News from ICLMG

ICLMG testifies on Islamophobia in Canada at Senate committee

ICLMG’s National Coordinator, Tim McSorley, presented on Islamophobia in Canada at the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights on March 20, 2023. Read the transcript of his intervention below.

Watch the full session here

The other witnesses were:

  • Fahad Ahmad, Assistant Professor, Toronto Metropolitan University (As an Individual)
  • Thomas Juneau, Associate Professor, University of Ottawa (As an Individual)
  • Barbara Jackman, Lawyer, Jackman and Associates (As an Individual)
  • Abdul Nakua, Executive Member (Muslim Association of Canada)

TRANSCRIPT

Thank you, Senators, for having me.

Our coalition’s focus is on the impacts of national security and anti-terrorism laws in Canada, and our country’s role and actions throughout the so-called War on Terror, on civil liberties and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and international human rights agreements.

Through our work, we have observed the constant and undeniable problem of racial, religious and political profiling, abetted by the vague and overreaching definitions of terrorism and national security found in Canada’s laws and policies. The most pervasive of this profiling has been the targeting of Muslims, Arabs, and those perceived to be Muslim or Arab, as the leading threat to the security of Canadians, despite evidence to the contrary.

This systemic Islamophobia has had a tangible, negative impact on Muslims not just in Canada but around the world.

When thinking of this impact, we believe it is important that we remember the victims and survivors of these laws, and listen to their words. Those who have directly experienced the most drastic forms of rights-violations must be included in our policy discussions if we hope to truly address these problems.

I want to share some of the words of Mohamedou Ould Slahi, who was renditioned from his home in Mauritania, and eventually imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay prison for 14 years, where he faced horrific acts of mistreatment and torture. All of this was based on faulty intelligence provided to the United States by Canadian intelligence agencies. Last May, Mr. Slahi told reporters with the Middle East Eye:

“I want Canada to tell the world this was a mistake… I want to clear my name. This is very important to me. …

“Without the Canadian government, I would never have been kidnapped. Without the Canadian government, I would never have been selected for the torture programme. …

“Instead of the protection I was seeking, I was literally thrown under the bus. …

“I just wanted an apology and I want them to give me back my papers that they took away, because I need a life – because my country won’t give me a passport. …

“I want to be able to go to Canada freely, and meet my readers and meet my supporters, and do my talks in all the cities in Canada. Because I love the Canadian people.”

Canada has ignored his request for an apology, forcing Mr. Slahi to pursue justice the only way he can: through the courts. His is just one tragic, and enraging, case among many.

Others who have also faced mistreatment or torture either at the hands of or with the complicity of Canada in the name of counter-terrorism include: Maher Arar, Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad El Maati, Muayyed Nureddin, Omar Khadr, Mohamed Harkat, Hassan Diab, Abousfian Abdelrazik, Benamar Benatta, Khalid Awan, and more. It is no coincidence that these are all Muslim men.

Over the past two decades, studies have repeatedly documented the disproportionate impact of national security measures on Muslims in Canada. For example, a 2019 study found that 98% of individuals prosecuted under Criminal Code anti-terrorism provisions have been Muslims or linked to Muslim groups. The vast majority of these cases did not involve any executed act of violence, whereas most white perpetrators of actual mass violence have not been prosecuted as terrorists. Our own research has shown the disproportionate, unsupported and prejudiced targeting of Muslim charities by the CRA under the guise of countering terrorist financing.

Other examples include:

  • Discrimination and profiling in immigration
  • Racial profiling at the border and while traveling, including via the Passenger Protect Program (No Fly List)
  • Information sharing with rights-violating regimes
  • Harassment of Muslims at work, on campus and in their places of worship

In recent years, laws like the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015 and the National Security Act, 2017 have expanded national security powers without adequate rights-protections, transparency and oversight, and have not gone far enough to address the profiling and systemic discrimination faced by Muslims in Canada.

If the federal government truly wishes to address Islamophobia, it must forego policies that are predicated on the vague and politically malleable idea of “terrorism”.

