News from ICLMG

Militarizing the Sky: Opposing Canada’s Armed Drone Purchase

The Canadian military is currently planning to purchase up to 5 billion CAD worth of armed drones. Learn more from experts in the field and speak out against the government’s attempt to purchase and deploy a fleet of armed drones under our noses.

TAKE ACTION

Panelists included:

  • Dr. Samer Abdelnour (academic and activist)
  • Maya Garfinkel (World BEYOND War)
  • Azeezah Kanji (legal academic and writer)
  • Kathy Kelly (peace activist, Ban Killer Drones)
  • Tim McSorley (International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group)

Organized by World BEYOND War Canada, Just Peace Advocates, and the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute.

Share on Facebook + Twitter

Thank you!

Since you’re here…

… we have a small favour to ask. Here at ICLMG, we are working very hard to protect and promote human rights and civil liberties in the context of the so-called “war on terror” in Canada. We do not receive any financial support from any federal, provincial or municipal governments or political parties. You can become our patron on Patreon and get rewards in exchange for your support. You can give as little as $1/month (that’s only $12/year!) and you can unsubscribe at any time. Any donations will go a long way to support our work.panel-54141172-image-6fa93d06d6081076-320-320You can also make a one-time donation or donate monthly via Paypal by clicking on the button below. On the fence about giving? Check out our Achievements and Gains since we were created in 2002. Thank you for your generosity!
make-a-donation-button

Twenty-one years later, the brutal legacy of the War on Terror lives on

Rally on Parliament Hill against Bill C-51. Credit: Obert Madondo

Today marks the 21st anniversary of the horrific attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. The deaths of more than 3,000 people will always mark our collective consciousness.

It also marks the launch of the lethal, global War on Terror. More than two decades later, its brutal legacy continues on, undermining human rights and civil liberties and causing death and destruction.

According to the Cost of War project at Brown university, more than 929,000 people have died because of this never-ending war, and millions more have seen their lives uprooted and livelihoods destroyed.

The legacy of the War on Terror also lives on in the continued crises in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and Libya, amongst others. The boogeyman of “terrorism” has also granted governments license to crack down on political, religious and ethnic groups around the world. India justifies its brutal assault on Kashmir and Muslims in the country under the guise of fighting terrorism. China claims the same as it undertakes genocide against Uyghurs in Xinjiang. While the history dates back much longer, Israel’s apartheid policies against Palestinians gain credence under the guise of fighting “terrorism.” In Nigeria, human rights groups see their licenses revoked and funding blocked because they supposedly pose a “national security threat.” Turkey is dropping bombs on Kurdistan in Iraq and Syria, saying it is fighting terrorism where in fact it is continuing its campaign of repression against the Kurds and other minorities. The list can go on and on.

Canada has often been viewed as being on the sidelines throughout the worst of the War on Terror because of our decision not to attack Iraq. Even that is misleading, though, as former US ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci remarked: “Ironically, the Canadians indirectly provide more support for us in Iraq than most of those 46 countries that are fully supporting us.” More directly, perhaps, Canada’s legacy in the war on and occupation of Afghanistan can be traced directly to the humanitarian disaster hitting the country today. This ranges from Canada’s central role in the original invasion and bombardment, in the torture of Afghan prisoners, in its withdrawal without a plan for after the country was torn apart by years of war, and its ongoing role in blocking aid to Afghanistan. Currently, millions of dollars’ worth of humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan from Canadian humanitarian organizations cannot be sent because of Canada’s overly broad anti-terrorism laws, hastily adopted in the weeks following 9/11.

The legacy plays out in Canada in other ways too:

  • Mohamed Harkat and Mohamed Mahjoub continue to live under the draconian measures of security certificates, facing deportation, imprisonment and torture. Abousfian Abdelrazik continues to fight for redress from Canada’s complicity in his arrest and torture in Sudan.
  • Canadian Muslim charities face prejudiced audits from the CRA and losing access to financial services, all because of unproven and unsubstantiated allegations based on Islamophobic tropes.
  • Canada’s security and law enforcement agencies have built up vast surveillance systems and continue to argue for more powers that attack our rights to privacy, association, assembly and movement all in the name of fighting the terrorist threat.
  • The US and Canadian No Fly Lists continue to prevent individuals who pose no threat to our security from travelling for work, visiting family, or even from returning home.
  • It has allowed CSIS cover to engage in unlawful activities, including working with human smugglers placing the lives of minors in danger, and misleading the courts about their actions.
  • It underpins why more than 40 Canadians, including two dozen children, continue to be held in indefinite detention in life threatening conditions in Northeastern Syria with no prospect of release or return to Canada.
  • And finally, we see it in how Canadian Muslims continue to face hate-based attacks. This includes some of the most deadly mass murders in Canada’s history in Quebec City and London, ON, fuelled by racist and false associations between Muslims and extremism.

