Author: Scott Neigh

Israeli Government Documents Show Deliberate Policy To Keep Gazans At Near-starvation Levels
by Saed Bannoura, from International Middle East Media Center, November 6, 2010.

Documents, whose existence were denied by the Israeli government for over a year, have been released after a legal battle led by Israeli human rights group, Gisha. The documents reveal a deliberate policy by the Israeli government in which the dietary needs for the population of Gaza are chillingly calculated, and the amounts of food let in by the Israeli government measured to remain just enough to keep the population alive at a near-starvation level. This documents the statement made by a number of Israeli officials that they are “putting the people of Gaza on a diet”.

In 2007, when Israel began its full siege on Gaza, Dov Weisglass, adviser to then Prime-Minister Ehud Olmert, stated clearly, “The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.” The documents now released contain equations used by the Israeli government to calculate the exact amounts of food, fuel and other necessities needed to do exactly that.

The documents are even more disturbing, say human rights activists, when one considers the fact that close to half of the people of Gaza are children under the age of eighteen. This means that Israel has deliberately forced the undernourishment of hundreds of thousands of children in direct violation of international law and the Fourth Geneva Convention.

This release of documents also severely undermines Israel’s oft-made claim that the siege is “for security reasons”, as it documents a deliberate and systematic policy of collective punishment of the entire population of Gaza.

Gisha’s director, in relation to the release of documents, said, “Israel banned glucose for biscuits and the fuel needed for regular supply of electricity – paralyzing normal life in Gaza and impairing the moral character of the State of Israel. I am sorry to say that major elements of this policy are still in place.”

In its statement accompanying the release of the documents, Gisha wrote:

The documents reveal that the state approved “a policy of deliberate reduction” for basic goods in the Gaza Strip (section h.4, page 5*). Thus, for example, Israel restricted the supply of fuel needed for the power plant, disrupting the supply of electricity and water. The state set a “lower warning line” (section g.2, page 5) to give advance warning of expected shortages in a particular item, but at the same time approved ignoring that warning, if the good in question was subject to a policy of “deliberate reduction”. Moreover, the state set an “upper red line” above which even basic humanitarian items could be blocked, even if they were in demand (section g.1, page 5). The state claimed in a cover letter to Gisha that in practice, it had not authorized reduction of “basic goods” below the “lower warning line”, but it did not define what these “basic goods” were.

Commentator Richard Silverstein wrote: “In reviewing the list of permitted items for import, you come to realize that these are the only items allowed. In other words, if an item is not on the list, it’s prohibited. So, for example, here is the list of permitted spices: Black pepper, soup powder, hyssop, sesame. cinnamon, anise, babuna (chamomile), sage. Sorry, cumin, basil, bay leaf, allspice, carraway, cardamon, chiles, chives, cilantro, cloves, garlic, sesame, tamarind, thyme, oregano, cayenne. Not on the list. You’re not a spice Palestinians need according to some IDF dunderhead. And tomatoes, potatoes, cucumbers, lettuce, toys, glassware, paint, and shoes? You can forget about them too. Luxuries all, or else security threats.”

Despite the disturbing nature of the documents, which show a calculated policy of deliberate undernourishment of an entire population, no major media organizations have reported the story.

The full text of the released documents, and the original Freedom of Information Act request filed by Gisha, can be found on Gisha’s website at the link below:

http://www.gisha.org/index.php?intLanguage=2&intItemId=1904&intSiteSN=113

Continue reading

Israeli Government Documents Show Deliberate Policy To Keep Gazans At Near-starvation Levelsby Saed Bannoura, from International Middle East Media Center, November 6, 2010. Documents, whose existence were denied by the Israeli government for over a year, have been released after a legal battle led by Israeli human rights group, Gisha.

Continue reading

On the 11th Hour of the 11th Day of the 11th Month: Laying Down Arms
By Peter Linebaugh, from CounterPunch, November 11, 2010.

On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month the Great Powers of the World signed the armistice laying down arms after four years of the bloodiest war in history. That was 1918.

Now, we call it Veteran’s Day.

What caused the armistice was the refusal of soldiers to fight. They refused ‘to go over the top’ anymore. In Russia, France, England, Italy they refused to participate in the slaughter which had begun in 1914.

What we learn from Armistice Day is that the soldier is the front line of the peace movement.

Sailors and soldiers mutinied against the war, turning their arms not on so-called “enemies,” namely brother soldiers from across the world: instead, they turned their arms upon the officers who otherwise sent them to the butchery of the trenches or ordered them to a freezing death in battles at sea.

In late October 1918 at Kiel and Wilhelmshaven, the home ports of the German fleet, the sailors refused the orders of their officers. Soldiers were brought in to force the sailors to obey. Instead the soldiers embraced their cause, “Frieden und Brot” or Peace and Bread.

