Who's Online

We have 559 guests online

Popular

4105 readings
C - 51: NEED TO REDEFINE WHAT CONSTITUTES SECURITY, THREATS AND TERRORISM PDF Print E-mail
Justice News
Posted by Joan Russow
Saturday, 11 April 2015 11:10

NEED TO REDEFINE WHAT CONSTITUTES SECURITY, THREATS AND TERRORISM

 

By Joan Russow Global Compliance Research project

 

Hundreds gathered on Parliament Hill, protesting the government's proposed anti-terrorism legislation, Bill C-51, Saturday, May 30, 2015.

 

 

Hundreds gathered on Parliament Hill, protesting the government’s proposed anti-terrorism legislation, Bill C-51, Saturday, May 30, 2015.

 

 

 

 I sense an ominous future with Canadian C-51 (anti –Terrorism Act)  and with the Harper government’s misuse of Article 51- self defence – of the charter of the United Nations  to justify the invasion of Syria. C-51 will violate individuals’ enshrined rights and freedoms, and the misuse of Article 51 will have serious international consequences.

The Harper government falsely believes that through C51 and the use of article 51 security will be achieved, threats against Canada will end and terrorism will be thwarted.

 

Part of C-51 is  SISA

 

SECURITY OF CANADA INFORMATION SHARING ACT (SISA)

 

Threats to security

 

“activity that undermines the security of Canada”[1]means any activity, including any of the following activities, if it undermines the sovereignty, security or territorial integrity of Canada or the lives or the security of the people of Canada:[2][3]

(a) interference with the capability of the Government of Canada in relation to intelligence, defence, border operations, public safety, the administration of justice, diplomatic or consular relations, or the economic or financial stability of Canada;

(b) changing or unduly influencing a government in Canada by force or unlawful means;

(c) espionage, sabotage or covert foreign-influenced activities;

(d) terrorism;

(e) proliferation of nuclear, chemical, radiological or biological weapons;

(f) interference with critical infrastructure;

(g) interference with the global information infrastructure, as defined in section 273.61 of the National Defence Act;

(h) an activity that causes serious harm to a person or their property because of that person’s association with Canada; and

(i) an activity that takes place in Canada and undermines the security of another state.

For greater certainty, it does not includelawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression. ( Lawful has been removed)

 

Again what would constitute the threats to security of the above sections marked in red.

 

Canadian Civil Rights Association  stated in  that the bill C-51 must not pass.  And in their brief they pointed out the shortcomings of SISA:

 

Security of Canada Information Sharing Act Bill C-51 creates the new Security of Canada Information Sharing Act (“SISA”). The SISA provides for unprecedented collection and dissemination of information across State agencies, without enforceable privacy safeguards, and without limiting the collection of information to ‘terrorist activities’. 1 As such, information on law-abiding, innocent Canadians can be swept up in this vast net, and shared across at least 17 national agencies and with foreign States and private actors.

 

WE NEED TO REDEFINE WHAT CONSTITUTES TRUE SECURITY

 

  True security is not militarized security, or collective security or "human security which has been used as various pretexts for war.

 

For years states have used various pretexts to justify the invasion of and aggression against other  states; For example, the pretext of “human security” was used to justify the invasion of Iraq in 1991, then “humanitarian intervention” was used to justify the invasion of Kosovo;  so-called  “self  Defense” (Art. 51of the UN Charter),  to justify the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, then  "Pre-emptive/ preventive" attack to justify the invasion of Iraq  in 2003, finally  it was “the responsibility to protect”  to justify the intervention in ’Haiti in 2004, and  the invasion of Libya in 2011. Even in 2013, after all the previous pretexts had been discredited, a new pretext was proposed, the “Will to Intervene” which had just been waiting to be used to justify an intervention into Mali in 2013. 

