My petition closed after its 30 day run with nearly 10k signatures. Here’s our sponsor, Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre MP) presenting it in the House of Commons. https://youtu.be/U2sN4MS96gY
The government has something like 45 days in which to reply.
Thoughts:
In a day or two, the countries that have been pledging financial support for UNWRA pulled their funding because Israel made unfounded accusations about a tiny percentage of UNWRA workers. Months later, many have still not restored funding, even though no evidence to support the allegations has come from Israel.
Why does everybody believe Israel?
If you’re friends with a pathological liar, you need to learn to get the evidence before you believe.
“I think it’s incumbent on the national government and (the Fisheries Department) to quickly pull together a meeting that brings all sides together to find a solution that the courts told us 21 years ago we needed to find, and that has to happen soon.” — Premier Stephen McNeil, Nova Scotia
Vehicle torched, lobster pounds storing Mi’kmaw catches trashed during night of unrest in N.S. : https://www.cbc.ca/1.5761468
Treaty of 1752, Article 4 reads, “It is agreed that the said Tribe of Indians shall not be hindered from, but have free liberty of Hunting and Fishing as usual…”
Destroying their equipment and stealing their catch is both a Treaty violation and a criminal offence.
I live in Ontario, have never been to Nova Scotia, nor am I Indigenous and I don’t eat lobster. But all the same I am furious about this entire situation. Mobs of white racist fishers are attacking Indigenous fishers, trespassing and destroying their property while RCMP stand around and do nothing more than turning their body cams off. These guys might as well be wearing white hoods and hammering burning crosses into the ground. 8
What ever happened to Canada’s vaunted rule of law? Mobs of white vigilantes are trespassing and destroying property.
It is up to the Federal Government DFO to announce that the Indigenous fishers are not breaking the law.
It is up to the Nova Scotia government to ensure the RCMP upholds thd law, which includes keeping the peace, preventing violence and arresting perpetrators.
If there are any non-racist white people in Nova Scotia, they need to get out and stand with their Indigenous neighbors.
Those of us who don’t live there can help in ways suggested in the list below, republished here to amplify the message.
WAYS TO SUPPORT MI’KMAQ ASSERTING THEIR TREATY RIGHTS IN DIGBY, NOVA SCOTIA (UNCEDED MI’KMA’KI)
What is Decolonization?Mi’kmaw Ancestral Relational Understandings and Anthropological Perspectives on Treaty Relations (Chapter 1): https://bit.ly/3cisdwY
UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES:
“Food Fish, Commercial Fish, and Fish to Support a Moderate Livelihood: Characterizing Aboriginal and Treaty Rights to Canadian Fisheries” by Douglas Harris & Peter Millerd:
The first time I heard about Security Certificates was when a young woman stood up at the anti Bill C-51 Rally at Kitchener City Hall to talk about The Secret Trial Five documentary.
I didn’t really understand what the young woman who spoke was talking about, so I went to see the documentary. And I was aghast. Still am, in fact.
Adil Charkaoui and Hassan Almrei are the two Secret Trial 5 victims who have finally been released from this ordeal.
Canada’s pre-9/11 Security Certificate system was designed to give authorities the ability to quickly deport suspected terrorists. The problem is that it does this without anything resembling legal process. And at the end of the day, Canada can’t deport anyone to torture without breaking International Law or violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Canada prides itself on being a “rule of law” country.
The Rule of Law: Common Definitions
1. a government bound by and ruled by law;
2. equality before the law;
3. the establishment of law and order;
4. the efficient and predictable application of justice; and
5. the protection of human rights.
How can secret trials even happen under a rule of law?
One of the legal protections Canadians hold dear is the presumption of innocence. It doesn’t matter if they charge us with a crime: in the eyes of the law, we are innocent until proven guilty. But here, the accused must prove themselves innocent without even knowing what they’re accused of.
If someone accuses we want to face our accusers. Don’t we have that right?
Even more important, we need to know what we are accused of… without knowing that, how can anyone defend themselves?