Some will argue that these excesses are minor, compared to the benefits of preventing terrorism. Although violence is undoubtedly a societal issue that needs addressing, and anti-terrorism actions have prevented certain acts of violence, the better question is whether the focus on the right against terrorism has actually made us any safer overall? Just as the broader society has begun – ever so slightly – to listen to the long-time assertions from Indigenous, Black, racialized and 2SLGBTQIA+ communities that police do not provide the kind of “security” that actually makes our lives safer, the legacy of the War on Terror shows that we need to turn that lens on intelligence and national security agencies as well.

We need to think of other ways, creative ways, that we can envision promoting human safety as opposed to national security, including building structures that empower people to make decisions affecting their lives, and allow everyone to develop their full potential, in a safe and healthy environment. We need to end the legacy of the War on Terror, once and for all. The ICLMG will continue our work towards that goal – join us!

Since you’re here…

… we have a small favour to ask. Here at ICLMG, we are working very hard to protect and promote human rights and civil liberties in the context of the so-called “war on terror” in Canada. We do not receive any financial support from any federal, provincial or municipal governments or political parties. You can become our patron on Patreon and get rewards in exchange for your support. You can give as little as $1/month (that’s only $12/year!) and you can unsubscribe at any time. Any donations will go a long way to support our work.panel-54141172-image-6fa93d06d6081076-320-320You can also make a one-time donation or donate monthly via Paypal by clicking on the button below. On the fence about giving? Check out our Achievements and Gains since we were created in 2002. Thank you for your generosity!
make-a-donation-button

Government proposal to fight “online harms” presents dangers of its own

This piece was published in French in the magazine of la Ligue des droits et libertés.

Written by Tim McSorley, national coordinator, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group

Over the past two decades, many of us have come to rely on online platforms for basic necessities, for communication, for education and for entertainment. Online, we see the good – access to otherwise hard to find information, connecting with loved ones – and the bad. It often combines the harms we know so well, including hate speech, racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, the sexual exploitation of minors, bullying and incitement to violence, with new forms of harassment and abuse that can happen at a much larger scale, and with new ways to distribute harmful and illegal content.

Many social media sites have committed to addressing these harms. But business models that focus on retention – regardless of the content we’re being fed – have proven ineffective at doing so. When these online platforms do remove content, researchers have documented that it is often those very communities that face harassment that also face the most censorship. Governments around the world have also used the excuse of combating hate speech and online harms to enact censorship and silence opponents, including human rights defenders.

The Canadian government had been promising since 2019 to address this issue, framing it explicitly around fighting “online hate.” The government eventually released its proposal to tackle online harms in late July 2021, alongside a public consultation. There were immediate concerns with the consultation taking place in the dead of summer with an imminent election on the horizon. When the election was called a few weeks later, round tables with government officials who could answer questions about the proposal were cancelled.

While the government’s approach was bad, the proposal itself was worse. As cyber policy researcher Daphne Keller described it, Canada’s original proposal was “like a list of the worst ideas around the world – the ones human rights groups… have been fighting in the EU, India, Australia, Singapore, Indonesia, and elsewhere.”

What were some of those problems?

First, many groups raised concerns about the scope of the proposal. It attempted to create one regime to address five very different forms of harm – hate speech, the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, child sexual abuse material, content inciting violence and terrorism content – that in fact require very specific distinct solutions. What is effective for one area may be unnecessary, or even detrimental, to another.

Next, the inclusion of “terrorist content” itself was problematic. Since Canada first joined the “War on Terror” in 2001, we have seen how the enforcement of terrorism laws has led to the violation of human rights, especially because its definition can be twisted to suit political ends. Yet social media companies would be asked to identify it, and on that basis report content and users to the police. It was a recipe for racial and political profiling, particularly of Muslims, Indigenous people and other people of color, and for the violation of their rights and freedoms.

Third, the proposal would have created a vast new surveillance regime, enforced by social media companies. It would require companies to monitor all content posted to their platforms that is visible in Canada, to screen it for online harms, and to take “all reasonable measures” to block the harmful content, including using automated algorithms. Platforms would also need to act on any content reported by users within 24 hours – an incredibly short time frame. Coupled with penalties up to millions of dollars, platforms would be incentivized to take content down first, and then deal with the consequences later. This would create a massive incentive for censorship of controversial – but legal – content.

Fourth, new rules would require platforms to automatically share information with law enforcement and national security agencies, further privatizing the surveillance and criminalization of internet users. This meant that not only would platforms be deciding what content to remove, but who and what needed to be reported to police. As many critics pointed out, further involving the police and intelligence agencies is not a solution when it comes to dealing with harms to groups already facing higher levels of criminalization.

The proposal also made the extraordinary argument, with little justification, that CSIS be granted a new form of warrant to “simplify” the process for obtaining basic subscriber information in order to aid with the investigation of online harms. This comes at a time when courts have been criticizing CSIS for violating the more stringent warrant requirements already in place.

Finally, one of the clear lessons from other countries is the need for rigorous transparency and accountability rules, both for the platforms and for the body enforcing new online harms regulations. Unfortunately, the Canadian government’s proposal did not include meaningful, public reporting and very few transparency or accountability requirements.

Latest developments

In February 2022, the Ministry of Heritage released a “What We Heard” report in which they recognized many of the valid concerns with the government’s approach. They announced a new consultation process led by a new expert advisory group that would review these concerns and propose advice on what the government’s approach should be. Importantly, the process and the deliberations by the group will be shared publicly.

We are now in the very early stages of that process. On one hand, we can see this as a victory: groups from across very different sectors collectively raised concerns about a flawed legislative proposal, and the government has agreed to revisit it. However, an initial reading of the documents guiding the new process sends mixed messages.

The government appears to be conceding that a system based primarily on takedowns and increased surveillance is unacceptable. Background documents also include a greater emphasis on protecting freedom of expression and privacy.

At the same time, they are explicitly building off of a new UK model, found in the proposed Online Safety Bill, known as “duty of care.” While it is based on the idea that platforms must take responsibility for their actions, it has also faced steep criticism for focusing on “lawful but awful” content as well. “Lawful but awful” means content and activity that while legal, may be viewed as harmful. The concern is that platforms would not only be required to identify whether content is illegal – which can already be difficult – but also whether content that is legal should be considered harmful. This vagueness would likely lead to even broader content removal and censorship.

Along with the new approach, the idea of addressing the same five harms under one system persists, and while worded differently, mandatory reporting to law enforcement remains.

Various groups, including the ICLMG, continue to work together to respond to the government’s proposals and to develop ideas on how best to fight online harms. This is clearly a complex problem, and it is easier to point out flaws than to develop concrete solutions. What appears clear, though, is that empowering private online platforms to carry out greater surveillance and content removal would not only fail to address the heart of the issue, but would create more harm. Instead, governments must invest in offline solutions combatting the roots of racism, misogyny, bigotry and hatred. Just as importantly, governments must address the business models of social media platforms that profit from surveillance and use content that causes outrage and division as a way to drive engagement and to retain audiences. So long as there is profit to be made from fuelling these harms, we will never truly address them.

Since you’re here…

… we have a small favour to ask. Here at ICLMG, we are working very hard to protect and promote human rights and civil liberties in the context of the so-called “war on terror” in Canada. We do not receive any financial support from any federal, provincial or municipal governments or political parties. You can become our patron on Patreon and get rewards in exchange for your support. You can give as little as $1/month (that’s only $12/year!) and you can unsubscribe at any time. Any donations will go a long way to support our work.panel-54141172-image-6fa93d06d6081076-320-320You can also make a one-time donation or donate monthly via Paypal by clicking on the button below. On the fence about giving? Check out our Achievements and Gains since we were created in 2002. Thank you for your generosity!
make-a-donation-button