Clampdown In Canada - Naomi Klein
same all over | 06.12.2001 12:48
The Next G8 Summit Won't Look Like The Last One
posted by naomi on Wednesday November 28, @02:53AM
by Naomi Klein
http://nologo.org/article.pl?sid=01/11/20/0027248&mode=thread
posted by naomi on Wednesday November 28, @02:53AM
by Naomi Klein
http://nologo.org/article.pl?sid=01/11/20/0027248&mode=thread
Ever since Vancouver hosted the APEC conference in 1997, Canadian politicians have faced a dilemma. How do you clamp down on messy street protests without violating fundamental laws that guarantee freedom of assembly and prohibit political interference with policing?
Post September 11, the answer has revealed itself, as elegant as it is brutal: ditch the laws.
For the past month, civil libertarians and politicians have been duking it out over whether Bill C-36 could be used against political protesters. Justice Minister Anne McLellan says the law is designed to "target terrorists and terrorist groups," and insists it isn't an attempt to crack down on "legitimate political activism and protests," such as the demonstrations during the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City.
In the face of these assurances, as well as minor amendments to the bill, many have relaxed, convinced that the right to dissent is still protected in Canada. That's because they haven't looked at Canada's other anti-terrorism law, Bill C-35.
Bill C-35 has been quietly making its way through parliament, downplayed as a "housekeeping" measure. On the surface, all the bill does is expand the definition of an "internationally protected person", those foreign dignitaries who are granted diplomatic immunity when they come to town. Some opposition MPs have objected to this largesse, saying Canada should not be a safe haven for foreign criminals, even if they are politicians.
These concerns about "protected persons" only tell part of the story. The rest is revealed when C-35 is cross referenced with several clauses in Bill C-36 which classify many actions taken against those "protected persons" as terrorist activities. As Dr. Michael Clinchy of the University of Western Ontario has argued, taken on their own, both sections look benign. But taken together, they form a one-two punch that will knock out the right to protest outside of international meetings.
Call it the Kananaskis Clause, since the legal combo is clearly designed to kick in for the next G8 summit in June, to be held in Kananaskis, Alberta.
It works like this. First, Bill C-35 defines "internationally protected persons" as "representatives of a foreign state that is a member of or participates in an international organization." The idea is taken from the UN Convention granting diplomatic immunity to politicians attending UN conferences. But Bill C-35 expands the UN definition to include foreign visitors attending bilateral or multilateral meetings of any kind. That means delegates to a trade summit with China, an APEC summit, and yes, a G8 meeting. In a pen stroke, these events will be placed behind a shield of diplomatic immunity.
Next, C-36 steps in, defining interference with "protected persons", including visiting dictators, as not just criminal acts but terrorist ones. Bill C-36 states that anyone who commits "a violent attack on the official premises, private accommodation or means of transport of an internationally protected person that is likely to endanger [that person's] life or liberty" has committed a terrorist act. In fact, anyone who "threatens" to commit any of these acts is guilty of terrorism, and will lose many of their constitutional rights as outlined in the rest of the bill.
These vague definitions raise many questions: is blocking a road on the way to a summit an attack on the "means of transportation" of "internationally protected persons" that restricts their "liberty?" Was pushing against the chain link fence that surrounded so much of Quebec City during the Summit of the Americas in April "a violent attack on the official premises" of a protected conference?
If both C-35 and C-36 become law (which looks very likely) and a group puts out a flyer announcing its intention to block the road on the way into Kananaskis (a pledge some have already made), its members could be charged with committing a terrorist act, a crime punishable by up 5 years in prison. Anyone who follows through on the threat and blocks the road - a common tactic during strikes, summits, and native blockades - could face up to 14 years in prison.
To be clear, the question is not whether activists have the right to inconvenience conference delegates or push against chain link fences. Under current laws, many protesters are already facing criminal charges for precisely these activities. The question is whether these are acts of terrorism, on legal par with hijacking planes and planting bombs.
If Minister McLellan is to be believed when she says that her government is not trying to use the anti-terrorism campaign to outlaw political protest, she has more amendments to make. She needs to take out the Kananaskis clause.
same all over
Comments
Hide the following 3 comments
Info on Canadian C-36 'terrorism' Bill
06.12.2001 12:53
Charging someone with terrorism will be possible for the first time in Canada because Bill C-36 defines terrorism and makes it punishable within the Canada Criminal Code.
C-36 defines terrorist activity as the following:
"to cause serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of lawful advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work..." (Michael Valpy. "Burn This Bill". The Globe and Mail. October 27, 2001. Page F7).
The bill also defines terrorist acts as "those which are violent or risk the health or safety of any part of the public, if those acts have a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause; and if the intent is to intimidate the public, or a segment of the public, or compelling a person, a government or organization to do or to refrain from doing any act." (Sonia Verma. "Anti-Terror Bill a Rush Job". The Toronto Star. November 11, 2001.)
Implications of this definition:
1. Wayne MacKay, who is president of Mt. Allison University and was asked by the Senate to analyze the bill, said that much civil dissent has an unlawful element. For example, trespassing, unlawful cooperation, wildcat strikes, resisting arrest and obstructing justice are all unlawful. (Michael Valpy. "Burn This Bill". The Globe and Mail. October 27, 2001. Page F7).
2. The Canadian Labour Congress wants to narrow the scope of activities to clearly exclude "peaceful civil disobedience, including advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work". (Canadian Labour Congress. "Labour on C-36: can a picket line be "terrorist activity"?"
3. The British Columbia information and privacy commissioner, David Loukidelis, said that "raucous protests, major strikes, and political dissent could be caught under the broad definition of terrorism" (Jim Beatty. "B.C. Privacy Watchdog Joins Critics of Anti-Terrorism Bill". Vancouver Sun. October 20, 2001. Page A12)
C-36 will make it is easier for law enforcement to:
1. arrest people suspected of terrorism
2. use electronic surveillance, specifically the use of wiretaps can be extended to last one year (2 months is currently the norm), and the current requirement to tell the suspect about the electronic surveillance after it happened can be delayed up to 3 years.
C-36 will allow the police to:
1. arrest someone without a warrant, if the police officer thinks he/she is preventing a terrorist attack
2. detain suspected terrorists for up to 72 hours without pressing charges
3. store the DNA of terrorists
4. keep lists of terrorists and their organizations
5. freeze or seize assets of terrorists and their supporters
6. force people to provide information related to terrorism to an investigating judge, even if charges haven't been pressed or a crime hasn't been committed
C-36 will also affect other legislation, such as:
1. the Income Tax Act would strip organizations that claim to be charities of their charitable status if they support terrorist groups
2. the Security of Information Act (previously called the Official Secrets Act) would be modified to address the threat of foreigners and terrorists who spy on Canada
3. the National Defence Act would allow the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) to gather information on terrorist groups.
4. the Access to Information Act (it currently allows people to request federal records for a $5 fee) would permit the government to "issue a certificate at any time which would prohibit disclosure of information for the purpose of protecting international relations or national defence or security." (Jim Bronskill and Shannon Kari. "'A Frontal Attack' on the Right to Know: Anti-Terrorism Law Will Aid Government Secrecy: Watchdog". Ottawa Citizen. October 20, 2001. Page A1)
Public Consultation
The bill was rushed through at the end and meant "that the usual process of public consultation with concerned community groups was skipped over before Bill C-36 was first read in Parliament on October 15." (Sonia Verma. "Anti-Terror Bill a Rush Job". The Toronto Star. November 11, 2001.)
Sunset Clause (expiration date)
The Senate has proposed a 5 year sunset clause (an expiration date for the more serious parts of the bill), but as the far as I know, one hasn't been set yet.
Key Parts of Bill C-36 (this is quoted verbatim from the Canadian Labour Congress' Submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights Regarding Bill C-36, Anti-Terrorism Act. It's a great overall summary with clear analysis at
1. Investigative Hearings - a person must answer questions outside of a formal trial and in the absence of any charges having been laid again the person With the consent of the Attorney General, a judge can compel a person to answer questions if the judge believes there are reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorism offence has been committed or that such an offence may be committed. A person may not refuse to answer on the grounds of self-incrimination although the information obtained may not be used against the person in a criminal proceeding.
2. Preventative Detention - the police have also been given significant new powers to arrest and detain individuals for up to 72 hours without a warrant or laying a charge. With the consent of the Attorney General, a peace officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person if they believe on reasonable grounds that a terrorist activity will be carried out, or that the detention of a person is necessary to prevent a terrorist activity from being carried out. The person must be brought before a judge within 24 hours and released within a further 48 hours unless a charge is laid.
3. Public Exclusion from Trials - The Act expands the list of reasons why the public may be barred from aspects of a trial, a ban may be put on publication of proceedings, provisions for testimony by "vulnerable" witnesses and publication of participation of justice system participants. The list of existing reasons is expanded to include 'injury to international relations or national defence security'. As with the existing grounds the judge has to balance those interests with 'the right to a fair and public hearing'.
4. Access to Information and Privacy Protection - The Act gives significant new powers to the Attorney General to exempt ministries, departments or individuals from the provisions of the Access to Information Act, Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Privacy Act. The potential for abuse of these powers is enormous. Under current legislation, if a government minister or agency wishes to withhold information or otherwise be excluded from the Act, there are provisions for a complaint and review process and explicitly statutory rights to independent judicial oversight. These will be replaced by the unilateral decision of a cabinet minister who can exempt the department of one of his colleagues from the provisions of one of the Acts and there is no independent review.
5. Spying on Canadians - The Canadian Security Establishment is empowered 'to acquire and use information from the global information infrastructure for the purpose of providing foreign intelligence, in accordance with Government of Canada intelligence priorities [and] to provide technical and operational assistance to federal law enforcement and security agencies in the performance of their lawful duties.'
The Bill also provides that the activities 'shall not be directed at Canadian or any person in Canada.' However, the Minister may authorize the CSE 'to intercept private communications, if satisfied that the interception will be directed at foreign entities located outside Canada'. There is no provision for independent review or judicial oversight so that once more, the authority to breach the protection that Canadians have under the law is given to a member of cabinet and not an independent judge.
same all over
Similar in the US of course.