Three of the Secret Trial 5 continue to live in this legal hell which ought not be possible in any country claiming to operate under the rule of law.
Human Rights Watch 2007: “A Canadian federal court ruled on December 14, 2006, that a January 2006 decision by the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship (represented in such proceedings by “the minister’s delegate” who authors the decision on behalf of the minister) to deport Mohammad Zeki Mahjoub was “patently unreasonable,” because the Minister’s Delegate ignored critical evidence, and concluded “there was no institutionalized torture in Egypt.” Mohammad Zeki Mahjoub: Torture Risk Assessment (Update)
If you agree this should not be happening in Canada, please sign Sophie Harkat’s petition (above) and call or write to the government officials who have the power to change this.
You can use this handy form to send a letter to Prime Minister Trudeau and Minister Goodale, with copies going to your MP, The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Ahmed Hussen and the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Jody Wilson-Raybould.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
Phone: 613-992-4211
Fax: 613-941-6099
email: justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca
mailing address:
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0A2
Ralph Goodale
Phone: 613-947-1153
email: ralph.goodale@parl.gc.ca
mailing address:
House of Commons
Ottawa. ON K1A 0A6
Ahmed Hussen MP, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
email: ahmed.hussen@parl.gc.ca
mailing address:
House of Commons
Ottawa. ON K1A 0A6
Jody Wilson-Raybould, Minister of Justice, Attorney General of Canada
email: jody.wilson-raybould@parl.gc.ca
mailing address:
House of Commons
Ottawa. ON K1A 0A6
The first time I heard about Security Certificates was when a young woman stood up at the anti Bill C-51 Rally at Kitchener City Hall to talk about The Secret Trial Five documentary.
I didn’t really understand what the young woman who spoke was talking about, so I went to see the documentary. And I was aghast. Still am, in fact.
Adil Charkaoui and Hassan Almrei are the two Secret Trial 5 victims who have finally been released from this ordeal.
Canada’s pre-9/11 Security Certificate system was designed to give authorities the ability to quickly deport suspected terrorists. The problem is that it does this without anything resembling legal process. And at the end of the day, Canada can’t deport anyone to torture without breaking International Law or violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Canada prides itself on being a “rule of law” country.
The Rule of Law: Common Definitions
1. a government bound by and ruled by law;
2. equality before the law;
3. the establishment of law and order;
4. the efficient and predictable application of justice; and
5. the protection of human rights.
How can secret trials even happen under a rule of law?
One of the legal protections Canadians hold dear is the presumption of innocence. It doesn’t matter if they charge us with a crime: in the eyes of the law, we are innocent until proven guilty. But here, the accused must prove themselves innocent without even knowing what they’re accused of.
If someone accuses we want to face our accusers. Don’t we have that right?
Even more important, we need to know what we are accused of… without knowing that, how can anyone defend themselves?
Three of the Secret Trial 5 continue to live in this legal hell which ought not be possible in any country claiming to operate under the rule of law.
Human Rights Watch 2007: “A Canadian federal court ruled on December 14, 2006, that a January 2006 decision by the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship (represented in such proceedings by “the minister’s delegate” who authors the decision on behalf of the minister) to deport Mohammad Zeki Mahjoub was “patently unreasonable,” because the Minister’s Delegate ignored critical evidence, and concluded “there was no institutionalized torture in Egypt.” Mohammad Zeki Mahjoub: Torture Risk Assessment (Update)
If you agree this should not be happening in Canada, please sign Sophie Harkat’s petition (above) and call or write to the government officials who have the power to change this.
