Source: https://pejnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10469:1997-discrimination-on-grounds-of-political-opinion-will-c51-be-the-same&catid=75:cjustice-news&Itemid=218
Timestamp: 2020-02-21 02:35:25
Document Index: 687458437

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 2', 'Art. 27', 'Art.1', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 2', 'art 2', 'Art. 2', 'Art: 18']

1997 Discrimination Against Russow on Grounds of Political Opinion: Will C51 Be the Same? 3534 readings
The fabric of civil liberties of Canadians has definitely been threatened through the designation of citizens who have a disagreement with the politics of the Government of Canada to be threats to Canada.
At least since 1997, I have been on an RCMP Threat Assessment Group (TAG) List. I have a doctorate, I was a former lecturer in global issues at a university, and I am a former federal leader of a registered political party in Canada. I found out about being on a Threat Assessment Group List inadvertently, during the release of documents in the APEC RCMP Public Complaints Commission inquiry. Evidence emerged during the APEC inquiry that I was put on the list as a result of a directive from the Prime Minister's Office. My picture along with eight others was placed on a RCMP Threat Assessment Group List entitled "other activists". I have enclosed a copy of the RCMP threat Assessment. Exhibit A and Exhibit B.
Under the CSIS Act, “threats to the security of Canada” means
(a) 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
B) Foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person
c) 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
d) 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.
Threat to security does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjunction with any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (2) TO (D). 1984 C.21, S2.
Citizens engaged in lawful advocacy, protest, or dissent have been designated as “threats”. Given the definition of “threats” in the CSIS Act, the only conclusion is that citizens engaged in lawful advocacy, protest, or dissent, and designated as a threat, must have been linked to espionage, sabotage, violence against persons or property, the destruction of the constitutionally established system of government, etc. There really is no other logical conclusion.
The Solicitor General who is responsible for the RCMP and CSIS has a dual role: a role as a party member and a non-partisan role as officer of the Crown. The importance of the non-partisan role was recently emphasized by Dir. Wesley Pue, Professor of law at UBC, in his submission to the Senate when he cautioned:
Imagine a malafide person occupying the position of minister of police because we do not have a Solicitor General, or even that notion.If that person does not like members of the NDP, they may decide to have the police investigate people because of their party stripes
Although I was not a member of the NDP at the time, I presume that his comment applied to any opposition political party.
When news that I had been placed on the RCMP Threat Assessment List was broadcast and published across the country, the Solicitor General’s office feared that there might have been a challenge in parliamentary question period about the RCMP and CSIS placing the leader of a registered political party on a threat assessment list. The Solicitor General’s office prepared an Aide Memoire to deflect the potential criticism, and rather than addressing the serious allegations of the violations by intelligence agencies of their own statutory law, the Solicitor General in his reply wrote: "As I have indicated, the APEC RCMP Public Complaints Commission will address all concerns raised, and we should allow them the opportunity to do their work."
I assumed from this statement that I would have my concerns addressed and be able to appear before the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, to have the opportunity to clear my name, and to prove that I am not a threat. I was subsequently not permitted to appear, even though I had been one of the original 49 complainants.
I have never engaged in any activity which could be even remotely be construed to fall into within the CSIS definition of a ‘threat. I have been a strong policy critic of government practices, nationally and internationally, and could be considered to have a “difference in politics”. I have spent over twenty years calling upon governments to discharge obligations incurred through international covenants, treaties and conventions, and to enact the necessary legislation to ensure compliance. I have called upon governments to act on commitments made through UN Conference Action plans, and to fulfill expectations created through UN General Assembly Resolutions and Declarations.
I have exercised my constitutional right to lawful advocacy, protest, and dissent. I have, however, not engaged in activities directed toward undermining by covert clandestine, unlawful acts, directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of the constitutionally established system of government in Canada
Placing citizens who engage in lawful advocacy, protest or dissent on threat lists is an act of discrimination on the grounds of political and other opinion – one of the grounds that has been included in years of international human rights instruments such as the following:
(i) Art. 2, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948;
(ii) Art. 27, Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 1949);
(iii) Art.1.1, International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1965;
(iv) Art. 2, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966);
(v) International Covenant of Social, Economic and Cultural rights 1966, in force, 1976;
(vi) Art. 7, International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families;
(vii) Art. 2, Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons 1975;
(vi) Art. 2, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989;
(ix) Principle 1.4, Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and the Improvement of Mental Health Care, 1991.
I will refer here only to Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 2. affirms that
Although under art 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there is a reference in Art. 2.
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression
This article implements the obligations in Art: 18 of (ICCPR).
Unfortunately the ground of "political and other opinion" was not included as one of the listed grounds in article 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Although there does not appear to be a remedy in Canada for discrimination on the ground of political and other opinion, there is a remedy under Article 2 of the Optional Protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Under this article, citizens who have been discriminated against, and have exhausted all domestic remedies, can file a complaint with the UN Human Rights committee responsible for the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I have now proceeded to submit this complaint to the UN Human Rights Committee.
The listing of citizens engaged in legitimate advocacy has also violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; the right to security of the person; the right to mobility, and freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly. Now with facial recognition technology, there is the possibility that listed activists will not be able to enter the United States or fly over US Territory.
Since the fact that I was placed on a threat assessment list was broadcast and published across the country, I have had to live with the stigma of being designated a threat and the repercussions from this stigma –mistrust, andloss of employmentand income.On a panel associated with the Arar inquiry, Warren Allman, a former Solicitor General recognized that being associated with a listed group could impact on one’s ability to obtain gainful employment. This recognition would presumably also apply to being listed as a threat.
Even if proved unfounded, the taint of being designated as a threat, remains. Once a reputation has been damaged or impugned, recovery from this designation is almost impossible.
Since the lists have possibly been shared with ‘friendly nations’ prior to September 11, 2001 and probably, shared with ‘friendly nations’ after September 11, 2001 when caveats were down, I have traveled with great trepidation. I have resorted to using my maiden name when traveling internationally, but now with the institution of facial recognition technology, I presume that it willbe impossible for me to travel to the US or to travel over US air space.
I had a legitimate expectation that, after being placed on a RCMP Threat Assessment Group List, I would be able to correct the presumed misinformation through provisions in the Privacy and the Access to Information Acts. I was mistaken. In order to justify
not revealing the reason that I had been perceived to be a threat, the government exercised exemption such as “for national and international security reasons”, or “for [being] injurious to the conduct of international affairs”, or “for the defence of Canada”.
I have filed complaints with the RCMP, with CSIS, with DND, and with the review bodies such as SIRC and the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. I had presumed that I had a legitimate expectation that, after being placed on an RCMP Threat Assessment Group list, I would be able to correct the presumed misinformation if not through complaints and reviews through provisions in the privacy and the access to information acts. To justify not revealing the reason that I had been perceived to be a threat, the government exercised exemption such as for "national and international security reasons" or “for [being] injurious to the conduct of international affairs”, or “for the defence of Canada".
After almost eight years, I still do not know the reason for my being placed on an RCMP Threat Assessment Group List. I submitted, and in some cases resubmitted, almost 60 Access to Information and Privacy requests, and subsequent requests for reviews by the Privacy and Access to Information Commissioners. These requests resulted is a series of outrageous financial demands, unacceptable delays, unjustifiable retention of data and redacted documents, along again with questionable government exemptions. In the end, the only recourse offered was to hire a lawyer, go to court, and if unsuccessful, pay court costs – an option that was not open to me, and I assume not open to many other citizens engaged in lawful advocacy, protest, and dissent.
Citizens engaged in lawful advocacy, protest, and dissent are often those who are addressing activities, by governments and corporations, which could be designated as threats to “true” security.
True security is not human security or a so-called “responsibility to protect” which has been recently used to support substantial increases in the military budget and to legitimize past, present, and future military expeditions wrapped in the guise of humanitarian interventions
True security is common security – a concept initiated by Olaf Palme, a former president of Sweden – and has been extended to embody the following objectives:
• to promote and fully guarantee respect for human rights including civil and political rights, and the right to be free from discrimination on any grounds
• to enable socially equitable and environmentally sound employment, and ensure the right to development and social justice; labour rights, social and cultural rights- right to food, right to housing, right to universally accessible not for profit health care system, and the right to education
• to ensure the preservation and protection of the environment, respect the inherent worth of nature beyond human purpose, reduce the ecological footprint ,and move away from the current model of over-consumptive development.
To further Common Security, the member states of the United Nations have incurred obligations through conventions, treaties and covenants, made commitments through Conference Action plans, and created expectations through UN General Assembly resolutions, and declarations. Member states of the United Nations have incurred obligations, made commitments and created expectations
The Senate Committee reviewing the Anti-terrorism Act has a real opportunity to determine what constitute real threats to common security.
ANNEX UPDATE BIO POTENTIAL ACTIONS THAT COULD HAVE LED TO DISCRIMINATION;