27 February 2018
The Backlash podcast episode 1: Women and the far right
Source: https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/lara-whyte/backlash-podcast-episode-1-women-and-far-right?utm_source=50.50&utm_campaign=ce655a6b99-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_09_25&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_89d6c8b9eb-ce655a6b99-408096385
50.50, openDemocracy’s gender and sexuality section, is investigating the global backlash against women’s and LGBTQI rights. Rising nationalist and extreme right-wing populism have been identified including by UN experts as major threats to our rights. And yet women around the world are also joining some of these movements.
LW: Independent councillor Jolene Bunting (JB) represents a very small part of north Belfast in Northern Ireland. She was banned last year from Facebook for 30 days, as part of its attempt to clamp down on hate speech. I start here by asking her: did she not think Britain First were bit extreme?
The Backlash podcast episode 1: Women and the far right
We talk to three women who know more about the far right than most: councillor Jolene Bunting in Northern Ireland, researcher Marilyn Mayo in the US, and Akanksha Mehta at the University of Sussex.
50.50, openDemocracy’s gender and sexuality section, is investigating the global backlash against women’s and LGBTQI rights. Rising nationalist and extreme right-wing populism have been identified including by UN experts as major threats to our rights. And yet women around the world are also joining some of these movements.
In the first episode of 50.50's new podcast – The Backlash – we speak to three experts on women’s participation in the far right: councillor Jolene Bunting, a Belfast politician and supporter of the far-right, anti-Muslim group Britain First; researcher Marilyn Mayo, senior fellow at the Anti-Defamation League in the US; and Akanksha Mehta, at the University of Sussex.
Listen to the episode here. You can also read a (lightly edited) transcript below. Follow The Backlash podcast on Twitter and let us know what you think.
Trigger warning: this episode contains some distressing material, particularly in the comments of Councillor Bunting. So if you are exhausted by hate and would prefer to sit these out – skip the first five minutes.
The Backlash podcast episode 1: Women and the far right – transcript
Lara Whyte (LW): Hello and welcome to The Backlash: a podcast series tracking threats against women’s rights, brought to you by 50:50, the gender and sexuality section of openDemocracy. I’m Lara Whyte and I am your host.
This month, we are kicking off by looking at the rise of the far right – and in particular the many women who are enlisting. Who are they, what are they doing and why? I’ll be speaking to three women who know more than most about this: councillor Jolene Bunting, a Belfast politician and supporter of the far-right group Britain First; Marilyn Mayo, senior research fellow at the Centre for Extremism at the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in the US, and Dr. Akanksha Mehta, lecturer in international relations at the School of Global Studies at the University of Sussex.
For those of you listening from outside of the UK, it’s important to stress that Britain First are not in Parliament – they're a far-right, anti-Muslim group with no elected political representation at the moment. Last year, Donald Trump retweeted three of this group’s videos; fake content pillaged from other sources and re-purposed as news. Old ideologies using new technologies. Here’s deputy leader Jayda Fransen (JF), speaking in Belfast late last year.
JF: The biggest threat to civilisation across the world is Islam. Without a doubt, just switch the news on. And it could be in London, it could be in Manchester, it could be in Germany, it could be in Brussels, it could be in Africa. We are at war with Islam. The world is at war with Islam.
LW: Independent councillor Jolene Bunting (JB) represents a very small part of north Belfast in Northern Ireland. She was banned last year from Facebook for 30 days, as part of its attempt to clamp down on hate speech. I start here by asking her: did she not think Britain First were bit extreme?
JB: It’s extreme to plant a bomb in an airport. It’s not extreme to speak about something. There are hundreds of girls now living with the trauma of being raped by the Asian Muslim grooming gangs. But no one wanted to talk about that... and that’s where the problem comes [from]. And if we look closer into that, and we look at the Islamic teachings, and the life of the prophet Mohammed, he thought that it was OK to have sexual intercourse with a 9-year old child – and that’s a fact; that’s not me being derogatory. I’m not one to put anyone down, but that’s a fact, and if we don’t look at that then we’re never going to get to the bottom of these grooming gangs.
LW: So you’re linking these grooming gangs directly with the prophet?
JB: Well... how I have come to that is I have looked at their religion, and I have seen a pattern.
LW: So Jolene, Britain First don’t have any councillors or [elected] politicians; do you think they’re trying to get you to join?
JB: I don’t know. I actually approached Britain First. I invited them to an anti-terrorism rally... [where] Jayda, she was pointing out things which were in the Koran, which may harm our society. She was then subsequently arrested for it.
