regarding the inquest, or click here to read more about our ongoing work on this issue.
Ending Discrimination against Foreign Students
CCLA opposes unfair discrimination against non citizens in all areas of law. It urges the Canadian Collegiate Athletic Association (CCAA) to abandon its discriminatory practice of limiting the participation of non-Canadians to its competitions. The CCLA was alerted to CCAA’s discriminatory policy by the administration of Holland College in Prince Edward Island. Holland College has been fighting to have this policy repealed for several years. Section 12.1 of Article 5 of the CCAA Code states that no more than 2 “non-Canadian” athletes can be dressed to play in basketball or volleyball games, and no more than 3 “non-Canadians” can be dressed to play soccer. The CCAA Code defines “non-Canadians” as people who do not possess Canadian citizenship or permanent residency, as defined by Immigration Canada. Preferential treatment to Canadian students may no longer be necessary, nor is it really in the interest of the sports or fair to international students who pay substantial fees to attend Canadian Universities. Canada appears to be the only country where such discrimination is practiced.
CCLA Welcomes Ontario Anti-SLAPP Bill
CCLA is pleased that the Ontario government has introduced Bill 83, The Protection of Public Participation Act, as a means of helping individuals fight back against abusive lawsuits. CCLA had asked for it and had made it a specific request to Kathleen Wynne, recently appointed as Premier of the province. The Bill, if passed, would amend the Courts of Justice Act and other legislation so that individuals served with a SLAPP suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) could bring a motion to have the case dismissed on a relatively short time frame. A SLAPP suit is a lawsuit that is intended to shut down public discussion or protest. Though the law suit usually relates to a claim of defamation, copyright infringement or trespass, the ultimate goal of the suit is not to vindicate the legal rights of the powerful litigant. It is, instead, intended to use to the threat and overwhelming costs of litigation to silence or chill speech which runs contrary to the litigants’ interest.
Read more about some of CCLA’s past casework on SLAPPs.
Now in its 4th year, CCLA’s annual RightsWatch Conference will be held this year in Toronto at Ryerson University. We are pleased to announce our partnership with Ryerson University’s Office of the Vice President, Research and Innovation, the Ryerson Journalism Research Centre, and the Ryerson Law Research Centre to present Civil Liberties and Democracy in the Digital Age: Privacy, Media and Free Expression.
This year’s conference will include a series of discussions on the impact that new technologies and modes of communication have on legal and societal understandings of privacy, freedom of expression, and the media. We are planning panels on surveillance, anonymity and expression in ‘public’ space, freedom of the press and the citizen journalist, the application of constitutional guarantees of privacy to new communications technologies, access to information and ‘open’ government, and privacy and expression in the private sector.
Join us Friday, September 20, 2013 for an evening keynote and reception, and Saturday, September 21, 2013 for a full-day conference.
The Friday Evening Keynote features William Binney, former National Security Agency intelligence analyst and whistleblower.
More details on panels and speakers will updated as they become available on our website here: http://www.ccla.org/events/rightswatch-2013
Early-bird registration available until August 1, 2013
By Dora Chan
on May 3, 2013
Dear CCLA supporters,
Welcome to the May edition of the CCLA e-bulletin. In this month’s edition, we first want to invite you to our Celebrating Canada Gala on May 29th in Toronto where we will celebrate the courage of Canadians who stand for civil liberties. It is our main fundraising event. Please come with your friends or sponsor a student to attend. We need your help.
In this bulletin, read about our work on terrorism, privacy and the right to protest as well as our appearance at UN in the context of the mandatory evaluation of Canada’s human rights records. Keep abreast of our work on a regular basis by signing on to our electronic daily newsflash at www.ccla.org,
Thank you for your support,
Nathalie Des Rosiers
IN THIS ISSUE
CCLA Reacts to Montreal’s Crackdown on Protests
In response to student protests in the Spring of 2012, the City of Montreal enacted bylaw P6. While many municipalities have bylaws to regulate large gatherings and events, Montreal’s P6 appears to target protest political activities. The bylaw requires demonstrators to share meeting locations and itineraries with police in advance of demonstrations and prohibits individuals from covering their faces at a demonstration without “reasonable motive.” CCLA believes that these provisions are unconstitutional.
CCLA has always spoken out against laws that place unreasonable restrictions on freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly and, at the time that it was enacted, we wrote to Montreal’s City Council expressing concerns about the breadth of the bylaw and its potential to silence peaceful social protest activities. It is clear that many of these concerns were well-founded – in March of this year alone, bylaw P6 was used to issue hundreds of tickets for over $600 each. These hefty fines discourage people from exercising constitutionally protected freedoms. CCLA recently wrote to Montreal’s Mayor and Chief of Police about the use of mass arrests to stop social protest activities before they are even underway. CCLA also wrote to a Montreal City Councillor in support of his motion to repeal the bylaw which was, unfortunately, unsuccessful. CCLA is continuing to monitor this situation and consider legal action to ensure that the right to protest is given broad protection in Montreal and throughout Canada.
Case for Exceptional Terrorism Provisions Remains Unconvincing
In late April, the Government reinstated two sunsetted provisions relating to preventive arrest and investigative hearings included in Bill S7 (Combatting Terrorism Act).
CCLA is supportive of the Government’s legal duty to take every lawful measure to protect Canadians from the threat of terrorism — but we are not supportive of Bill S7. In fact, CCLA and other Canadian civil liberties groups have pointed out that the Criminal Code is an effective counter-terrorism tool that already allows police to properly pursue, investigate, disrupt, and successfully prosecute terrorism-related crimes.
It cannot be emphasized enough that the necessity of these recent provisions have simply not been demonstrated. The preventive arrest and investigative hearing laws, in effect from 2001 to 2007, were never once used for their intended purpose. Every major criminal terrorism-related incident in Canada since 2001 has been disrupted and prevented without the need for preventive detention or investigative hearings, and through the use of criminal procedure. The use of exceptional measures that undermine the legal protection and the legitimacy of our criminal law system is counterproductive.
