Credit: Hassan Diab Support Committee

In early December 2024, the ICLMG coalition wrote to Carleton University interim president Dr. Jerry Tomberlin, in response to a smear campaign calling on Dr. Hassan Diab to be fired from the university. In our letter, we asked the university to issue a statement in support of Dr. Diab’s innocence, take measures to protect him and his family from harassment, and ensure his continued employment at Carleton University.

The university failed to reply. In the meantime, the National Post ran an article, in early January 2025, about the fact that Dr. Diab would not be teaching at Carleton University for the Winter 2025 semester. The article repeated the allegations of the smear campaign against Dr. Diab, with proponents claiming victory that Dr. Diab would not be teaching. In the article, the university failed once again to defend Dr. Diab, and in an ambiguous response, stated only that he was “not in the employment of Carleton.”

This is despite the university knowing full well, as has been shared by Dr. Diab himself, that he was not scheduled to teach at the university in the Winter Semester in a decision made long before the smear campaign began.

In response to the university’s clear failure to share all relevant facts, or to defend a member of its faculty against harassment and attacks, we sent a follow-up letter on January 22nd, 2025, to Carleton University President Dr. Wisdom Tettey. In it, we once again provided clear information on the miscarriage of justice faced by Dr. Diab, and called on the University to, “take action to correct the record regarding both Dr. Diab’s innocence, the conditions under which he parted ways with Carleton University, and that he will be given fair consideration for re-employment at Carleton University, should the case arise.”

The university’s response to our follow-up, from Deputy Provost Dr. Catherine Khordoc, failed once again to address our concerns, simply repeating that Dr. Diab is not in the employment of Carleton University, and that they could not discuss the issue further due to privacy concerns. This deflection ignores that our request was not to discuss private information related to Dr. Diab, but for the university to set the record straight and commit to doing better in the future.

In our response, we write:

“It is incredibly disappointing that a public institution like Carleton University has not taken a more clear and proactive stance in defending a faculty member who has lived through a horrendous ordeal for nearly 20 years now. Through our coalition’s work on the impacts of false and misleading accusations of participation in acts of terrorism, we have seen how these kinds of baseless allegations can completely undermine an individual’s livelihood, as well as their most basic rights. As noted in our letter, there is ample evidence demonstrating not only that the case against Dr. Diab was fundamentally flawed and would not have succeeded except for France’s exceptional laws regarding counterterrorism cases, but there is also clear evidence that he was not in France at the moment of the attack. Hassan Diab is clearly innocent, so Carleton University should act accordingly – especially given how he was treated by Carleton University administration when he was first arrested in 2008.”

We remain open to further discussions with Carleton University administration, and committed to ensuring that the nearly 20-year ordeal faced by Dr. Diab comes to an end.

Please take action and share widely:

1. Send a letter to the Prime Minister, Minister of Justice, your MP and other officials demanding they act to help achieve justice for Hassan Diab: iclmg.ca/diab‑letter

2. Tell Carleton University: Stand up for Dr. Hassan Diab and Protect him from Harassment and Threats: https://actionnetwork.org/letters/carleton-university-do-not-fire-hassan-diab

Thank you!

January 29, 2025, OTTAWA – The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG) expresses mixed feelings with the release of the report from the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference, led by Justice Marie-Josée Hogue. The report does an exemplary job of investigating and setting the record straight on the impact of foreign interference in Canada, making it clear that, while interference is a serious and ongoing concern, some of the most heated and sensational accusations – that our institutions are under existential threat or that there are traitors in parliament – are incorrect and suffered from exaggeration or inaccuracy. However, the report disappointingly fails to engage with some of the key concerns arising from this heated debate, including increases in hateful and xenophobic rhetoric, and the use of these unsupported allegations to justify the rushed adoption of significant legislation that will have clear and negative impacts on fundamental rights and freedoms in Canada.

“In Spring 2024, Parliament rammed the Countering Foreign Interference Act through both the House of Commons and Senate with little to no time to study the bill, extremely limited debate, and with legislators saying their hands were tied when it came to important proposed amendments to ensure that fundamental freedoms were protected while addressing foreign interference,” said Tim McSorley, national coordinator of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group. “This was justified by what we now know were unfounded or exaggerated concerns regarding the breadth and depth of the impact of foreign interference in Canada.”

He further stated that: “The Inquiry rightly highlighted that the debate around foreign interference has decreased trust in public institutions. However, it is deeply disappointing that the Inquiry did not take this opportunity to urge lawmakers, going forward, to ensure that measures to counter foreign interference are the subject of robust, in-depth debate, analysis and amendment, and to clearly state that precautions must be taken to ensure fundamental freedoms are protected.”

