20 years defending civil liberties

The ICLMG and Surveillance Studies at Queen’s University

FLICKR/Kate Kehoe

By David Lyon

The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG) was founded in response to the aftermath of 9/11, with its global search for terrorists, facilitated in part by massive surveillance initiatives. During the next few years, what was then known as The Surveillance Project, at Queen’s University in Kingston, began a fruitful partnership with the ICLMG, initiated by Roch Tassé, the group’s first National Coordinator. The concern with state and especially security surveillance was maintained throughout several major research projects and ensuing publications.

At Queen’s, we were excited to be working with an organisation devoted to maintaining civil liberties in Canada and to blowing the whistle when such liberties were undermined through inappropriate surveillance activities. The need for such work was patently clear from 2002 when Canadian telecoms engineer Maher Arar was detained at JFK Airport, New York and then transferred to Syria, where he was held in inhuman conditions, interrogated and tortured. Erroneous surveillance information was at the source of the problem.

Roch Tassé, representing the ICLMG, took part in research projects conducted at Queen’s University early on. Workshop contributions by the ICLMG appeared in books such as Global Surveillance and Policing: Borders Security, Identity¹ and in articles such as “Airport screening, surveillance and social sorting: Canadian response to 9/11 in context.”² Other contributions include participation in Colin Bennett and David Lyon’s edited Playing the Identity Card: Surveillance, Security and Identification in Global Perspective³ and in Kirstie Ball and Laureen Snider’s edited collection, The Surveillance‑Industrial Complex.⁴ The ICLMG collaborated with Queen’s University’s Surveillance Studies Centre (SSC) which formally opened in 2009.

In 2015, Monia Mazigh, ICLMG’s newly appointed National Coordinator, worked with the Queen’s SSC on the New Transparency project.⁵ In 2016, Tim McSorley, ICLMG’s next National Coordinator, became involved as a partner with the Big Data Surveillance (BDS) Project, and presented in a workshop which later became a chapter in the book Big Data Surveillance and Security Intelligence: The Canadian Case⁶ published in 2021. The chapter, co-authored by Xan Dagenais, ICLMG’s Communications and Research Coordinator, is entitled “Confronting Big Data: Popular Resistance to Government Surveillance in Canada since 2001”. The ICLMG also presented in the last BDS conference and participated in the final BDS report, which was published in 2022: Beyond Big Data Surveillance: Freedom and Fairness.⁷

The Big Data Surveillance project was the culmination of many years of working with partners like the ICLMG and focused on the massive growth in “dataveillance” in every area of life. We explored together the use of massive troves of data that became available as social media users unwittingly offered details of their lives to platforms such as Google, which quickly realized there was a profit to be made with the data. Today, data is also sought for policing, national security and other government-related purposes, which raises acute civil liberties as well as data justice and digital rights issues. Big Data—now augmented by AI—also plays a significant role in perpetuating social inequalities along familiar lines of class, race and gender.

Our research partnership findings have had a real impact, not only through academic publications and op-eds or media interviews, but also by contributing to the regulation of platform companies, to popular resistance to some of their most negative effects, and to the quest for alternative ways of handling data – not merely data “on” people, but “for” and “with” those whose data is collected, analyzed and acted on. While our research includes international partners, we’ve always worked to bring home the challenge of today’s surveillance to those living in Canada, through freely available and accessible writings.

The most recent report, Beyond Big Data Surveillance: Freedom and Fairness, for example, highlights the lopsided nature of information, whereby organizations “know” more and more about us, while we know less and less about what they are doing. The report refers to this as “tangled surveillance”, where very complex technologies operate in ways that are obscure to most of us and yet are only met with very weak and inadequate instruments that are unable to limit their negative power. Furthermore, the report indicates which groups are most exposed and vulnerable to “big data surveillance.”

But these are just the technical aspects of our partnership between the SSC and the ICLMG. Being involved in common projects, with like-minded people, is what makes this collaboration magical. The SSC is an academic research group; the ICLMG is a politically active coalition of civil liberties organizations. But we share the common goal of understanding and regulating surveillance which is effectively addressed by working together. It is a worthwhile, mutually beneficial relationship to which we each contribute and for which both parties are grateful. We would each be poorer without the other.