The provisions in Bill S7 do not add any value to law enforcement or security. The Bill seeks to normalize exceptional powers, inconsistent with established democratic principles, and which threaten hard-won civil liberties. Commitment to the rule of law means that counter-terrorism measures must adhere to the values embodied in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and cannot infringe on basic rights.
CCLA testifies at the Senate, advocates for stricter limits on and greater transparency around emergency wiretaps
Warrantless wiretaps are a necessary and appropriate tool in a democracy – but only if they are used under very exceptional circumstances, and with tight controls and independent oversight to deter and detect abuse. This is the message that CCLA gave to the Senate last month – an advocacy position that is the culmination of a multi-year battle to tighten up Canada’s emergency wiretap provisions.
In 2011, CCLA appeared before the Supreme Court in R. v. Tse, arguing that the existing statutory regime was unconstitutional. Warrantless wiretaps, we argued, should be used only as a last resort tool in situations of true emergency, consent should be obtained where feasible, and each case should be subject to after-the-fact judicial oversight. A year ago this month the Supreme Court agreed and ruled that Canada’s emergency wiretap provisions were unconstitutional violations of our right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
The government introduced Bill C-55 in response to this decision, which was intended to fix the constitutional deficiencies in the Criminal Code. The Bill is certainly a step forward. As compared to the provision that was before the Supreme Court of Canada in the Tse case, Bill C-55 restricts the persons who may use warrantless wiretaps, implements a requirement that notice be given to persons subject to a wiretap, and mandates an annual report to Parliament and the provincial legislatures. These are all positive developments, many of which align with the thrust of CCLA’s submissions before the Supreme Court.
We did, however, suggest that the Senate consider a few additional adjustments to the bill, which would allow for better transparency and reporting measures, and express restrictions on the class of persons who may be subject to this invasive investigative tool. You can read the full transcript here or watch it via CPAC. The Bill has now received Royal Assent – without any amendments from the Senate – but regardless, we’re still celebrating it as a solid win for privacy and democracy in Canada.
From Local to International: Challenging Canada’s Human Rights Record at the UN
European UN headquarters in Geneva, Switerland (Photo from Wikimedia Commons)
On April 26th, Canada appeared before the United Nations Human Rights Council for its second comprehensive review of Canada’s compliance with international human rights laws – the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). Canada, like all member States of the United Nations, participates in the UPR process, in which States make recommendations to each other on steps to further compliance with international law commitments. The State Under Review (in this case, Canada) has the option to accept or reject recommendations, and to undertake Voluntary Pledges.
A delegation of Canadian civil society groups, including CCLA, was in Geneva last month to participate in a UPR pre-session – CCLA updated States on our concerns about Canada’s actions regarding rights and liberties guaranteed by international law and binding upon Canada. Specifically, CCLA presented concerns about treatment of refugees and asylum seekers and migrants; police accountability and administration of justice; threats to the absolute prohibition against torture; national security measures which unjustifiably curtail rights and seek to normalize exceptional powers; and violence against women.
Many States recognized the progress and efforts that Canada has made on the 2009 recommendations for the protection of human rights and respect for international law. However, there were many concerns from the international community regarding Canada’s human rights record. Canada faced questions by member States on the issues of homelessness and poverty, Aboriginal and women’s rights (particularly the prevention of violence against Aboriginal women), immigration and refugees, racial profiling in law enforcement, and threats to civil liberties on the grounds of national security.
States recommended that Canada improve its relationship with Indigenous peoples, and encouraged Canada to adopt international conventions (that is, Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment). States also encouraged Canada to publish the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review, and to consult with civil society on how best to implement the recommendations.
It is expected that Canada will formally respond to the UPR by accepting or rejecting the recommendations made at the April 26th oral review in the fall. CCLA will continue to advocate for Canada’s compliance with international human rights commitments, and push for the implementation of the UPR recommendations.
Read Canada’s oral and written recommendations to States in anticipation of Canada’s Second UPR.
Watch the live webcast of Canada’s review before the UN here.
By Dora Chan
on April 29, 2013
Can’t make it to our “From Local to International: Challenging Canada’s Human Rights Record at the UN” event? We’ll be live blogging the event today – check it out below! More information about the event can be found here, and more info about CCLA’s submissions to the UPR Process can be found here.
By Dora Chan
on April 2, 2013
Dear CCLA supporters,
April 4th is Refugee Rights Day in Canada and CCLA’s message for this year is that human rights are for everyone, no matter where someone is born. Fair and just processes must be available to everyone.
April 26th is the day that Canada will be asked questions about its commitment to International Human Rights at the Second Universal Periodic Review at the United Nations Human Rights Council. CCLA was consulted in this process and we invite you to read about our work to ensure that Canada does not waver in its international commitments.
Please continue to support us and read about our recent wins,
Nathalie Des Rosiers
IN THIS ISSUE
CCLA celebrates robust win for Canadians’ privacy at the Supreme Court
CCLA is very pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision in R. v. Telus, which upholds strong privacy protections for the millions of Canadians who communicate via text message. The Criminal Code contains comprehensive provisions on intercepting private communication, giving individuals heightened privacy protection when police apply for a wiretap authorization. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association intervened in Telus to ensure that these privacy protections remain meaningful in an era dominated by cell phones and text messaging. The CCLA argued that text messages that are surreptitiously obtained from a cell phone service provider in the midst of the transmission process must be subject to the protections offered to wiretaps in the Criminal Code.
The decision affirms that there is no practical difference between texting and a traditional phone conversation, nor should differences inherent in new technology determine the scope of protection afforded to private communications. Police may not use technical differences in how text messages are transmitted from one person to another to avoid the more rigorous scrutiny of a wiretap authorization: if law enforcement wants to access text messages that will be sent from one person to another, they need to get a wiretap authorization.
Read more about the case here.
To read CCLA’s factum click here.
To read the Supreme Court’s decision click here.
CCLA joins Amicus Brief on Equal Marriage Rights at US Supreme Court
CCLA has joined a group of human rights organizations representing four continents to submit a brief to the United States Supreme Court on the issue of marriage equality.