The ICLMG co-organized open letters to MPs and to Senators, signed by more than ten leading civil liberties, human rights, legal and free expression organizations in Canada raising concerns about Bill C-70 before its adoption, and launched an online letter-writing campaign for the public to express their views. The ICLMG also raised these concerns in appearances before the House of Commons and Senate committees studying the bill, and submitted a policy brief to the Hogue Commission outlining the problems with the government’s approach to Bill C-70, the Countering Foreign Interference Act, in particular.

Among the concerns shared:

• The expedited study of Bill C-70 – an almost unprecedented six weeks – meant that there was no time for in-depth analysis or drafting of briefs, severely limiting the ability of civil society organizations and experts to weigh in.
• Parliamentarians expressed that while they understood concerns, they were unable to formulate and present amendments on such a short timeline, and worried that amendments would further delay the process.
• While action to address foreign interference is necessary, it was premature to adopt legislation before knowing the full scope of the problems.
• Heated rhetoric, based on classified reports and leaked documents, created an atmosphere of fear and panic which was used to justify speedy action at the expense of careful examination. We now know, thanks to the Inquiry’s report, that these concerns were overblown.
• Several parts of Bill C-70, including amendments to the CSIS Act and the Criminal Code, new foreign interference offences, changes to the Canada Evidence Act, and the proposed Foreign Influence Registry, contained provisions that were overly broad, presented threats to freedom of expression, assembly and association, and undermined access to fair and open court proceedings.

Despite these concerns, the ICLMG welcomed several of the Commission’s recommendations, including addressing problems of over-classification of government documentation, ensuring greater public transparency around foreign interference, the need for greater caution around intelligence sharing, and the need to address acts of transnational repression.

The ICLMG also noted the proposal for a new agency to collect and monitor open-source intelligence. Any proposal to do so will need to take into careful consideration the potential of increased surveillance of Charter-protected communication and expression, especially given existing issues regarding efforts by national security agencies to collect and analyze “publicly available” or online material.

The ICLMG will continue to raise these concerns and monitor the creation and application of new laws and policies as well as the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission and how the Canadian government addresses foreign interference.

Crédit: André Querry

Written by Tim McSorley, National Coordinator, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group

Translated by Barbara Ulrich, translator

Originally published in the December 2024 issue “Imaginer une ville des droits humains” of the Droits et libertés magazine by La Ligue des droits et libertés. Subscribe or purchase a copy here (in French only).

Worries around “foreign interference” continue to make headlines across Canada and Quebec, generating intense scrutiny, controversy and calls to act as quickly as possible to address what the national security agencies have hyperbolically called an “existential threat” to Canada.

There are clearly instances of foreign interference that raise urgent concerns. The revelations, for example, that members of the Sikh community in Canada are being targeted for harassment, violence and even murder by agents of the Indian government, along with other threats of transnational repression of human rights defenders in Canada and their families.

But too much of this debate has also been characterized by xenophobia, racism, political partisanship and one-upmanship, and a mad dash to bring in severe and wide-ranging new laws that will have significant impacts on fundamental rights in Canada, including freedom of expression and association, but also on protest and dissent, international cooperation and solidarity, academic freedom and freedom of the press.

Much of this has also been driven by secret intelligence leaked by anonymous sources, whose accuracy and provenance remains in serious question. Some of this has been addressed by the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference, but with the inquiry’s final report yet to come, the trustworthiness of these leaks remain in question.

Rights violated, once again

Despite these outstanding questions, the government’s response has focused almost exclusively on granting new powers to national security agencies and creating significant new offences that will result in over-reach and the over-securitization of responses to this issue. Our work on the impact of national security and anti-terrorism laws since 2002 has shown the importance of clear definitions, evidence-based decision-making, and responses that are necessary and proportionate.

Failing to adhere to these principles inevitably undermines fundamental rights and with it democratic involvement and participation. The result is the marginalization of a variety of organizations and communities, especially those from racialized, Indigenous or immigrant populations, as well as those involved in dissent, protest and challenging the status quo.

Law adopted at full speed

The most glaring example is the adoption, in haste, of Bill C-70 – the Countering Foreign Interference Act – in June 2024, which made significant changes to Canada’s national security, intelligence and criminal justice systems.

A bill of such breadth required in-depth study. However, in the rush to address issues of foreign interference as quickly as possible, the bill passed through the entire legislative process in less than two months, which is nearly unheard of.

This astoundingly short study resulted in many aspects of the legislation going unstudied and areas of concern going unaddressed: less time meant that experts and organizations with limited resources had to rush their analysis of the bill, and made submitting briefs and appropriate amendments nearly impossible. Even when members of parliament and senators recognized concerns, the refrain was that the bill’s study could not be delayed in order to adopt new rules before an eventual election, which with a minority government could happen at any time. Continue reading →