While our respective members do academic and advocacy work, together we work towards the same goals with complementary tactics, and this is what makes the partnership so meaningful and so fulfilling. So thank you, Roch, Monia and Tim—along with those who have worked with you at ICLMG— for being willing to partner with us at the SSC. Our work has been all the more grounded for what you’ve taught us, and we believe that your work has been enhanced by the results of our research.

Best wishes for the next 20 years!

David Lyon is Professor Emeritus of Sociology and Law at Queen’s University, Kingston, and author of many books, most recently Surveillance: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford 2024).

Back to table of contents

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.You 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!

Footnotes

1
Elia Zureik and Mark Salter, Global Surveillance and Policing: Borders Security, Identity, Routledge, 2005.
2
David Lyon, “Airport screening, surveillance and social sorting: Canadian response to 9/11 in context,” Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 2006: https://ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/airport-screening-surveillance-and-social-sorting-canadian
3
Colin J. Bennett and David Lyon, Playing the Identity Card: Surveillance, Security and Identification in Global Perspective, Routledge, 2008.
4
Kirstie Ball and Laureen Snider, The Surveillance-Industrial Complex: A Political Economy of Surveillance, Routledge, 2013
5
Colin J. Bennett, Kevin D. Haggerty, David Lyon, and Valerie Steeves, Transparent Lives: Surveillance in Canada, AU Press, 2014.
6
David Lyon and David Murakami Wood, Big Data Surveillance and Security Intelligence: The Canadian Case, UBC Press, 2021.
7
Big Data Surveillance Project, “Beyond Big Data Surveillance: Freedom and Fairness. A Report for all Canadian citizens,” Surveillance Studies Centre, Queen’s University, May 18, 2022: https://www.surveillance-studies.ca/sites/sscqueens.org/files/bds_report_eng-2022-05-17.pdf

Confronting the CRA’s Prejudiced Audits

Graphics for ICLMG’s report The CRA’s Prejudiced Audits: Counter-Terrorism and the Targeting of Muslim Charities in Canada. ICLMG/Omar Hafez

By Tim McSorley

In June 2021, the ICLMG released The CRA’s Prejudiced Audits: Counter‑Terrorism and the Targeting of Muslim Charities in Canada,¹ a report detailing how a secretive division within the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) targets Muslim charities in Canada for investigation, audits and even revocation, based on prejudiced and unsupported allegations of a risk of terrorist financing.

The report reveals how, as Canada ramped up attempts to counter terrorist financing after the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, the CRA and its Charities Directorate were enlisted to monitor the work of Muslim charities in Canada under the unsupported premise that they pose a significant terror financing risk. This work has been carried out largely in secret, with little to no outside review or public substantiation of the so-called risk posed by Muslim charities, allowing for the profiling and targeting of Muslim charities to go largely unnoticed and unchallenged.

The report demonstrates how the Review and Analysis Division (RAD), a little-known division of the CRA, in conjunction with other departments and agencies, targets Muslim charities:
The Canadian government’s National Risk Assessment (NRA) for terrorism financing in the charitable sector focuses almost exclusively on Muslim charities, and entirely on charities based in racialized communities, with little to no public substantiation of the risk;

This risk assessment is used to justify surveillance, monitoring and audits of leading Muslim charities on questionable grounds;
RAD operates largely in secret, in tandem with national security agencies, with little to no accountability and no independent review;
Between 2008 and 2015, 75% of all charities revoked by RAD following these secretive audits were Muslim charities, harming the sector and impacting the larger Muslim community in Canada. The number of audits and revocations before and after that period are unknown because they have never been made public.

The report recommended the following:

That the federal government refer this issue to review by the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA) in order to examine the CRA’s RAD processes overall, and specifically its selecting of Muslim charities for audit, so as to ensure organizations are not being targeted due to racial or religious prejudice;
That the Minister of National Revenue declare an immediate moratorium on targeted audits of Muslim charities by RAD until the review has concluded;
That the Ministry of Finance revisit the anti-terror regulatory, policy and legislative landscape, particularly the 2015 NRA and its impact, particularly on the Muslim community;²
That the federal government amend the NSIRA Act to allow for complaints from the public regarding the CRA’s national security-related activities; and
That NSIRA and the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) coordinate to carry out regular reviews of the CRA’s anti-terrorism activities – including the Charities Directorate and RAD – going forward.