The International Center for Advocates Against Discrimination (ICAAD) brought together groups to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to find Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that barred same-sex marriages, unconstitutional. This week, ICAAD filed its amicus (“friend of the court”) brief in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, highlighting how both foreign and international laws are rapidly evolving to recognize marriage equality as a basic right.
In its advocacy, CCLA has supported the right to same-sex marriage as essential to ensuring equality in Canadian society. Because of its geographical closeness to the United States, and the high level of travel and exchanges that characterize the relationship between Canada and the United States, the same-sex marriage issue in the United States has profound repercussions in Canada, including the trans-border validity of same-sex marriages contracted in Canada. More importantly, the persistence of discriminatory practices in a neighboring country undermines efforts in Canada to end homophobic practices and hate crimes against the LGBT community.
To read the Brief of International Human Rights Advocates as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents, to which CCLA is a signatory, click here.
Supreme Court Affirms Principle of Individualized Sentencing
Last month CCLA welcomed the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Pham, affirming the central role that the principle of individualized sentencing should play: that the personal circumstances of an offender are relevant in determining their sentence. The central question on appeal was whether a judge should exercise his or her discretion to take collateral immigration consequences into account in the sentencing process, namely the loss of a right to appeal a deportation order. Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a permanent resident sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years or more loses the right to appeal a removal order issued against him or her.
CCLA appeared before the Court to argue that the collateral immigration consequences of a sentence should be considered at sentencing and that the criminal law should be flexible enough to allow the judiciary to fashion appropriate and individualized responses to criminal conduct. CCLA also argued that the failure to consider the collateral immigration consequences of a sentence for a non-citizen could be a violation of the right to equality under the Charter. The Supreme Court affirmed, similarly, that “if the personal circumstances of the offender are different, different sentences will be justified.”
Read more about the case here.
For CCLA’s factum in the case, click here.
For the Supreme Court’s decision, click here.
CCLA Addresses States at the Universal Periodic Review
Canada has generally expressed willingness to comply with its international legal obligations and has sought to implement the rights and guarantees in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These commitments should not be diluted or reversed and the protection of rights requires constant vigilance. CCLA’s position is that Canada’s compliance with international humanitarian law obligations is a major tool towards ensuring international peace and security. Indeed, it is the foundation upon which Canada can be most effective in countering the world’s greatest threats, and capturing, prosecuting and punishing wrongdoers.
In late March in Geneva, CCLA addressed State Delegations at a pre-session of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). CCLA’s intervention was to update States on our concerns about Canada’s ongoing human rights record, in anticipation of Canada’s Second Universal Periodic Review. Canada, like all member States of the United Nations, participates in the Universal Periodic Review process, in which States make recommendations to each other on steps to further adherence to international law commitments, and the State Under Review (in this case, Canada) has the option to accept or reject recommendations, and to undertake Voluntary Pledges.
CCLA presented concerns about Police Accountability and Administration of Justice; Threats to the Absolute Prohibition Against Torture, National Security Measures which unjustifiably curtail rights and seek to normalize exceptional powers; Refugees, Asylum Seekers, and Migrants; and Violence Against Women.
To read CCLA’s statement to the UPR Pre-Session click here.
For background information on the Second UPR of Canada click here.
To read a copy of CCLA’s written submissions to the UPR Process please click here.
CCLA gearing up for Third Annual Celebrating Canada Gala
Each year, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association honours men and women who contribute to the advancement of human rights, human dignity, fundamental freedoms and democracy in Canada and worldwide. We recognize extraordinary human rights activists, lawyers, artists, filmmakers, writers, athletes, journalists, and business professionals for their passionate, fearless and unwavering commitment to human rights and human dignity.
We invite you to be part of our third annual gala, “Celebrating Canada” to be held May 29, 2013 in Toronto, for the dinner during which the special awards will be presented. Each Honouree will be heading a table of guests. To see a list of this year’s Honourees accepting awards, please click here.
All proceeds raised from Celebrating Canada will go towards supporting the work of the Canadian Civil Liberties Education Trust. Tax receipts will be provided for the maximum allowable amount. To purchase tickets, click here, or for further information about purchasing a table, contact Sukanya Pillay at email@example.com.
By Dora Chan
on February 28, 2013
Dear CCLA supporters,
We are pleased to report that the government has announced that it will not proceed with Bill C-30, the Lawful Access legislation, which aimed at granting police forces the power to access, track and monitor a host of online and wireless information without a warrant. CCLA had been campaigning against that bill and is happy that the government has changed its course.
We are also happy to report our expansion in Atlantic Canada and the work of our TD Fellow in attempting to give voice to some of the Aboriginal views on justice.
On a fun note, I am happy to invite you to visit the Lerners Facebook page and click “Like” on the page that features our board member Jasmine Akbarali. For every “Like”, Lerners will give $1 to CCLA, up to a maximum of $2500. Please click away!
Lastly, the Annual CCLA Celebrating Canada Gala is coming on May 29th! Save the Date!
Thank you for your support,
Nathalie Des Rosiers
IN THIS ISSUE
McInnes Cooper to be Atlantic Canada’s law firm for Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Nathalie Des Rosiers at the press conference to announce CCLA's partnership with McInnes Cooper.
In early February, CCLA was proud to announce a formal working relationship with law firm McInnes Cooper to advance civil liberties in Atlantic Canada. McInnes Cooper will provide pro bono counsel to CCLA on civil liberty cases consistent with the firm’s areas of legal expertise, as well as participate in public outreach programs in the region.
“We are very pleased to work with the CCLA by engaging our skills to focus on matters of public interest and enable access to justice,” said Hugh Wright, McInnes Cooper Partner and Board Member and head of the firm’s pro bono committee.
“The CCLA has working relationships with top law firms across Canada and we are pleased that McInnes Cooper will form the base of our operations in Atlantic Canada,” said Nathalie Des Rosiers, General Counsel of the CCLA. “The firm’s legal expertise will further advance our objectives to bring a civil liberties perspective before the Canadian courts.”