You can use this handy form to send a letter to Prime Minister Trudeau and Minister Goodale, with copies going to your MP, The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Ahmed Hussen and the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Jody Wilson-Raybould.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
Phone: 613-992-4211
Fax: 613-941-6099
email: justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca
mailing address:
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0A2
Ralph Goodale
Phone: 613-947-1153
email: ralph.goodale@parl.gc.ca
mailing address:
House of Commons
Ottawa. ON K1A 0A6
Ahmed Hussen MP, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
email: ahmed.hussen@parl.gc.ca
mailing address:
House of Commons
Ottawa. ON K1A 0A6
Jody Wilson-Raybould, Minister of Justice, Attorney General of Canada
email: jody.wilson-raybould@parl.gc.ca
mailing address:
House of Commons
Ottawa. ON K1A 0A6
When a 15 year old Canadian child named Omar Khadr was dug out of the rubble on July 27, 2002 he was so badly wounded he was not expected to survive.
Child Soldier
At the age of ten he was uprooted from his life in Canada by his father and taken away to Afghanistan.
The UN Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict establishes that children younger than 18 who are involved in armed conflicts are Child Soldiers. This protocol was written in 2000, but it came into force on into force on 12 February 2002. This is an “optional” protocol, meaning there is no obligation for any nation to sign it. The Canada is a signatory to this. By signing and ratifying this, the Canadian Government voluntarily chose to place Canada under its terms, so it it is no longer “optional.”
This protocol recognizes the fact that child soldiers are children, and children are not entirely responsible for themselves. This is hardly a stretch: Canadian Law recognizes this too. We have a special set of criminal laws for children. Children are not allowed to sign legal contracts or legally able to consent for themselves; a parent or guardian is required to decide whether or not to consent on their behalf.
Omar Khadr was only 15 years old when the compound he was in in Afghanistan was attacked by the American military. Under Canadian Law he was a Child Soldier.
Charter Rights
Omar Khadr was born Canadian. He has always been a Canadian citizen.
“Canada actively participated in a process contrary to Canada’s International human rights obligations and contributed to Mr. Khadr’s ongoing detention so as to deprive him of his right to Liberty and Security of the Person guaranteed by Section 7 of the Charter, contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.”
— Supreme Court of Canada, 2010
“The core issue repeatedly identified by the Supreme Court of Canada: in the pursuit of Justice and National Security, Governments must respect Charter Rights and Human Rights, and the Rule of Law.”
—Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale
Guilt or innocence makes no difference: all citizens, guilty or innocent are supposed to be protected by the Charter.
Guilt or Innocence?
What really happened is the subject of much hot debate.
What is very clear is that the only “evidence” supporting Omar Khadr’s charge and plea bargained conviction for killing anyone, was Omar’s confession. The problem is that Omar’s confession was made under duress when his American captors tortured him.
What is wrong with people that they have trouble understanding that torture is not only wrong, but not a reliable way to get at the truth? This cannot be stressed enough: TORTURE DOES NOT WORK. CIA documents freely admit, as has been known around the world for decades, that torture does not produce reliable or useful information. When someone is being tortured, they will tell their torturers anything they imagine the torturers might want to hear in their desperation to make it stop, and this information is almost invariably unreliable at best. Torture does not provide good, reliable, or useful information. Period. So torture justifiers are not only telling us “I don’t care if we behave as morally as Nazis, and I don’t care if we tortured bad guys or completely innocent people that had done nothing wrong” but also “I don’t even care whether it works or not, whether we got good or useful information of any kind at all.” It’s in black and white right there in the recently released documents: the torture program did not produce useful or reliable or true information, it only produced misery.
and there’s more here. Torture “is a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.” Not only is torture ineffective at gathering reliable information, but it also increases the difficulty of gathering information from a source in the future.
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effectiveness_of_torture_for_interrogation
Omar Khadr, after being captured as a child and tortured for years, was told by his torturers that his only hope of ever ending the torture was to plead guilty. “His lawyers were told, You have two choices: You can plead guilty and you get another eight years in Guantanamo. Or you can plead innocent, in which case, you’re here forever. So those are the choices his lawyers were given, practically in those words.” http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/15917-noam-chomsky-smoke-and-mirrors-or-civil-liberties-under-president-obama
Condemning Khadr based on a confession acquired through torture is not justice. In this divisive and mean spirited age, let’s at the very least agree that we disapprove of torture. How can the bar possibly be set that low?