One such sailor was a former stoker named Karl Artelt who had shoveled coal into the fires which kept the steam engines of the battleships burning. On a voyage to the Far East he witnessed the Chinese revolution of Sun Yat-sen. Later, perhaps as the engines of the German naval squadron were transformed from coal to oil, he became a skilled metal worker in the engine room. In other words his experiences below decks put him at the central themes of his historical epoch – imperialism and the oil machine – and he used these experiences to overthrow the war mongers. Such men put an end to World War One.

Together soldiers and sailors formed direct democratic councils. On 9th November 1918 a socialist republic was declared in Berlin. Hindenburg and Ludendorf, the German generals, had to agree to an armistice.

So: Honor the soldier who takes direct action for peace. Honor the soldier who thinks. Honor the soldier who brings Empire to its end.

Remember the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month!
Bring the troops home!

Peter Linebaugh teaches history at the University of Toledo. The London Hanged and (with Marcus Rediker) The Many-Headed Hydra: the Hidden History of the Revolutionary Atlantic. His essay on the history of May Day is included in Serpents in the Garden. His latest book is the Magna Carta Manifesto. He can be reached at: plineba@yahoo.com

Continue reading

On the 11th Hour of the 11th Day of the 11th Month: Laying Down ArmsBy Peter Linebaugh, from CounterPunch, November 11, 2010. On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month the Great Powers of the World signed the armistice laying down arms after four years of

Continue reading

Are these cops above the law?
by David Bruser and Michele Henry, from The Toronto Star, October 28, 2010. (Link found via A.P.)

A Toronto police officer inexplicably floors his gas pedal, speeds into an illegal right turn and runs down a grandmother, severing her brain stem and killing her instantly.

An OPP constable wearing a bulletproof vest and carrying a baton and pepper spray shoots and kills an intellectually challenged 59-year-old man holding a small pocket knife.

During a traffic stop near Canada’s Wonderland, York Region officers rough up a small, 50-year-old accountant, breaking his arm and leaving him roadside.

A Peel Region police officer sucker-punches a handcuffed prisoner and breaks his jaw in two places.

Two teens chatting on the grass in a public park are run over by a Durham Region squad car, suffering extensive injuries.

All of these officers were quickly cleared by the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) — the provincial agency responsible for investigating serious injuries and deaths resulting from interactions between police and the public. All still work as police officers.

The Toronto Star investigated two decades of SIU cases. It found that police officers across the province are treated far differently than civilians when accused of shooting, beating and running over and killing people, some of them innocent bystanders.

Ontario’s criminal justice system heavily favours police and gives officers breaks at every turn — from the SIU, which hardly ever charges officers, to prosecutors, juries and judges.

Where civilians causing similar damage are typically prosecuted, cops walk.

Even in the rare instances when officers are charged and convicted, they almost always avoid jail time.

The Star also found police officers’ lack of preparation, reckless and ill-advised tactics, and tendency to use excessive force led to civilian injuries and deaths.

“(The SIU) doesn’t charge anybody. It’s all a waste of time,” said David Orbst, the short, unintimidating accountant whose arm was broken during a traffic stop by York Region police officers, including an officer Orbst identified as Const. Derek Cadieux. “If a (civilian) had done this to me, I point the finger and they get arrested.”

The head of the SIU, Ian Scott, defended his agency in an interview with the Star but said, “Police officers get all kinds of breaks in the (criminal justice) system.”

The Star found in many cases that the reckless actions of some police officers have tarnished the oft-stated mottos — “to serve and protect” or “leaders in community safety” — of police forces across the province.

In one case, Toronto Police Supt. Neale Tweedy, who was tasked with disciplining a constable who killed a bystander, said police officers must lead by example. He said “preventing property damage, injury and death is a core business function.”

The Star found the SIU is hampered by a justice system that heavily favours police, and has not done its job holding officers to this standard.

In its 20-year history, the SIU has conducted at least 3,400 investigations and laid criminal charges after only 95 of them, according to a Star analysis. The SIU does not track what happens to those it charges. But the Star has, and found only 16 officers have been convicted of a crime. Only three have seen the inside of a jail — as inmates.

“Two words on the (SIU) website are: Independent and rigorous. (But) it’s just a farce organization,” says Emal Bariali, whose schizophrenic brother Elyas was shot dead by Durham police in 2005. “Seems to me like there are no consequences (for officers). Why would the police take the SIU seriously?”

The numbers should not surprise Scott. Four years before he took the helm in 2008, he said he had little faith in the agency’s effectiveness given the constraints of the justice system.

In a presentation he made to a lawyers’ conference in 2004, Scott, who once worked as a prosecutor, noted that police officers accused of using excessive force stood a less than one-in-five chance of facing the same level of justice as civilians accused of similar crimes.

“It is an ineffective use of state resources to investigate, charge and prosecute cases in which the high probability is … acquittal,” Scott wrote in 2004.