Yet another reason to put that password on your cell phone…
Generally, the police do not need a warrant to search a person who is under arrest, and regularly do look through arrestees’ bags and pockets to ensure officer safety and secure potential evidence. Fifteen years ago this kind of search might turn up a wallet, some papers, maybe an address book. Today, however, through the modern magic of cell phones, we can carry our entire digital existence – phone records, contact lists, emails, social media profiles, location records, photos and much more – in our pockets. The privacy implications of giving police warrantless access to this information upon arrest are enormous. Should cell phones really be treated like the scraps of paper, notes or printed photos we carry in our pockets or knapsacks? Or should they be seen more like entirely distinct places – with vast amounts of personal information and correspondence and an unknown number of automatically-entered passwords that open doors to any number of linked accounts.
In September 2012 CCLA appeared before the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Fearon to argue that a cell phone is not like a wallet or papers you may carry in your purse – and the law should not treat it in the same way. We urged that, absent exigent circumstances such as danger to life or imminent loss of evidence, the police should be required to get a warrant before searching a person’s hand-held electronic device.
On Wednesday the Court released their decision, and unfortunately did not agree with CCLA’s argument. They found that, so long as the police reasonably believe there may be evidence on the phone, they can conduct a warrantless “cursory” search of an arrestee’s cell phone if unlocked.
While the judgment makes it clear that there are limits to police search powers incident to arrest, the ruling gives a significant amount of discretion to individual police officers. Arresting someone is not the same as charging them with a crime. Many people who are arrested never even proceed to charges, let alone end up in trial in front of a judge! The privacy implications of new technologies are often misunderstood by the courts: a cell phone is not a wallet. We will continue to advocate a better understanding of the privacy implications of new technology in the context of policing. This is not the end of this story, in the meantime, lock your phone.
To read CCLA’s factum at the Court of Appeal click here.
To read the Court of Appeal’s decision click here.
Government of Canada confirms that it has imprisoned – and may continue to imprison – people for alleged offences committed by others
Your mother is hurt! (– this is just a thought exercise). She is bleeding and needs urgent medical attention. Someone rushes outside and stops a car. Your mother, injured, in pain, and anxious to get to a hospital, takes the ride and pays the requested fee, even though there is no meter. Upon arrival at the hospital, police tell your mother they suspect that the person who drove the car may in fact have stolen it. In the result, they turn around and arrest… your mother.
If this strikes you as absurd and unethical, then your instincts are well in tune with traditional Canadian criminal and constitutional law. We are not in the habit of locking people up for offences committed by other people.
And yet, just recently, the Minister of Public Safety detained several groups of asylum seekers for that very reason: because they had arrived in Canada and there is a suspicion that some of the people who helped them were engaged in human smuggling. The Minister confirmed this in a letter to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA).
The story began last fall, when it was reported that the government had designated and detained groups of people who had entered Canada months earlier. The individuals in these groups are reportedly asylum seekers from Romania, mainly members of the Roma minority group that has reportedly suffered discrimination in their country of origin.
This designation and detention are a first in Canada, under new powers granted by the Immigration Act to the Minister of Public Safety. CCLA has strongly objected to these new powers from the outset, for violating various constitutional and international human rights, including: mandatory group detention without requiring an individual assessment of risk; the potential for prolonged detention (6 months) without judicial review; separation of families; and more. On learning of the actual use of these powers to imprison people in this manner, CCLA wrote to the Ministers of Public Safety and Immigration expressing deep concerns about the detention of people in such circumstances, and objecting once again to the new legislative provisions.
Public Safety Minister Vic Toews’ reply (two months later) confirms our concerns. His justification for the detention does not include any accusation against those held in detention; it does not include a statement alleging that they present any danger or risk; it simply includes, by way of explanation for the detention, the following statement:
“The facts I have reviewed have provided me with reasonable grounds to suspect that these arrivals have occurred as part of a human smuggling operation, in contravention of section 117 (1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, for profit or in association with a criminal organization. Human smuggling is a dangerous and despicable crime. Our message is clear to those contemplating a human smuggling operation – don’t do it.”
What is astonishing about this statement is that the prohibition against human smuggling in our Immigration Act applies to the smugglers – those people who assist others to enter Canada unlawfully. In other words, smuggling is the offence – being assisted is not. It is human smuggling that is the international crime that needs to be addressed and stopped; asylum seekers are often the victims of such crime. It is not helpful to confuse the two. Nor is it appropriate to conflate victims (the refugees) with offenders (the smugglers).
Incidentally, the British Columbia Supreme Court recently struck down s. 117 of the Immigration Act as unconstitutional because it is so broadly worded. As currently drafted, this provision could have penalized as a “smuggler” a parent for bringing their child with them to safety, or a hero who risked her life to rescue refugees and help them get into Canada. It is appropriate to prohibit smuggling and to target smugglers who profit from other people’s desperation and exploit them. It is not appropriate to punish the desperate people themselves.
Your injured mother (in the above thought exercise) is not unlike the asylum seekers. She is a person in need of help, and does not belong in a jail because of it. Her urgent need and the circumstances of her arrival at the hospital, do not make her a car thief any more than the asylum seekers who came into Canada seeking safety are human smugglers. To jail someone for an alleged crime committed by someone else is irrational, immoral and offensive.
CCLA Stands Up for Democratic Participation – and Wins!
Over the years CCLA has often heard from people who have been banned from attending their municipal council meetings and even attending at their local city halls. These individuals are generally critical of their local government and make their views known at meetings and by way of public protests. The use of trespass notices by municipalities to keep their critics at bay is a troubling phenomenon. Individuals in receipt of these notices are threatened with arrest if they attend at City Hall and are rarely provided with information about how to appeal the Notice or what steps can be taken to have it rescinded or set aside. In a recent case involving a Windsor man, the City issued a trespass notice in 2009 which not only prevented the resident from participating in public meetings, it also inhibited his ability to access a myriad of social services housed within Windsor’s City Hall. Despite the resident’s own efforts to have the Notice rescinded, he was advised by the City’s legal counsel that the Notice remained in place almost three years after it was issued and that it would not be rescinded. The resident was not provided with any information about how to appeal the City’s decision but he contacted CCLA about the problem and we took action.
