Different Response for Different Folks!

Food for thought.....

Since the theme of the day is differential response and treatment, I urge you to read the following and consider what the response might be if the person was an Arab.

"Joseph Egan doesn't think he'll ever board a Greyhound bus again after a passenger threatened to behead him Friday.

"I moved to the middle of the bus and a woman said 'If you go to the bus driver, I'll cut your head off,' " Egan said from a hotel in Winnipeg.

"We said nothing directly to her," Egan said.

A 41-year-old woman has been charged with possession of a weapon and uttering threats, RCMP said."

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=aba88ea9-d8a8-4b98-b89c-e5cc85543d74

Citizenship and Due Process

There are multiple Acts that address terrorism, but none that I found provide for the indefinite detention of citizens without due process. Many people facing criminal charges are detained for long periods of time before their trials, but they are charged and given disclosure in a shorter period of time. They also can have lawyers who get to see the evidence and make arguments for them. Each of these processes can be slow, but there are time-limited provisions to guide them. If a judge decides the process was too slow, the charges can be thrown out.

The criminal code contains provisions against terrorism including prohibitions against fund raising, participation, and holding property for terrorist groups. Related to this is the creation of a list of groups deemed terrorist by the federal government, which changes over time. The so-called Toronto 18 were charged under these provisions of the criminal code. The potential sentence is life in jail. Included are the usual due process rules around the right to retain counsel at any time during the proceeding, having to see a judge within a certain amount of time, and the right to be released, unless they think you won’t show up for court or you’re a safety risk. It seems this section applies to both citizens and permanent residents. Permanent residents can be prosecuted either way, presumably at the discretion of those investigating (or perhaps who is investigating). The criminal code process is quite different from the security certificate process which only non-citizens face.

Wesley Wark wrote a paper for the Canadian Human Rights Commission about National Security and Human Rights. The Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration are supposed to issue a security certificate where there is a threat to Canadian security, a violation of human or international rights, serious criminality, or organized criminality by a non-citizen. The CHRC is very concerned about the broad definition of terrorism combined with the removal of civil rights for those accused of terrorism. The combination of these two things could result in it being used to stifle opposition or target people based on the political and social climate, rather than any real threat. I’m being pretty gentle saying ‘could.’ As described before, the historical detention of people with certificates has focused on certain groups, for example, the detention of Iraqi people during the early 1990s. “The right to liberty and freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention are fundamental human rights to which Canada has subscribed under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” The rights under these agreements are supposed to apply to everyone within Canada, as well as everyone affected by Canada’s actions.

Depriving certain people of these rights by using a different mechanism to pursue terrorism charges doesn’t appear to meet any reasonable goals. If the goal is to deport ‘criminals’ an application could be made after conviction. If the concern is that spreading knowledge will endanger security, then why is it only terrorism by non-citizens that poses this risk? Either it should apply to all people, or no one. The discretionary powers and the different types of terrorism charges demonstrate how the laws are based in a xenophobic belief system. We obviously not just talking about security here. If there actually is a threat, than a coherent argument needs to be made.

Wark’s paper: http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/research_program_recherche/ns_sn/toc_tdm-en.asp

Creating the 'Other'

When we created the Indian Act, there was a denial of right to vote, purchase land, and engage in traditional ceremonies. Canada's first peoples were forced to relocate, pushed aside to reserves and were restricted from civil and political rights.

When runaway slaves were migrating from America to Canada with great promises of better land, education and rights, they were again segregated in their schools and communities and had limited property rights.

When Chinese labourers came to Canada, they were paid ¼ the wages of ‘white’ workers. Once again, their civil and polical rights were restricted. They were barred from public office and professional occupations.

Let us not forget Komagata Maru. I bet they didn't teach you this gem of Canadian History in grade 10! In 1914 South Asians were detained on a steamer boat for 2 months on the coast of Vancouver before they were eventually denied entry into Canada. During this time, exclusion laws in Canada were designed to keep Asian immigrants out.

During World War II, a number of Japanese Canadians (75% of which had Canadian citizenship) were incarcerated, forced to work and had their property taken from them. If they did not enter incarceration, they would be deported. After 2 years, they were released and had no compensation until the late 80s. The reason for the government’s action? Security reasons; the Japanese-Canadians may have been a National Threat. Believe it or not, Canadian Parliamentarian Ian Mackenzie said in 1944, "It is the government’s plan to get these people out of B.C. as fast as possible. It is my personal intention, as long as I remain in public life, to see they never come back here. Let our slogan be for British Columbia: ‘No Japs from the Rockies to the seas".

( http://www.crr.ca/divers-files/en/pub/faSh/ePubFaShLegRac.pdf )

The security certificate is our latest instalment of institutionalized discrimination and racism which allows the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to have anyone thrown in jail who might be deemed a national threat, even if the evidence is weak (as we’ve seen in the previous posts). Such institutionalized discrimination leads to racial profiling. When we see our authority figures doing this, it sets an example of ‘what to be aware of’, or what to ‘beware’ of.

We see this institutionalized discrimination at it’s finest in the airport. You will find the lines for ‘random’ checks of suitcases long and populated by Arabs, Muslims, individuals with Muslim sounding names and even Sikhs (from a different part of the world, and of a different religion but
indistinguishable by the untrained security personnel eye).

Family Guy highlighted this issue: http://www.humorscore.com/videos/Family_Guy_Videos/Family_Guy_-_Johnny_Quest

It’s interesting. In this clip, the writers imply that you should not even be yourself, just to avoid security personnel from jumping to conclusions. It’s true. There are many Muslims out there who feel the need to dress in a traditionally non-Islamic manner to avoid the hassle.