He proposed a second option — give the SIU the power to send some suspect officers to the Ontario Civilian Policing Commission, an independent oversight agency, where they could be fined or fired. He said a commission verdict would act as a “deterrent” to police misconduct. But Scott’s call went unanswered.

The SIU was created in 1990 after a series of police shootings of black civilians provoked community backlash and fear the incidents would be covered up by police-friendly investigations. In one case in 1988, a Peel Region officer shot and killed teenager Michael Wade Lawson as he drove a stolen car.

Supporters of the new agency, including the Toronto police chief of the day Bill McCormack, said the independent SIU would boost public confidence in police oversight. But community groups expressed concern that the unit, staffed by former police officers, would not be independent enough. Today, the SIU employs 54 full- and part-time investigators, 47 of whom are former police officers.

“While the SIU is far from perfect … the alternative is to return to the police investigating the police, an option that has fallen into disfavour due to the conflict-of-interest issues,” SIU director Scott said.

The taxpayer-funded agency, which today has an annual budget of around $7 million, refused to cooperate with the Star investigation by providing short summaries of hundreds of investigations, internal reports the SIU writes after it concludes investigations, and other documents.

The Star, through police, court and civilian witness sources, built files on 700 SIU cases. In some cases, sources provided evidence collected during SIU investigations.

The Star found:

• The SIU missed or ignored crucial evidence in at least six cases.

• Officers are too quick to take aggressive action against civilians.

• A cozy relationship between police and prosecutors has allowed officers to avoid punishment.

• Police officers involved in an incident investigated by the SIU break a conduct rule by delaying writing their notes, and share the same lawyer, leaving victims worried officers are collaborating to get their story straight and prevent the SIU from learning the truth.

As a result, neither police nor victims believe the SIU can conduct the kind of independent, “rigorous” investigations it was set up for.

Some cases the Star reviewed involved innocent bystanders while others involved those with criminal records, histories of violence and a variety of backgrounds police often come into contact with in the course of their duties.

In 2006, Hafeez Mohamed was punched in the head, neck and shoulder eight to 10 times during an arrest by Durham Region police officer Prasanth Tella.

Responding to a report of an assault outside a house in Elmvale, Ont., OPP Const, Jeff Seguin arrived to talk with the suspect, Doug Minty, an intellectually challenged 59-year-old living with his mother. Minty moved toward Seguin and was shot dead.

The SIU did not conduct a thorough investigation and cleared Seguin, though his sketchy story failed to conclusively show that a fatal bullet was his only option. Minty’s brother John said the family still does not understand why Doug was killed last summer.

“I think the family is entitled” to answers, John Minty said. “And the SIU investigation certainly didn’t, and won’t, provide us with those answers.”

Grandmother Mei Han Lee, 67, was not a suspect. She was walking home to help care for her autistic grandson when Toronto police officer Juan Quijada-Mancia sped into an illegal right turn, hit Lee and killed her instantly.

Lee’s family says the SIU was eager to sweep the case into obscurity. The officer was not responding to an emergency call, and to this day neither the SIU nor Toronto Police have said where Quijada-Mancia was going in such a hurry on that February morning in 2005.

“She always obeyed the law. What was the officer doing?” asks Lee’s daughter-in-law Rose Chen.

Police officers such as Quijada-Mancia can also face internal disciplinary hearings, which are conducted by superiors in their own force and carry softer punishments than those that could result from a criminal charge.

Quijada-Mancia was disciplined by the Toronto Police. He lost 40 hours’ pay. It was in this decision that Supt. Tweedy stressed the importance of police officers being held to the same standard as civilians.

The Star found no accountability for incidents that caused civilian injuries and deaths. The SIU completes reports after investigations and then gives them to the Ministry of the Attorney General. But the victims and the public do not get to see the information.

Most of the police officers involved in incidents probed by the Star declined to be interviewed.

Durham Insp. Bruce Townley said officers are traumatized by incidents that result in death or injury.

“Contrary to what may be perceived, that we’re all cowboys, we’re human beings,” said Townley, whose force features in three cases reviewed by the Star. “These people are out to protect the public and protect themselves.”

The Star found that the virtual immunity police officers enjoy is not the SIU’s fault alone. The agency faces obstacles that Scott knew well before he took over in 2008.

An officer investigated by the SIU benefits from a presumption of good character by jurors and judges.

In the rare instance when the SIU has laid charges, one of every four officers sees the charges dropped before trial, many others are acquitted, or, as has happened at least 10 times, an officer is found guilty before a judge spares him jail time. Some guilty police officers walk out of court with their record wiped clean.

Hamilton Police Const. Jason Williams was charged in 2002 with assault for kicking a handcuffed 57-year-old psychiatric resident of a group home in the head. Five fellow officers testified they saw Williams repeatedly punch and kick the man. Williams was convicted of assault, though the judge dismissed the more serious charge of assault causing bodily harm. Ian Scott was the prosecutor. At sentencing, he asked for jail time, but Williams received none.