CCLA wrote to Windsor’s Chief Administrative Officer and just days later received a reply that the Notice would be rescinded. We are of course pleased with this outcome, but concerned that this resident was prevented from participating in public meetings for close to four years because of the Notice. A democracy embraces the role of its residents in debates about governance and governments should not be able to exclude residents from participation in public life, except in the rarest of circumstances and subject to fair procedures. CCLA continues to welcome individuals who have been subjected to these bans to ask for their rescission and contact CCLA for help.
Introducing CCLA’s TD Fellowship Project 2012…. Smog Signals
Imagine you are in junior high school and your school is hosting a week celebrating multiculturalism. When you arrive for the week’s opening ceremony in the gym, you find that one wall of the gym is covered in many words of welcome, representing all the different languages at the school. Yet there is one word missing; your family’s word for welcome. What would you do?
Janine Manning, a participant in CCLA's TD Fellowship Project "Smog Signals"
This is Janine’s story, the president of the Aboriginal Student’s Association at York University, and a participant in CCLA’s latest online media project, Smog Signals. That evening, Janine challenged her school principal on the oversight and got her word added to the gym wall. The story marks her launch as an advocate for Aboriginal students and more broadly, for the rights of Aboriginal peoples.
Stories like these are the focus of Smog Signals, an online media project showcasing the experiences of Aboriginal peoples on issues of equality and justice. The project takes a look at some of the ideas that have shaped activism in the Aboriginal community. Smog Signals forms a portrait of the work within the community as it defines its relationship with Canadian society and ends a legacy of discrimination.
To hear more of Janine’s story, visit www.smogsignals.com.
Apply for the CCLA RBC Fellowship!
Are you a creative, resourceful and innovative individual eager to get involved in groundbreaking campaigns and social justice advocacy? CCLA is happy to announce a new opportunity to join our team on an exciting twelve-month communications internship, sponsored by the Royal Bank of Canada Foundation.
The CCLA RBC Fellow will have the opportunity to help design and implement CCLA’s media and communications strategy, including content creation for our website and social media networks, growing CCLA’s media presence and managing media relationships, helping to organize advocacy events and online campaigns… and much more! The CCLA RBC Fellowship is based out of our Toronto office, and will be paid full-time work for twelve months, beginning in July or August 2013. We want this to be a valuable internship to build upon your skills and experience and at the same time contribute meaningfully to CCLA’s work.
To learn more about the CCLA RBC Fellowship and how to apply, click here.
By Dora Chan
on January 26, 2013
2013 is well under way and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association is busy planning its activities for the months to come. We know that we will have to monitor the development of the security perimeter with United States with its increased information sharing protocols that could violate privacy rights. We know that privacy rights in the workplace are also under threat as employers attempt to know more about potential employees. We know that we will have to monitor the increasing accumulation of data in the police data banks. We continue our fight to ensure accountability for police misconduct and to protect fundamental rights.
Read more about our work below and sign up for our daily news links to keep up to date.
We do all this work with your support and we thank you.
Nathalie Des Rosiers
CCLA Speaks out on Campus Free Speech…and University Listens!
University and college campuses have been sites of vigorous discussion, debate and protest for many decades, and their role is no less important today. Campuses bring together diverse individuals with unique interests and opinions, and the learning and research environment provides a context for exploring a wide variety of social and political issues. CCLA has been involved in many campus controversies over the years and recently wrote to McGill University regarding their draft Protocol Regarding Demonstrations, Protests and Occupations. This protocol was drafted as part of an ongoing process at McGill to address issues of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly on campus following some high profile events including a group of students occupying an administrative building and the presence of riot police on campus.
In our letter, CCLA expressed significant concerns about the scope of the Protocol and the extent to which it truly respected and promoted freedom of expression on campus. The Protocol suggested that a protest or event that created some disruption or inconvenience would not be considered “peaceful” and used language that would have created significant uncertainty about what was permitted on campus, and what would be considered worthy of disciplinary action. CCLA noted that disruption and inconvenience are often important components of a protest and key to communicating the messag. Many members of the McGill community also expressed concerns about the Protocol. Just days after CCLA’s letter was submitted, McGill administration announced that it would not be proceeding with the Protocol but that it would engage in further discussions and consultations with the university community in order to develop a Statement of Values and Principles. CCLA is very pleased with this result and glad that we could add our voice to this important endeavour.
CCLA Acts as a Party at the Ashley Smith Inquest
(Photo courtesy of The Canadian Press)
CCLA is participating in the inquest into the death of Ashley Smith as a party in order to ensure that there is a full public accounting of the circumstances surrounding her death and that the issues of accountability and proper administration are addressed. The inquest began on January 14th, 2012. An earlier inquest was discontinued after the retirement of the first coroner.
Ms. Smith died tragically in 2007 at the age of 19 inside her cell at Grand Valley Institution for Women in Kitchener, after spending many months in segregation (solitary confinement). Prior to her death, she spent time in a number of federal and provincial correctional facilities and struggled with mental health issues while in jail. The young woman died after tying a ligature around her neck while guards, instructed not to intervene before she stopped breathing, watched.
During the first week of the inquest, Allison Thornton, special counsel for CCLA at the inquest, participated in a jury visit to the Grand Valley Institute (as seen here).
CCLA has experience in ensuring that adequate oversight of government and authorities, and accountability mechanisms are in place to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of all people. Meaningful and transparent oversight is essential to ensure that prisons operate within the law.
CCLA is represented at the Inquest by Allison Thornton of Koch Thornton LLP.
The proceedings of the inquest are being broadcast live via webcam and are available at the following link.
CCLA at Supreme Court on Important Refugee Rights Case
On January 17th, 2013, CCLA appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada to intervene in the case of Rachidi Ekanza Ezokola v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The case concerns the proper application of the Article 1F(A) exclusion clause of the UN 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which is incorporated into Canadian law through the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Article 1F(A) of this Convention denies refugee protection to an individual where “there are serious reasons for considering” the individual has committed war crimes or crimes against humanity. The issue is how to apply this clause when the individual did not directly himself commit these crimes, but was employed by a government that did commit such crimes.
CCLA argued that presumptions of individual responsibility drawn from membership or employment in a group are wrong — rather, we argued that an individualized assessment that considers whether the person committed a crime is necessary. An individualized assessment would consider – among other factors — whether the individual at any time had a true moral choice; how the individual was conscripted into or joined the organization that committed Article 1F(a) crimes; whether the individual at any time by act or omission made a substantial contribution to the crime; and whether the individual had the requisite intention regarding the commission of the crime. This is consistent with CCLA’s long standing position that people should be punished and judged for what they do and not which organization they belong to. Presumptions of guilt are always dangerous and may cause great injustices.
Watch the webcast of the proceedings here.
Repeal Criminal Libel
We often hear about lawsuits for libel or defamation between two private parties, but did you know that our Criminal Code also includes offences relating to libel? These provisions have been used against individuals who are critical – sometimes in harsh and provocative language – of state officials, including police officers and participants in the justice system. They are arrested or charged simply for their words. CCLA believes these provisions have no place in our modern democracy.
One of the libel provisions, s. 301 of the Criminal Code, has been repeatedly held unconstitutional by lower courts throughout Canada, yet the law remains on the books. It allows individuals to be convicted even if they had no intent to defame anyone and even if the statements they made were true. CCLA has been involved in a few cases recently where individuals have been charged or threatened with charges under this provision. This has a significant impact on freedom of expression and can severely chill expression on matters of public interest. We have written to Minister of Justice and Attorney-General Rob Nicholson urging that this provision be repealed or amended. CCLA believes this provision is archaic and a throwback to an era that was not protective of freedom of expression; the provisions were initially enacted as a means to prevent dueling! Today they appear to be used to insulate public officials from criticism and undermine the purposes of freedom of expression. We will keep you posted on our ongoing campaign to get rid of these provisions.
Apply for CCLA’s Summer Legal Internships
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association welcomes applicants for our (unpaid) summer legal internship positions. Interns work in CCLA’s Toronto office four or five days a week, for a minimum of 12 weeks during the summer. Legal interns have the opportunity to engage in substantive legal work relating to CCLA’s ongoing advocacy efforts in civil liberties and human rights. Interns work closely with the organization’s lawyers on a variety of projects. The work may include monitoring human rights and civil liberties issues, legal and policy-based research and analysis, engaging with and responding to public enquiries, developing materials for the public on ongoing advocacy campaigns and current issues, organizing events, and assisting in the development of advocacy letters, legislative briefs and litigation materials. Although CCLA is not in a position to fund these positions, applicants may wish to seek funds through independent, external or law school fellowships.
More information about applying can be found here.
Board news: Congratulations to Marie-Ève Sylvestre and John McCamus!
In honour of his four decades of scholarship, York University is hosting a one-day symposium and celebration dinner for CCLA’s Chair of the Board John McCamus. For more information about the symposium and to register online, click here.
CCLA board member Marie-Ève Sylvestre was awarded the Young Researcher of the Year award for her contributions to the humanities sector at the University of Ottawa.
Congratulations to Marie-Ève and John for their outstanding contributions!
on December 21, 2012
When is it appropriate for police to engage and interact with members of the community? Is it acceptable for a police officer - absent any suspicion or specific investigation – to ask young passersby for their name? Their address? What they’re doing? More personal information? And if they do get this kind of information in such a context, should there be any limits on what they can record in police databases? What is the social impact? How can we educate youth about their rights? These and others are just some of the questions that arise with respect to CCLA’s Youth Rights And Policing project (Y-RAP).
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association’s Y-RAP project is currently being piloted in Toronto. It was developed in response to academic research, reports and workshops with young people, all of which pointed to troubling issues concerning certain interactions between police and youth, in particular racialized youth. Reports also identified psychological and other social costs that resulted from racial profiling. Through field consultations, CCLA also discovered that youth feel ill-informed about their rights and how to protect them, and about the appropriate role of police in their communities.
In Quebec, a report entitled “Racial profiling and systemic discrimination of racialized youth” published by the Quebec Human Rights Commission, described as “a wake-up call to the government,” offers an important perspective on how this issue affects communities. The Toronto Star also carried an extensive investigation into carding and racial profiling.
Since that time, the Toronto Police Services Board (TPSB) responded by calling a meeting and beginning a process of investigation of police practices, through the City Auditor General. TPSB has met to discuss other recommendations, and is moving towards implementation. CCLA has made oral and written submissions to the TPSB several times on these matters, and continues to closely monitor it for further changes. At the policy level as well, CCLA has been following developments around racial profiling and addressing them.
Over the last two years, CCLA has been regularly meeting and speaking with over 120 youth from across five different communities in Toronto, in an effort to better understand how this issue affects their rights and provide support in the form of education, empowerment and democratic literacy. We have been supporting young people and communities in their desire to learn about their rights, document incidents of police interactions, learn what kind of recourse they have, and seek ways to – lawfully – challenge police practices. With these groups, we are also developing a toolkit of resources that we intend to make publicly available for youth advocates across the country.
Canada’s Criminal Code is one place to look for answers. Even where there are legal standards, many situations are subject to varying interpretations. Furthermore, there are inconsistencies in police adherence to these standards or, put differently, not all officers consistently observe their legal duties. Racial profiling is a practice (though not necessarily a formal policy) in which certain police disproportionately single out racialized persons – frequently young black men – for questions, stops, searches, and “carding.” Carding – the creation of a file about someone and recording of information about them into a “contact card” in police databases – can have far-reaching consequences, as people are routinely asked to provide police background checks when they apply for work, try to volunteer, or in other circumstances.
>> Read CCLA’s non-conviction disposition report, “Presumption of Guilt?”
From the perspective of members of the affected communities their experience is that they may be doing nothing more than walking home from school, and can be subject to stops, questioning, carding, searching, or worse. This appears to happen to youth of 13, sometimes younger. The stop may take a few moments or much longer – but in many cases young people feel unable to continue on their way. Police officers frequently ask questions like: Who are you? Where are you going? Where are you coming from? Do your parents know where you are? and much more. Stops and questioning are sometimes coupled with disrespectful behaviour by police, and may lead to situations where police initiate threats, intimidation, or even aggression. Searches too, can be conducted, sometimes by virtue of “consent” that is not freely given.
