RSS FeedJulian Assange: Why the world needs WikiLeaks
Excerpts from Open Letter to the Head of Judiciary: the Islamic Republic of Iran re the imprisonment of 7 Iranian Baha’is on baseless and unproved charges and other human rights violations of followers of Iran’s largest religious minority
7 December 2010
BAHÁ’Í
INTERNATIONAL
COMMUNITY
UnitedNationsOffice
866UnitedNationsPlaza, Suite120, NewYork, NY10017USA
Telephone: 212-803-2500, Fax: 212-803-2566, Email: uno-nyc@bic.org
Ayatollah Mohammad Sadeq Larijani
Head of the Judiciary
Islamic Republic of Iran
Your Honor,
You are undoubtedly aware of the outcome of the trial and the subsequent appeal of Mrs. Fariba Kamalabadi, Mr. Jamaloddin Khanjani, Mr. Afif Naimi, Mr. Saeid Rezaie, Mrs. Mahvash Sabet, Mr. Behrouz Tavakkoli, and Mr. Vahid Tizfahm—the seven individuals who before their arrest were responsible, as the members of the group known as the Yaran, for administering the social and spiritual affairs of the Bahá’í community in Iran…
Alongside their professional pursuits and family duties, they have rendered, on a purely voluntary basis, distinguished service to the people of that land, as, for example, in the advancement of women, in the promotion of literacy among the country’s general population, and in the provision of the means of education for the thousands of Bahá’í youth who have been denied admission to Iranian universities since the inception of the Islamic Revolution.
Azar Nafisi, New York Times Best Seller Author Discusses Baha’is’ Human Rights Violations in Iran
Azar Nafisi is the author of the New York Times 117-week bestseller, Reading Lolita in Tehran. In this video she discusses the widespread violations of Baha’is’ human rights in Iran as well as her personal experience with Baha’is in light of the baseless accusations that they bear. Ms. Nafisi is not a Baha’i.
Stacy Bonds Beaten, Stripped by Ottawa Police
James Morton gives the backdrop in The Ottawa Citizen:
The facts of Bonds’s treatment bear repeating. She was walking on Rideau Street in downtown Ottawa. She was neither drunk nor behaving inappropriately. The police stopped her and asked her name; she provided it.
After checking her name and finding nothing, the police told her she could go on her way. Bonds, as is her perfect right, asked why she had been stopped in the first place.
In response, the police arrested her for public intoxication and handcuffed her. As Ontario Court Judge Richard Lajoie later held, Bonds was not drunk. Once Bonds was taken to Ottawa Police headquarters, the judge noted that she was anything but “violent or aggressive.”
The full video is also available at The Ottawa Citizen.
Political Prisoner in Iran – A letter to the supreme leader
Mr. Ali Khamenei,
I am a first year law student in a Canadian Law School. I lived in Iran until the age of thirteen. My family and I immigrated to Canada in 1997 because of the lack of freedom of expression in Iran. As immigrants, we were not always treated well and we suffered discrimination and were pushed back to work within our own small Iranian community in Toronto. We loved Iran but actions by some Iranians have embarrassed our people at an international level. In this letter, I will explain to you how I have personally suffered as a result of these actions. If you and I, as Iranians do not treat each other well, how can we expect the international community to truly and genuinely respect our people?
One of the latest actions that bring disrepute to all Iranians all over the world is in regards to Blogger Hossein Derakhshan, 35, a dual Canadian-Iranian national. He has been unfairly tried and sentenced on 28 September 2010 to 19 and a half years’ imprisonment on vaguely worded charges relating to national security. He was detained without charge for about 19 months prior to trial and denied regular access to his family and lawyer. Amnesty International believes he is likely held solely for the peaceful expression of his views, and if so should be immediately and unconditionally released.
I have personally seen that in Europe, the situation is even worse for Iranians. In addition, videos of Iranian refugees in places like Greece and Australia speak to the failure of our 1979 revolution. In my opinion, you and your government are partly responsible for ensuring the well-being of all Iranians. Your actions, though it highlights some of the malfunctions in the Iranian culture, have nevertheless followed innocent Iranians everywhere we have sought refuge. Most Europeans and North Americans today look down on Iranians because we have created a bad image of ourselves. We have been intolerant to women, homosexuals, bloggers, religious minorities, racial minorities and almost every other group that is different than the majority.