Scott also prosecuted Niagara constable Michael Moore, found guilty in 2002 of breach of trust after he accepted oral sex from a woman in exchange for not issuing her a traffic ticket. Scott called Moore a “wolf in police uniform” and wanted him jailed for six to nine months. Moore got a year of house arrest. He has since resigned from the force.

Police trials, Scott said in an interview, are “very different” because many in the justice system view these as “occupational crimes” — the consequences of a dangerous job — as opposed to crimes committed by criminals.

Officers also enjoy stiff protection from the sturdy blue wall of their police force, insulation by scrappy lawyers working for unions with deep pockets, and typically a close working relationship with prosecutors.

Following a judge’s criticism of this type of relationship, the SIU recently re-investigated and charged a Peel Region police officer with assault against Quang Hoang Tran.

Tran had been convicted of playing a role in a series of brutal home invasions, but the conviction was thrown out this year after an appeals court found Peel officers “beat him up” and “attempted to cover up their shocking conduct.”

Because of the behaviour of the police and prosecutor, a criminal walked free.

Though they are afforded special powers — to stop and arrest civilians, and carry a gun — officers enjoy some of the same protections as civilians when investigated.

Police officers at the centre of SIU probes do not have to give a statement to the agency — a right zealously protected by police lawyers and unions.

One well-known police lawyer, Gary Clewley, recently said in an article he wrote for a police union magazine that he has been tempted to tell so-called “subject officers” to “Shut the f— up” before writing their notes, and talk to a lawyer.

As part of their internal disciplinary proceedings, police forces can compel officers to give statements, but the SIU is not entitled to that crucial evidence.

Now that Scott has the job he previously thought so impotent, a defence lawyer who has represented officers investigated by the SIU summed up Scott’s untenable position this way: “Ian has the worst job in the province. Everyone hates him — the police, the community. No matter what he does he can’t do anything right. Every decision he makes will be criticized for years.”

The powerful OPP union has sent out a newsletter accusing Scott of anti-cop bias.

Though the justice system heavily favours police, one Ontario judge was surprised that police officers complain of persecution when they are hardly ever charged. In 2001, when Justice John Ground threw out a $10 million malicious prosecution lawsuit brought by York Region officer Robert Wiche against the SIU, he said:

“There appeared to be on the part of certain police witnesses and certain police associations an almost Pavlovian reaction against a civilian agency (the SIU) investigating the conduct of police officers … and against the idea that such an agency could conduct an investigation which could be fair to police officers,” the judge wrote.

“This is particularly surprising when … in about 97 per cent of the cases, the investigation exonerates the subject officer.”

Continue reading

Are these cops above the law?by David Bruser and Michele Henry, from The Toronto Star, October 28, 2010. (Link found via A.P.) A Toronto police officer inexplicably floors his gas pedal, speeds into an illegal right turn and runs down a grandmother, severing her brain stem and killing her instantly.

Continue reading

No Thanksgiving for migrant workers
by David Goutor and Chris Ramsaroop, from The Toronto Star, October 8, 2010. (Link via B.B.)

While Thanksgiving means a feast with family and friends for most Canadians, scores of migrant workers will be gathering in Leamington for a much different type of event.

They will be embarking on a gruelling march of more than 50 kilometres from Leamington to Windsor — the “Pilgrimage to Freedom” — to draw attention to the conditions many migrants face in Canada today.

The choice of Thanksgiving — a celebration of the harvest — as the day of the march is quite deliberate, as these are the migrant workers who grow, harvest and process much of the food Canadians enjoy. The march’s route is also carefully chosen to challenge Canada to live up to its image as a haven for the oppressed: It will end at Windsor’s Monument for Freedom, dedicated to the underground railroad that brought slaves to freedom in Canada.

If Stephen Harper and the federal Conservatives are serious about their recent efforts to improve the immigration system, and particularly to reduce abuses by recruiters, they should lend their support to this march. But that would be the last thing the marchers expect.

Indeed, over the last decade both federal and provincial governments have quietly implemented a fundamental — and entirely regressive — transformation in immigration policy. In particular, they vastly expanded temporary worker programs that are ripe for manipulation and exploitation, and that leave the migrants with no reliable means of redress.

Just how sweeping is this policy shift? Statistics from 2009 show that temporary foreign workers, at over 280,000, actually outnumbered immigrants seeking permanent residence. Hence the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP) has become a monster with well-developed tentacles. These include the Live-in Caregiver Program, which sends nannies and domestic servants to upper- and middle-class households, and the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program, which brings workers to agribusinesses in places such as Leamington.

Agriculture and domestic service traditionally receive large numbers of migrant workers, but the expansion of the TFWP has brought thousands more to a growing array of industries in different parts of the country. Alberta has become particularly addicted to temporary workers, who are now working everywhere from the tarsands to meat-packing plants to fast food outlets.