Instead, what is needed is legislative reform, real accountability, and justice for the survivors of rights violations in the name of counter-terrorism. This includes

  1. Rescinding rights-violating anti-terrorism laws, including CSIS threat disruption powers
  2. Increase resources for and augment the powers of review and oversight agencies, including independent review of the CBSA
  3. Establishing clear accountability mechanisms, including to address CSIS breaches of duty of candour
  4. Mandate the collection of disaggregated race- and religion-based data to inform policy
  5. End the prejudiced audits of Muslim charities under the guise of combatting terrorist financing in the charitable sector
  6. Re-examine resources granted to national security agencies with a goal of re-allocating resources towards solutions that promote mental and physical health and well-being, and combat exclusion, prejudices, discrimination, and poverty

Finally, justice for the victims of counter-terrorism abuses would show a concrete change in approach and undermine the pervasive, unfounded image of Muslims posing a threat to the security of Canada. This must include but is not limited to:

  1. Immediate action to safely repatriate all Canadians currently detained in North Eastern Syria
  2. Lifting Mohamed Harkat’s security certificate and ending his deportation proceedings
  3. Calling on the French government to end all proceedings against Dr. Hassan Diab and committing to no new extradition.
  4. The resolution of the case of Mohamedou Ould Slahi and an apology from the Canadian government for its role in his mistreatment and torture
  5. The resolution of the case of Abousfian Abdelrazik and an apology from the Canadian government for its role in his mistreatment and torture
  6. Requesting a transfer of Abdulrahman El Bahnasawy from US prison to Canada, where he could at a minimum be supported by his family, community and mental health services while he serves out his sentence

Thank you for your time.

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

National security review of Canada Revenue Agency welcome, but should not delay immediate action

OTTAWA, March 15, 2023 – The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG) is welcoming the announcement from the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA) that it will be reviewing the activities of the Canada Revenue Agency’s Review and Analysis Division (RAD). This was a key recommendation in ICLMG’s report on the CRA’s prejudiced audits of Muslim charities, released in June 2021.

However, this review should not be used by the government as an excuse to further delay action to address the documented and ongoing systemic discrimination faced within the Muslim community. This includes the immediate suspension of RAD audits.

“For too long, the CRA and RAD have operated without adequate review or oversight. We know that in national security, secrecy allows problems to fester and is used to obscure the harmful impacts of counter-terrorism practices. So we are glad to see the NSIRA taking on this important task,” said Tim McSorley, national coordinator of the ICLMG.  “At the same time, for two years the government has had documented evidence of grave problems with the work carried out by RAD, and has failed to take concrete action. This review cannot be an excuse to delay further. RAD’s work must be halted.”

In July 2021, following the publication of ICLMG’s report, among others, and the issue being a central concern at the federal National Summit on Islamophobia, Minister of Revenue Diane Lebouthillier conferred a study of the issue to Office of the Taxpayers’ Ombudsperson.

However, The Taxpayers’ Ombudsperson, François Boileau, revealed at a hearing of the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights in November 2022 that his office was barred from accessing key information and documents needed to carry out its review for national security reasons, among other issues.

The NSIRA has the necessary security clearance to be able to access these documents; this is why the ICLMG had recommended in its report that the NSIRA was the appropriate body to investigate this issue.

The ICLMG also recognizes the Taxpayers’ Ombudsperson’s ongoing and dedicated work on this issue, and believes that the Ombudsperson’s report will provide important, complementary findings and recommendations to the eventual NSIRA report.

The ICLMG also continues to call on the federal government to act on the other recommendations in its report, namely:

  • That the Minister of National Revenue declare an immediate moratorium on the targeted audit of Muslim charities by RAD until the review has concluded. This does not preclude the audits of Muslim charities selected at random by the CRA outside of RAD.
  • That the Ministry of Finance revisit the anti-terror regulatory, policy and legislative landscape, particularly the 2015 National Risk Assessment (NRA) and its impact, particularly on the Muslim community.
  • That the federal government amend the NSIRA Act to allow for complaints from the public regarding the CRA’s national security-related activities.
  • 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 full report is available at: https://iclmg.ca/prejudiced-audits/

More information:
Tim McSorley, national coordinator
International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
(613) 241-5298

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

Party leaders urged to vote against the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act

March 14, 2023

TO:
The Honourable Pierre Poilievre, P.C., M.P., Leader of the Opposition
Yves-François Blanchet M.P., Bloc Quebecois Leader
Jagmeet Singh M.P., NDP Leader
Elizabeth May M.P., Green Party Parliamentary Leader

RE: Letter to party leaders urging vote against AIDA at second reading

Dear Party Leaders, 

We, the undersigned organizations and individuals, write to express our concerns regarding the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA), part of Bill C-27: An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts (Digital Charter Implementation Act 2022).