The release of our report, combined with our public launch (recorded online)³, led to substantial public interest and advocacy work. Our letter writing campaign⁴ resulted in more than 2,400 emails sent to government officials calling for action, and we organized a joint letter⁵ to the Prime Minister that was signed by more than 130 groups supporting our recommendations. The report made a lot of waves in the media, leading to the publication of more than 75 news articles and op-eds. The Prime Minister was forced to respond immediately with concern, saying he “realized that systemic discrimination exists throughout every institution.”⁶

This issue was a key point at the July 2021 National Summit on Islamophobia, and resulted in the Trudeau administration tasking the taxpayers’ ombudsperson François Boileau with investigating concerns of charities around systemic discrimination, with a particular focus on Muslim charities and other charities led by people of colour. The ombudsperson was also to examine the revenue agency’s efforts to root out discrimination. We raised concerns in the media, and were quoted extensively about worries that the ombudsperson’s mandate may be too narrow to examine this system in its entirety.

Although this investigation was not what we had asked for, we were initially optimistic given the government had reacted quickly. We were also in frequent communication with the office of the ombudsperson to offer support, advice and keep up with the investigation. This is why an update on the review in February 2022 left us surprised and disappointed as it did not even mention Islamophobia once, promised to review ‘fairness’ overall rather than examine specific concerns and added that the office will not investigate the role of Canada’s national security agencies in this issue. We sent an open letter to the Trudeau government sharing these concerns and naming important elements that the review should include moving forward.⁷

In November 2022, the Taxpayers’ Ombudsperson testified at the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights (RIDR) that his office is working with one hand tied behind its back, and that the ensuing report will have gaps, as they cannot access critical information. We responded to this by meeting with the Ombudsperson regarding his revelation, publishing an op-ed⁸ on the troubling developments and following up with the ministry of Finance regarding updating risk assessment policies for the charitable sector. In response to the significant concerns raised about the Ombudsperson’s investigation, the NSIRA launched its own review of the issue in March 2023 – which was one of our original recommendations in June 2021!

The Ombudsperson’s report, published later that same month, reflected the concerns he expressed at the Senate. Despite his diligence, it did not address the central concerns we had raised. We responded by calling on the government, once again, to suspend the work of RAD and ongoing audits until the NSIRA finishes its review and legislative changes are made.⁹

You can read more about this issue and take action at iclmg.ca/prejudiced‑audits

Tim McSorley is the National Coordinator of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group

Back to table of contents

Since you’re here…

Footnotes

1
Tim McSorley, The CRA’s Prejudiced Audits: Counter-Terrorism and the Targeting of Muslim Charities in Canada, ICLMG, June 8, 2021: https://iclmg.ca/prejudiced-audits/
2
In mid-2023, the Department of Finance released an updated version of the National Risk Assessment. While it contained new language warning against the assessment’s findings being used as the “basis or justification for discriminatory behavior or action toward specific communities in Canada or abroad,” it continued to situate the highest risk of terrorist financing among charities as being in racialized, diaspora communities or in those operating internationally, and once again focused primarily on so-called “Islamist terrorism” risks, without substantiation of actual terrorist financing https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/fin/programs-programmes/fsp-psf/nira-neri/nira-neri-eng.pdf.
3
Tim McSorley, “Video: The CRA’s Prejudiced Audits with author Tim McSorley,” ICLMG, June 10, 2021: https://iclmg.ca/prejudiced-audits-event/
4
Xan Dagenais, “Stop Prejudiced Audits of Muslim Charities,” ICLMG, June 9, 2021: https://iclmg.ca/stop-prejudiced-audits/
5
Tim McSorley, “Letter to PM Trudeau: Stop the CRA’s prejudiced audits of Muslim charities,” ICLMG, June 23, 2021: https://iclmg.ca/prejudiced-audits-letter/
6
Achau Luu, “Trudeau addresses potential CRA bias against Muslim-led charities,” OMNI, July 26, 2021: https://www.omnitv.ca/there-is-discrimination-in-all-systems-trudeau-addresses-potential-cra-bias-against-muslim-led-charities/
7
Tim McSorley, “Government must take bold action if it is serious about resolving systemic Islamophobia in CRA counter-terrorism audits,” ICLMG, February 10, 2022: https://iclmg.ca/government-must-take-bold-action-if-it-is-serious-about-resolving-systemic-islamophobia-in-cra-counter-terrorism-audits/
8
Tim McSorley, “Canada’s persecution of Muslim charities must stop,” The National Post, December 5, 2022: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/canadas-persecution-of-muslim-charities-must-stop
9
Tim McSorley, “Taxpayers’ Ombudsperson report on systemic bias at Canada Revenue Agency demonstrates need for moratorium, accountability and transparency,” ICLMG, March 27, 2023: https://iclmg.ca/taxpayers-ombudsperson-report-on-systemic-bias-at-canada-revenue-agency/