A massive power imbalance between boss and worker is built into all of these programs. Most migrants’ presence in Canada is dependent on them staying in their job. In addition, their employment contracts essentially bond them to one employer and deny them the right to seek out a different job. Technically, they have minimum protections from provincial labour laws but have no idea what these employment standards are and almost no sense that they are able to exert their rights. Indeed, the threat of deportation looms constantly, as they could be sent home — immediately and without right to appeal — if they resist the wishes of their bosses, get sick or are injured, are deemed to be underperforming or are simply no longer needed.

The government ruthlessly exploits these workers through payroll taxes. Migrants pay federal and provincial taxes but their access to social programs is severely restricted. They are denied access to public health care for their first three months in Canada, which constitutes much of their stay if they are in seasonal industries. Missing work to try to find medical care or other social supports is considered a firing offence. Foreign workers must also pay into the employment insurance fund and Canada Pension Plan even though they are not eligible for benefits.

Recent proposals to “reform” these programs are examples of calculated cynicism. A prime illustration is the proposed ban on employers who are found to have abused migrant workers. The ban will only affect direct hiring through the TFWP — nothing will stop an employer from simply acquiring more migrants from a recruiter or contractor. In other words, at the same time that the federal Conservatives grab headlines with new campaigns against immigration recruiters, they propose new policies that will only increase recruiters’ role and power in the system.

Another example is the government’s response to complaints that temporary worker programs are entrenching a new class of inexpensive and easily exploitable labour. The Tories could have granted migrants access to permanent status in Canada. Instead, they propose to punish the workers, particularly in the unskilled stream, through a cap on the number of years they can work in Canada: After four years, they will be banned from entering the country for four more years.

The Pilgrimage to Freedom is one example of growing resistance to the TFWP. While the Tories have tried to manipulate outrage against immigration scams to their political advantage, the migrants themselves are organizing meaningful action against recruiters. They are working to create “recruiter-free zones” in their communities in Canada and spread information about particularly dangerous labour contractors.

Moreover, several community groups and trade unions came together earlier this year to form the Coalition for Change. In response to the hollow measures to “reform” the TFWP, the coalition has developed five broad-based principles that will be essential to any worthwhile improvement to the system:

• Status upon arrival for all temporary foreign workers.

• The elimination of placement and recruitment fees for all migrant workers.

• An appeals mechanism against deportation orders.

• Reform labour laws to provide better coverage for TFWP workers.

• Provide migrants equal access to all social entitlements, including EI, CPP, welfare and health care.

For migrant workers, the Pilgrimage to Freedom is part of a tradition of resistance by “foreign” workers that dates back to the 19th century. For the Canadian public, this is a chance to wake up to a migrant labour system that challenges our self-image as a just and fair country.

David Goutor is an assistant professor in the School of Labour Studies at McMaster University. Chris Ramsaroop is an organizer with Justicia for Migrant Workers ( www.justicia4migrantworkers.org), a grassroots collective of community, labour and migrant activists.

Continue reading

No Thanksgiving for migrant workersby David Goutor and Chris Ramsaroop, from The Toronto Star, October 8, 2010. (Link via B.B.) While Thanksgiving means a feast with family and friends for most Canadians, scores of migrant workers will be gathering in Leamington for a much different type of event. They will

Continue reading

De-mystifying the “Project Samossa” arrests: Community Advisory from the People’s Commission Network
received by email from The People’s Commission, Montreal, September 2010.

Montreal, September 2010

The recent arrests associated with the RCMP’s offensively named “Project Samossa” have generated a lot of questions and uncertainties in communities targeted by Islamophobia and racism. This community advisory is aimed at providing information and advice to address some of those questions. We hope that it will contribute to confident resistance to profiling, marginalization and criminalization.

Questions

1. What is the Canadian Anti-Terrorism Act?
2. What does it mean if individuals are arrested on terrorism-related charges?
3. Why are they in prison if they haven’t been found guilty of anything?
4. In how much detail should I talk about an accused whom I may know?
5. What do I do if someone I don’t know asks me about an accused, related matters that have come up in the media, and what I think of the situation?
6. How do we build secure communities and not fall prey to paranoia?
7. Is it safe to go to the mosque?
8. If I get involved with community and broader initiatives denouncing the racism and Islamaphobia around this issue – including the racism in media and readers’ comments – will I come under surveillance?
9. What should I do if the police come to my door or ask to speak to me?
10. What should I do if the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) approaches me, my family, or my community ?
11. What can I do about the profiling of my community and its members by CSIS and other agencies, and the anti-Muslim media coverage?
12. Where can I go for more information or help?

1) What is the Canadian Anti-Terrorism Act?

