The CBC reports here that Monday night Bill C-10, the omnibus crime bill, will be voted on in the House of Commons. Amendments were made that would allow terrorists and their supporters to be sued. This bill is very controversial. One of the aspects of it that has been heavily criticized is the creation of mandatory minimum sentences for offences such as drug offences. The author of the aforementioned article, Meagan Fitzpatrick, writes:
They [mandatory minimum sentences] preclude judges from considering the specific circumstances of the offender and the offence and tie their hands, Arbour said. With marijuana-related offences, mandatory minimum sentences “go completely against the modern thinking by world leaders about the direction that the so-called war on drugs should take after 40 years of failure,” she said.
Imprisonment has a huge impact on a person’s civil liberties. Public security is also very important. The rights of the individual and the security of society have to be balanced. Whether this bill achieves balance or whether it impacts civil liberties too much is up for debate.
A human trafficking case went to trial in Hamilton. Men were kept in Attila Kolompar’s basement in Hamilton and treated as slaves. The victims were lured by being told that they would receive well-paying jobs, but the reality was that they would be forced to work in a deplorable situation where they were basically slave-workers. They faced long work days and were not adequately clothed or fed. The victims’ documents were taken from them.
Mr. Kolompar is a member of a Hungarian crime family. He pleaded guilty to being involved in the human trafficking ring. Four people have been convicted so far out of thirteen who were charged.
For more information, read more here, here and here.
According to the Globe and Mail here, Bill C-30 is being sent to a committee so that it can be amended before it goes through second reading. This move is probably in reaction to the public backlash over privacy concerns with the Bill.
Even though the Balanced Refugee Reform Act has not been implemented as of yet, a new bill has been introduced to Parliament dealing with refugees. This bill will make it tougher for refugee claimants in Canada to gain refugee protection. The CBC reports here that this new legislation will do the following:
- The immigration minister would have power to place countries on the safe country list without benefit of a committee that was to include human-rights experts. The committee would be scrapped.
- Claimants from countries on the safe country list whose claims are rejected would no longer be allowed to appeal the decision to a new appeals body within the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB).
- Claimants from countries on the safe country list would have to wait a full year to apply for humanitarian and compassionate consideration to become permanent residents, which would take into account issues of personal hardship. In the interim, they could be deported.
- Claimants from countries on the safe country list would be allowed to ask for a judicial review by the Federal Court, but there will be no stay of their deportation pending a decision. That means failed applicants could be deported before the court rules on their case.
The problem with the safe country list is that it may cause certain people to have their cases overlooked because they come from a so-called “safe country”. This list is even more problematic when its compilation is not done with the input of human rights experts. The aforementioned CBC article mentions the Roma. The Roma are one group of people that could be adversely affected by this new legislation. Romani people face discrimination based on their ethnic group. This discrimination can possibly be considered persecution under Refugee Law. If these people happen to come from a country that is deemed “safe”, they will not have the option to appeal to the Immigration and Refugee Board if their claim is rejected. While they can appeal for judicial review, it is not an ideal method of dealing with refugee claims. Judicial review is very limited and is focused more on the procedures of a decision than a normal appeal is.
The Globe and Mail reports here that eco-terrorists are seen as threats in the federal government’s new anti-terrorism strategy. While there may be fear of extreme environmentalists taking dangerous action against the Northern Gateway pipeline, environmentalists are concerned about their movement being linked with terrorism. It was argued that the strategy only targets groups that engage in terrorist acts and that legal dissent by environmentalists will still be tolerated. However, there has been criticism that this is an attempt to marginalize environmentalism. The anti-terrorism strategy seems to cast environmentalism in a negative light, which could possibly make it harder for environmentalists to be taken seriously.
According to the CBC here, the federal government has told CSIS that it can use information that was possibly extracted under torture. The CBC reports:
The latest directive says in “exceptional circumstances” where there is a threat to human life or public safety, urgency may require CSIS to “share the most complete information available at the time with relevant authorities, including information based on intelligence provided by foreign agencies that may have been derived from the use of torture or mistreatment.”
In such rare circumstances, it may not always be possible to determine how a foreign agency obtained the information, and that ignoring such information solely because of its source would represent “an unacceptable risk to public safety.”
There has been criticism from opposition MPs and Amnesty International. The aforementioned CBC article quotes Jack Harris (NDP) in which he says, ”You’re indirectly supporting torture, encouraging torture, by making a statement that you’re prepared to continue on an ongoing basis dealing with countries that use torture as a matter of course.” The debate seems to come down to whether you believe that exceptional security concerns justify the use of tainted intelligence or that doing so is supporting the use of torture.
John Ibbitson of the Globe and Mail reports here that privacy commissioners are concerned about “lawful access” legislation that the Conservatives are going to introduce in Parliament. It would allow police to access information from someone’s Internet service provider such as his or her cell phone number, IP address, and email address without a warrant. Ibbitson writes that:
The privacy commissioners believe that the federal government should not be giving police the power to acquire detailed information about who you are online without a judge’s say-so. The government says that the new powers are necessary to deter crime and terrorism.
The Conservatives argue that allowing the police to access this information is not a breach of privacy because this information just says who a person is. It is similar to what is found in a phone book. While the police could access this information without a warrant, they would need to obtain a warrant to actually monitor someone. The privacy commissioners, however, believe that the police should have to obtain a warrant to access this digital information.
Christopher Quigley testified in court today that he was beaten by police while in their custody, the Globe and Mail reports here. He is a witness for a trial in which Toronto police officers are being accused of corruption. Romina Maurino writes in the aforementioned article that:
Mr. Quigley’s is the first of five cases the Crown intends to use to prove the officers showed a pattern of violence, beating up and intimidating suspects, stealing from them, conducting illegal searches, and then lying to prosecutors to cover their tracks.
More information can be found here and here.
The CBC reported on January 12th that an Ontario Court found Brian Coldrin guilty of partial nudity that offended public order. He went through the drive-thrus in an A & W and Tim Horton’s nude. Justice Jon-Jo A. Douglas stated that wearing clothing in public is a reasonable limit on freedom of expression. Coldin argued that his public nudity was a form of protest, but the Court disagreed as Justice Douglas found that Coldin was expressing his desire to be publicly nude.
Read the full article here.
John Ibbitson of the Globe and Mail reports here that there may possibly be creation of a First Nations education system in the future. The Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples wrote a report advocating the creation of this system. The article claims that there has been a favourable response to it within the government. A First Nations education system can help preserve aboriginal culture and language by teaching them within the normal school curriculum. The implementation of this system may also help raise the numbers of aboriginal students who graduate high school, as figures from Nova Scotia seem to suggest. However, Canada’s history of residential schools may undermine attempts to create legislation relating to First Nations education. Distrust of such legislation is natural as there was a real issue of education being used to weaken aboriginal culture.
