Author Archives: ICLMG CSILC

Election 2021: National Security Platform Promises and Info Card

Federal Election 2021 is upon us. The outcome of this election could have a significant impact on the federal government’s approach to national security, anti-terrorism and the protection of civil liberties in Canada.

In that light, we have analyzed the various parties’ platform promises, but also their track records – which can often give an even better idea of what they will do (and not just what they say they will do). We hope it helps you to make an informed voting decision, and that you keep civil liberties in mind when you head to the polls!

Below you will find:

    1. An analysis of each party’s platform promises on national security
    2. The positions that the federal parties have taken on national security & anti-terrorism issues over the past two years

Continue reading

More than 110 Canadian Jurists Demand Justice for Hassan Diab

The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG) has made public an open letter addressed to the Minister of Justice David Lametti. The letter is signed by 118 members of the legal profession and legal scholars in Canada. It has also been copied to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Deputy Prime Minister, and leaders of political parties. In it, the signatories call on Minister Lametti and his colleagues to take immediate action to protect the rights of Dr. Hassan Diab, a Canadian citizen, who continues to face a 13-year-long Kafkaesque process in the French legal system.

The full letter is below, or click for a PDF.

In the open letter, the signatories request:

  1. That, as Minister of Justice, you give immediate assurances that Canada will not accept nor accede to a second request for Hassan Diab’s extradition;
  2. That, as Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister Marc Garneau urge France to put an immediate end to this continuing miscarriage of justice;
  3. That, as the head of the Government of Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau suspend the extradition treaty with France.

Continue reading

Why we need to ditch anti-terrorism and national security

After two decades of “War on Terror,” it’s time to focus on human safety

Written by Anne Dagenais

A shorter version of this op-ed was published on on September 10, 2021. Please share on Facebook + Twitter + Instagram

Since September 11, 2001, civil liberties, human rights and anti-racism groups have been raising alarm bells over the impacts of anti-terrorism and national security laws, so much so that it may feel like old news.

While the threat to civil liberties has only grown over the last 20 years, recent events have led to renewed concern: the push for the adoption of new domestic terrorism laws in the United States, the expansion of the Terrorist Entities List in Canada, the ever-growing definition of “national security,” and endless increases to the powers and resources of national security agencies.

Governments attempt to justify their actions in the name of “security,” but none actually go to the root causes of the violence they purport to address.

What we need is to shift away from national security — the preservation of the sovereignty and thus the power of the state — towards human safety — the condition of individuals being empowered and free from want and harm.

The concept of “law and order” — and later “national security” — have been used on this territory now called Canada since European settlers decided that this land was theirs and needed to be secured from Indigenous Peoples, who were in the way of their colonial project. The RCMP was created — then as the North West Mounted Police — in large part as a paramilitary force to surveil, control, and displace Indigenous people; a role they are still playing to this day, prompting calls to abolish the RCMP.

Concerns around “national security” in Canada have led to:

This is only in Canada.

Furthermore, as the climate crisis and COVID-19 pandemic have worsened, calls have grown to label both as “national security” threats. Some of those who have called for urgent action to address these emergencies have noticed the disproportionate amount of attention and resources poured into national security agencies and issues. They hope that the inclusion of the climate crisis and the pandemic as “national security threats” would lead to similarly serious responses. We can certainly understand the logic of seeing the existential threats to humanity that are the climate crisis and the pandemic, as well as the tensions between people resulting from their mismanagement by our governments as security issues. However, not only is the national security apparatus ill-equipped to deal with ecological and human health, but giving more resources to national security agencies will simply lead to more of the same abuses outlined above.

The words “terrorism” and “threats to national security” are powerful. Thanks to years of relentless fearmongering from governments and the media, they elicit automatic condemnation of whomever is stamped with those labels. As a result, these labels have become a very effective tool for the state (and other actors) to discredit and/or repress any group, movement or person — especially people who challenge the status quo, oppose government policies and actions, and fight for collective liberation.

How do we fix this? By getting rid of the word “terrorism,” as well as anti-terror laws and tools, and by replacing “national security” and its apparatus with policies and actions that foster human safety.

Why not just reform our anti-terror laws and national security apparatus to fix its abuses and the erosion of civil liberties? Here are five reasons:

1. “Terrorism” and “national security” are easily malleable

2. The myth of the Muslim ‘terrorist’

3. Diversion from states’ monopoly on violence

4. Targeting Indigenous land defenders and environmental activists

5. National security cannot ensure human safety

Continue reading