The Canadian Anti-Terrorism Act was passed in December 2001, in the wake of the events surrounding September 11th in the United States. The Liberal government at the time fast-tracked the passing of the legislation, curtailing debate over its potential for abuse and refusing all substantial amendments.

The explicit purposes of the changes were to allow the government to act “preventively” and to broaden the definition of terrorism to include more indirect support.

The Act introduced new offences under the Criminal Code, including the financing and facilitation of terrorist activities. It also granted the police broader powers, including permitting them to undertake “preventive” arrests and compel witnesses to testify before a judge. A broader use of secret evidence was allowed. In addition, the Anti-Terrorism Act made it easier for security agencies to use electronic surveillance.

Two of the measures which generated most controversy, preventive arrests and investigative hearings (compelling witnesses to testify), were temporary and expired in 2007. They were re-introduced by the Conservative government in fall 2007, and re-re-introduced as Bill C-17, The Combating Terrorism Act, in April 2010, which is currently at first reading stage in Parliament.

It is important to note that most, if not all, of the activities the Anti-Terrorism Act addresses are crimes and that many so-called terrorism offences could simply – and with far less stigma – be charged as “ordinary” criminal conspiracies.

At the heart of the legal definition of terrorist activities – what sets them apart from “ordinary” crimes – is a “motive clause”, stipulating that the Crown must prove that a terrorist activity was committed for political, religious, or ideological purposes. In 2008, the Court declared this portion of anti-terrorism law to be unconstitutional, after Mohammad Momin Khawaja’s lawyers argued that it violated fundamental freedoms of conscience and religion, and thought, belief, and opinion as well as expression. In its decision, the Court found that the motive clause, by focusing state attention on the religious and political beliefs of certan individuals and communities, carried a danger of racial and religious profiling. Although the decision is now in appeal, the case highlights the problems with Canadian anti-terrorism legislation and suggests that it can (and should) be challenged.

Offences under Canadian anti-terrorism legislation are defined very broadly. Some examples:

* The government has designated certain groups as terrorist organizations. It is a crime to collect funds for, facilitate activities in, or instruct anyone to take part in a listed group. The process of listing is highly, if not essentially, politicized, with the result that some very surprising groups are listed.
* Facilitating a terrorist activity is a very broadly defined crime. Notably, it is not necessary for the activity to be planned at the time of facilitation, nor for the terrorist activity to be actually carried out. Although the legislation stipulates that the person “knowingly” facilitate, they do not need to know that a particular terrorist activity is facilitated.

2) What does it mean if individuals are arrested on terrorism-related charges?

Despite the way the state and the media are portraying the recent arrests, just because people are arrested does not mean that they are guilty of any wrong-doing or even of any crime.

It is a cornerstone of the Canadian justice system that people are supposed to be considered innocent until proven otherwise. This goes for terrorism cases just as much as any other criminal case. There are, in fact, plenty of examples of intelligence and police agencies getting it completely wrong. Moreover, as noted above, Canadian anti-terrorism legislation is broadly defined and has the potential to capture activities that many would not consider to be wrong.

All these arrests mean is that the police have charged the individuals with breaking the law. These charges are not proven, but remain simple allegations.

3) Why are they in prison/under conditions if they haven’t been found guilty of anything?

Normally, those facing trial under criminal law are detained in prison with the possibility of being released on bail while they wait for the outcome of their trial. The accused will normally have bail hearings within the first weeks of their arrest.

Unfortunately, prejudiced attitudes, fear and political considerations do play into court decisions. This may mean that people accused of terrorism, who would be released if they were facing equally serious, but less sensationalized, charges, may be more likely to be kept in pre-trial detention. If they are not released at their initial hearing, they will be able to re-apply for release on bail later on.

If they are released pending the outcome of the trial, they can still be placed under strict conditions or even house arrest. These conditions can later be modified by the court on the request of either the defence or the Crown.

4) In how much detail should I talk about an accused whom I may know?

In general, whether in person, on the phone, on email or on facebook, it is important not to speculate or repeat facts about the accused, especially those that could pertain to the criminal accusations that have been laid. As they say, “loose lips sink ships”. This is not because any of the accused have anything to hide, but because you will have no control over how your comments could be interpreted, taken out of context, or even manipulated.

It is particularly important to avoid commenting on whether or not you think that an accused may have committed an offense they are being charged with. A mantra to keep in mind is that everyone should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

While you should avoid speculating on the criminal charges laid against the accused, speaking in a humanizing way about the character of an accused and other aspects of their lives, as long as it isn’t compromising (or personal!) information, may be helpful.

It is important to always keep in mind that electronic communications such as email and facebook may be stored in databanks accessible to security agencies or be under surveillance. A litmus test to apply when communicating by email or facebook is to consider whether any untoward consequences could come from your message being inadvertently forwarded to the wrong person or made public.

5) What do I do if someone I don’t know asks me about an accused, related matters that have come up in the media, and what I think of the situation?