06.12.2001 13:16
in the New York Times
Ashcroft Seeks Looser Limits on FBI Spying
U.S. religious, political groups may lose civil liberties safeguards
by David Johnston and Don Van Natta Jr.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 30 — Attorney General John Ashcroft is considering a plan to relax restrictions on the F.B.I.'s spying on religious and political organizations in the United States, senior government officials said today.
The proposal would loosen one of the most fundamental restrictions on the conduct of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and would be another step by the Bush administration to modify civil-liberties protections as a means of defending the country against terrorists, the senior officials said.
more...
m hor
On a happier note.
06.12.2001 13:52
The Global Justice Movement: Alive and Kicking
by Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman
Since September 11, the media have rushed to write obituaries for the movement against corporate globalization.
Don't believe everything you read.
The movement is alive and kicking.
While media commentators have rushed to bury the global justice movement, the many strands of the movement against corporate globalization have been busy organizing, campaigning, lobbying, demonstrating -- and, frequently, winning.
* As the world's trade ministers huddled in Doha, Qatar last month in an effort to fashion agreement to launch a new round of World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations, activists around the world demonstrated against the trade organization. In place of a new round of negotiations, the protesters demanded the WTO's power be curtailed or the institution abolished altogether.
In the United States, demonstrators hit the streets in Washington, D.C., Chicago, Harrisburg, Madison, Wisconsin, New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Sacramento.
Even more impressively, protests and meetings were held across the globe -- in Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada (in a dozen cities), the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany (in more than two dozen towns), Honduras, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Malaysia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, the Philippines, Russia, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey and the UK. In Thailand, more than 1,500 farmers, union members and HIV/AIDS activists called for the WTO to get out of agriculture and medicines.
* In Doha itself, the campaign to promote access to essential medicines in poor countries scored a significant victory. Fortified by protests in recent years from HIV/AIDS activists and a torrent of technical information from advocacy groups, the developing countries extracted from the rich countries a pledge that "the TRIPS Agreement [the WTO's intellectual property agreement] does not and should not prevent Members from taking measures to protect public health." All WTO countries joined in "affirm[ing] that the Agreement can and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of WTO Members' right to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all."
This declaration will provide developing countries with the political space they need to begin introducing generic versions of on-patent medicines, including drugs to treat HIV/AIDS. Because generics are priced dramatically below the brand-name companies' products, the result may be that millions gain access to life-saving treatment they would otherwise be denied.
* On November 13, a coalition of environmental organizations, including Forest Ethics and the Dogwood Alliance, coordinated a day of action against Staples, featuring more than 200 demonstrations at Staples stores. The protesters demanded the company stop selling paper made from endangered forests and switch to recycled sources.
Staples -- which, according to the environmental groups, says that 97 percent of the paper it sells come from forests -- has responded to the Stop Staples campaign by introducing some recycled paper lines in its stores and sponsoring America Recycles Day.
The message from activists: "Staples must get out of the business of destroying forests," says Forest Ethics' Todd Paglia. "Putting a couple new recycled products on the shelves and buying their way into America Recycles Day doesn’t save forests."
* On November 20, thousands massed in the streets of Ottawa for a militant demonstration against the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank.
Following September 11, the two institutions cancelled the meetings they had scheduled for late September in Washington, D.C. -- where they would have been greeted by tens of thousands of demonstrators demanding open meetings, debt cancellation for poor countries, an end to structural adjustment, and the elimination of lending for socially and environmentally dangerous projects, like oil, mining, gas and large dams.
When the institutions rescheduled scaled-down meetings with little notice, activists in Ottawa mobilized on the fly -- again showing that the proponents of corporate globalization that there is nowhere they can hide. When they meet, the people will take to the streets.
* This week, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives is pushing a vote on fast track, which would give the president unbridled negotiating authority to expand NAFTA to all of the Americas, as well as the power to negotiate other bilateral and multilateral treaties that will drag down living standards in the United States and around the world.
But a coalition of labor, environmentalists, consumer groups and many others has out-organized the Big Business interests supporting fast track. As of this writing, it appears fast track -- if indeed the vote is held -- will be defeated.
[And to make sure that's so, U.S. residents should call their Member of Congress at 1-800-393-1082 (just give your zip code, and you will be connected to your representative) and urge them to vote "no" on fast track.]
This is just a small sampling of the global justice movement's accomplishments in the last month.
The tens of thousands who turn out for its major demonstrations are just the most visible manifestation of a movement that continues to gain strength. The global justice movement is a majoritarian movement, in the United States and around the world. There will be more major mobilizations in the months and years ahead, but there will also be more coordinated international days of action, more boycotts, more pressure campaigns, more lobbying -- and more victories. Not only does this movement have staying power, it is going to win.
Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter. Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor and co-director Essential Action. They are co-authors of Corporate Predators: The Hunt for MegaProfits and the Attack on Democracy (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1999).
m hor