Young people CCLA has spoken to report feeling frustrated, disrespected, and disempowered by these experiences. Though compliance is not actually required by law in many scenarios, many young people do not know their legal rights, and some young people have reported that attempts to resist are met with threats and even physical aggression.
Since Y-RAP began, CCLA has observed that young people with little interest in the law have been motivated to return for multiple meetings, and have brought peers to learn, participate, and share information about their experiences. They are learning to assess their experiences with police in light of legal and constitutional principles. Throughout this process, youth we have encountered through the project have been changed by it: empowered, inspired, and encouraged to seek change and help address the issue of racial profiling in their communities.
on December 17, 2012
For more information about CCLA’s work on post-G20 accountability, click here.
on December 17, 2012
When I moved to CCLA, a friend asked me in his characteristic critical fashion: “So, what are you going to do now?” I responded, smiling, that my new job was about working for people’s rights. “I thought we had already enough rights”, he responded.
In a way, his remarks were prescient of the challenges facing human rights advocates. We are told that there are too many rights, too many rights for suspected terrorists, too many rights for asylum seekers, too many rights for alleged criminals, too many rights for arrogant or disrespectful high school students, and that there is a need to return to a discourse of responsibilities and of earned “privileges” of Canadian life.
At times, there is a sense that the human rights discourse is fatigued, out of fashion, yesterday’s speech. The Charter is presented as an impediment to effective policing and warrants are described a hassle, too much of a bureaucratic demand. Tonight, I want to reflect on how to position human rights demands in this environment. As Human Rights Day is the day when we reflect on where we are and what are our commitments for the year to come (a New Year’s Day for Human Rights Defenders), I want to share with you my Five Human Rights Day Resolutions.
1. Challenge the Impoverished Vision of Democracy
We have to invest into a discourse that sees human rights as the potential for a prosperous, innovative, just and fair society. Legal norms should be seen as drivers of good policy making, not simply as impediments.
Modern democracies – that aim to live up to democratic ideals and not just state them – should recognize that legal norms that are respected are good governance, and that various institutions need to work well for the true promises of democracy to be realized. Democratic life demands a genuine social capacity to self –monitor, to self-reflect and to analyse: accountability of decision-makers, civil society’s participation and genuine discussions. Vibrant democracies are not just about democratically elected governments, they require institutions that protect rights and support public participation. Vibrant democracies should be committed to ensuring that most people who live, work and pay taxes participate in the governance of their communities. In that sense, we should worry about public policy developments that thwart or limit the number of people who can vote. This is one argument to continue to articulate in the current debates about immigration policies when the government seeks to further delay access to citizenship (for designated asylum seekers), or strip it completely like in the context of temporary foreign workers for example. To the extent that we reserve the right to vote to citizens, we should not tolerate that access to citizenship be delayed or excluded.
Any time that there are restrictions on the right to vote, on the number of people who can vote, we should worry about the state of our democracy.
2. Develop Accountability as a Human Right
My second resolution is to move our human rights claims to more clearly articulate what happens when they are not respected and strive to imagine better institutional arrangements that diminish the likelihood of right violations. Conversely, we should continue to demand that more coercive powers be accompanied by more accountability : more police powers should be accompanied by better accountability rules; wider ministerial discretion should be matched by better transparency and reporting; increased security budgets aligned with better evaluation of the direct and indirect costs.
Democracies are like fragile ecosystems: the equilibrium is easily broken when new unchecked powers are created that may lead to further deep-seated inabilities to challenge.
So we need to maintain, practice and develop our accountability muscles and reflexes – they do weaken through non-use.
3. Renew the “Human” in Human Rights
There is a face to injustice and violence. It has to be shown.
Human rights provide basic rights to fairness, to respect of one’s dignity and equality. These are rights that transcend borders and boundaries and extend to everyone no matter where one is born. This is a challenge for our legal vocabulary : we constantly create categories to define who can get what and we have accepted that non-citizens are entitled to different due process rights, as though justice, procedural fairness does not mean the same thing for different human beings.
We must re-energize our thinking and avoid the pitfalls of creating categories that undermine the very concept of humanity and safeguard the rights of some, but cheapen the rights of others.
4. Enlarge the Tent and Refuse to be Defined by Oppositional Politics
Chris Hedges laments in one of his books about the failure of the intellectual classes to “democratize”. He suggests that the left has been unable to fully engage in the bottom up revolution, and continues to engage in top-down instruments to impose an agenda. This leaves the powerless to express their anger and resentment through right-wing politics of exclusion, as opposed to solidarity-building politics.
Human rights are not about right-wing or left-wing politics: they are about protecting the right to live and the right to be treated with dignity of everyone. In a way, human rights are about reaching out to others and trying to understand their fears and their objectives. It is about ensuring that there are less victims in the world: less victims of violence, less victims of injustice, less victims of discrimination. It is incumbent upon us to make people recognize human rights violations in their lives and in the lives of others. Oppositional politics, pitting some victims against others, never work in the long run.
5. Protect the Right to Dissent
Above all, my resolution is continue to protect the right to dissent, the right to challenge and the right to challenge both the human rights violators and the human rights advocates.
The experience of the G20 in Toronto and of the “printemps érable” in Québec point to the way in which we need to constantly defend the right to peacefully demonstrate. Our society gets easily swayed by fears of disorder and is often willing to sacrifice dissenters to a promise of “order”. We must worry about the portrayal of protests as inherently dangerous, as events to be feared and to be discouraged. We should be concerned when the act of throwing a rock in the window, certainly illegal and not to be condoned, is treated more severely than assaults or fraud. A vibrant democracy recognizes that politicians need to know where the electorate is at, and what people think and feel strongly about. Politicians meet people all the time and are influenced by the people they encountered. In a way, rich people have a more direct access to politicians, they have their lobbyists. Poor people have the feet, they need to be able to walk and protest outside and in large groups to be heard.
