North America & Oceania

Revised Olympic Bylaws Still Concern Activists in Toronto

By William Miller

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

TORONTO, Canada – The Vancouver City Council approved changes to the Olympic bylaws on Thursday, December 3, in response to concerns of civil rights advocates who feared the bylaws would place too heavy a burden on free speech rights. The Council has reduced the impact of the rules considerably. However; many feel the rules are still too restrictive of free speech.

The bylaws are provisions set up by the Vancouver City Council to serve as temporary measures during the Olympic Winter Games to be held there in 2010. The bylaws will make it easier for authorities to curb public disturbances during the games and quickly remove illegal signs. Anti-Olympic and free speech activists however have raised concerns that the temporary changes could be used to curb decent and limit the ability of protestors to convey their message.

Vancouver originally passed the bylaws in July. After public outcry over the provisions the city decided to revisit the rules and change some of the provisions.

One of the revisions has changed restrictions on sign posting so it only applies to commercial signs designed to capitalize on the game illegally. Originally, the rule applied to all signs and would have made it easy for police to remove any sign in a few days, a task which could take a month to accomplish under the city ordinances. Activists feared that this would be used to remove any signs used by protestors during the games.

The revised provision will have no effect on any protestor materials. Any signs used by protestors can only be removed under the city ordinance. As a result any protestor sign sought to be removed would remain up until after the games had ended.

Other provisions which had generated concern still remain in place. A ban on megaphones and noisemakers in designated Olympic areas remains unchanged and a ban on creating public disturbances was changed slightly to read to a ban on unreasonably interfering with the ability of others to enjoy the games.

City Manager Penny Ballem said “If somebody is creating a huge disturbance or disrupting entertainment or disturbing people who are there to enjoy the legitimate activities that we put into place, then we would have the ability, as you would in any other public place, to ask them to leave and if they persist to actually be able to remove them from the property.” The Royal Canadian Mounted Police and local police have both said that they will not use the bylaws to target protesters.

The failure to revise these provisions continues to generate concern among activist. David Eby of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association raised concerns at the City Council meeting  that criminal codes are already in place to deal with public disturbances and the new bylaws are unnecessary.

Two groups have previously filed lawsuits over the restrictions posed in July. Eby said that the new rules have addressed most of the issues raised in the complaint but did not say if the lawsuit would be dropped.

For more information, please see:

Xtra.ca – Vancouver City Council Somwhat Relaxes Olympic Security Bylaws – 4 December 2009

Canadian press – Vancouver Passes Bylaws Critics Say Will Limit Speech During 2010 Olympic games – 3 December 2009

Metro  News – Vancouver Passes Bylaws Critics Say Will Limit Speech During 2010 Olympics – 3 December 2009

Canada Calls for UN Inspectors to Focus on Iran

By William Miller,

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

OTTAWA, Canada – A Canadian drafted UN resolution released on Thursday, October 29 sharply criticized Iran for their continuing violations of human rights. Canada has proposed such resolutions before but this resolution is the first to criticize UN Special Investigators for their failure investigate Iran’s atrocious human rights violations.

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon suggested that this resolution will be the strongest Criticism of Iran’s human rights violations drafted by Canada. Cannon has been historically critical of Iran and led a walkout in protest of Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last month at the UN Delegation.

Canada has emerged as the leader in attacking Iran’s human rights violations and have drafted all resolutions criticizing such violations since 2003. In that year, an Iranian born photojournalist named Zahara Kazemi was arrested, tortured and killed in Iran. The Canadian resolutions stemming from this incident have been unanimously supported by the UN despite persistent attacks on procedural grounds by Iran.

The current resolution will be the first one to criticize inspectors by asking them to focus more intensely on Iran. Past resolutions drafted by Canada have called for Iranian cooperation but have fallen short of criticizing inspectors. The draft specifically mentions inspectors who focus their investigations in areas of human rights such as extra-judicial executions, torture, free speech suppression, persecution of human rights activists, arbitrary detention, and enforced disappearances. Iran has issued a standing invitation to such investigators but has consistently ignored attempts by investigators looking to visit the country and has not filled a single request in four years.

UN inspectors are already facing criticism for not focusing their efforts on countries like Iran and instead placing the majority of their attention on developed democracies. Critics say that developed countries already have the systems in place to deal with violations and that countries like Iran, where the inspectors are truly needed, are left unchecked. Inspector Gay MacDougal was mentioned as one of the unnecessary inspectors. MacDougal focuses on minorities and was investigating Canada as the resolution was being finished. So far fifty percent of the countries visited by McDougal have been mature democracies like Canada.

The resolution specifically accuses Iran of “persistent failure to uphold due process of law rights, and violation of rights of detainees, including defendants held without charge or incommunicado, the systematic and arbitrary use of prolonged solitary confinement, and lack of timely access to legal representation.” The resolution also alleges increased discrimination against minorities pointing to the 2008 arrest of Bahai religious leaders who are currently still being held. Other specific examples of human rights abuses mentioned in the resolution include flogging, amputation and stoning.

For more information, please see:

National Post – Of Toronto & Tehran – 30 October 2009

Washington TV – Canada Urges UN Investigators to Focus on Rights abuses in Iran – 30 October 2009

Ottawa Citizen – Canada Unveils UN Resolution Blasting Iran’s Rights Record – 29 October 2009

The Vancouver Sun – Canada Tries to Focus UN Spotlight on Iran’s Human Rights Record – 28 October

Department of Homeland Security I.G. Finds 287(g) Programs Defective

By Brenda Lopez Romero
Impunity Watch reporter – North America desk

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Local and national civil rights advocacy organizations have criticized the ill-enforced 287(g) agreements between local law enforcement and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  However, last Friday, the Inspector General of Department of Homeland Security released a report that confirms many of the accusation against the 287(g) programs.  287(g) agreements deputize local and state police to enforce federal immigration laws.  Currently, there are 60 counties and state law enforcement agency with signed and authorized agreements which allow the law enforcement officers to determine immigration status and detain persons for deportation proceedings.

The report concluded that the local law enforcement is ill screened, trained, and supervised.  Further, it found that the immigrants’ civil rights are being denied in some cases.  The report qualified the oversight of the program as haphazardous and significantly inconsistence.   Further, it indicated “in the absence of consistent supervision over immigration enforcement activities … there is no assurance that the program is achieving its goals.”  ICE states that the program’s priority is targeting serious criminal “aliens.”  However, the report found no process to determine whether immigrants held for deportation had violated serious criminal offenses, beyond minor traffic violations.  The report admonished that ICE cannot be assured “that resources are being appropriately targeted … [to those] who pose the greatest risk to public safety and community.”

ICE acknowledged the widespread criticism and was aware of the report’s finding for over a year ago, but the agency claims it is addressing the issues.  Richard Rocha, the agency’s spokesperson, said, “since the audit was conducted, ICE has fundamentally reformed the program … strengthening public safety and ensuring consistency in immigration enforcement across the country by prioritizing the arrest and detention of criminal aliens, fulfilling many of the report’s recommendations.”  The report recognized the agency’s changes, however, it determined the most serious concerns continue unresolved.

The report found local law enforcement was not thoroughly examined, there were inadequate background checks, given “inappropriate or unauthorized access” to intelligence, and most alarming was the perfunctory training on the basic tenets of immigration law, including asylum.  The reported stated “one officer commented that after basic training, he came away with zero knowledge of how to process a case.”

Finally the report also concluded that civil rights of immigrants were “not formally included” in the basic training nor considered in the officers performance reviews.   Now, the civil rights advocacy organizations demand the termination of all 287(g) agreements.

For more information, please see:

AlterNet – Immigration Revelations Just The Tip Of The ICEberg – April 3, 2010

Democracy Now – DHS Report Criticizes 287(g) Immigration Program – April 5, 2010

New York Times – Report Faults Training of Local Officers in Immigration Enforcement Program – April 2, 2010

Lawyer Charges Human Rights Tribunal with Contempt

By William Miller

Impunity watch reporter, North America

VANCOUVER, Canada – A Canadian lawyer representing a comic in a human rights tribunal suit has filed a complaint against the Human Rights Tribunal accusing them of contempt of court. James Millar, who represents comedian Guy Earl, filed  a suit seeking to throw out the human rights suit on the grounds that it conflicts with the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms protection of free speech and alleging that the Tribunal has ignored previous court rulings holding that the tribunal must determine whether it has jurisdiction before hearing a case.

Last fall the Canadian courts determined that the Human Rights Tribunal must determine whether it has jurisdiction before hearing a case. On Monday, the Tribunal decided that it would proceed with hearing the case and determine jurisdiction after arguments had been hear. This prompted Millar to leave the proceeding.

In walking out Millar said, “You are proceeding illegally and I have to leave the proceeding because it is against the rule of law… I do so regretfully and I do so with the greatest respect to the tribunal.”

The case, which has stirred controversy as to whether the tribunal is too repressive of the right to free expression, started two years ago after an encounter at a comedy club in Vancouver. Lorna Pardy brought the suit claiming that comic Guy Earle discriminated against her by making homophobic and sexist remarks to her and her same sex partner. She has filed the suit claiming that the comic violated the Human Rights Code by discriminating against her in the provision of a service.

Earle admits that the argument occurred between him and Pardy but claims that the two were heckling him and other comics and that his right to free speech is protected by the charter of rights which trumps the Human Rights Code.

In arguing that the tribunal encroaches to far on free speech Millar said “the Human rights tribunal could go onto YouTube and apply discrimination as the standard to restrict free speech on the internet or in any of the arts and entertainment when the Charter says the standard is hate.”

The Human Rights Tribunal began hearing arguments in the case last Monday and adjourned on Thursday. Final arguments are scheduled for Monday. Millar has said he will not participate. No date has been set for hearings on Millar’s complaint.

For more information please see:

The Chronicle Journal – Comedian’s Lawyer wants B.C Human Rights Hearing Into Anti-lesbian Rant Quashed – 1 April 2010

Montreal Gazette – Comic’s Lawyer Walks Out of B. C. Discrimination Case – 30 March 2010

Montreal Gazette – B.C. Human Rights Tribunal to Hear Discrimination Case Against Comic Who Insulted Two Lesbians – 29 March 2010.

Judge Finds Warrantless Wiretapping Program Illegal

By Stephen Kopko

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

SAN FRANCISCO, United States-On Wednesday a federal district court judge ruled that the Bush Administration’s use of the warrantless wiretap program may be illegal.  Judge Vaughan Walker found that the government may liable for civil damages for allegedly using the program against the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation.  Further, Judge Walker ruled that the government could not use the “state secrets privilege” in refusing to inform the organization whether the government used the program.

The warrantless wiretap program was used by the Bush Administration in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks.  It allowed the government to wiretap electronics and telecommunications of United States citizens deemed by the executive to have ties to terrorist organizations without a warrant.  Since the program was implemented, privacy advocates have challenged its constitutionality in the federal courts.  Until recently, privacy advocates were not successful in their attempts to show how the program is unconstitutional.  Invoking the state secrets privilege, the executive branch was successful in keeping secret who they were spying on.  According to the privilege, the government has the power to not provide classified information to certain organizations because doing so would threaten national security.  The program bypasses the government’s requirements under the FISA laws.  According to the FISA laws, a court approved warrant is required before the government can wiretap a person or organization’s electronics.

In the case before Judge Walker, the al-Haramain Foundation argued that they were illegally spied on by the United States government. The Foundation was designated as a terrorist organization.  It requested information on whether the government used the warrantless wiretap program against them. The government invoked the state secrets privilege not admitting whether or not it spied on the organization.   It also argued that the executive has the power to implement the warrantless wiretap program based on national security.

Judge Walker’s ruling rejected the government’s state secret’s defense.  Judge Walker found that the foundation provided enough declassified evidence to show they were illegally spied on by the United States government.  Therefore, the government may be liable for damages.  He also wrote that the FISA laws were “enacted specifically to rein in and create a judicial check for executive-branch abuses of surveillance authority.”  The government will decide in the next few weeks whether to appeal the ruling.

For more information, please see:

Christian Science Monitor-Bush wiretap program gets rebuke from federal judge-1 April 2010

NY Times-Ruling on Wiretapping Poses Challenge for Obama-1 April 2010

CNN-Government held liable in warrantless wiretapping case-31 March 2010