Latest news with #CivilLiberties
Globe and Mail
13 hours ago
- Politics
- Globe and Mail
Public Safety Minister in potential conflict of interest over planned ‘bubble zone' protests bill
The Public Safety Minister will likely have to recuse himself from engaging on another government bill being planned to protect the public because of a potential conflict of interest with a prominent civil liberties group where his wife is a director. The government is planning a bill restricting protests near places of worship, schools and community centres and making it a criminal offence to willfully intimidate or threaten people going in and out of these venues. But human rights advocates, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, have raised concerns about restrictions on peaceful protest near community spaces, saying non-violent protest, even if it is disruptive, is part of a vibrant democracy. Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree has asked the federal ethics watchdog to establish a conflict-of-interest 'screen' for interactions with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. His wife, Harini Sivalingam, is director of equality at the CCLA. He has already agreed to recuse himself from any interactions with the CCLA over the strong borders bill, which Mr. Anandasangaree is shepherding through Parliament and the civil liberties group has criticized. The Public Safety Minister, who was born in Sri Lanka and is a Tamil Canadian, has also recently put up an ethics screen around national-security issues related to the Tamil community, including any discussions or decisions relating to Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam – also known as the Tamil Tigers – which are outlawed as a terrorist group in Canada. David Taylor, spokesman for Mr. Anandasangaree, said the justice department, led by Justice Minister Sean Fraser, would take the lead on any forthcoming bill on restricting protests close to certain venues, also known as bubble zones. He confirmed Mr. Anandasangaree has 'a screen related to his wife and her work. That is through the Ethics Commissioner.' Conflict-of-interest screens are compliance measures agreed upon by public office holders, including MPs, and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, to help avoid conflicts of interest. The MP agrees to abstain from certain discussions, decisions, debate or votes to avoid a conflict of interest. 'A screen also seeks to minimize the possibility of conflicts arising between the public duties of the public office holder and their private interests or those of their relatives and friends,' the Ethics Commissioner's website says. Although Mr. Fraser would take the lead on the forthcoming bubble zone bill, it would be unusual for the Public Safety Minister not to weigh in on public-safety issues, including concerns raised by the CCLA. The civil liberties body has been vocal on bubble zones and has pointed out that existing laws enable the police to deal with violence or threats to public safety. The bill is likely to address issues such as intimidation or attacks carried out on members of the public during protests, and glorification of terrorist groups. Jewish groups have been calling for federal 'bubble zone' laws for some time, saying intimidation by protesters of people at schools, synagogues and community centres are a threat to public safety. They also want it to be made a criminal offence to glorify terrorist groups, such as Hezbollah, at protests. Noah Shack, CEO for the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, said 'safe-access zones are a critical step toward public safety' and 'no one should be attacked or harassed for simply walking into their place of worship, school or community centre.' 'More must be done to protect Canadians and confront the sources of hate, including criminalizing the glorification of terrorism and boosting security for Jewish institutions,' he added. In Britain, it is a criminal offence to wear clothing or display a banner or flag in a way that suggests support for a terrorist group. Several municipalities are already introducing their own 'bubble zones' to restrict protest near places of worship, schools and child care centres. Civil liberties group challenges Vaughan's controversial 'bubble zone' bylaw restricting protests The CCLA launched a Charter challenge in the courts to a bylaw in Vaughan, Ont., setting out rules for protest activities. The civil liberties group says it severely infringes upon freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association in a manner that is not justified in a free democratic society. It says that the police already have powers to protect public safety and do not need a new bylaw. Anaïs Bussières McNicoll, director of the CCLA's fundamental freedoms program, said she understood that the federal government plans to make it a criminal offence to willfully obstruct access to any place of worship, schools, and community centres; and to willfully intimidate or threaten those attending services at these locations. 'We will need to see the actual bill before taking a more informed position,' she said. 'If the upcoming bill lowers existing legal thresholds and introduces overly broad and vague definitions that allow the police to charge protesters for participating in peaceful protests that some find offensive or disruptive, the government will be venturing into constitutionally dangerous territory.'
ABC News
2 days ago
- ABC News
Fourth Townsville police shooting since January prompts call for inquiry
Police have shot four people in Townsville in the past year, but the state's police union is resisting calls for a review into the way shootings are investigated. A 29-year-old man remains in a critical condition after being shot by officers in a shopping centre loading dock in the western Townsville suburb of Thuringowa Central on Sunday. Police said officers from the Special Emergency Response Team were called in as the man was wanted for alleged "serious criminal offences". However, Queensland Police did not share what those alleged offences were or the circumstances leading up to Sunday's shooting, as a police ethical standards investigation was underway. It comes after an officer shot and killed an armed man in the Townsville suburb of North Ward two weeks ago. Police also shot a 17-year-old girl in the abdomen after she allegedly threatened them with a knife in June, and a first-year police officer shot a man "experiencing a mental health episode" three times in January. The Queensland Council for Civil Liberties has repeated calls for a systematic review into police shootings. President Michael Cope said it was "simply not good enough" for the shootings to be referred to the Ethical Standards Command, which only reviewed individual incidents. "We accept that there unfortunately are circumstances in which police have to use their guns," he said. Mr Cope said a royal commission or the Crime and Corruption Commission could conduct such a review. "This may not be anything to do with police conduct, we just simply don't know what the causes are," he said. "It seems to me that any member of the public would want to know why police shootings in Queensland the last few years seem to have been extraordinarily high in comparison with the rest of the country." Queensland Police Union president Shane Prior said every police-involved shooting should be examined individually. "This just demonstrates that police are operating in a work environment that has never been as dangerous as it is right now," he said. "You need to look at each individual incident on its own merits. The fatal shooting in Townsville last week will be referred to the Queensland Coroner. In recent years, multiple people experiencing a mental health episode have been fatally shot by Townsville police, including the case of Steven Angus, who was shot dead hours after hospital discharge. A spokesperson for the Coroners Court of Queensland told the ABC last week it was in discussions with the Queensland Mental Health Commission and the Queensland Police Service about ways to examine systemic issues associated with police-related deaths. Queensland Police would not comment on whether the man shot in Townsville on Sunday was armed. But Mr Prior said the man shot did threaten officers. "I understand that he was hiding underneath a stairwell," he said. "It will be alleged that he made certain threats towards police when he was confronted." Mr Prior added that the male officer who fired the shot had five years' experience in the Special Emergency Response Team. Queensland Police media also declined to comment on the circumstances of the shooting. The Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission will have oversight of the Ethical Standards Command investigation.
The Guardian
04-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Ban on Palestine Action to take effect after legal challenge fails
Being a member of, or showing support for, Palestine Action will be a criminal offence from Saturday after a last-minute legal challenge to suspend the group's proscription under anti-terrorism laws failed. A ban on Palestine Action, which uses direct action to mainly target Israeli weapons factories in the UK and their supply chain, was voted through by parliament this week but lawyers acting for its co-founder Huda Ammori had sought to prevent it taking effect. After a hearing at the high court on Friday, however, Mr Justice Chamberlain declined to grant her application for interim relief. It means Palestine Action will become the first direct action protest group to be banned under the Terrorism Act, placing it in the same category as Islamic State, al-Qaida and the far-right group National Action. UN experts, civil liberties groups, cultural figures and hundreds of lawyers have condemned the ban as draconian and said it sets a dangerous precedent by conflating protest with terrorism. Another hearing is scheduled for 21 July when Palestine Action will apply for permission for a judicial review to quash the order. In the meantime, and unless the judicial review is successful, membership of, or inviting support for, the group will carry a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison.
Gizmodo
03-07-2025
- Politics
- Gizmodo
‘We Live in a Surveillance State': Reddit Users Explode Over Reports of ICE's New Face and Fingerprint Scanning App
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is reportedly using a new tool called Mobile Fortify, a smartphone-based facial recognition and fingerprint scanning app that allows agents to identify people in real time using only a phone camera. The tool taps into the same biometric system used by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at ports of entry. But ICE is now using it inside the U.S., in field operations across the country. According to internal ICE emails reviewed by 404 Media, the app is being deployed by Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), the branch of ICE tasked with arresting and deporting undocumented immigrants. The app, reportedly called 'Mobile Fortify,' gives federal agents the power to use their phones to identify people in the field via facial recognition, a development that many online see as a horrifying leap forward for the surveillance state. The 404 Media report has ignited outrage on Reddit, where users are voicing deep concern about how far this technology could go and what it says about the direction of American governance. 'Surveillance state in full effect,' one user posted bluntly. 'The next step is to label anyone who opposes them a terrorist or criminal, strip you of any rights and probably use unconstitutional surveillance to find any dirt on you,' warned another. Others drew a straight line between mass surveillance and the erosion of civil liberties. 'We live in a surveillance state and anyone who believes otherwise reads too much Fox News,' said one user. 'Everyone mask up like it's COVID! We have already witnessed an attempted arrest and then release,' another user added. Some users offered practical resistance strategies—or at least suggestions for anonymity. 'I wonder if facial ID blocking glasses, like Reflectacles, would work on this. Apparently they block iPhone facial recognition,' said one commenter. 'Definitely wear a mask (preferably ones that hide your whole head, i.e. UV Blocking Balaclava), wear sunglasses and bring an umbrella. Also bring a flashlight, headlamp, flashlight with strobing capabilities,' wrote another. A few users expressed bitter disillusionment with the political divide over surveillance. 'Mass surveillance was something right-wingers always said they would fight against. Now that it's happening they aren't doing shit,' one user said. 'They are doing shit… they are doing the mass surveillance,' another replied, 'which is entirely made of shit.' 'They always figured that when authoritarianism came to the U.S., it would be left-wing. But since it's right-wing, they are fine with it,' added another. The most chilling posts reflected the loss of faith in institutional leadership altogether. 'Creepy. I remember noticing this at the airport a few years ago and how it felt Orwellian. I was right.' 'Wondering how long into the police state our remaining leaders will allow the country to slip before everything burns down,' wrote one user. 'We have been wholly betrayed by everyone who vowed to serve the public besides educators and emergency service workers. I have learned nothing this year that leads me to believe anyone of means gives enough fucks to stop any of this.' The growing backlash taps into long-standing fears that technologies built for border enforcement or national security are now being turned inward, aimed not just at suspects but potentially at anyone. Civil liberties groups have warned for years that biometric surveillance tools, especially those powered by AI and facial recognition, lack proper oversight and accountability and risk targeting marginalized communities. Gizmodo has reached out to ICE for comment on whether Mobile Fortify is currently in use and how the agency justifies deploying such tools in domestic operations. So far, no comment. For now, Reddit is sounding the alarm.
CBC
12-06-2025
- Politics
- CBC
Are there 'snooping provisions' in Carney's massive border bill?
Social Sharing Conservatives and New Democrats don't agree on much, but it appears both have issues with provisions tucked into Bill C-2, the Carney government's Strong Borders Act. The 140-page bill would modify many existing laws, from the Criminal Code to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Canada Post Corporation Act and the Oceans Act. Much of it is about the border and the movement of people and goods, licit and illicit, across that border, as its full name suggests: An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures. But some MPs are having difficulty seeing how everything in the bill is at all "related" to the border. WATCH | Privacy concerns over Liberal border bill: Strong Borders Act raises concern about police access to personal data 1 day ago Duration 2:28 Civil liberties groups are concerned that the federal government's proposed Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act, will give law enforcement agencies sweeping new powers, like making it easier for police to search your internet activity and data without your knowledge or a warrant. "I think the title of the act is for show for the Trump administration," said New Democrat MP Jenny Kwan. "A lot of the components in the bill target Canada's own processes that have nothing to do with the U.S." Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner said C-2 includes "snooping provisions" that are "a massive poison pill." A long fight over 'lawful access' Perhaps the most controversial parts of the bill relate to police powers and "lawful access," the ability for police to demand subscriber information from internet providers and other online companies. Police have been seeking such powers for two decades in Canada, and there have been several attempts to pass legislation. The last determined effort to expand police powers over the internet was made by Stephen Harper's government in 2014, when it was packaged as the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act. It fell apart after Public Safety Minister Vic Toews challenged critics to either "stand with us or stand with the child pornographers." The Carney government also turned to the spectre of child pornography to make the case for their bill. And indeed, those who work in child protection have long advocated for a version of lawful access that would compel internet providers to co-operate with law enforcement. Wait times for warrants "There are pieces of information that are only in the possession of [internet] companies," said Monique St. Germain, a lawyer with the Canadian Centre for Child Protection. She said it can take months to obtain authorizations to link a computer's IP address to a suspect, and sometimes that means important evidence is lost. WATCH | Critics worry about alignment with U.S.: Critics say new border legislation aligns Canada's immigration system with the U.S. 7 days ago Duration 2:43 And Thomas Carrique of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police says communications and encryption technology used by criminals have raced ahead of existing legislation. "We are certainly not advocating to have unfettered access," he said. "[C-2] lays out in law what the police would have access to based on reasonable suspicion. And in a modern technical society, this is bare-minimum information." Reasonable expectations of privacy But the Supreme Court of Canada ruled its landmark 2014 decision R v. Spencer that the information police hope to gain through the border bill is within the bounds of a person's reasonable expectation of privacy. "I frankly thought that the prospect of government going back to legislation without a warrant, without court oversight, was simply gone," said Michael Geist, who holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa. He says it now feels like there's an effort to "sneak" old provisions from failed legislation into this bill — "about which there's very little to do with lawful access." He expects Canadians will "feel that they've been duped" as they learn that a bill "designed to deal with the border and border safety" has elements that "have nothing to do with the border." Content off limits The data at issue would not include the actual content of messages exchanged over the internet. In order to listen to conversations or read emails, police would still need a warrant. Rather it is biographical information about the sender that is at issue, and there is a debate about how significant the privacy interest in that is. "I think what's being asked is relatively limited, but I acknowledge that's not a universally shared view," said Richard Fadden, former director of Canada's intelligence agency, CSIS. "If you go back 20 or 30 years you had telephone books which allowed the police to do more or less the same." But Geist said police could obtain a lot more through C-2 than they ever could through an old phone book. He said law enforcement could ask an internet company what kind of things a customer has been doing online, when they were doing them and where. Geist says providers would also have to disclose what communications services the subscriber users, such as a Gmail account. WATCH | Public safety minister says C-2 is in line with Charter: Public safety minister says border bill is in line with Charter 9 days ago Duration 0:54 Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree said Bill C-2, known as the Strong Borders Act, strikes the right balance between expanding the powers of border agents and police officers, while also protecting the individual rights of Canadians. Shakir Rahim, a lawyer with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said such information provides "a trove of background about our lives" and that his group has "serious concerns that this bill is not compliant with the Charter." Rahim says the requirement to get a warrant offers "some level of protection" that such access is being sought in a targeted way. "But this legislation changes that. It takes away that protection," he said. That problem is compounded, says Geist, by the very low bar set to allow police to demand such information — "any violation of any act of Parliament" — giving the example of camping without a permit. Opposition parties concerned about snooping Rempel Garner raised those concerns in the House of Commons. "Whether or not I use an online service, where I use an online service, if I depart from an online service, if I start an online service, how long I use an online service, everything that C-2 says it would do — that is my personal information," she said. "That is none of the government's business, certainly not without a warrant. There has to be a line drawn here." WATCH | Conservatives express privacy concerns: Conservatives express privacy concerns over border bill 7 days ago Duration 1:57 Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree, who has a background in asylum and human rights law, said he would never advance a bill that threatens civil liberties. "It needed to be in line with the values of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms," he said the day the bill was tabled. "I fundamentally believe that we can strike a balance that, while expanding powers in certain instances, does have the safeguards and the protections in place like protecting individual freedoms or rights." The NDP's Kwan isn't convinced. "I know the minister says this and believes it," she said. "But in reality, if you look at the bill, the minister is creating a situation where your personal info is being disclosed without your consent." A need for 'careful review' Even some who broadly support the lawful access provisions in C-2 wish they had been presented in a separate bill. Fadden says CSIS is too busy to waste time on fishing expeditions, and he would expect the agency to set its own protocols that agents would have to comply with before contacting internet providers. He doesn't dismiss the risk of abuse and overreach, but argues that those risks also exist under the present system of warrants. Still, he wishes the changes hadn't been buried in an omnibus bill ostensibly about the border. "I understand the desire to do it that way, but I don't think it allows for people to understand what's being proposed," Fadden said. "I'm not sure when parliamentary committees look at the bill in the aggregate, particularly given its focus on borders, that this will get the attention that it deserves … people from the civil liberties side are raising concerns that merit discussion."