Our fear of disorder has led us to accept policing tactics that aim to label and intimidate. Protesters are identified, questioned, imprisoned, released on conditions, and often subject of surveillance. The instruments developed in the context of the War on Terror seem to have crept into to our thinking about dissenters: we no longer incarcerate for what people have done, but for what they might do, we punish people not for the actions they take, but for the people they know. This slippage from the exceptional measures of anti-terrorism to day-to-day security was to be expected, but it is dangerous. We should never accept that the ends justify the means in the context of policing: this will create further victims. We should worry about the new forms of legal disabilities that rely on flimsy “risk assessments”: people can no longer board planes, no longer volunteer or work in certain places or no longer cross borders.
The protection of a meaningful right to dissent requires an insistence on rigorous decision-making processes in our assessment of blame, of labels or of privileges. We ought not to be swayed by innuendos or rumors to impose any penalty or deny any right to people.
As we celebrate Human Rights Day and the upcoming New Year, let’s remember the great men and women who cared, who bore witness to injustices and spoke out. Let’s formulate our good wishes:
To the powerless, may you continue to hope and believe in justice, to the powerful, may you recognize the value of accountability and democratic responsibilities and to the indifferent, may you listen and act.
on November 30, 2012
As December comes around, we begin to look back on 2012 and prepare for 2013. 2012 was a challenging year in many respects : the introduction of the omnibus crime bill described below, Bill 78 in Québec to restrict student protests, the resort to criminal libel prohibitions in New Brunswick, Bill 115 in Ontario that denies rights to bargain collectively… CCLA was present in all of these fights. It also pursued its long-standing mission to support “democratic literacy”, the ability to critically think about rights and civil liberties issues. We are very proud to have released the That’s not Fair! animated series and games. You can check out the series and its accompanying teaching resources and games at www.thatsnotfair.ca.
We ask you to remember to renew your membership – or become a member, if you’re not already! – before the end of 2012. CCLA depends on your support.
Nathalie Des Rosiers
The criminal law reform agenda: unwise, unjust, unconstitutional
Numerous facets of our criminal justice and corrections systems demand urgent attention. The number of individuals behind bars with mental health needs continues to skyrocket. Correctional institutions are dangerously overcrowded, resulting in inadequate programming and health care, and increased institutional tensions and violence. The newly-implemented mandatory minimum sentences are set to strain resources and needlessly increase prison and jail populations. And statistics continue to show that the majority of people detained in Canadian correctional facilities are just waiting for the system to deal with their charges.
Nevertheless, in the spring of 2012, the federal government passed Bill C-10, a massive criminal and corrections law omnibus bill. It introduced many changes to various components of Canada’s criminal justice system. The direction these changes set out for the Canadian criminal justice system – jail more often, for longer, with more lasting consequences – is a dangerous route that is unsupported by the social science evidence and has already failed in other countries.
Indeed, the research suggests that putting an individual in jail for longer may increase the likelihood of re-offending. It is hard to see how this will make streets and communities safer. What it will do is needlessly increase the number of people in prison, increasing costs and imposing unjust, unwise and unconstitutional punishments.
CCLA’s advocacy efforts continue to challenge these developments: next year we will make arguments in R. v. Nur and R. v. Smickle, two appellate cases that are bringing constitutional challenges to mandatory minimum sentences. We are fully participating in the Ashley Smith inquest, which will hopefully shed some light not only on her tragic circumstance, but also examine the wider systemic issues faced by those with mental health needs who are behind bars. And we will continue to take every opportunity we can to fight against expensive changes to our criminal and corrections systems that run contrary to evidence, trample individual rights and undermine community safety.
Two new episodes of “That’s Not Fair!” now available
Can Barry Bullmastiff, the newscaster of The City, say unpleasant things about Mayor Moe?
Mayors sometimes make silly decisions – but should we be allowed to make fun of them? Saying unpleasant things can hurt people’s feelings – but it can be important, too! Check out CCLET’s new animated video “Mayor Moe and the Nasty News.” Explore issues surrounding Freedom of the Press with your school-aged friends – and have fun being a reporter while playing the online game, too.
Do you celebrate Earth Day? How nice to save energy and what a great opportunity to see the night sky. But what would happen if your city passed a law to keep ALL the lights off after dark?
Check out CCLET’s new animated video Mayor Moe Sees Stars. Explore what happens when laws are made in a haphazard way – and have fun playing the driving-in-the-dark online game.
For more information, feedback and comments please contact firstname.lastname@example.org
Canadian Artists for Civil Liberties – Project Launch – December 1st
Join us tomorrow, Saturday December 1st, for the project launch of Canadian Artists for Civil Liberties. This new initiative is meant to invite artists of all kinds – famous, anonymous, self-proclaimed, recognized – to take a pledge to promote freedom of expression through their work, and to help raise public awareness about the philosophy, mandate and goals of CCLA.
Learn more and take the pledge!
When: Saturday December 1 – doors at 9pm (tickets: Ticketmaster, Soundscapes, Rotate This – $15. $18 at the door).
CCLA member discount! $10 – but you have to buy your ticket in advance so we can put you on the guest list!
Where: Lee’s Palace, Toronto (Bloor/Bathurst)
Who: Performers include: Ohbijou, Minotaurs, Maloo, Dwayne Morgan, and appearances by: award-winning poet George Elliott Clarke, journalist and activist Judy Rebick and Great Canadian Burlesque
Psstt…. A little birdie told us that Sarah Harmer will be making an on-stage appearance as well!
International Human Rights Day – December 10th – Toronto event
Join our general counsel Nathalie Des Rosiers for a discussion on International Human Rights Day on December 10th
Human Rights Watch and
The Law Society of Upper Canada
are pleased to present a Panel Discussion in honour of
International Human Rights Day
Keeping Canada at the Forefront:
Reviving Canada’s Leadership Role in International Human Rights
Monday, December 10, 2012 at 5:30 p.m.
The Law Society of Upper Canada
130 Queen Street West
All are invited to attend this special event free of charge.
Registration is required by December 7, 2012.
Register by email: email@example.com
Register by phone: 416-947-3413 or 1-800-668-7380, ext 3413