As a general rule, you are not under any obligation to talk with anyone about any of this simply because they ask you. If you feel uncomfortable for any reason, there is nothing wrong with politely saying you don’t feel comfortable talking about the situation.

It must be recognized that the current context has created a general atmosphere of suspicion, in which there can be a tendency to wonder whether people we don’t know are journalists, police officers or even intelligence agents. At the same time, it is healthy and normal to discuss issues and questions that are of deep concern to our communities, and to maintain a positive openness to strangers and a confidence in others. It is a question of balancing mindfulness of the potential consequences of our words and avoiding gossip and speculation, as outlined above, while not allowing our basic trust in other people to be destroyed.

6) How do we build secure communities and not fall prey to paranoia?

Knowing that intelligence and police are keeping tabs on and even going so far as to infiltrate targeted communities should not make us paranoid. A spirit of paranoia can divide us and weaken our organizations and communities. While recognizing that there is active surveillance, we should resist spreading rumours and increasing levels of suspicion and fear. In these times, it is important to maintain solidarity.

While we should never allow ourselves to be silenced, it is obviously important to be mindful of what we say, avoiding loose talk and gossip that may be falsely construed and used against you or others.

7) Is it safe to go to the mosque?

It is important to resist the pressure to stay away from certain places (mosques, community centres, etc.) when you otherwise would have gone.

We must not allow our fundamental freedoms and rights – including the freedom of conscience and religion and of association – to be stripped away by the atmosphere of fear created by mainstream media and government officials.

Going to the mosque with family members or friends is one way to alleviate potential anxiety. Our safety lies in sticking together and not allowing ourselves to be divided, isolated or intimidated.

8) If I get involved with community and broader initiatives denouncing the racism and Islamaphobia around this issue – including the racism in media and readers’ comments – will I come under surveillance?

Even though the fundamental freedoms of thought, belief, opinion and expression are formally protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is an unfortunate reality that state surveillance, harrassment and infiltration of marginalised ethnic/religious/racialized communities, as well as social justice activists exists.

Although people should be mindful of this reality, we should not allow these tactics to silence us or prevent us from participating in projects, campaigns or protests for social justice. Not only is there nothing wrong with speaking out against racism and Islamophobia, we should confidently assume the responsibility to do so. If we don’t, who will?

9) What should I do if the police come to my door or ask to speak to me?

If police officers—from the RCMP or any provincial or municipal police force—approach you and want to talk to you, remember that you are never obliged to speak to the police. If you do not wish to talk to them, simply say so and close the door or walk away.

The police cannot force you to do anything unless they place you under arrest, which they cannot legally do unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that you have committed an offence. It is also illegal for them to search your home, car, community space or any other place unless they have a search warrant authorized by a judge.

You are not required to leave the premises in the event that your home is being searched with a valid search warrant. In fact, you are within your rights to observe the officers searching your home.

10) What should I do if the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) approaches me, my family, or my community?

CSIS is Canada’s principal intelligence agency, and it is often involved in gathering information about individuals, groups or communities before there is any indication that a crime may be committed.

People may come to the attention of CSIS for any number of reasons. In some instances, it may be due to their involvement or connections to an organization, initiative, or event. In some instances, it may be simply due to their membership in a targeted community. In general, there is no fail-safe way to ensure that you or your family won’t be approached.

The People’s Commission Network advocates total non-collaboration with CSIS. That means refusing to answer questions from CSIS agents who show up at your door, refusing to listen to whatever CSIS may want to tell you, and breaking the silence by speaking out whenever CSIS comes knocking.

This is not a question of having nothing to hide nor of protecting our communities from random acts of violence. It is a matter of recognizing that you have no control over information that you give to CSIS: your words can be misunderstood, taken out of context, misrepresented, passed on to other agencies overseas (such as the CIA, Mossad, and the mukhabarat of various countries), and used in unjust processes (such as “terrorist lists”) as secret, unsourced evidence. It is also the case that CSIS is guided by domestic and international policies which do not take the interests of all communities into account.

Generally speaking, you are never obliged to talk to CSIS. CSIS has no power to force you to talk—or to listen—to them. They have no right to enter your home without your permission. You have the right to refuse to speak to them and ask them to leave.

If you are approached, the best way to keep CSIS from continuing to bother you is simply let them know you have nothing to say to them. CSIS looks for “sources of information” on various communities; if you refuse to speak to them, they will normally have little interest in coming back. If they persist in approaching you, ask them to contact a lawyer of your own choosing to set up a formal meeting or ask a lawyer to contact them on your behalf.

If you are in immigration proceedings and are called for a formal, mandatory, interview, or if you are in a vulnerable situation which makes you feel unable to refuse to speak to CSIS, we strongly advise you to insist that any interview with CSIS be conducted in the presence of a lawyer of your own choosing.