Civil rights exist to protect citizens, they aren’t optional.
This is not a partisan issue— unless, of course, you consider the danger inherent in electing politicians who think its okay to torture citizens. Currently this is against the law in Canada. It doesn’t matter whether you are innocent or guilty, Canadian citizens have rights. Our governments are unaccountable enough now; the Supreme Court of Canada is holding it to account.
Our American friends are debating whether Health Care is a human right, but Canadians decided that it was long ago. Which is why it is bizarre that, of all the countries with Universal Health Care, Canada is the only country that doesn’t have Universal Pharmacare!
“Overall, it estimates a universal pharmacare plan would save up to $11.4 billion a year, with $1 billion of that saved just by no longer duplicating administrative costs in the current “patchwork” system.”
However, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s federal Liberal Government have more important things to worry about than the health of its citizens, so the Ontario Liberals Government has stepped up to the plate with an intention to add publicly funded pharmacare coverage for children and youth ~ adding to the patchwork system.
“Because Ontario is adding universal, comprehensive pharmacare coverage to the age group that uses medicines least often. Many working-age Ontarians, who are far more likely to require medicines than children, will still be uninsured.”
1. Implement through a Federal law, a Pan-Canadian Universal Pharmacare Plan, in this 42nd Parliament; and
2. Implement a National Formulary for medically necessary drugs including a drug monitoring agency providing regulations and oversight to protect Canadians.
Image Credit: My “Big Brother” poster makes use of the excellent Justin Trudeau photo that A.k.fung dedicated to the public domain, which allows me to liberate the poster as well… you can legally share and share and share some more ~ not even attribution is required! https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:INC_2009_Justin_Trudeau.jpg
For those who don’t know, at the end of Second World War the victorious Allies governments imposed Mixed Member Proportional Representation on West Germany.
They did this specifically to prevent the rise of another Hitler. Although these powerful government leaders clearly understood this, they chose not to follow the same path for their own nations. Presumably they believed such limitation on their own power wasn’t necessary. Just as Canada’s current Prime Minister doesn’t feel his power needs limitation.
Here’s the thing: it doesn’t matter if there is a good Prime Minister or a bad one. It doesn’t matter if there’s a bad government in place or not.
What matters in a representative democracy is that voters secure representation in Parliament. All Canadians need representation, period. Just as Canadians need the Charter, in times of good or bad. Like the Charter, representation provides citizens with security.
Had Harry Truman implemented such a change on the USA, the likelihood of a Trump presidency would be nil.
Had Prime Minister William Lyon MacKenzie King implemented some form of Proportional Representation in Canada, Canadians would not see be seeing a rise in dog whistle politics. My brother wrote about this phenomenon before either of us knew the term.
Winston Churchill knew Proportional Representation was a defence against fascism.
Here’s the thing: fear and dog whistle politics are a powerful tools used over and over again in winner-take-all systems because they work. One of the things so dreadfully wrong with winner-take-all politics is that the governments we elect are so unaccountable to voters, it isn’t a question of whether they will keep all their promises, it is a question of which promises they will keep. And, incredibly, we accept that. We have been conditioned to understand they won’t. No doubt this is a major reason the young and the idealistic don’t engage in politics: they see it for a sham, and choose to invest their energies elasewhere.
The Canadian MSM is now reminding us that all the MPs in Parliament — including those Conservative Leadership Candidates seeking to ride a wave of prejudice to 100% power in Parliament — voted in support of Mr. Mulcair’s October Petition. This was long before 6 Quebec Muslims were murdered at prayer.
Mr. Speaker, following discussions with all parties in the House, I hope you will find consent for the following motion. I move:
That the House join the 69,742 Canadian supporters of House of Commons e-petition (e-411) in condemning all forms of Islamophobia.
NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair’s Islamaphobia motion received unanimous assent in the House of Commons on Oct. 26, 2016
So what has happened? Do these Conservative Leadership Candidates feel a majority of their constituents approve of gunning down Muslims at prayer?
I don’t believe that for a minute. But our winner-take-all political system allows for the distribution of a disproportional amount of power. Ms. Leitch doesn’t need a majority of Conservative Party Members to support Islamaphobia in order to win her party’s leadership crown, or even a majority of voters to become the Prime Minister of Canada. So long as we continue to use this First Past the Post Electoral System, the right dog whistle can win a 39% (or less) majority.
It doesn’t matter if we have a few women or minority MPs in the House of Commons. We are staring in the face of the polarization inherent in FPTP. The example before starkly contrasts what happens when a powerful old white male MP puts forward a Motion condemning Islamaphobia with what happens when a young ethnic woman MP does. And it is a not pretty picture. But it happens. And it will keep on happening so long as we retain an electoral system that rewards dog whistle politicians with more than their fair share of power.
Canada needs real Real Change.
But it doesn’t have to be this way. In spite of his totally specious arguments to the contrary, Prime Minister Trudeau’s disavowal of his electoral reform promise not only paves the way for institutional racism, it fuels Islamaphobia. If Ms. Khalid (and other Liberal MPs) want to change this dreadful FPTP side effect, it is time they told their leader he must restore the Electoral Reform process and get the legislation through Parliament by October. Because if Canada wants to be a healthy multicultural democracy, we must have Proportional Representation.
At this time of writing, Petition e-616 is up to 120,651 signatures. If everyone who has already signed it can convince 2 Canadians to sign it our chance of having Proportional Representation implemented by 2019 will be greatly improved.
Last year the Canadian Government passes a motion that condemned the BDS movement. This motion didn’t make it illegal for the United Church of Canada, Quakers, organizations, university students and human rights activists and ordinary people like your Aunt Mabel who boycott and other Israeli companies like SodaStream operating in illegal settlements on what is supposed to be Palestinian land. It wasn’t a law, just a motion that said the Government disagrees.
Liberal back bencher Iqra Khalid’s Motion 103 has raised a ruckus.
Once again it becomes clear Canadians need to improve our civic literacy. Our politicians have entirely too easy a time manipulating us.
A motion is not a law. A government motion that condemns X simply says the government thinks X is bad. It is not a law, but an attempt to lead by example.
As a writer, I am a firm believer in free speech. If you are concerned about Canadian law interfering with our free speech, there is plenty to talk about with our hate speech laws and the law Canadians know as C-51. But this motion does not do anything to inhibit free speech. Even if it wanted to it couldn’t. A motion is not a law.
Motion 103 just says the Government of Canada doesn’t approve of Islamophobia, systemic racism and religious discrimination, and tasks the government with studying it in hopes of finding a soluition. But you don’t have to take my word for it. If you’re still worried, you can read it (like every motion or legislation considered by the Canadian Government) online. But to make it even easier, I’ve reproduced it for you here:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should:
(a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear;
(b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and
(c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could
(i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making,
(ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This motion does not single out Islam for special consideration, it “condemns Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.”
All citizens are supposed to be protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Of course, in a democracy that relies on an electoral system that fails to represent its citizens proportionally, citizens can only hope we will get governments that will uphold our Charter protections.
Cross Cultures commemoration of International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (Kitchener City Hall, 2016)
Today RNC Constable Smyth told the Inquiry he spent an hour scanning a years worth of Don Dunphy’s twitter stream before going to see Don Dunphy. Of course we can’t actually see Don Dunphy’s twitter stream because it’s been taken down. But the tweets still exist (there was a time when Twitter said all tweets would eventually end up in the Libary of Congress). We are talking about *thousands* of tweets, here, tweets that law enforcement and lawyers have access to.
The Inquiry is told Don Dunphy tweeted an a wide variety of subjects across many issues, including human rights and social justice. Don Dunphy routinely tweeted or retweeted inspirational quotations from the likes of the Dali Lama and Albert Einstein. Mr. Dunphy also talked about issues that directly concerned him. An injured worker who felt ill served by government, with particular grievances with the Workplace Health, Safety & Compensation Commission of Newfoundland and Labrador, he talked about government failure.
Dunphy, 59, was a former truck driver who battled for years with workers’ compensation after being crushed at 28 by a backhoe on a construction site. The frequent Twitter user called himself “a crucified injured worker from NL Canada where employers treat (the) injured like criminals.” Inquiry to ask: Why did Newfoundland police officer shoot Don Dunphy?
When apprised of a “disconcerting” tweet, Constable Joe Smyth, a member of the RNC protective detail for then Premier Davis, today told the Inquiry he made an assumption Don Dunphy would react badly if he had he had gone to Mr. Dunphy’s house accompanied by a uniformed RNC officer. Instead Constable Smyth went alone, driving an unmarked vehicle, dressed in plainclothes. And when he got there, it seems he was deliberately cagey about why he was there. And Don Dunphy ended up dead.
Today, Dunphy family lawyer, Bob Simmonds tried to find out the basis for the officer’s assumption, since Smyth agreed Don Dunphy had neither advocated or promoted violence in his tweets. In answer, Constable Smyth characterized Don Dunphy’s stated belief — that death of his wife and others were due to institutional failure — as “ideation”
“Ideation is the creative process of generating, developing, and communicating new ideas, where an idea is understood as a basic element of thought that can be either visual, concrete, or abstract.[1] Ideation comprises all stages of a thought cycle, from innovation, to development, to actualization.[2] As such, it is an essential part of the design process, both in education and practice.[3]“
But clearly that is not the definition Constable Smyth intended. “Ideation” is his reason for believing Don Dunphy needed “threat assessment” ASAP. Which indicates his meaning is more likely “Paranoid Ideation.”
As Mr. Simmonds questions the officer about the urgency or appropriateness of interrupting Don Dunphy in his home, unannounced, at meal time on Easter Sunday:
“There is a duty and an expectation when you identify certain behaviours and follow up on those behaviors… an unresolved grievance that may or may not be grounded in reality.”
When the officer says “may or may not be grounded in reality,” he implies Mr. Dunphy may suffer an inability to differentiate between reality and unreality.
This sounds to me as though the entire series of events culminating in this tragic death of Don Dunphy was built on the RNC Officer’s mistaken belief he was somehow competent to render a medical diagnosis of Mr. Dunphy based entirely on a superficial reading of the dead man’s Twitter feed. What a frightening assumption for a law officer to make. While I imagine there are folks at Workplace NL or elected officials in the government of Newfoundland and Labrador who might have disliked or disagreed with him, it seems the only person insinuating Don Dunphy was imagining things is the RNC Officer who shot and killed him on that Easter Sunday afternoon.
Constable Smyth’s subsequent ill advised email takes this hubris even further, as he wrote about being “too late” to “help” Mr Dunphy, or that the tragedy is “an opportunity to educate” the public about proactive “Intelligence based policing,” Constable Smyth even drew an outrageous comparison to the Ottawa shooting, explaining public officials need protection from “individuals and groups who will be disgruntled, and when desperation and instability is added to the mix you will have security concerns.” Perhaps the worst of it was in the closing paragraph:
“Although I cannot regret my actions last Sunday, I unequivocally wish I could have visited Mr. Dunphy at a point in his life where another level of intervention may have been possible. Our lives can change or end in the blink of an eye. Please seize any opportunity to help those who need it.”
Mr. Dunphy’s “behavior” had been exclusively verbal. And the only evidence of”escalation” seems to be in Constable Smyth’s perceptions. Yet even he admits that, before he himself went out to Mitchells Brook, N.L., there was no foundation to suggest Don Dunphy posed an imminent threat. Constable Smyth says he went to Don Dunphy’s home as part of his “threat assessment” process, to afford Mr. Dunphy an opportunity to explain his Twitter comments.
As Mr. Simmonds points out, Mr. Dunphy was simply exercising his right to free speech. His right to express his dissatisfaction with government. Why should Mr. Dunphy have to account to law enforcement for free speech in a free country?