 

True security is Common Security; Common security through the adherence to the rule of international law

In 1982, Olaf Palme, in the Palme Commission Report on Disarmament and Security, report introduced the concept of common security which could be extended to embody the following objectives:

 

*       to achieve a state of peace, and disarmament; through reallocation of military expenses and the delegitimization of war

·     to create a global structure that respects the rule of law and the International Court of Justice;

·    to enable socially equitable and environmentally sound employment, and ensure the right to development and social justice;

·       to promote and fully guarantee respect for human rights including labour rights, women’s rights civil and political rights, indigenous rights, social and cultural rights – right to food, right to housing, right to safe drinking water and sewage treatment, right to education and right to universally accessible not for profit health care system;

·                to ensure the preservation and protection of the environment, the respect for the inherent worth of nature beyond human purpose, the reduction of the ecological footprint moving away from the current model of unsustainable and excessive overconsumption

 

 

C51 CHANGES TO THE CSIS ACT

CSIS Act , s. 2: "threats to the security of Canada" means:

1.   espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage,

2.   foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person,

3.   activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political objective within Canada or a foreign state, and

4.   activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of, the constitutionally established system of government in Canada.

But does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjunction with any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d). 1984, c. 21, s. 2.

 

 

 

OLD CSIS ACT

·        old CSIS act information may be gathered, primarily under the authority of section

12 of the CSIS Act, only on those individuals or organizations

suspected of engaging in one of the following types of activity that

threaten the security of Canada, as cited in section 2:

 

1. Espionage and Sabotage

 

Espionage: Activities conducted for the purpose of acquiring by

unlawful or unauthorized means information or assets relating to

sensitive political, economic, scientific or military matters, or for

the purpose of their unauthorized communication to a foreign

state or foreign political organization.

 

Sabotage: Activities conducted for the purpose of endangering the

safety, security or defence of vital public or private property, such

as installations, structures, equipment or systems.

 

2. Foreign-influenced Activities

 

Activities which are detrimental to the interests of Canada, and which

are directed, controlled, financed or otherwise significantly affected

by a foreign state or organization, their agents or others working on

their behalf.

 

For example: Foreign governments or groups which interfere with or

direct the affairs of ethnic communities within Canada by pressuring

members of those communities. Threats may also be made against

relatives living abroad.

 

3. Political Violence and Terrorism

 

The threat or use of acts of serious violence may be attempted to

compel the Canadian government to act in a certain way. Acts of

serious violence are those that cause grave bodily harm or death to

persons, or serious damage to or the destruction of public

or private property and are contrary to Canadian law or would be if

committed in Canada. Hostage-taking, bomb threats and assassination

attempts are examples of acts of serious violence that endanger the

lives of Canadians. Such actions have been used in an attempt to force

particular political responses and change in this country.

 

Exponents and supporters of political violence may try to use Canada

as a haven or a base from which to plan or facilitate political

violence in other countries.

 

Such actions compromise the safety of people living in Canada and the

freedom of the Canadian government to conduct its domestic and

external affairs.

 

4. Subversion

 

Activities intended to undermine or overthrow Canada's

constitutionally established system of government by violence.

Subversive activities seek to interfere with or ultimately destroy the

electoral, legislative, executive, administrative or judicial

processes or institutions of Canada.

 

Lawful Protest and Advocacy

 

The CSIS Act prohibits the Service from investigating acts of

advocacy, protest or dissent that are conducted lawfully.

 CSIS mayinvestigate these types of actions only if they are carried out in conjunction with one of the four previously identified types of activity. CSIS is especially sensitive in distinguishing lawfulprotest and advocacy from potentially subversive actions.

 

NOTE SECTION WAS LEFT OUT IN C-51

Even when an investigation is warranted, it is carried out with careful regard for the civil rights of those whose actions are being

investigated.  