As illustrated by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy, and Ethics (ETHI) report on Facial Recognition Technology and the Growing Power of Artificial Intelligence, regulation is urgently needed to safeguard against the devastating impact to the privacy and human rights of Canadians. The application of AI systems have a highly significant and potentially negative impact in sensitive areas, most notably healthcare, employment, immigration, border security, and education.

However, we do not believe that AIDA, in its current iteration, will address these challenges. While regulation is urgent, AIDA offers an inadequate response and would cause more harm than good. It is important that we get it right. 

The Speaker of the House of Commons has already ruled that AIDA is sufficiently different from the rest of C-27 to deserve its own vote. We believe it should not only be studied separately, but re-thought completely. As a result, we are urging your parties to vote against AIDA at second reading, allowing the rest of C-27 to move forward. A few key reasons:

  • The clear absence of public consultations has made it hard for civil society groups, researchers and historically marginalized communities to significantly contribute to the legislation.1 
  • Many important pieces of the Act are left to regulation, and will be decided on only after it is passed. This will result in less scrutiny and transparency.2 
  • The proposed oversight is arbitrary and the enforcement mechanism is fragile.3
  • The Act fails to apply to government institutions, including national security agencies. This opens the door to abuses by law enforcement agencies like the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s (RCMP) unlawful use of Clearview AI’s facial recognition technology. While we recognize that it is common for separate legislation to regulate the private and public sectors, we believe this should be reconsidered in light of blurring boundaries when it comes to AI.4 
  • The Act does not address the significant human rights implications of algorithmic systems.5 

While aspects of these problems could be addressed during committee study, we would be concerned about three issues:

  • That, as part of a larger study of C-27, AIDA will not receive the necessary degree of scrutiny that it requires.
  • That the committee cannot engage in the level of public consultation that is necessary to address the flaws in this bill and which the government should have undertaken before tabling legislation.
  • That key amendments necessary for addressing the flaws in the Act would be deemed to go beyond what is possible at committee, for example applying the Act to government institutions or establishing an adequate, independent oversight body.

Sincerely, 

Organizations:
International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
OpenMedia
Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic
Tech Reset Canada
Digital Public
Ligue des droits et libertés
Public Interest Advocacy Centre 

Individuals:
Christelle Tessono, Tech Policy Researcher
Yuan Stevens, Legal and Policy Advisor
Renée Sieber, Associate Professor at McGill University
Ana Brandusescu, Artificial Intelligence Governance Researcher
Blair Attard-Frost, PhD Candidate at University of Toronto Faculty of Information
Thomas Linder, OpenNorth
Maurice Jones, Concordia University
Fenwick McKelvey, Communication Studies, Concordia University
Luke Stark, Western University


  1. Wylie, Bianca. “ISED’s Bill C-27 + Aida. Part 1: Tech, Human Rights, and the Year 2000.” Medium. Medium, October 9, 2022. And Tessono, Christelle, Yuan Stevens, Momin M. Malik, Sonja Solomun, Supriya Dwivedi & Sam Andrey. AI Oversight, Accountability and Protecting Human Rights: Comments on Canada’s Proposed Artificial Intelligence and Data Act. Cybersecure Policy Exchange. November, 2022.
  2. Scassa, Teresa. “Statutory Madlibs – Canada’s Artificial Intelligence and Data Act.” Teresa Scassa – Blog, July 20, 2022.
  3. “Not Fit For Purpose: Canada Deserves Much Better,” Center for Digital Rights October 28, 2022.
  4. “Police Use of Facial Recognition Technology in Canada and the Way Forward.” Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, June 10, 2021.
  5. As discussed in the Cybersecure Policy Exchange and Center for Digital Rights reports.

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

Page 15 of 103« First...10...1314151617...203040...Last »