And yet Constable Smyth goes on to describe Don Dunphy’s Twitter feed as “following a pathway to violence.”
As it happens, Constable Smyth is not a psychiatrist or even a psychologist, but a police officer who has taken some courses. A police officer who continues to believe himself competent to unilaterally make such assessments of citizens. This is seriously problematic.
Bob Simmonds, lawyer for Meghan Dunphy, cross examines RNC Constable Smyth
After establishing Constable Smyth had no legal right to be in Don Dunphy’s home without Mr. Dunphy’s permission, Mr. Simmonds asked the constable why, when it became clear Don Dunphy no longer wanted him there — when Mr. Dunphy was, according to Constable Smyth’s words, “frothing at the mouth” — why didn’t the officer just leave?
Constable Smyth explained he didn’t leave because Don Dunphy didn’t explicitly tell him to leave. And Don Dunphy died.
Even if you are willing to assume everything Constable Smyth believes everything he has testified to be true, how can any officer incapable of recognizing when an interview subject wants him to leave possibly be competent to make mental assessments of citizens?
Civil Rights Exist To Protect Citizens
The Don Dunphy Inquiry is bigger than Newfoundland and Labrador; this tragedy shines a light on a danger facing all of Canada.
When people are afraid someone is listening, free speech is no longer a right, but a dangerous practice. When law enforcement monitors innocent law abiding citizens on social media platforms like Twitter, citizens whose only “crime” is the exercise our Charter rights to free speech, our Charter rights are under attack.
Constable Joe Smyth answers questions at the Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Death of Donald Dunphy today.
Tom Mahoney, Executive Director, WorkplaceNL told police Constable Smyth said:
“The worst thing about these situations is these guys you know tend to be in their house, they tend to feel free to say what they like, but they don’t realize there are consequences.“
Mr. Simmonds questioned Constable Smyth as to the “consequences for free speech.” He also wanted to know why, absent any other evidence, did he decide Don Dunphy was a person of interest requiring ASAP investigation based solely on the fact he spoke his mind about politics and politicians online. But Constable Smyth repeatedly denied infringing Don Dunphy’s right to free speech. But what else can you call it when an agent of law enforcement takes what you say on social media and uses it to unilaterally judge you?
Privacy– freedom from having to worry that the government is not watching and listening to us without good reason (what the law calls probable cause) is an important part of how citizens stay safe from government over reach and injustice in a democracy. That’s why an Injured workers group asks why WorkplaceNL gave Don Dunphy information to police. Injured citizens are among society’s most vulnerable, so when injured workers are obliged to turn over personal information to government agencies that are supposed to help them, they don’t expect that information to be handed over to police at the drop of a hat. And they are right to be concerned, as the Don Dunphy tragedy clearly illustrates. Surely Don Dunphy isn’t the only injured worker venting about their frustrations on social media. Social media networks exist because human beings create community, not to make it easier for police to judge our every word. Apparently Constable Smyth failed to learn that in his social media course.
If Canadians are not free to say what we like in our house, even if we are talking online, where do we have free speech? Canadian democracy is Built on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Now I’m not a lawyer, but it certainly seems to me as if Don Dunphy’s Charter rights were breached twice:
Fundamental Freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
… (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
~ and ~
Legal Rights
Life, liberty and security of person
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
On the national front, the Federal Government’s failure to amend or repeal the law that gives federal law enforcement “lawful access” to monitor innocent Canadians online (formerly known as Bill C-51) is a virtual guarantee that such miscarriages of justice, and indeed similar tragedies, will undoubtedly happen again as a matter of course. Is this acceptable to you? It isn’t to me.
Don Dunphy spoke up for what he believed is right, but the man was silenced forever. Perhaps even worse, to me, as both a writer and a believer in free speech, is that the words he wrote on Twitter have been silenced as well.
All Canadians need the full protection of the Charter. Otherwise the Charter isn’t worth the paper its written on.
The Inquiry continues tomorrow ~ January 24th, 2017 ~ with what will probably be the final cross-examination of Constable Smyth.