LW: When you invited them over to Belfast – I can see the benefit from Britain First’s point of view, because you’re an elected official, and they don’t have that; but what is the benefit to you and your constituents?
JB: The benefit for me of inviting Britain First over was to speak to English people, so that English people can hear what is actually going on in Northern Ireland. Jayda Fransen is one of the most powerful women I have ever come across. She’s one of the most inspirational women I’ve ever come across. She knows exactly what the problem is, and she knows how she needs to fix it. And she is determined, and she doesn’t care who or what steps in her way. She is determined to stand up for her country and do what’s best for her country.
"Jayda Fransen is one of the most powerful women I have ever come across... and she doesn’t care who or what steps in her way. She is determined to stand up for her country."
LW: Do you think Britain First are going to ask you to formally join them, and then your political career would be on a Britain First platform? And do you think that would work?
JB: They haven’t asked me thus far, and I don’t know that they ever would ask me. However it’s something that I would have to consider. Being an independent is quite a hard platform; being on your own is always going to be harder than having a party to hang to. Britain First has been more than welcoming to me.
LW: That was independent councillor Jolene Bunting there, and this is The Backlash – brought to you by openDemocracy 50.50.
Marilyn Mayo (MM) has been studying far-right movements in America for more than 20 years. She is senior fellow at the Center for Extremism at the Anti-Defamation League in the US. I reached out to her to ask about the rising numbers of women participating in extremist right-wing movements. Is this a new trend? And if so, what is so new about it?
MM: Women have come into the alt-right in various ways. I can think of a number of women off hand who are playing sort of a dual role, espousing traditional roles for women while at the same time trying to make kind of a voice for themselves. You do have more women interested in the movement. They’ve always played kind of a secondary role to men in the movement though, even in years past. A lot of men in the alt-right have misogynist points of view, really do believe that women should take the back seat, that women should just be in traditional roles, that women shouldn’t be the voices that people respond to in the movement. I think it’s been a very mixed bag for the women.
LW: And do you think the alt-right in general is actively trying to recruit women? Do you think it has the strategic sense to realise that it needs more women in order for the movement to grow?
MM: There are groups that have talked about women and their roles in the movement; they don’t want them to be necessarily the leaders of the movement. They think that women play important roles in terms of supporting them in the movement... but I think it’s a double-edged sword for a lot of them because when they do get very active ,and start to have like a voice, they get criticised by men in the movement. And part of the alt-right movement, or part the men’s rights movement that's fed into the alt-right, they’re pretty misogynistic just in general. But there are a lot of women that support the views of the alt-right.
"Women have come into the alt-right in various ways... but I think it’s a double-edged sword for a lot of them because when they do get very active and start to have like a voice they get criticised by men in the movement."
LW: So a lot of the young women I’ve met [in the growing right-wing scene] are in their early twenties. One thing they had in common was distrust, fear, you could even say hatred, of feminism.
MM: On this they’re in agreement with the men, even the men who attack them: that feminism has been a detriment to women in many ways, because it’s made women less likely to take on traditional roles of being a wife and a mother... they think that feminists have destroyed relationships between men and women in certain ways, and they’re very much promoting themselves a traditional role that women should have.
LW: What I find quite weird about that: so Lauren Southern, for example, she’s a spokesperson for a movement that thinks women shouldn’t really speak much.
MM: I agree with you that there’s a lot of irony in that, and she’s been attacked in the alt-right, by men in the alt-right, for having that activist role. She’s kind of played it both ways, from what I’ve read from her, promoting herself yet at the same time taking on these traditional roles. It’s sort of inherent in the role that they’re playing, that once you take on a leadership role, you’re seen in a certain light, as a spokesperson, but you’re still promoting this idea that women should take on traditional roles as mothers and wives.
LW: Do you think it’s significant that many of these women are so young that they’re not mothers and wives yet? I just had this feeling that there was a lot of young women and a lot of old men, and I wasn’t quite sure where the older women were?
MM: I’ve seen a lot of controversy over this in the alt-right, and the white supremacist movement, asking why these women are not having babies. And many of them say they’re not ready, or they haven’t met whoever they want to meet to do that with. But I think that young people generally are still forming their political ideas, and these women have been kind of buoyed up by the social media apps of the alt-right, and getting into the rejecting of political correctness, and other aspects of this world. There's a lot of irony, and I think that young people have been attracted to the movement in general because there’s this ironic humour and view of the world. There's something about it, especially the meme culture and things like that, where people are responding to that irony and bigoted humour... I’m thinking of people like Milo, getting up and attacking women and attacking feminists and attacking transgender people, and thinking that it’s really funny.
LW: Have you been surprised by what has been going on or have you been calling this for a while?
MM: You know, having looked at this for 20 years, there are movements that come and go, and there are waves of activity. I think different movements are created within the context of the time we’re living in. There’s certain things that made the alt-right unique, and that has a lot to do with social media, and the environment created by the polarisation in the United States right now, that’s so deep... the Trump effect, and things like that.
Most of the time, the white supremacist movement has been dominated by men. And there have been waves of activity when they’ve been more active than other times. When I first came to ADL for example, in the 1990s, the neo-nazi movement was the most active movement. And it’s not as active as it once was, though it’s getting active again in the United States; there are a number of groups that are openly calling themselves neo-national socialists.
It was a bit of a phenomenon that happened given a bunch of other currents in the United States, when the alt-right came to life – like the Trump campaign, and then when you had the Unite the Right rally [in August 2017], in Charlottesville, which was the biggest white supremacist gathering in decades. A lot of it had to do with the way it was presented and advertised, like through social media, blogs, people networking online. All sorts of things that didn't exist so much, years ago.
LW: Because it’s almost a surprise that they’re attracting women – like say for a young woman who’s curious about these movements, what do you think they’re finding there, that they might not have found say 10 years ago?
MM: Well, it’s a younger grouping that is involved in terms of the alt-right. It’s definitely a younger demographic than we’ve seen in the past, you have people as young as high school age, maybe even younger, being part of the movement. So there’s definitely a youthful element that’s a little different. And it was more that the women that were involved, for example in racist skinhead groups, were more like the girlfriend of the racist skinhead. I think now you have young women sort of coming into it on their own, and people like Brittany Pettibone, Tara McCarthy and Lauren Southern and others are sort of seeing themselves in leadership roles in ways that maybe women didn’t before – again, even though they’re espousing this traditionalism.
"It’s definitely a younger demographic than we’ve seen in the past, you have people as young as high school age, maybe even younger, being part of this movement."
LW: And so, Marilyn, do you think we need to talk about white women and why they’re so angry that they voted for Trump, that they're joining these movements? You tend to think of the far right as angry young men, but is it time we changed that view a little bit – or is it still a bit premature, are women still playing small roles, that are getting amplified for propaganda reasons?
MM: It’s still mostly I would say a male-dominated movement, but women are increasingly asserting themselves within the movement. But again, I want to emphasise that it’s still a two-edged sword for them because of the reaction they get from the men. We may be talking about two different things in some ways too, because when you talk about white women who are angry and voting for people like Trump, for example, they’re not necessarily part of the alt-right or the white supremacist movement, they might be angry for other reasons.
So it is important to talk about women. We’ve seen a lot of overlap between extremists in the US and then abroad in Europe; certainly there’s always been a relationship for example between white supremacists in the US and the BNP; there’s a lot of support in the alt-right for groups like UKIP, and Britain First, and things like that. I think that given the way we communicate these days, the impact of a group geographically is such that their material, their ideas, are easily transmittable just across the world.
LW: Marilyn, final question: do you think it’s kind of become cool to be racist?
MM: I think that some people feel that way. I think they feel that it’s actually OK now to be openly racist; I think that we’re seeing that more and more especially in the United States where we have young people in colleges who are openly being racist and expounding these views, I think people have become much more willing to express their racism and their anti-semitism very openly.
"I think people have become much more willing to express their racism and their anti-semitism very openly."
LW: Marilyn Mayo there. Of course this isn’t just a western story. Extreme nationalism is raising its ugly head all over the globe, and more women are participating worldwide. In India, the Hindutva movement believes in an extreme version of religious nationalism: that Indian culture is identical with Hindu culture. And it’s a violent movement. I asked Dr. Akanksha Mehta (AM) from the University of Sussex about the growing role of women in this movement.
AM: I did fieldwork in different places in India, in Delhi, in Bombay, in Nashik, in Puna... this was in 2013-2014, when the campaign elect Narendra Modi was ongoing. He was elected in May 2014, while I was in fieldwork.
There was a lot of honesty and openness on their part to just share with me what they were thinking, feeling, doing, writing and so in that sense it was not difficult to gain access, it was difficult to process the ethics of it and think about what they were doing and how I was writing about it and whether I was complicit in what they were doing by writing about it, more of those sort of ethical questions.
They’re really proud to be nationalists, they’re really proud to be, as they say, Hindus, but they conflate Hindu with Hindu nationalism, so they’re in this sense very open and proud of being on this side of the political spectrum, of not being what they call ‘anti-national,’ or not being ‘secular,’ or not being ‘on the left.'
"They’re really proud to be nationalists, they’re really proud to be, as they say, Hindus, but they conflate Hindu with Hindu nationalism."
For some of them, they see this work as not politics – because they see politics as still a very dirty game played by politicians and 'high-rankings', and so they see themselves as just doing the work they need to do to keep the nation alive... So it’s a very complex terrain but they’re absolutely identifying as being right-wing women, as being nationalist women, as being pro-certain things and anti-certain things and they’re very open about all of that.
I think for many of them, their husbands or fathers or brothers have been going to the weekly meetings, have been part of the sort of family structure of the movement for a really long time... But there are also lots of younger women, who may not have these kinds of backgrounds, who have gotten involved I think mainly through social media to begin with. There has been a lot of Hindu right-wing activism on social media; a lot of Hindu right-wing organisation and mobilisation on social media, especially on Twitter.
"there’s been a lot of Hindu right-wing organisation and mobilisation on social media, especially on Twitter."
I can see some patterns there, in terms of older women being more involved through families, and younger women being more involved through finding their own way. But these are not set in stone, because there are a lot of younger women as well that have joined because their families have been part of the movement for decades.
I think they get a sense of mobilisation, a sense of being part of something, being politically involved, gaining more access to public space, political space... So women are actively involved, they stand for something, they’re going to meetings, they’re going to protests, they’re putting together different kinds of organisations, they’re putting together different types of events, so there’s definitely a sense of achievement and a sense of community that’s coming through.
Through the movement, they’re able to move to say a bigger city to start a job, because they have these networks. So they have other families looking after them, friends, they have all of these other people that they’ve met through the Hindu right-wing who will watch out for them, and so hence their parents will let them move to a big city. So it has very much to do with women being able to mobilise and being able to gain access to spaces that they may not have been able to earlier, and then using that mobilisation to then bargain for space within the home – so being able to tell their husbands that they’re not going to be able to cook today, because they have to go to a meeting, and sort of arguing within their domesticity, changing those roles.
"For a lot of the women in the movement it’s also jussurpriset about a sense of community, friendship, intimacy... and using that mobilisation to then bargain for space within the home."
I think what surprised me most was how open and frank and honest the women were, because they had absolutely no fear of being persecuted or being charged with some sort of law for the kinds of hateful, violence-inciting things that they were saying and doing. So that was quite shocking. They were so comfortable in what they were saying without any fear that they could be held accountable for any of this. I expected that yes, of course there are lots and lots of people who hold these kinds of politics and views. But I expected that they would hold them with a least some acknowledgement that oh what I think is a bit extreme and what I think is violent, but it’s necessary... they really had nothing to hide.
LW: That was Dr. Akanksha Mehta from the University of Sussex there. That is it from us – thank you very much for listening. Our series on women and the far right is part of openDemocracy’s partnership with the World Forum for Democracy.
Tweet us at @5050oD or @Backlash_Tracking, or email us or find us on Facebook. 50.50 is an independent feminist media platform. Support our work. Help us get a better microphone, and help us track the backlash against women’s rights.
This episode of The Backlash was presented and produced by Lara Whyte. Thanks to Simone Lai for audio editing and music production assistance.
The Judicialization of Bulk Powers for Intelligence Agencies
Source:
http://craigforcese.squarespace.com/national-security-law-blog/2018/2/26/the-judicialization-of-bulk-powers-for-intelligence-agencies.html
Monday, February 26, 2018 At 11:48AM
http://craigforcese.squarespace.com/national-security-law-blog/2018/2/26/the-judicialization-of-bulk-powers-for-intelligence-agencies.html
The Judicialization of Bulk Powers for Intelligence Agencies
Monday, February 26, 2018 At 11:48AM
Personal Speaking Notes (February 2018)
(posted publicly with permission)
I have been asked to reflect on common trans-Atlantic intelligence dilemmas, and then a variation on our traditional trans-Atlantic search for solutions. To that end, I’ll say a few words about both the UK Investigatory Powers Act and some of the proposed aspects of bill C-59.
In some large measure, both the UK IPA (Investigatory Powers Act) and C-59 constitute what former CSIS director Jim Judd once called “the judicialization of intelligence”. Mr Judd raised concerns about this development. Intelligence has traditionally operated in a manner obliquely governed by law, if at all. There is a disconnect between a covert intelligence function – and its requirements – and the more overt culture of law and lawyers and judges. Intelligence needs are fluid. Law is rigid. Intelligence needs are immediate and exigent. Law can be laborious.
But law has inevitably encroached on intelligence. An academic colleague – Dennis Molinero – has uncovered a trove of documents from the 1950s. At that time, these documents show, national security domestic intercept warrants were issued by Prime Minister Louis St Laurent as an exercise of discretionary power under something called the Emergency Powers Act. There was the vaguest of statutory imprimaturs, and certainly no independent judicial oversight in the form of preauthorization.
We abandoned that approach in 1974, and the original iteration of the what is now Part VI of the Criminal Code. And in 1984, we built CSIS search and seizure around a judicial warrant process – and the next year, the Supreme Court decided Hunter v Southam. Since then, in cases like the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Atwal, through to Justice Crompton’s recent decision in the In the Matter of Islamist Terrorism case, the domestic intelligence search and seizure expectations have been placed on a constitutional footing largely indistinguishable from that of criminal law.
In the IPA, the UK has moved considerably closer to our model than had been the case before. Once the purview of ministers, executive warrantry is now supplemented by review by judicial commissioners. The shorthand is: double-lock (executive approval of a warrant supplemented by judicial review, prior to execution).
But in Canada, we have yet to address two dilemmas also at issue in the IPA. Both fall in the realm of what in the UK context is called “bulk powers”. And since in bill C-59 we moving in this area, and judicializing, it is on this topic I wish to focus a few remarks.
So first, let me define bulk powers: a bulk power is one that allows intelligence agencies access to a large quantity of data, most of which is not associated with existing targets of investigation. It is the mass access, in other words, to data from a population not itself suspected of threat-related activity. The commonplace example, since Snowden, is internet or telephony metadata for entire populations of communications users. But bulk powers can also involve content, and not just the metadata surrounding that content.
Bulk powers are controversial – they are the heart of the post-Snowden preoccupations. They inevitably raise new questions around privacy, and in the Canadian context, Charter rights. Not least: bulk powers are irreconcilable with the requirements of classic warrants. There is no specificity. By definition, bulk powers are not targeted; they are indiscriminate.
In the IPA context, the world of bulk powers can be divided into bulk interception; bulk equipment interference; bulk acquisition; and bulk personal datasets. Of these, I want to focus on bulk interception and bulk personal datasets.
Bulk interception is what is sounds like: the collection of transiting communications passing through communications providers or otherwise through the ether.
Canadian law permits bulk collection by the Communications Security Established, our signals intelligence service. It is subject to the caveat that acting under its foreign intelligence or cyber security mandate, CSE may not direct its activities at Canadians or persons in Canada. But in practice, bulk interception cannot be limited to foreigners, even if the objective is foreign intelligence. The way communications transit the internet and other communications systems creates a certainty that bulk intercept directed outside the country will intercept the communications of Canadians and persons in Canada. This is known as incidental collection.
In Canada, we have struggled with this issue. Part of the answer is in Part VI Criminal Code. As you know, it outlaws unauthorized intercept of private communications. A private communication is one with at least one end in Canada. Since in bulk interception, at least some private communications would be captured in a manner meeting this definition of intercept in Part VI, CSE must be exempted from its reach. And that is what the National Defence Act does, where CSE acquires a defence minister authorization in advance for at least the class of foreign intelligence or cybersecurity activities that might capture this private communication.
The constitutional issue is more fraught. Not least, the defence minister is not the independent judicial officer invoked as the gold standard under Hunter v Southam for Charter section 8. The consequence has been the constitutional lawsuit brought against CSE by the BCCLA associations and now efforts at refinement in C-59. And specifically, C-59 anticipates a quasi-judicial intelligence commissioner who will review the ministerial authorization before its execution. This past week, representatives of the CSE testifying before the Commons committee accepted the underlying constitutional expectation: They said under C-59, CSE will seek ministerial authorization (which in term triggers review by the intelligence commissioner) for any activity that would interfere with the reasonable expectation of privacy of a Canadian or a person in Canada, or contravene an Act of Parliament.
I am hoping that signals a willingness to amend the bill to say just that, on its face, but for our part my key point is this: C-59 clearly accepts the underlying premise: judicialization of bulk intelligence interception. In this respect, C-59 emulates the IPA.
But I wish to be clear, again: this is not a warrant. It will lack specificity. It will be issued for classes of activities, not specific activities or operations. It is review on reasonableness of a ministerial authorization, not the more hands-on warrant process. Does that meet Hunter’s standards? I am inclined to suggest, yes, because the warrant cookie cutter cannot possibly apply to a form of bulk intercept in which intercept of s.8 rights-bearer communications is entirely incidental, and not targeted.
Before leaving CSE, I will say a word about another C-59 change.
We have also gone one step further than the IPA in giving CSE a specific offensive cyber mandate – called active cyber. This could and almost certainly would implicate equipment interference, but interference untied to information acquisition and instead done “on or through the global information infrastructure to degrade, disrupt, influence, respond to or interfere with the capabilities, intentions or activities of a foreign individual, state, organization or terrorist group as they relate to international affairs, defence or security.”
At present, there is considerable debate in Parliament about whether the intelligence commissioner should have advance oversight responsibilities in relation to this mandate. Currently, he or she will not. I am of two views on whether judicialization in this area would be wise or not.
Turning to domestic-facing bulk powers, I need to switch agencies and talk about CSIS. And here we have drawn clear inspiration from the IPA in the area of bulk personal datasets. The UK understanding of this expression is an apt descriptor of what is now also in play in Canada:
"A bulk personal dataset includes personal data relating to a number of individuals, and the nature of that set is such that the majority of individuals contained within it are not, and are unlikely to become, of interest to the intelligence services in the exercise of their statutory functions. Typically these datasets are very large, and of a size which means they cannot be processed manually."
Why have such things? The C-59 changes are a response, yes, to the Federal Court’s 2016 decision on what was known as ODAC. But it also responds to a broader concern about the ambit of the Service’s threat investigation mandate. That mandate is anchored in s.12 of the CSIS Act. As interpreted by the courts, it permits the Service to collect, and analyse and retain information and intelligence respecting activities that may on reasonable grounds be suspected of constituting threats to the security of Canada, to the extent strictly necessary. As Justice Noel and Justice Crampton concluded in both the ODAC case and the more recent In the Matter of Islamist Terrorismdecision, this is a significant fetter on CSIS. It ties information collection, retention and analysis to a narrow band of threat investigations. It also makes it difficult for CSIS to change the frequency of its fish radar and expand its reach to search other parts of the ocean for fish that have not already come to its attention.
A spy service fishing in more ocean is, in some eyes, the stuff of Big Brother and nightmares. On the other hand, an intelligence service that cannot have access to the ocean in performing its function is also likely unable to perform its functions very well. And there is a lot of ocean out there in the digital era. So how can we reconcile oceans full of data generated by innocents with the intelligence function of clearing the fog of uncertainty and revealing not just the known threats but also the unknown threats?
The solution in both the UK and Canadian context is to judicialize the fish detecting radar. And the model is again a double lock: ministerial approval for ingestion of datasets and judicial commissioner approval.
The result, in the Canadian context, is enormous complexity. Broadly speaking, there are a set of legislated rules in C-59 for the ingestion of datasets, and then a more demanding set of rules for the digestion. (I credit a Department of Justice lawyer for this ingestion/digestion analogy, which is quite apt). So for Canadian datasets – datasets primarily comprising Canadian information – there is approval of classes of datasets that may be ingested by CSIS by both the minister and the quasi-judicial intelligence commissioner. Once ingested, there is a limited vetting by CSIS. And then any subsequent retention for actual use – that is digestion -- must be approved by the Federal Court, which is empowered to impose conditions on that subsequent use. There is also a requirement that querying generally be done only where strictly necessary in performance of CSIS’s mandates.
Those charts show why some intelligence operators complain that C-59 is a gift to lawyers. I suppose it is no surprise, then, that I think this is a clever regime. Not least, it short circuits inevitable frontier s.8 issues; to wit, does s.8 attach to the big data analysis of information, the individual bits of which triggers no reasonable expectation of privacy. It seems almost certain that the jurisprudence will get there. C-59 heads this issue off at the pass by superimposing independent judicial authorization guiding and conditioning that big data analysis.
So, on that happy note, I shall end there.
Thank you.
23 February 2018
Commanders for Israel's Security: No Annexation. Separation! - second phase
Source: mass emailing
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Amnon Reshef <amnonreshef@cis.org.il>
Date: 23 February 2018 at 08:46
Subject: No Annexation. Separation! - second phase
From: Amnon Reshef <amnonreshef@cis.org.il>
Date: 23 February 2018 at 08:46
Subject: No Annexation. Separation! - second phase
|
14 February 2018
13 February 2018
People Before Profit: MARY LOU MCDONALD'S LEADERSHIP OF SINN FÉIN
Source:
MARY LOU MCDONALD'S LEADERSHIP OF SINN FÉIN
Mary Lou McDonald is to be congratulated for assuming the leadership of Sinn Féin. She has been an articulate voice against austerity and has been able to convey an anti-establishment in clear terms.
Such congratulations are in order, particularly as the Southern establishment and their pet media spokespersons have re-launched an all-out war on the party in recent months.
There have been constant references to the IRA’s war during the troubles – without ever giving the same publicity to the dirty war waged by the British state.
It has now become the norm that when any Sinn Féin spokesperson appears on RTE , interviewers adopt the role of inquisitors, challenging any statement from the ‘defence’.
The contrast with interviewers’ treatment of Fianna Fáil’s legacy of corruption could not be more stark.
However, while the Southern establishment may fear any increase in popular support that Mary Lour McDonald may bring to Sinn Féin, the radical left have deeper concerns.
Our first is on the issue of abortion.
Sinn Féin has indicated that they will campaign for Repeal of the 8th Amendment and that is to be welcomed. But the crucial battle will come when the Dáil is given the freedom to make laws on the subject.
At present, Sinn Féin stands to the right of the Citizens Assembly in opposing its recommendation of allowing women to have abortions up to 12 weeks.
Instead the party has claimed that women must first show that they have been raped, or are suicidal, or have a fatal foetal abnormality before accessing abortion.
This is not a pro-choice position and expresses an adaption to conservative forms of thinking in Irish society.
At their special Ard Fheis in April, we hope that this position will be changed. But we also think that this should not be seen as simply as matter of ‘individual conscience’.
There are already two Sinn Féin TDs who have aligned themselves with the anti-choice forces and no genuinely left party should tolerate this.
As a party, Sinn Féin should come out as a whole, at the very least, in supporting the Citizens Assembly recommendation of abortion on request up to 12 weeks.
Our second concern is the growing pressure on Sinn Féin to re-join government with the DUP.
However, it was absolutely right to withdraw from a government that fostered corruption through the RHI scandal and which refused to accept an Irish language act or marriage equality.
Today the situation has become even worse as the DUP are propping up a Tory government in Britain.
We hope that Sinn Féin will stay firm on its original stance and demand the resignation of Arlene Foster and insist on an Irish language act and marriage equality.
We go further and say that they should also - if they take equality seriously - be calling for the full extension of the 1967 abortion act to the North.
Finally, Mary Lou McDonald has stated that Sinn Féin is willing to join a government led by either FF or FG as a minority partner.
The assumption is that being in government North and South will help advance the cause of Irish unity.
We think not.
Any association with FF or FG will only ensure that the muck sticks. Far from showing that Irish unity rests on fundamental change North and South, it will only confirm that yet another party that used a left rhetoric bows to the demands of a corrupt corporate elite.
We say: don’t go there.
If you agree text JOIN to 0872839964.
Do you like this post?
12 February 2018
Reclaiming and Redefining Politically Constructed Identities
Michael B. Jordan & Ryan Coogler talk Black Panther
Politically Based Meaning Assigned to Women's Clothing and Therefore to the Identities of Women
Communication (Projection) of Political Narratives Thru Women and Their ...
11 February 2018
09 February 2018
08 February 2018
National Observer's Four Part Series on CSIS
This is the first chapter in a four-part series investigating apparent institutional biases within the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the RCMP.
http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/09/14/news/bigotry-blinding-csis-and-rcmp-disastrous-effect
This is the second chapter in a four-part series investigating apparent institutional biases within the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the RCMP.
http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/09/20/news/torture-and-interrogation-csis-and-rcmp-way
This is part three of a four-part series investigating institutional biases at the RCMP and CSIS in regards to intelligence-gathering. Parts one and two can be read here and here.
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/10/10/news/csis-and-rcmp-accused-entrapping-terrorism-suspects
http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/09/14/news/bigotry-blinding-csis-and-rcmp-disastrous-effect
This is the second chapter in a four-part series investigating apparent institutional biases within the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the RCMP.
http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/09/20/news/torture-and-interrogation-csis-and-rcmp-way
This is part three of a four-part series investigating institutional biases at the RCMP and CSIS in regards to intelligence-gathering. Parts one and two can be read here and here.
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/10/10/news/csis-and-rcmp-accused-entrapping-terrorism-suspects
CSIS and the RCMP accused of neglecting far-right threat - Justice for ...
https://www.justiceforharkat.com/news.php?item.4005
Feb 8, 2018 - by Bruce Livesey Source: National Observer URL: [link] Date: October 12, 2017. This is the fourth chapter in a four-part series investigating apparent institutional biases within the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the RCMP. At around 7:30 p.m. on Jan. 29, at the Centre Culturel Islamique ...The Sanctification of Fear or Brexit
1of2:
James O'Brien discusses the Daily Telegraph's George Soros story https://youtu.be/rZ5HXejS2Cs
2of2:
George Soros, the man who 'broke the Bank of England', backing secret plot to thwart Brexit http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/07/george-soros-man-broke-bank-england-backing-secret-plot-thwart/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw
James O'Brien discusses the Daily Telegraph's George Soros story https://youtu.be/rZ5HXejS2Cs
2of2:
George Soros, the man who 'broke the Bank of England', backing secret plot to thwart Brexit http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/07/george-soros-man-broke-bank-england-backing-secret-plot-thwart/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw
07 February 2018
The National: Refugees come to Canada to escape gender persecution
"More than 15 per cent of female refugees who came to Canada in the past five years did so to escape gender persecution, according to a CBC News investigation. Gender persecution is the most common reason women seek refuge in Canada, ahead of religious, ethnic or political persecution. Gender persecution includes practices such as forced marriage and female genital mutilation, as well as domestic abuse which accounted for half of the claims in the data obtained by CBC."
One Law For All: Sharia ‘Courts’: Why Regulation is Not the Answer
Source: mass emailing
'Sharia' and other religious systems of arbitration are back in the news once again. There appears to be growing recognition of the profoundly discriminatory nature of religious arbitration systems which relegate Muslim and other minority women to second rate systems of justice. But is regulation the answer?
A close examination of the workings of 'Sharia' Councils and the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal reveal serious failings that flout principles of the rule of law and undermine the rights of women in fundamental ways. These forums use fundamentalist and ultra-conservative definitions of 'Sharia laws' in highly selective and authoritarian ways; they seek to impose a social culture of 'Zina' which compel women to resolve marital and family disputes using 'Sharia laws' or risk becoming social outcastes and worse.
Evidence from the UK and elsewhere shows that such religious arbitration bodies function primarily as a means of exercising control over female sexuality and autonomy. They do not treat women as full persons before the law, but instead subject them to degrading questions and investigative procedures and impede them from leaving violent relationships even if they experience torture or ill-treatment and are at risk of losing their lives. The emphasis is centrally on reconciliation even if this conflicts with the protection principle and gender equality. Questions of marriage, divorce, inheritance, financial and children arrangements as well as polygamy and other cultural forms of harm, must be determined by the civil and criminal laws of the land and not so called 'religious laws.' This also means that all religious marriages must be registered by law.
Politician s and lawyers would do well to listen to the voices of over 300 abused minority women who signed a letter last year describing how their rights are violated on a daily basis. Any incorporation and recognition of religious forums would sanction the place of religious leaders in making decisions about women's lives and normalise deeply patriarchal value systems.
We therefore urge caution in accepting the suggestion that a 'compromise' involving regulation and training provides a way forward. Regulation is neither desirable nor viable for the following reasons:
- The sheer diversity of religious interpretations would make regulation unachievable;
- Parallel legal systems create and legitimise arbitrary systems of 'justice' which means less scrutiny by state institutions out of fear of 'causing offence';
- There will not be sufficient resources to offer impartial judicial oversight of religious arbitration bodies to ensure compatibility with anti-discrimination and human rights law;
- In the wider society there is continuing public scrutiny and revision of law and policy and under a democratic parliamentary process but religious law is not open to such scrutiny;
- There is no political will to reform from within – religious forums around the world have been resistant to progressive reforms on women;
- Self regulation through bodies such as The Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board (MINAB) and the Board of Sharia Councils has failed to ensure the rights of women and children are protected;
- The accommodation of such forums, will amount to state sponsorship of fundamentalist and authoritarian forms of governance that encourage intolerance, misogyny and homophobia.
As black and minority women, we demand adherence to one legal system grounded within universal human rights principles. We cannot and will not settle for anything less.
Signatorie s:
Pragna Patel, Director, Southall Black Sisters
Yasmin Rehman, Trustee, Centre for Secular Space
Maryam Namazie, Spokesperson, One Law for All
Diana Nammi, Executive Director, Iranian & Kurdish Women's Rights Organisation
Sadia Hameed, Spokesperson, Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Gina Khan, Spokesperson, One Law for All
Houzan Mahmoud, Cofounder, Culture Project
Rahila Gupta, Writer and Journalist
Sara Khan, CEO, Inspire
Nasreen Rehman, Forced Marriage Commission
Marieme Helie Lucas, Founder, Secularism is a Woman's Issue
Fatou Sow, International Director, Women Living Under Muslim Laws.
Gita Sahgal, Director, Centre for Secular Space
For more information, contact:
Pragna Patel
Director of Southall Black Sisters
0208571959 5
Gina Khan and Maryam Namazie
Spokespers ons of One Law for All
0771916673 1
03 February 2018
Commanders for Israel's Security: NYT Op-Ed
Source: mass emailing
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)