Consider the news media. These terrorists organizations are sometimes called ‘Islamists’. Now what in the world is an ‘Islamist’?! It’s not a word that these groups have used, because it’s not even proper grammar. It’s like saying ‘Christanity’ist’ or ‘Hinduism’ist’. These were terms conjured by either the government or the media. These people are not categorized as terrorists anymore, they’re being defined by their religion, which now applies 1.5 billion people or one-fifth of the world’s population. Their label for the enemy has suddenly expanded from ‘terrorists’ to a term that will be associated with adherents of a religion.

If our authority figures show us that these people cannot be trusted, we will also develop distrust for these groups. As a result these groups feel alienated and will tend to segregate themselves, only widening the gap between what is being created as ‘us’ and ‘the other’. We no longer think of ourselves as ‘black’, ‘white’, ‘Asian’, ‘Spanish’ etc. We’re now Canadian and Arab.

It has happened in the past and it is currently being perpetuated against Muslims and Arabs in Canada. Security certificates are no longer just a security measure, they’ve become a justification for discrimination and racism.

Is Canada ignoring its international obligations?

Canada is a country that prides itself on its beliefs in liberty, equality and democracy. We have a positive reputation internationally and are in good standing with most of the countries in the world. This image of Canada as a just nation is one which we like to propagate to the rest of the world. Canada is a member of the United Nations and has a strong voice when it comes to matters of equality, human rights and liberty. To the outside world we like to make ourselves appear as a benevolent, altruist state yet when it comes to our domestic policies we show another side of our character completely. The Canadian government’s use of security certificates are clearly contradictory to the image we like to spread.

It is evident that security certificates are a gross violation of human rights. As some of the other posts have explained the accused are detained for unknown reasons and are subject to inhuman conditions while being imprisoned. There have also been numerous reports of torture and requests for basic necessities which go ignored.

Recognizing human rights and the reason why we have them are vital for a democratic and just nation. After World War Two, international agreements and covenants were implemented to ensure that everyone was accorded certain inherent rights. The Universal Deceleration of Human Rights was created to achieve this goal. It was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948. The current treatment of the detainees in Canada is in clear violation of the declaration. Article 9 states that "no one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile," and Article 10 follows "everyone is entitled in full equity to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him." It is evident that by using security certificates, Canada is violating these articles.

Canada is also violating the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which was entered into force on March 23, 1976. Article 14 of this covenant says that everyone who is charged with a criminal offence is entitled "to be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him." Again, the detainees being held in Canada are not always informed of the reason for their detention. They are often left in the dark.

By agreeing to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Canada also agreed to the declarations "standard of achievement for all peoples and nations." Following the agreement shows the legitimacy of a government. By not following it, the Canadian government is decreasing its political legitimacy. The ideals of this declaration need to be upheld and it is the responsibility of both the government and the citizens of this country to make sure that Canada fulfills its obligations. We cannot simply theoretically agree to a monumental document and then proceed to do as we please. It is essential that Canada does as it has promised to the international world and uphold the reputation that we have. The reason for upholding it is not because it will make us "look good" to the rest of the world but rather because it is good.

For more information please refer to Universal Human Rights In Theory and Practice, Second Edition by Jack Donnelly

Canada's role in the the American War on Terror

Canada has always had close ties to the United States of America. From the beginning, the two countries had a shared history and as America grew in size and power the relationship between the two countries changed. At times Canada has benefitted from the relationship and at other times it has suffered negative consequences.

It is extremely important to look at the relationship Canada has with the United States due to the fact that this relationship plays a big role in the policies this country makes to deal with security issues. As it has been explained in previous posts, security certificates have long been used in Canada even though they did not gain too much attention until after September 11. After the terrorist attacks in the United States the American government took a new stance on national security. The United States strengthened their security laws and implemented strict rules regarding security. They then instigated the War on Terror in their attempts to make the country a safer place. I’m sure we can all remember when George W. Bush made his speech on November 6, 2001 about protecting America and the American way of life. In the speech he stated that "you are either with us or against us in the fight against terror," clearly distinguishing the only two camps other countries could belong to. This meant that Canada would have to quickly decide which camp it wanted to be a part of. Not surprisingly, the Canadian government quickly tried to align itself with the former camp.

As America’s neighbour, Canada plays a very important role in the American War on Terror. Canada’s proximity to the United States makes it strategically powerful. The border we share with the United States is the longest border in the world and one that allows for numerous people to cross each year. As fears grew in America over who was getting into their country and the entry points they used to gain access, the American government quickly looked to their neighbour to the North. The American media wrongly reported that some of the 9/11 hijackers had entered the country through the Canadian border. Border security was given high priority and was seen as something that needed to be tightened in order to prevent potential terrorists from entering the country in the future.

However, putting more security measures at the 49th parallel could have negative consequences for Canada. If the American government imposed measures that were too strict at the Canadian border, the Canadian economy would suffer. The United States is our largest trading partner and having an open border is part of the reason for this. The Canadian government needed to show the Americans that Canada was not harboring terrorists and that Canada would do its part in making sure our country was terrorist free.

The years after 9/11 were an extremely tense period on an international level where countries all over the world were trying to show the global giant that is America that they were on the "right" side of this war. As the Americans criticized the seemingly lacks security measures in Canada, the Canadian government attempted to rectify the situation by proving that we too were doing our part to fight the terrorists. The United States created the Patriot Act and Canada responded with Bill C-36.

This makes me wonder why Canada feels the need to allows follow suite with the Americans. I understand the role American plays in our economy and how maintaining good relations with our southern neighbour are vital to our continued national prosperity. At the same time however it also seems that we often do what America wants us to do even when it is detrimental to ourselves.