 

NOTE IN c- 51  UNDER SECTION 42

12. 3. THE SERVICE SHALL NOT TAKE MEASURES TO REDUCE A THREAT TO SECURITY OF CANADA IF THOSE MEASURES WILL CONTRAVENE A RIGHT OR FREEDOM GUARNTEED IN THE CHARTTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OR WILL BE CONTRARY TO OTHER CANDIN LAW

UNLESS THE SERVICE IS AUTHORIZED TO TAKE THEM BY WARRANT UNDER SECTION 21.1

 

NEED TO REDEFINE WHAT CONSTITUTES REAL THREATS

The Harper government is blowing out of proportion the threats made by ISIL against Canada; these threats arose as a result of Canada’s military intervention against ISIL. Harper government, under bill C 51, is expanding the powers of CSIS to counter what the government perceives to be threats; their perception of threats could be in response to what citizens in Canada perceive to be threats to common security

 

The Common Security Threat (CST) list

(COMPILED IN 2000 AFTER I FOUND OUT,IN 1999, THAT I WAS ON THE RCMP THREAT ASSESSMENT LIST AT APEC) I believe that I was discriminated against because of political opinion- a ground for which there must not be discrimination; this ground is not included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom but is included under Article 2 of the legally binding Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Canada is a party;

1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

 

 

The Common Security Threat list-- a list of actions by governments that are a "threat to public security" and that "put lives  danger" Here is an excerpt from the Common Security Threat (CST)  list.

 

1. All governments that have failed to sign, failed , or failed to enact the necessary legislation to ensure compliance with international Conventions, Covenants and Treaties.

2. All government that have failed to act on commitments made through UN Conference Action Plans, or that have failed to fulfill expectations created through General Assembly Resolutions.

3. All governments that refuse to respect the jurisdiction and the decisions of the International Court of Justice

4. All governments that have produced weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear, chemical, and biological, in defiance of the global commitment made at Stockholm to eliminate the production of weapons of mass destruction.

5 All governments that have proliferated nuclear arms by selling civil nuclear technology such as CANDU reactors to other states

6 All governments that are circulating and berthing nuclear powered or nuclear arms capable vessels or permitting the berthing of this vessels in urban harbours

7 All governments that mine and sell uranium for use in nuclear weapon systems

8. All governments that have planted land mines throughout the world

9  All governments that have permitted the sale of arms around the world

10 All governments that support a military organization like NATO that has a first strike policy in violation of the ruling of the International Court of Justice that the use or threat to use nuclear weapons was contrary to international humanitarian law.

11. All governments that permit the production of toxic, hazardous, atomic waste

12. All governments that do not prevent the transfer to other states of substances or activities that are harmful to human health and the environment

13. All governments that perceive of justice in terms of revenge through military intervention rather than respecting the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice

14. All governments that have set up military bases in other sovereign nations

15. All governments that have failed to reduce their military budget and transfer the savings into global social justice as undertaken through numerous UN Conference Action Plans and UN General Assembly Resolutions

16. All governments that have failed to ensure the human right to safe drinking water, the human right to unadulterated (non-genetically engineered pesticide-free food), the human right to safe accessible housing, the human right to be clothed, the human right to education, the human right to universally accessible not for profit publicly funded health care that stresses the importance of prevention of environmentally induced diseases, and poverty related illnesses. ( many of these rights have been protected through international human rights instruments)

17. All governments that have denied civil and political rights including the right to freedom of speech and the right of peaceful assembly, and fundamental labour rights

18. All governments that have approved genetically engineered foods and crops and have led to a deterioration of the food supply, and heritage seeds

19. All governments that have ignored the warnings of the Intergovernmental panel on Climate change and have failed to discharge obligations under the Framework Convention on Climate Change, and Kyoto Protocol

20. All governments that have supported , and individuals that have participated in the proselytizing of religion and the undermining of other cultures

21. All governments and individuals that have discriminated against the following

grounds:

- race, tribe, or culture;

- colour, ethnicity, national ethnic or social origin, or language;

nationality, place of birth, or nature of residence (refugee or

immigrant, migrant worker);

- gender, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, or form

of family,

- disability or age;

- religion or conviction, political or other opinion, or - class, economic

position, or other status;

22.  All governments that have ignored the warnings of the Intergovernmental panel on Climate change and have failed to discharge obligations under the Framework Convention on Climate Change, and Kyoto Protocol

23.  All governments that have failed to revoke charters and licences of corporations that have violated human rights, including labour rights, that have contributed to war and violence, and that have led to the destruction of the environment.