Loss of Human Rights in the ‘War on Terror’: The Case of Hassan Diab

Hassan Diab (centre left) is joined outside parliament by (left to right) lawyer Don Bayne; Rania Tfaily, professor and spouse of Hassan Diab; Alex Neve, then Secretary General of Amnesty International Canada; Hassan Diab Support Committee member Roger Clark; and ICLMG national coordinator Tim McSorley. Credit: Alex Neve.

By Roger Clark

We tend to see the ‘War on Terror’ largely as a 21st-century phenomenon, inextricably linked to 9/11 and the consequent war in Afghanistan. However, I want to reflect on this in light of a deadly bombing outside a synagogue that took place in Paris some 20 years earlier. Following this attack, Hassan Diab became a convenient target and a timely personification of the terrorist threat, particularly as defined by the West. This resulted in the outrageous miscarriage of justice of which Hassan Diab remains the victim today. France decided to initiate a trial driven by political convenience in April 2023, and shockingly – despite evidence to the contrary – convicted Hassan Diab in absentia that month.

On August 4, 1978, the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism entered into force. Essentially, in so doing, the member countries of the Council of Europe strived to reinforce cooperation both internally – through national prevention policies – and internationally – by modifying existing extradition and mutual assistance arrangements. Specifically, member countries declared themselves:

Aware of the growing concern caused by the increase in acts of terrorism; wishing to take effective measures to ensure that the perpetrators of such acts do not escape prosecution and punishment; convinced that extradition is a particularly effective measure for achieving this result (emphasis added).

Unsurprisingly, Canada was already actively bringing its old and outdated extradition legislation into line with that of its European allies. The resulting Extradition Act came into force in June 1999. Its flaws and failings are now obvious to all, largely as a result of the experience of those who have been caught up in its ‘rubber-stamping’ mechanisms.

A bright light in this judicial darkness is the decision in September 2022 by the parliamentary Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to “undertake a comprehensive study on Extradition Law reform,” seeking recommendations on “how to overhaul thecurrent system.”[1] To coin a phrase, “if it’s broke, you’d better fix it.”

I see as no coincidence that the investigation into the deadly bombing of October 3, 1980, outside the synagogue on rue Copernic in Paris, was suddenly reactivated in 1999. It had lain dormant for almost twenty years. Unsourced and unverified secret intelligence mentioned the name ‘Hassan Diab’. Eight years went by before France requested Hassan’s arrest and extradition.

Now is neither the time nor place to analyze the five-year legal struggle which ended with Hassan Diab being put on a plane to Paris on November 14, 2014. He spent thirty-eight months in the Fleury-Mérogis prison, mostly in solitary confinement. The two anti-terrorist investigating judges in charge of the case concluded that there was no evidence to justify bringing Hassan to trial. He was unconditionally released and returned to Canada on January 15, 2018. Throughout all this, he was never charged and he was never tried. 15 years later, the nightmare continues with his conviction in France.

I’ll close with a brief quote from Justice Robert Maranger’s 2011 decision approving Hassan’s extradition: “…the case presented by the Republic of France against Mr. Diab is a weak case; the prospects of conviction in the context of a fair trial seem unlikely.”

That says it all.

I’d like to thank the ICLMG for its outstanding work over so many years. Tim and Xan continually earn our collective gratitude for building and growing this essential space where collaboration, partnerships and courage in the defence of human rights can thrive and become more effective.

More information & ways to take action at justiceforhassandiab.org & iclmg.ca/diab‑letter

Roger Clark is the former director of Amnesty International (Canada), a longtime activist working for the promotion, protection, and observation of international human rights.

Footnote

[1] The study report has since been published: Randeep Sarai, Reforming Canada’s Extradition System: Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Parliament of Canada, June 2023: https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/JUST/report-13/

Back to table of contents

Since you’re here…

Page 5 of 9« First «...3 456 7...»Last »

Since you’re here…

Footnotes

Share this:

Since you’re here…

Footnotes

Share this:

Since you’re here…

Share this: