Righting Security: A Contextual and Critical Analysis and Response to Canada's 2016 National Security Green Paper
"This article responds to the Canadian government’s 2016 consultation on
national security law and policy. It outlines a series of concerns,
both with laws enacted in 2015 (and especially bill C-51) and some
interpretations of C-51 and other laws in the consultation documents. It
urges the need for a systematic and contextual understanding of the
many issues raised in the consultation. For example, information sharing
and increased investigative powers should not be discussed without
attention to inadequate review and accountability structures. Similarly
CSIS’s new disruption powers need to be understood in the context of
the intelligence and evidence relationship. The article proposes
concrete and significant changes to the current legal and policy regime
motivated both by civil liberties and security-based concerns."
View the Government Green Paper
Access the Review by Craig Forcese and Kent Roach
Your resource for news, research, opinion and comment in the world of Criminology and Criminal Justice, brought to you by the Criminology Library, Centre for Criminology & Sociolegal Studies, University of Toronto
Showing posts with label CSIS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CSIS. Show all posts
Craig Forcese and Kent Roach: The Real Agenda Behind Bill C-51
"As criticism mounts over the federal government’s controversial new security legislation, Bill C-51, the Conservatives have fallen back on a series of point-form justifications—one of which is that the new law would 'Allow CSIS agents to speak with the parents of radicalized youth in order to disrupt terrorist travel plans.'
Certainly, no reasonable person could object to such a policy. But government agents already perform such family interventions under existing legal rules. So why mention this example in official talking points, unless the object is to distract attention from the many areas in which CSIS powers will be expanded in unsettling ways?
...Government counter-subversion campaigns—which involve the infiltration and surveillance of anarchists and other radical groups that seek to overthrow the existing social, economic, and political order—were abandoned by CSIS years ago. However, the powers were never deleted from the statute, as recommended by CSIS’s review body, the Security Intelligence Review Committee. So CSIS’s power to engage in counter-subversion technically remains on the books, only a change in government policy away from being reactivated.
This fact raises legitimate concerns that, under Bill C-51, CSIS will be able to play 'dirty tricks' on protesters it believes are attempting to undermine Canada’s constitutional system of government. That would be darkly ironic, given that one of the reasons CSIS was created as a pure intelligence agency in the first place was public anger over the litany of rogue, illegal activities perpetrated by the RCMP in the 1970s."
"As criticism mounts over the federal government’s controversial new security legislation, Bill C-51, the Conservatives have fallen back on a series of point-form justifications—one of which is that the new law would 'Allow CSIS agents to speak with the parents of radicalized youth in order to disrupt terrorist travel plans.'
Certainly, no reasonable person could object to such a policy. But government agents already perform such family interventions under existing legal rules. So why mention this example in official talking points, unless the object is to distract attention from the many areas in which CSIS powers will be expanded in unsettling ways?
...Government counter-subversion campaigns—which involve the infiltration and surveillance of anarchists and other radical groups that seek to overthrow the existing social, economic, and political order—were abandoned by CSIS years ago. However, the powers were never deleted from the statute, as recommended by CSIS’s review body, the Security Intelligence Review Committee. So CSIS’s power to engage in counter-subversion technically remains on the books, only a change in government policy away from being reactivated.
This fact raises legitimate concerns that, under Bill C-51, CSIS will be able to play 'dirty tricks' on protesters it believes are attempting to undermine Canada’s constitutional system of government. That would be darkly ironic, given that one of the reasons CSIS was created as a pure intelligence agency in the first place was public anger over the litany of rogue, illegal activities perpetrated by the RCMP in the 1970s."
Bill C-51 Backgrounder #3: Sharing Information and Lost Lessons from the Maher Arar Experience
The proposed Security of Canada Information Sharing Act in Bill C-51 declares a legitimate government interests in sharing information about security threats. Yet after close textual review, we conclude that the proposed law is both excessive and unbalanced.
Bill C-51 Backgrounder #4: The Terrorism Propaganda Provisions
Proposed s.83.222 of the Criminal Code creates a new concept of “terrorist propaganda”. It also allows judges to order deletion of “terrorist propaganda” from the internet.
We support the concept of deletion orders for “terrorist propaganda” in principle. We believe they can have a role as part of a balanced and evidence-based counter-radicalization strategy that aims both to reduce the supply of terrorist material and (even more importantly) the demand for it.
However, the details matter. We remain concerned about the breadth of the definition of “terrorist propaganda”. It includes cross-referencing to the new speech crime proposed by bill C-51. As we discuss in backgrounder #1, that new offence risks sweeping in too much speech that is not tied to violence or threats of violence.
Bill C-51 Backgrounder #5: Oversight and Review: Turning Accountability Gaps into Canyons?
Canada’s system of national security “oversight” is imperfect. Its system of national security “review” is frayed, perhaps to the breaking point. The government’s antiterrorism law, bill C-51, will accelerate this pattern. Without a serious course correction, we risk the prospect of avertible security service scandals.
Kent Roach and Craig Forcese: Bill C-51: Our Statement to the Standing Committee on National Security & Public Safety
Professor Forcese and I have produced over 200 pages of detailed analysis of parts 1, 3 and 4 of Bill C-51. It is a complex omnibus bill that would add two new security laws and amend another 15 existing, including most notably the Criminal Code and CSIS Act.
In our analysis we have tried to bear in mind the effects, including unintended ones, that the bill could have on both security and rights.
Related Articles:
The proposed Security of Canada Information Sharing Act in Bill C-51 declares a legitimate government interests in sharing information about security threats. Yet after close textual review, we conclude that the proposed law is both excessive and unbalanced.
Bill C-51 Backgrounder #4: The Terrorism Propaganda Provisions
Proposed s.83.222 of the Criminal Code creates a new concept of “terrorist propaganda”. It also allows judges to order deletion of “terrorist propaganda” from the internet.
We support the concept of deletion orders for “terrorist propaganda” in principle. We believe they can have a role as part of a balanced and evidence-based counter-radicalization strategy that aims both to reduce the supply of terrorist material and (even more importantly) the demand for it.
However, the details matter. We remain concerned about the breadth of the definition of “terrorist propaganda”. It includes cross-referencing to the new speech crime proposed by bill C-51. As we discuss in backgrounder #1, that new offence risks sweeping in too much speech that is not tied to violence or threats of violence.
Bill C-51 Backgrounder #5: Oversight and Review: Turning Accountability Gaps into Canyons?
Canada’s system of national security “oversight” is imperfect. Its system of national security “review” is frayed, perhaps to the breaking point. The government’s antiterrorism law, bill C-51, will accelerate this pattern. Without a serious course correction, we risk the prospect of avertible security service scandals.
Kent Roach and Craig Forcese: Bill C-51: Our Statement to the Standing Committee on National Security & Public Safety
Professor Forcese and I have produced over 200 pages of detailed analysis of parts 1, 3 and 4 of Bill C-51. It is a complex omnibus bill that would add two new security laws and amend another 15 existing, including most notably the Criminal Code and CSIS Act.
In our analysis we have tried to bear in mind the effects, including unintended ones, that the bill could have on both security and rights.
Related Articles:
- Security Bill's Power to Break Foreign Laws Gains International Attention
- Proposed CSIS Powers a "Constitutional Mess," Former Watchdog Warns
- Comment: War Measures Act Less Onerous than Bill C-51
Bill C-51 Backgrounder #2: The Canadian Security Intelligence Service's Proposed Power to "Reduce" Security Threats Through Conduct that may Violate the Law and Charter
"If bill C-51 passes, CSIS will be expressly authorized to 'take measures, within or outside Canada, to reduce' very broadly defined 'threats to the security of Canada'. Where authorized by Federal Court warrant, these 'measures' may 'contravene a right or freedom guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms' or may be 'contrary to other Canadian law'.
The CSIS changes are dramatic, even radical. In 1984, parliamentarians granted CSIS a very broad mandate – found in the definition of 'threat to the security of Canada' in s.2 of its Act – but were careful to accord it very limited powers. It has been an intelligence service – it collects and analyzes information and supplies assessments to the government.
That will change in Bill C-51.
The government proposes radically restructuring CSIS and turning it into a 'kinetic' service taking physical action well beyond intelligence collection — and competent to act beyond the law and even the constitution. We doubt the legality of this proposal for a number of reasons explored in detail in our backgrounder."
Read the Full Analysis
"If bill C-51 passes, CSIS will be expressly authorized to 'take measures, within or outside Canada, to reduce' very broadly defined 'threats to the security of Canada'. Where authorized by Federal Court warrant, these 'measures' may 'contravene a right or freedom guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms' or may be 'contrary to other Canadian law'.
The CSIS changes are dramatic, even radical. In 1984, parliamentarians granted CSIS a very broad mandate – found in the definition of 'threat to the security of Canada' in s.2 of its Act – but were careful to accord it very limited powers. It has been an intelligence service – it collects and analyzes information and supplies assessments to the government.
That will change in Bill C-51.
The government proposes radically restructuring CSIS and turning it into a 'kinetic' service taking physical action well beyond intelligence collection — and competent to act beyond the law and even the constitution. We doubt the legality of this proposal for a number of reasons explored in detail in our backgrounder."
Read the Full Analysis
CSIS, RCMP monitor protest groups for possible Olympic threats
Jeff Lee, Canwest News ServicePublished: Thursday, October 09, 2008
Security forces are predicting protests will escalate as the 2010 Olympics approach and have mounted a number of "intelligence probes" to counteract threats.
The information is contained in documents obtained by Canwest News Service from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the RCMP, the lead agency for the Vancouver 2010 Integrated Security Unit.
Read on...
Wonder if non-violent anti-war groups are included. See story below on Maryland State Police. Tom
Security forces are predicting protests will escalate as the 2010 Olympics approach and have mounted a number of "intelligence probes" to counteract threats.
The information is contained in documents obtained by Canwest News Service from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the RCMP, the lead agency for the Vancouver 2010 Integrated Security Unit.
Read on...
Wonder if non-violent anti-war groups are included. See story below on Maryland State Police. Tom
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)