I was born in Iran but see myself as belonging to the 6.8 billion people on Earth, and yet, the actions of the Iranian government constantly undermine my attempts personally to make a good living. Mr. Khamenei, this is how your actions at the macro level results in problems for an Iranian like me at a micro level. It is time to address the negative image that Iranians have created for us. Iran was the first country in the world and Iranians are a warm and passionate people who have many beautiful cultures. You as an Iranian and selected leader need to promote the positive aspects of our culture. It is easy to shout and be critical of individual bloggers and exploitative foreigners. Maybe it is time to pick the difficult path of self-reformation. Why divide people based on their differences such as religion, race, and way of thinking when we can bring them together through our similarities? We don’t need enemies in this world; we don’t need to shout “death” at others; what we need is to show that we can respect people who think different, act different, and live different than the majority. The strongest people are the most merciful and the kindest.
Releasing Hossein would be a first micro step that would help all Iranians show how we are a kind people. As the leader you are responsible for reforming a positive image for all Iranians especially in Europe and North America. The world watches how we treat one another as Iranians, and they treat us in the same way that we choose to treat each other. Please act in a way that Iranians will be treated better from now on inside and outside of the land where both you and I opened our eyes to this world.
Bringing Animal Rights to the Forefront of Correctional Services Reform
“Until we have the courage to recognize cruelty for what it is; whether its victim is human or animal, we cannot expect things to be much better in this world…we cannot have peace among men whose hearts delight in killing any living creature. By every act that glorifies or even tolerates such moronic delight in killing we set back the progress of humanity.”
-Rachel Carson
The sentencing of Anjalo Abeywickrema is an interesting one: he will have to go to jail for 4 months for his crimes and a 5 year ban on owning a pet.
But should if at all an individual go to jail for harming other creatures? Perhaps it is because people sense that an injustice has taken a place. A defenceless creature has lost its freedom and liberty to life.
I used to ask myself, “Why do some groups like PETA put resources towards better treatment of animals when there are millions of their fellow humankind suffering from poverty, environmental catastrophes, and war?”
My dad one day explained to me, “Son, when any creature suffers in this world, all of us suffer the consequences of that injustice.” I think his statement was a criticism to insensitivity towards injustice in any form that may take place.
I would argue that all social justice issues are inter-linked. In fact, I am optimistic that many sources of injustice can be solved with the same tools. In order to avoid the suffering of an animal we must investigate the sources of injustice. Are we as human beings genetically engineered to cause harm onto other creatures, or are we socialized? If we area socialized, then perhaps we can change that socialization in order to have better animal owners in the future.
When a human goes to jail for causing harm to his animal, people start to speak of the action of unnecessary pain. This increases sensitivity. When we start to talk about causing pain, we may even formulate solutions such as access to education and prevention instead of prosecution. Should we just put people in jail and throw the key away?
Historically, Canadian Criminal Law has functioned retroactively. In other words, someone like Abeywickrema acts with the intention of harming others in a way that is prohibited. Consequently he was punished by the Legal system. My question is, what proactive role if any should the Law and Legla professionals played in the past in educating the public regarding what is acceptable and what will send them to jail. Why not identifying the sources of sadistic behaviour?
I can tell you that as an immigrant, my family and I know no greater treasure than freedom. We travelled the planet to find a place where we can be free to speak our mind, wear the clothes we want, and many other freedoms that people take for granted. Perhaps it is time for the Law to teach people why we should not take our freedoms for granted. When an individual goes to jail to be “corrected” as the name of the government department foreshadows he/she does that at the cost of freedom and liberty: to my family and I, this is a heart breaking punishments because we come from a place where their Law has made the whole country feel like a jail most of the time!
I want to ask what deep failures in society have helped create an individual like Anjalo Abeywickrema. What kind of parenting; what kind of social and financial context; who educated this individual regarding his rights and how he can protect his liberties. Perhaps the kinds of behaviours that is acceptable for an animal owner? Despite the fact that people do have a choice in how they behave, this choice I would argue is always affected by social context, physiological stability, and many other variables and that is why the Law and Legal professionals need to be proactively involved in educating our communities.
My suggestion for the reform of “Correctional Services” comes from the Middle East. An interesting interpretation of Islamic Sharia Law is that people can only be punished harshly when they live in an almost perfect community without considerable social disparity. The Islamic community would have a role in socialization and identification of individuals who are in need of guidance.
In conclusion, when we are sensitized to the pain of an individual dog, we can no doubt become more sensitized to the deep social roots for the criminal’s actus reus and mens rea in the crime that he has committed. I would add to the famous saying by Ghandi “An eye for an eye makes the world go blind;” if someone has weak eyesight, let’s give him/her glasses before he falls into the ditch.
CSIS tapped phone despite order
Can you blame people if their response to this kind of news is cynicism?
CSIS tapped phone despite order
Agents violated solicitor-client privilege, recorded 171 calls involving accused terroristBy Andrew Duffy, The Ottawa Citizen
November 16, 2010Federal security agents recorded 171 phone calls between suspected terrorist Mahmoud Jaballah and his lawyers after they agreed to halt the practice in December 2008.
That revelation is contained in a recent order issued by Federal Court Judge Kevin Aalto, who condemns the repeated breaches of solicitor-client privilege.
“Solicitor-client privilege is virtually sacrosanct in the Canadian judicial system,” Aalto said in ordering two federal agencies to turn over a raft of documents to Jaballah’s defence team.
I’m also concerned about how this implicates the federal lawyers who had access to this privileged information. What role might the Law Society have in rectifying this abuse of power?
George Stroumboulopoulos and Senator Romeo Dallaire discuss Omar Khadr
The full interview can also be accessed internationally online at http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/videos.html
Ontario Prostitution Laws Struck
I have to admit that when I first heard on AM980 that Justice Susan Himel stuck the prostitution laws for Ontario, I was a bit dismayed. Many people who think of prostitution think of the typical “street-walker” on the corner soliciting “john’s” for a quickie in the back of a pickup, and (hopefully) getting arrested in a COPS style raid.
Now that I’ve had a little opportunity to digest the news, here is what I think. Although a quick caveat, I have not read the actual decision.
First off. What is a common bawdy-house?
s. 197
“common bawdy-house” means a place that is (a) kept or occupied, or (b) resorted to by one or more persons
for the purpose of prostitution or the practice of acts of indecency;
Second, what are the relevant prostitution laws in for Canada?
s. 210. (1) Every one who keeps a common bawdy-house is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
(2) Every one who
- is an inmate of a common bawdy-house,
- is found, without lawful excuse, in a common bawdy-house, or
- as owner, landlord, lessor, tenant, occupier, agent or otherwise having charge or control of any place, knowingly permits the place or any part thereof to be let or used for the purposes of a common bawdy-house, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction
212. (1) Every one who
(a) procures, attempts to procure or solicits a person to have illicit sexual intercourse with another person, whether in or out of Canada,
(b) inveigles or entices a person who is not a prostitute to a common bawdy-house for the purpose of illicit sexual intercourse or prosti- tution,
(c) knowingly conceals a person in a com- mon bawdy-house,
(d) procures or attempts to procure a person to become, whether in or out of Canada, a prostitute,
(e) procures or attempts to procure a person to leave the usual place of abode of that per- son in Canada, if that place is not a common bawdy-house, with intent that the person may become an inmate or frequenter of a common bawdy-house, whether in or out of Canada,
(f) on the arrival of a person in Canada, di- rects or causes that person to be directed or takes or causes that person to be taken, to a common bawdy-house,
(g) procures a person to enter or leave Cana- da, for the purpose of prostitution,
(h) for the purposes of gain, exercises con- trol, direction or influence over the move- ments of a person in such manner as to show that he is aiding, abetting or compelling that person to engage in or carry on prostitution with any person or generally,
(i) applies or administers to a person or cau- ses that person to take any drug, intoxicating liquor, matter or thing with intent to stupefy or overpower that person in order thereby to enable any person to have illicit sexual inter- course with that person, or
(j) lives wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
213. (1) Every person who in a public place or in any place open to public view
(a) stops or attempts to stop any motor vehi- cle,
(b) impedes the free flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic or ingress to or egress from premises adjacent to that place, or
(c) stops or attempts to stop any person or in any manner communicates or attempts to communicate with any person
for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or of obtaining the sexual services of a prostitute is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(2) In this section, “public place” includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied, and any motor vehicle located in a public place or in any place open to public view.
Okay, with the logistics out of the way, lets look at my opinion. I am glad to see that Justice Himel reserved judgement for 30 days to allow for an opportunity for the Provincial Crown to appeal, which is what they did the very next day. From my understanding Justice Himel’s reasoning, in agreement with the litigants Terri-Lynn Bedford, Valerie Scott, and Amy Lebovitch, indicated that the laws needed to be struck from the Canadian Criminal Code because they created real safety concerns for current sex-trade workers. The Globe and Mail article indicated “in her [Justice Himel] 131-page ruling which took her a year to produce, Judge Himel found that laws set up to protect prostitutes actually endanger their safety, forcing them to furtively engage in hasty transactions conducted in shady locations.” The rationale behind this is now sex-trade workers will be able to get off of the street and into what was “formerly” known as a common bawdy-house which in their opinion would be a controlled environment that would allow for protection from predators such as Robert Pickton.
Additionally, it is hoped (by the litigants) that this will also move the sex-trade indoors and remove some of the visible signs that are currently on display.
Well, I have to admit that in my policing career I did not have the opportunity to enforce Canada’s prostitution laws on any “street-walkers,” I can say that the trade is flourishing in illegal massage parlours and strip clubs. I do not agree with the rationale that this law will protect sex-trade workers from potential Robert Pickton’s for a couple simple reasons:
1. Massage Parlours and strip clubs have notoriously been areas were the solicitation of sex is an ongoing “problem” and striking these laws down does nothing to curb the problem. If anything, it can put the “girls” in more jeopardy as massage parlours and strip clubs are generally owned by individual members of organized crime factions – specifically Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs like the Hells Angels. As I see it if sex acts become legal and are able to be performed in strip clubs and massage parlours, we are feeding the “girls” to the MOST dangerous criminal elements in society.
2. It believed that girls who currently walk the streets will be able to obtain protection in the safety of massage clubs or other “brothel” type establishments. While this is laudable on its thought, in practicality it does not work. The girls who (again in my opinion) walk the street are generally addicted to drugs, have mental health concerns, and have turned to the streets because there is nowhere else for them to go. The people who would start up a potential brothel or massage parlour generally pass over the girls who are older, not “attractive” enough, and have drug and mental health issues. Where will the protection be for these sex-trade workers?
3. Where will the protection be against unfair labour practises? In all seriousness, will they unionize? How is this going to be monitored, will they be taxed? Will by-laws be involved?
Additionally, evidence presented urged Judge Himel to also reflect on the fact that prostitution is inherently degrading and unhealthy, and should not be encouraged as a “career choice” for young women through a slack legal regime. With all due respect to the learned Justice Himel, I do not think any 6 year old girl dreams about the nitty gritty of “Pretty Woman.”
One misleading inaccuracy in the article includes: Several cities – including Toronto, Victoria, Windsor, Calgary and Edmonton – charge fees to licence body-rub establishments despite the general understanding that many sell sexual services. While they do in fact license “body-rub” establishments, they are not (as the article would lead you to believe) licensing massage parlours for sexual services. What they are licensing is a massage establishment which begins and ends at the massage.
In the end, SHOULD these laws be struck, I suspect it will be many years before this makes its way through the Ontario Court of Appeal and then on to the Supreme Court of Canada. However, once this legal drama makes its way through its appeal process, in the end if it is struck from our laws (which for the record, I do not believe it should be – see above) there are other issues and areas of law (Administrative Law, Employment/Labour Law, Municipal Law…etc) that will need immediate addressing.
Police Powers and The G20: Why the Public Works Protection Act Was Unnecessary
In the following paper I advance the argument that the use of the Public Works Protection Act at the G20 by police was unnecessary and inappropriate. I suggest that they had ample existing authority under statute and common law to do the job they needed to do.
From my blog: Simon Says.
Police Powers and The G20: Why the Public Works Protection Act Was Unnecessary
There has been a great deal of discussion and controversy recently over the actions of police at the G20 in Toronto in June. Much of the debate revolves around the use of the Public Works Protection Act (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by police to provide security at the event.
A number of specific issues have been identified by the media, the public, and the government regarding the actions of the police in general, and specifically the use and implementation of the Act at the event. However, this paper will not address those issues. They have already received a great deal of attention and no doubt will continue to in the future.
The purpose of this paper is to advance the theory that the Public Works Protection Act was unnecessary and inappropriate for the G20. It was overbroad and arbitrary for the task at hand. Police have existing statutory and common law powers which I will argue would have sufficed and been far less intrusive on the Charter rights of the public.
A Brief history of the Public Works Protection Act
Contrary to statements made by the media, the Public Works Protection Act is not a secret, nor is it a new law. It was created in 1939, following the outbreak of World War II, and was revised to its current form in 1990. The Act is very short, but very broad and very powerful. It may not be well known to police or the public, but it is used every day to provide security at court houses, government buildings and other infrastructure points within the province.
Section 1 of the Act defines a “public work”. Of note here is subsection (c), which gives the Lieutenant Governor in Council the authority to designate other buildings or places as a public work. This is the authority under which a portion of downtown Toronto was reclassified as a public work for the G20.
Section 3 sets out the power of arrest for a peace officer or guard. Clearly these power are quite broad, perhaps understandably so, given their intended purpose to allow officers and guards to protect the infrastructure of the province. However, they are clearly unprecedented when compared to any other Federal or Provincial statute.
Section 5(2) provides the arrest authority for failing to comply and, finally, section 5(1) sets out the offence.
Adaption of the Public Works Protection Act
Ontario Regulation 233/10 was created on June 2 and filed on June 14. It was scheduled to be effective from June 21 until June 28, but was not published in the Ontario Gazette until July 3.
Schedule 1 and 2 describe “the zone” in downtown Toronto which this regulation makes into a “public work”.
Why was adapting the Public Works Protection Act to the G20 a problem?
Even acknowledging that the majority of arrests at the G20 were not under the Public Works Protection Act, there are still issues with the arbitrariness and overbroadness of arrests conducted under the act, which seems to be one of the issues people are most upset about.
Existing Authorities
As stated earlier, the aim of this paper is to suggest that police had existing statutory and common law authorities which could have been used instead of the Public Works Protection Act and would have, arguably, resulted in far less of a public outcry. It is to three of these authorities that I will now turn.
The first authority is the common law power of investigative detention. Best articulated in R. v. Mann (2004)1, Iacobucci J., wrote for the majority of the Supreme Court that authority exists in common law for police to detain an individual if they have “articulable cause”. Articulable cause was defined by Doherty J.A. in R. v. Simpson (1993)2 as “a constellation of objectively discernible facts which give the detaining officer reasonable cause to suspect that the detainee is criminally implicated in the activity under investigation”.
This authority applies only to people who police can articulate may actually be involved in a specific crime being investigated. It requires powers of observation and the need to discern and articulate an actual crime. This takes away the arbitrariness and overbroadness of the Public Works Protection Act, which seems to be what the public has a problem with. I do not think that being limited to detaining people who may be involved in a crime would have significantly hampered the ability of the police to provide security at the G20. After all, who were they there to deal with but people committing crimes?
This authority alone may not have been sufficient, but it was not the only one in the police officer’s arsenal.
The second authority is found in the statutory powers of arrest of police officers in the Criminal Code. Section 495(1) states that a peace officer may arrest without warrant “a person who has committed an indictable offence or who, on reasonable grounds, he believes has committed or is about to commit an indictable offence”.
The inclusion of “is about to commit an indictable offence” broadens the arrest authority of the police powers to the point of making them quite appropriate for the G20. Under this authority, officers who were able to articulate that person approaching or entering a restricted zone (or a person anywhere else in the city for that matter) was about to commit an indictable offence (i.e. mischief, etc), could simply arrest them for that anticipated crime. Like investigative detention, this authority would also have required officers to have display the ability to discern and articulate a specific offence in order to arrest. But again, what need is there for police to arrest those who are not committing or about to commit a criminal offence? If officers had been able to articulate what crime (committed or anticipated) each person at the G20 was arrested for, I doubt there would have been such criticism of their actions.
Certainly it is not always easy, or even possible, to classify a person’s actions as about to lead to a specific criminal offence, and it is for that reason that I turn to the next authority.
The third in the trilogy of authorities I suggest could have usurped the need for the Public Works Protection Act is the statutory arrest authority for Breach of the Peace. Section 31 of the Criminal Code states that a peace officer can arrest “any person whom he finds committing the breach of the peace or who, on reasonable grounds, he believes is about to join in or renew the breach of the peace”.
The wording here makes this particular authority particularly appropriate to the G20, especially when used in conjunction with the other authorities police have. “Breach of the Peace” not being clearly defined, there is significant room for discretion on the part of the officer to arrest “unruly” people who appear to be “breaching the peace” or who may be about to “breach the peace”.
This authority appears to approach the broadness of the Public Works Protection Act. A person only has to look like they are about to act in an “unruly” manner to be arrested under this authority. The majority of arrests at the G20 were, in fact, under this authority, but the big difference between this authority and the Public Works Protection Act is that Breach of the Peace still requires some ability, on the part of the officer, to articulate why he believed a breach was occurring or about to occur.
Certainly arresting on a Breach of the Peace is more difficult for police than exercising the arbitrary power to arrest under the Public Works Protection Act for simply being in the wrong place. However, it is, arguably, easier to justify the intrusion on people’s Charter rights with a Breach of the Peace arrest than through the Public Works Protection Act.
Summary
The police have extensive authority under common law and statute to stop, detain, arrest, and search people. (All three of the authorities I have cited have powers of search subject to detention or arrest.) However, these three authorities, in fact almost all police authorities, other than the Public Works Protection Act, require the use of discretion and articulation in their application. Certainly, this makes the job of the police more difficult and time consuming, but as a province and as a nation, we are not known for trading our civil liberties for convenience or efficiency in law enforcement and the maintenance of public order, nor should we be.
Based on my own experience as a police officer, I believe that the use of the authorities I have cited above, as well as all the other powers at the police officer’s disposal, would have allowed police to perform their duties adequately at the G20, without the need for the Public Works Protection Act.
The exercise of authority with discretion and articulation is far less likely to raise the ire of the public than the arbitrariness and overbroadness of the authorities contained in the Public Works Protection Act. The courts in this country have tended to rule in favour of the need for proper discretion and articulation in the exercise of police powers and have avoided lending support to blanket authorities. Arbitrary and overbroad authorities which are used to infringe on a person’s Charter rights are inconsistent with the core values and principles of fundamental justice in this country.
On these principled reasons, I would submit that the Public Works Protection Act was not appropriate for the G20.
1) R. v. Mann, 2004 SCC 52, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59
2) R. v. Simpson, [1993] O.J. No. 308, 12 O.R. (3d) 182
Introducing the Niqabitches
Here’s what some students in France came up with to protest recent legislation there.
Read the full story at The Telegraph.
More Collaboration Between NCRs
One of the upsides from the fallout of the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” is that there is a clear acknowledgment that Islamophobia likely ranks the highest out of any form of discrimination. This has likely been the case for just under the past 10 years, but recognition of this phenomenon has been challenging, even among law enforcement.
Another positive sign is that Americans from all persuasions have risen up to fight and combat this hatred, including the Jewish community. Although Kamran Pasha stated with some reservation that the ADL has defamed its Jewish heritage, other Jewish activists such as the Shalom Center and interfaith groups have taken a different stand. It’s also the theme for this site in the past year, which is why we presented Ahsan Mirza the Blawger of the Year award.
To me this type of collaboration only seems natural, as hatred towards Jews and Muslims is invariably linked, and the two groups have worked extensively in the past to assist one another.
In light of recent events I’ve decided to dig up a presentation I gave a couple years ago during my first year in law school:
