ZGram - 1/5/2002 - "Canada's Globalization, Militarization, Police State Agenda"

[irimland@zundelsite.org]

Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland

ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny

January 5, 2002

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

Today's ZGram fits right into what I sent to you yesterday regarding
"Secret Evidence".  It comes out of Canada, ostensibly still a "democracy".
It is a recorded oral presentation;  therefore, some of the syntax is a bit
off.  The rest of it is self-explanatory and rings a hundred alarm bells:

[START]

      Canada's Anti- Terrorism Laws- Bills C36, C22, C35, C42 Presentation
by Rocco Galati at a forum sponsored by the Scientists For Peace Toronto,
December 2001 (Canada's Globalization, Militarization, Police State Agenda)

 My name is Rocco Galati. I am a constitutional lawyer. I was a lawyer for
the Crown for a few years before I went into private practice cases against
the government. I was the counsel who brought the  MAI case up through the
courts to the Supreme Court of Canada, and argued the Quebec city
injunction perimeter fence case up to the Supreme Court of Canada.  I have
been doing CSIS terrorist certificate cases under the Immigration Act, the
so-called secret trials that are now going to be part of C36  secret trial
mechanism.

 In a nutshell, what is in Bill C 36, and  is undoubtedly not open for
debate, what Bill C36 does is as follows. It has  very little to do with
terrorism.  Terrorism is very easy to define.  I have defined it for
clients of mine appearing before parliamentary and senate committees.

 Terrorism is a very simply definition. It is the application of terrorism
that is all the problem.  I define terrorism as the threat of or use of
violence and arms by an armed group or individual against an unarmed group
or individual for political, racial, religious, social, or economic
reasons including state terrorism.  You can take any other armed conflict
whether it is two people dueling at dawn over a woman 200 years  ago, or
two groups in an insurrection or civil war, or war, or somebody doing it
for profit, or drug running.  We have laws to cover that, but that is not
terrorism.

 The only problem with a definition of that sort is that you have to apply
it equally, and that's  where we get into problems, because certain states
want to be able to support terrorism  when it suits their needs.  My only
point is that this bill has very little to do with terrorism in the sense
that the first speaker was speaking about.

 1. What this bill does is really codify militarization and a police state,
and further globalization interests.  You see it right in the bill.  The
Bill  is overly broad. Even though they took out the "lawful", the Bill
still catches dissent. It still catches protest. Protests that interrupt
public facilities are acts of terrorism under this bill.  No question about
it, whether they are "lawful" or not, if they endanger life.  Any protest
that is going to cut off a part of the city from essential services like
ambulances by definition endangers life.  That is the price we pay in
democracy. That is a terrorist act under this Bill.

 2.The other thing the Bill does is that it can convict you of facilitating
terrorism without any knowledge or intent.  The government pretended that
they changed the definition, but they didn't. They changed it  in one
section and they took ir away in another. Even if you don't know you are
facilitating, you are going to get caught.  So the guy who sells the
envelopes and the stamps at the corner store in my view is facilitating
terrorism when the purchaser  puts anthrax in them and mails them off,
whether he knows it or not.

 3. Then there is the 72 hour arrest on suspicion.  The only test here is
you can be held here for 72 hours without being charged on suspicion. That
is not a test.  That is not even a smell test.  What is the suspicion going
to be based on?  It will be based on another portion of the Bill which
allows the Court and  police "in determining whether an accused
participates in or contributes to any activity of a terrorist group the
court may consider among other factors whether the accused uses a name,
word, symbol, or other representation that identifies or is associated with
the terrorist group".

 Now if I look around this room, I can probably pick out five or six women
here who I find suspicious because the legislation allows it.  So if you
use the same religious or codeful symbols that some terrorist group has
misappropriated for their own purpose, even though they are valid religious
or cultural symbols of Islam or being Arab or being Tamil or being Sikh,
then the legislation grants the police and the Courts the right to use that
as the basis of suspicion.  In my language that is just racist profiling.
Racism, that is all it is.

 So the 72 hour detentions are also problematic because there is no stop to
the revolving door.  One police officer on suspicion will arrest you for
the 72 hours.  You are released. That is not to say they can't come back in
12 hours or 12 minutes and re-arrest you on another suspicion.  So you can
go around the revolving door this way.  And they can put conditions on you
similar to bail conditions even though you are not charged or arrested with
anything, for a year at least without charging.

 4. Investigative hearings are nothing short of Roman Catholic
Inquisitions. That is all they are, maybe without the torture, maybe not.
But who knows what people get tortured. Every group in this country has
suffered torture at police hands. That's documented.

 So you are hauled in, and you have to answer questions. If you don't
answer questions, you are subject to criminal charge.  They say they can't
use the answers against you in a court.  Well, that's not true because (1)
they can use the answers to go engage in further investigation outside the
answers, and that evidence can be used in court. (2) If you ever take the
stand to defend yourself, the case law is clear they can use your answers
to say that you are lying.  So it is not true that they can haul you in and
anything you say will never be used against you in court.

 5. Really nasty provisions that no one seems to be talking about, quite
frankly because they are so foreign to our law and our experience, are the
secret trial provisions. Right now in Canada, there is only one instance
where you get secret trials - that is on CSIS terrorist cases under the
Immigration Act. That is where someone is accused of being a terrorist or
associated with terrorism. What happens when they allege that you are a
terrorist is that you never get to see the evidence.  Your lawyer never
gets to see the evidence. All you get is a summary of the allegations
against you.  And then the lawyer for the government sits with the judge
and they review the evidence.  And then you go into open court, and the
judge says, "What do you have to say in response to the fact that we say
you are a terrorist?"

 And so the game goes something like this: "I was born in a little village"
somewhere, wherever. "I knew all these people", and you literally have to
ransack through a person's life and hope that in doing so that you are
addressing whatever evidence, distorted rumor or hearsay evidence that is
before the judge.

 So these secret trials are really foreign. They've been around since 1990
in Canada (under Immigration cases, not the Criminal Law) .  There has only
been one case where it was fought and won.  That was a case I fought and
won two years ago.  It was called Jibala.  A case from Egypt.  But lo and
behold, they re-arrested him again even though the federal court said there
is nothing to the allegation.  They re-arrested him this August and we are
back on the merry-go-round.

 So now under, C36 at various stages, if the police or the CSIS or RCMP
say, "I can't answer that question, I can't divulge that evidence because
it's 'national security' (they usually lower their voice to say that) then
you don't get to see it.  That's very dangerous because our whole system is
based on testing the evidence against you.

 6. That also goes for the confiscation of property. These secret trials
allow for the confiscation of property as well. So your daughter has a
friend who is Muslim who has a brother who may be associated with a group
that is on the list.  Let's say there is any money that transfers. Let's
say your daughter is helping you with the mortgage, but she gets some help
from her [boyfriend's] brother to pay the mortgage.  They can and will
confiscate your  house.  You will never know why.

 Because that money is coming indirectly from a terrorist source, even
though you don't know that your daughter is getting money from her
[boyfriend's] brother, and he's associated with somebody, that property can
and will be confiscated, and you will never know why. You will never see
the evidence, and nobody will know why your property is getting
confiscated, except for a bald allegation that is tied to terrorism.

 7. Lastly, I want to say I personally find  all this legislation C36, C35,
C22, C 42 offensive:

 C35 which broadens state immunity to state terrorists  or dignitaries from
abroad  from international organization. If they are terrorists its OK.
They are immune from our law; C22 that makes lawyers spies for the
government. They have to report suspicious activity and not tell their
client; and C42 that's just been introduced which allows ministers to
delegate authority to their officers to declare military security zones on
the spot, issue orders on the spot, and nobody can discuss the orders, even
the subject of the order, because if you discuss it or publicize it, that's
a separate criminal offence;

 If you take all these bills together, it doesn't take a rocket scientist
to see that what we have here is a road map for, essentially, I am not
exaggerating, a  military junta, really in the hands of  four cabinet
ministers who can delegate right down to the ground.  That what's
happening.  If you look at, and there's no argument against this if you
look at the legislation, it is so offensive.

 8. The last point I want to make about this globalization and the
militarization of that agenda  is that if you look at the definition of
terrorism, what they have done is very reptilian, very slivery, so nasty.
They have included in the definition of terrorism "threats to and including
its economic security". So if you do anything that threatens the economic
security of Canada, you are engaging in a terrorist act. Now, in addition
to all the problems of  protest, there is something even more insidious
than this, than just what is found in the definition of terrorism. Another
part of this omnibus bill (Bill C 36) is that they've  re-defined the
Official Secrets Act and renamed it the State Security Act. Under that
legislation, S3 of that act (Official Secrets Act) which is S.27 of this
Bill C36,  it says "for the purpose of this act a purpose is prejudicial to
the safety or interest of the state if a person..." Then there are various
thing that a person can do to endanger the security of  the state:

 (a)     "interferes with the service facility or system or computer program"

 (b)     "damages property"

 (c)     (really offensive) "adversely affects the stability of the
Canadian economy, a financial system, or any financial market in Canada
without reasonable economic or financial justification"

 So boycotts of the markets or the banks on ethical or environmental
grounds are now an act of terrorism.  When you grasp that that's "the
economic security of the country" via the Official Secrets Act, now the
State Security Act, you can't even have financial dissent.

 And then, here are the ones that are really nice.

 (d)     "impairs or threatens the capability of the government or the Bank
of Canada to protect against or respond to economic or financial threats or
instability

 (e)     "impairs or threatens the capability of the government of Canada
to conduct diplomatic or consular relations or conduct and manage
international negotiation. So, no more Quebec city protests.  They are all
an act of terrorism.  No  protesting any stock market, any financial
market, or ethical or environment laws.  So that's how broad this bill is,
and that's how broad the net has been cast.

[END]

=====


  Thought for the Day:

 "The constitution of Canada does not belong either to Parliament, or to
the Legislatures; it belongs to the country and it is there that the
citizens of the country will find the protection of the rights to which
they are entitled."

(Supreme Court of Canada  A.G. of Nova Scotia and A.G. of Canada, S.C.R.
1951 pp 32 )