Since we're also now talking about how the criminal justice system approaches terrorism, I thought people might be interested in this video. The 'Toronto 18' are Canadian citizens facing terrorism charges under the Criminal Code. More people should see this before they start harping on about security threats. It's also a good reminder that the 'justice' system does not work well and needs a revamping of its own.
You-tube has the video called Unfair Dealing if you want to watch it in parts, or the full version is available here: http://www.weingarten.ca/unfair_dealing.htm
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Friday, November 7, 2008
Measuring the impact of the policy
To critically analyze this policy, it will be important to adopt a humanist perspective to the research. The policy is ostensibly aimed at achieving security by preventing terrorist attacks, but as we have examined on this blog, it’s impacts are otherwise. This policy may contribute to preventing terrorist attacks, but it does not address terrorism by all people, and furthermore, it has grossly negative effects against certain groups of people.
Positivist research is not appropriate to the review, because it obscures the political nature of the research. It pretends to be value neutral, while humanist researchers put their values on the table for review. Since their underlying values are in the open, the assumptions they make are open for discussion and interrogation. In adopting a humanist perspective, the researchers will be able to examine the social construction of terrorism, terrorists, security, etc. and will allow the researchers to take a human rights based stance, rather than pretending to be neutral objective observers. It is important that the researchers ally themselves with a human rights focus to stop the abuses from continuing.
The Neilsen Task Force review in 1984 looked at how the federal government evaluates its programs, and included the recommendation that evaluations should question the program’s basic rationale. I think this is very important in reviewing the Security Certificate provision of the IRPA. We’ve talked about its apparent goals and objectives, and how the policy does not mesh with them. Were the researchers to examine the program’s basic rationale, recommendations could be made that would answer their goals and eliminate the most egregious of human rights abuses.
The negative effects to date on certain people have been justified by a utilitarian or social contract approach to society. The ends justify the means – for the greater good, some must suffer – to live in society, (some) people give up rights… Adopting a human rights approach does not support any of these philosophies. If it’s wrong, then it’s wrong – there isn’t room for justification. There is room to develop a policy that addresses the security concerns without compromising human and civil rights.
I believe these detentions have been motivated more by racism and xenophobia than any real threat to Canada, but even if there is a threat, I believe people’s human rights need to be protected while addressing it. The undesired effects of these policies otherwise will be enormous. Look at the experiences of the wrongly convicted – readapting to society after everything you believe in has been proven wrong and taken from you is a hugely difficult task. And for Canada as a whole, a society that condones abuse, secrets and torture will only reproduce and reinforce itself over the years to come creating something even more grotesque.
(Info on policy evaluation comes from Weshues, A. Evalutaing Social Welfare Policies and Programs in Westhues, A. (Ed). 2006. Canadian Social Policy Issues and Perspectives. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfred Laurier University, and from class discussions around her essay.)
Positivist research is not appropriate to the review, because it obscures the political nature of the research. It pretends to be value neutral, while humanist researchers put their values on the table for review. Since their underlying values are in the open, the assumptions they make are open for discussion and interrogation. In adopting a humanist perspective, the researchers will be able to examine the social construction of terrorism, terrorists, security, etc. and will allow the researchers to take a human rights based stance, rather than pretending to be neutral objective observers. It is important that the researchers ally themselves with a human rights focus to stop the abuses from continuing.
The Neilsen Task Force review in 1984 looked at how the federal government evaluates its programs, and included the recommendation that evaluations should question the program’s basic rationale. I think this is very important in reviewing the Security Certificate provision of the IRPA. We’ve talked about its apparent goals and objectives, and how the policy does not mesh with them. Were the researchers to examine the program’s basic rationale, recommendations could be made that would answer their goals and eliminate the most egregious of human rights abuses.
The negative effects to date on certain people have been justified by a utilitarian or social contract approach to society. The ends justify the means – for the greater good, some must suffer – to live in society, (some) people give up rights… Adopting a human rights approach does not support any of these philosophies. If it’s wrong, then it’s wrong – there isn’t room for justification. There is room to develop a policy that addresses the security concerns without compromising human and civil rights.
I believe these detentions have been motivated more by racism and xenophobia than any real threat to Canada, but even if there is a threat, I believe people’s human rights need to be protected while addressing it. The undesired effects of these policies otherwise will be enormous. Look at the experiences of the wrongly convicted – readapting to society after everything you believe in has been proven wrong and taken from you is a hugely difficult task. And for Canada as a whole, a society that condones abuse, secrets and torture will only reproduce and reinforce itself over the years to come creating something even more grotesque.
(Info on policy evaluation comes from Weshues, A. Evalutaing Social Welfare Policies and Programs in Westhues, A. (Ed). 2006. Canadian Social Policy Issues and Perspectives. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfred Laurier University, and from class discussions around her essay.)
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Federal Court ruling on constitutional challenge
Federal Court Chief Justice Allan Lutfy ruled on November 3rd that the motion brought forward on behalf of Hassan Almrei challenging the constitutionality of the revised security certificate provisions was premature. The judge determined that the new provisions came into effect too recently to fully understand their impact and that the challenge brought forth was based on a rejection of the legislation based on its content (or “legislative facts”) rather than evidence of its impact on the complainant.
The case was based on the concerns of special advocates regarding their ability to effectively do their jobs while subject to the “gag-orders” in place preventing them from sharing classified information with detainees and their lawyers, among others including staff, and other special advocates. Permission must even be sought from the court to continue to communicate with the detainee and their lawyer after the special advocate has viewed the ‘secret information’, severely limiting the ability of special advocates to serve the needs of the detainees.
Chief Justice Lutfy determined that it was necessary to wait and see how “the role of special advocates evolve” based on interpretations of the law by presiding judges faced with these decisions. However, he did clarify that special advocates working on the same case could share information with each other. He noted that there were five ongoing certificate proceedings and while these were underway it was premature to rule on the impact of the legislative changes.
Lorne Waldman, the lawyer representing Hassan Almrei (and a spec ial advocate himself), is not ruling out another constitutional challenge once the provisions have been in place for a little longer.
This ruling appears to mean that the men subject to security certificates will be forced to wait until their rights are further violated and that the system fails them even more before they will be in a position to challenge their situation. It is not enough that these special advocates, all seasoned lawyers approved by the government to play this role, are arguing that they can’t do their jobs with the current limitations placed on them. They will somehow have to prove the system’s failures, which will depend in part on the ways in which individual judges interpret the new provisions, while detainees bear the consequences of this delay.
Article regarding Federal Court decision: www.macleans.ca/artcile.jsp?content=n1103111A
The case was based on the concerns of special advocates regarding their ability to effectively do their jobs while subject to the “gag-orders” in place preventing them from sharing classified information with detainees and their lawyers, among others including staff, and other special advocates. Permission must even be sought from the court to continue to communicate with the detainee and their lawyer after the special advocate has viewed the ‘secret information’, severely limiting the ability of special advocates to serve the needs of the detainees.
Chief Justice Lutfy determined that it was necessary to wait and see how “the role of special advocates evolve” based on interpretations of the law by presiding judges faced with these decisions. However, he did clarify that special advocates working on the same case could share information with each other. He noted that there were five ongoing certificate proceedings and while these were underway it was premature to rule on the impact of the legislative changes.
Lorne Waldman, the lawyer representing Hassan Almrei (and a spec ial advocate himself), is not ruling out another constitutional challenge once the provisions have been in place for a little longer.
This ruling appears to mean that the men subject to security certificates will be forced to wait until their rights are further violated and that the system fails them even more before they will be in a position to challenge their situation. It is not enough that these special advocates, all seasoned lawyers approved by the government to play this role, are arguing that they can’t do their jobs with the current limitations placed on them. They will somehow have to prove the system’s failures, which will depend in part on the ways in which individual judges interpret the new provisions, while detainees bear the consequences of this delay.
Article regarding Federal Court decision: www.macleans.ca/artcile.jsp?content=n1103111A
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)