Above all, please remember to take care of each other during these times. CSIS visits can be upsetting and destabilizing. It is important that we stand together and support one another when CSIS visits occur and communities find themselves under surveillance.

If CSIS comes knocking (flyer in English, French, Arabic, Spanish, Turkish): www.peoplescommission.org/en/csis/whattodo-csis.php

CSIS visits videos (in English and French):
www.peoplescommission.org/en/csis/videos.php

Top Ten Reasons not to Speak to CSIS (French, English, Turkish, Spanish): www.peoplescommission.org/files/csis/top10_en.pdf

11) What can I do about the profiling of my community and its members by CSIS and other agencies, and the anti-Muslim media coverage?

a) Write letters to the editor stating your objections to the racist framing of events and to media collusion in the targeting of Muslim communities.

b) Ask organizations you are involved in (community groups, unions, political parties) to issue statements denouncing Islamophobia, rejecting the use of evidence extracted through torture, and insisting that the principle of innocent-until-proven-guilty be applied to all.

c) Encourage your networks to refuse any cooperation with CSIS and distribute CSIS Watch materials (website links above).

12) Where can I go for more information or help?

The following groups have a variety of materials with related information, may be able to give you advice or refer you to other organizations or lawyers that can help.

In Montreal:
Muslim Council of Montreal (MCM): www.muslimcouncil.org
People’s Commission: www.peoplescommission.org

In Toronto:
Canadian Arab Federation (CAF): www.caf.ca

In Ottawa:
Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIRCAN): www.caircan.ca

Continue reading

De-mystifying the “Project Samossa” arrests: Community Advisory from the People’s Commission Networkreceived by email from The People’s Commission, Montreal, September 2010. Montreal, September 2010 The recent arrests associated with the RCMP’s offensively named “Project Samossa” have generated a lot of questions and uncertainties in communities targeted by Islamophobia and racism.

Continue reading

Native leaders warn of conflict over Ontario northern development legislationby Lee Greenberg, from Ottawa Citizen, September 16, 2010. TORONTO — Ontario is heading for conflict with First Nations, Native leaders said Thursday, after the province moved ahead with contentious legislation governing northern development. Native leaders are worried they will lose

Continue reading

Native leaders warn of conflict over Ontario northern development legislation
by Lee Greenberg, from Ottawa Citizen, September 16, 2010.

TORONTO — Ontario is heading for conflict with First Nations, Native leaders said Thursday, after the province moved ahead with contentious legislation governing northern development.

Native leaders are worried they will lose control over traditional land under the Far North Act, which is on the verge of passing.

The legislation opens half the northern boreal region – about 42 per cent of the province — to development like the kind being planned in the so-called “Ring of Fire”, a pristine 5,000-square-kilometre swathe of land set to be mined for its rich ore deposits.

Native leaders were at Queen’s Park on Thursday demanding the bill be halted

“If it passes as is, there’s going to be conflict on the land,” said Margaret Sakchekapo-Kenequana, executive director of the Shibogama First Nations Council. “We cannot simply just hand over jurisdiction to the government of Ontario, because the jurisdiction was given to us by the creator and we will uphold that. That is our sacred responsibility.”

Grand Chief Stan Beardy said Premier Dalton McGuinty ignored direct requests for changes to the legislation.

“We’ve told him for one whole year what our issues are, what our concerns are, and it almost seems like they’re not listening,” said Beardy, who leads 49 northern bands.

Beardy said if passed, he would oppose the new legislation “by any means necessary.”

The threat opens the specter of disruptive occupations like the one that has haunted the southwestern Ontario community of Caledonia since 2006.

Liberal ministers attempted to cool the rhetoric yesterday, touting their own outreach efforts in negotiating changes to the bill.

Linda Jeffrey, minister of natural resources, said the government had implemented all the changes demanded by Aboriginal groups.

She said their continued discontent was caused by the confusing language of a bill “drafted by lawyers.”

“I think there are some challenges with trying to communicate what’s happening in the bill,” she said. “My goal was to accommodate all of the requests… That’s what I think the amendments have done. We’ll see on the ground how the First Nations community comes around to understanding it.”

The bill has cleared all legislative hurdles and can now be passed any time.

Aboriginal leaders warned against that.

“If I came into your backyard and started pitching up my teepee, would you like that? Probably not, eh? You probably would want consent or tell me that I’m loitering, I’m trespassing,” said Sakchekapo-Kenequana. “That’s the same thing. The far north, 42 per cent of Ontario, is our homeland.

“That is our homeland. We have a right to say what happens in that territory.”

Continue reading

Defence Industry Cheers: Protest over Lockheed’s $16 billion contractby Hillary Bain Lindsay, from Halifax Media Co-Op, September 10, 2010. (Link found via Myths for Profit.) “This is a racket. You guys are crooks!” shouts Tamara Lorincz as two men leave DEFSEC Atlantic, a defense, security and aerospace exhibition that wraps

Continue reading