24,  All industries that have supported the development of weapons of mass destruction, and all citizens and groups that have invested in companies that have developed weapons of mass destruction.

26 All governments that have been willing to accept corporate donations, and still delude the public into thinking that citizens live in a democracy.

27.  All governments that have promulgated globalization, deregulation and privatization through promoting trade agreements that undermine the rule of international public trust law

 

 

C51- CHANGES  IN CRIMINAL CODE RELATED TO TERRORISM

 

CRIMINAL CODE

83.221 (1) Every person who, by communicating statements, knowingly advocates or promotes the commission of terrorism offences in general — other than an offence under this section — while knowing that any of those offences will be committed or being reckless as to whether any of those offences may be committed, as a result of such communication, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.

 

TERRORISM

 

CRIMINAL CODE

 

·    “terrorist activity” means

o    (a) an act or omission that is committed in or outside Canada and that, if committed in Canada, is one of the following offences:

§  (i) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2) that implement the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, signed at The Hague on December 16, 1970,

§  (ii) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2) that implement the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, signed at Montreal on September 23, 1971,

§  (iii) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3) that implement the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 14, 1973,

§  (iv) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3.1) that implement the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 17, 1979,

§  (v) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2.21) that implement the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, done at Vienna and New York on March 3, 1980, as amended by the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, done at Vienna on July 8, 2005 and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, done at New York on September 14, 2005,

§  (vi) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2) that implement the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, signed at Montreal on February 24, 1988,

§  (vii) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2.1) that implement the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on March 10, 1988,

§  (viii) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2.1) or (2.2) that implement the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome on March 10, 1988,

§  (ix) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3.72) that implement the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 15, 1997, and

§  (x) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3.73) that implement the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 9, 1999, or

o    (b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada,

§  (i) that is committed

§  (A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and

§  (B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and

§  (ii) that intentionally

§  (A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,

§  (B) endangers a person’s life,

§  (C) causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,

§  (D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), or

§  (E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C),

and includes a conspiracy, attempt or threat to commit any such act or omission, or being an accessory after the fact or counselling in relation to any such act or omission, but, for greater certainty, does not include an act or omission that is committed during an armed conflict and that, at the time and in the place of its commission, is in accordance with customary international law or conventional international law applicable to the conflict, or the activities undertaken by military forces of a state in the exercise of their official duties, to the extent that those activities are governed by other rules of international law.

“terrorist group”

« groupe terroriste »

“terrorist group” means

o    (a) an entity that has as one of its purposes or activities facilitating or carrying out any terrorist activity, or

o    (b) a listed entity,

and includes an association of such entities.

·    Marginal note:For greater certainty

(1.1) For greater certainty, the expression of a political, religious or ideological thought, belief or opinion does not come within paragraph (b) of the definition “terrorist activity” in subsection (1) unless it constitutes an act or omission that satisfies the criteria of that paragraph.

·    Marginal note:For greater certainty

(1.2) For greater certainty, a suicide bombing is an act that comes within paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition “terrorist activity” in subsection (1) if it satisfies the criteria of that paragraph.

·    Marginal note:Facilitation

(2) For the purposes of this Part, facilitation shall be construed in accordance with subsection 83.19(2).

  • 2001, c. 41, ss. 4, 126;
  •  2010, c. 19, s. 1;
  •  2013, c. 13, s. 6.

 THAT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE, THAT ALL THE ABOVE REFERENCES TO INTERNATIONAL LAW HE HARPER APPEAR TO BE RESPECTED BY THE GOVERNMENT. WHILE SO MANY OF THE INTERNATIONAL AGREEMEN SUCH AS THE FOLLOWING ARE TREATED WITH DERISION

 

International  Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and its protocols,international Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), ,

conventions such  the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS),Convention Against Torture, Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its protocols,

Convention on the Trade of Endangered Species (CITES), Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer,   and the  UN Framework Convention on

Climate Change (UNFCCC), Convention to Combat Desertification Convention on the Rights  of the Child (CRC) , CEDAW and its protocols, International Convention on

the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment the Crime of Genocide, International Convention on the

Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families International Labour Conventions,  Convention on  Rights of Persons with

Disabilities;  UN Declaration on the Rights of indigenous Peoples ;peace Treaties such as NPT Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and

Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their destruction., cluster bombs  Arms Trade Treaty etc.  

and respect for the jurisdiction and decisions of the ICJ, and the ICC

 

NEED TO REDEFINE WHAT CONSTITUTES TERRORISM

 

The UN has no internatonally-agreed to definition of terrorism. The definitional impasse has prevented the adoption of a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism. Even in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the UN failed to adopt the Convention, and the deadlock continues to this day.

The reluctance has been the failure to define terrorism to exclude armed struggle for liberation and self-determination.

 

In addition many states wish to include state terrorism which would include most of the military intervention listed above. Under article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is the following:

Article 20

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.

2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

Propaganda for war could include the multiple statements by States calling for military intervention in other states, the establishing of military bases on foreign soil, war games etc.

 

MISCONSTRUING ARTICLE 51- SELF DEFENCE OF THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS

The preconditions for anticipatory self-defence are, "necessity," "proportionality," and "immediacy

 

There is an inexorable link among security, threats and terrorism

The Harper government with the current motion to continue the intervention into Iraq and extend the mission into Syria is conflating security, threats and terrorism. The government believes, with the increased attack against ISIL, that security can be achieved through militarism, threats against Canada will ended. and terrorism will be reduced. This conflation has contributed to the Harper government misconstruing both Article 51 of the UN Charter and Bill C 51

 

Kofi Annan, the former UN secretary general, said the US-led invasion of Iraq was a mistake and helped to create the Islamist State militant group. He also blamed regional powers for making the conflict worse. 

His comment builds on the statement made by    at the Nuremberg Trial

"In Nuremberg trials there was a reference to  the “supreme international crime” - the crime of aggression. That crime was defined clearly enough by Justice Robert Jackson, Chief of Counsel for the United States at Nuremberg. An “aggressor,” Jackson proposed to the Tribunal in his opening statement, is a state that is the first to commit such actions as “invasion of its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State 

If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.”

Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=345_1315751483#by7PvtecKDMYeSEE.99

If we adopt the principle of universality: if an action is right (or wrong) for others, it is right (or wrong) for us. Those who do not rise to the minimal moral level of applying to themselves the standards they apply to others—more stringent ones, in fact—plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of appropriateness of response; or of right and wrong, good and evil."[6] Chomsky 2002 TERROR AND JUST RESPONSE. ZNet.

 

 UNITED NATIONS PASSES RESOLUTION ON TERRORISM AND STRESSES THAT MEASURES AGAINST TERRORISM MUST COMPLY WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW

 

United Nations a/res/69/127 General Assembly distr.: general 18 December 2014 sixty-ninth session agenda item 107 14-66984 (e) *1466984*

Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 10 December 2014 [on the report of the Sixth Committee (A/69/506)] 69/127.

Measures to eliminate international terrorism The General Assembly, Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Affirming that States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism complies with all their obligations under international law and must adopt such measures in accordance with international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law,

 

Recalling Security Council resolution 1624 (2005) of 14 September 2005, and bearing in mind that States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism complies with their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law,

 

5. Reiterates its call upon all States to adopt further measures in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the relevant provisions of international law, including international standards of human rights, to prevent terrorism and to strengthen international cooperation in combating terrorism and, to that end, to consider, in particular, the implementation of the measures set out in paragraphs 3 (a) to (f) of General Assembly resolution 51/210;

 

13. Reaffirms that international cooperation as well as actions by States to combat terrorism should be conducted in conformity with the principles of the Charter, international law and relevant international conventions;

 

Sixty-ninth session Agenda item 107 14-66984 (E) *1466984 Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 10 December 2014 [on the report of the Sixth Committee (A/69/506)] 69/127. Measures to eliminate international terrorism The General Assembly, Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

 



[1

Last Updated on Sunday, 02 October 2016 21:05
 

Latest News