Published in LiP Magazine
[http://www.lipmagazine.org]

View the full version of this article on the LiP website

Widening the Parameters of Repression
Activism, the Law and "Terrorism"

interview by Justin Podur
09.26.03

Amina Sherazee is a Toronto-based immigration, employment and human rights lawyer. She is also a member of Lawyers Against the War and the Muslim Canadian Congress. She was interviewed recently about changes to laws that affect immigrants, refugees, and activism.

As a lawyer and an activist, what do you think about the relationship between activism and the law?

There's no doubt that activism, and in particular organized labour, has positively influenced government policy. The trouble is that the passage and repeal of legislation is so fleeting. So, here in Ontario, for example, the New Democratic Party government from 1991-1995 was a social democratic government that passed progressive labour and employment legislation, but it was all repealed in 1995 when the conservatives under Mike Harris came to power.

As lawyers we work in the judicial system, which is supposed to be independent of the political process. It isn't completely independent, especially given the judicial appointment system, but it is relatively impartial and independent, which gives us some room to challenge laws.

Do you think there has been an increase in repressive legislation since September 11?

There has always been a degree of overzealous policing, surveillance, and intolerance by the state and in the legal system of political agitators. Even before 9/11, there was an escalation against activists in general, against anti-globalization and environmental activists in particular.

The most militant and direct-action oriented movements, like the anti-poverty movement, have always faced more repression. The intention of the state is to create a chill effect, to create an internal backlash even within movements.

So, even before 9/11, here in Canada you had the repression against activists around the APEC summit in Vancouver in 1999, with 'pre-emptive' arrests, something that we hadn't been seen since decades before that.

Quebec City in 2001 was practically the raising of an army against the civilian population. For that kind of militaristic mobilization by the government against its own citizens there ought to have been an act of parliament in order to summon the armed forces. The perimeter fence that was built to fence off a whole section of the city to prevent activists from reaching the conference, the use of massive quantities of gas, the mass arrests, were all quite severe, the actions of a police state.

That this repression didn't bring any challenge from within Parliament meant that the parameters for the government to act illegally against its own population were widened. So when the government shut down a whole area in order to have the G8 meetings at Kananaskis, no one even batted an eye. By then, people were desensitized, and it was 'natural' to have that kind of militarization of security around a summit.

How do you think people should respond?

It's important for people to keep asserting their constitutional rights. There seems to be a lack of understanding about what rights are. Rights exist regardless of the government in power. They exist regardless of what law enforcement does. I don't like the separation between human rights, civil rights, and civil liberties. I think these are all human rights, and we need to see them that way. They are interdependent—if you remove one you deny the rest. Freedom of expression, association, and assembly—these are fundamental, unencumbered, non-extinguishable human rights that don't come from Parliament. They can't simply be taken away in times of crisis.

Right now, we have an interesting situation in that in both Toronto and in Montreal, there are high-profile cases in which prominent radical organizers are on trial for charges like 'participating in a riot' or 'counselling to participate in a riot'. There are three people on trial in each city, with John Clarke, Gaetan Heroux, and Stefan Philippa of the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP) on trial in Toronto, Jonathan Aspireault-Masse, Jaggi Singh, and Christina Xydous in Montreal.**

These are 'criminal' trials. Do you think there is a political aspect to them?

I think the intent is to set an example and to marginalize effective mobilization. The people on trial are some of the most effective activists, people who have made politics relevant, who have brought issues normally relegated to the periphery-immigration, refugee rights, poverty-to the centre. Their success in organizing challenges the distribution of wealth and power and is seen as a threat to the state and the status quo. So the state tries to marginalize them by criminalizing them. They are designated as 'threats' by police and security agencies. In fact, Canadian Security and Intelligence Services (CSIS) apparently considers the anti-globalization movement one of the biggest threats to national security!

What about repression against immigrants? Are there cases of that?

People with strong religious convictions, often people who challenged their own governments overseas or are trying to create a community here, have been especially targeted for surveillance, policing, and incarceration.

Mr. Jaballah, an Egyptian refugee, sought asylum here after being tortured and illegally detained in Egypt. In Canada, while he was filing his refugee claim, he started to get involved in the Arab community here. CSIS picked him up on a 'security certificate', and put him straight into maximum security prison, separated from his wife and children. His lawyer went to federal court and showed that CSIS perjured themselves, so he was released.

But in 2001, CSIS picked him up again. The allegations were remarkably similar to the first time. He was alleged to be associated with someone who is alleged to be a member of Al-Jihad. Al-Jihad is a religious group that opposes the Mubarak dictatorship in Egypt. He was never a member, nor has he done anything—he is just alleged to be associated with someone alleged to be in the group! For that, he's been imprisoned, in solitary confinement—which means a 4 x 3 foot cell with no windows, toilet, blankets, ONE hour a day outside, and no halal meals-for 2 years.

There are other cases, a Mr. Harkat in Ottawa, Mr. Majoub, in Toronto. These people and their families are stigmatized, and so are those who try to help them, even though what they are going through amounts to religious persecution.

If you could strike any laws from the books, what would they be?

I work with the immigrant law a lot, and I would strike that. It is classist, racist, and sexist. It grants the power to discriminate. So, if you are poor, you are classified as an economic immigrant and not allowed refuge. If you are wealthy, you can be an economic immigrant as well. The difference is that you can enter. The criteria is simple—you have to have $400,000. Canadian residency is for sale.

I would also strike C-36, Canada's 'anti-terrorism' legislation. This was an omnibus bill that changed the Criminal Code, the Evidence Act and several other laws by introducing 'terrorist-related' offences. What is troubling about these new laws is that anything you could do as a 'terrorist' was already illegal. Using planes as a weapon is illegal already. Using biological weapons, or shooting people-all that is already illegal. The legislation changes the whole criminal justice system.

A criminal offense requires an act and an intent to commit the act. If it's just an act without an intention—if I hit you by accident-that's not assault, it could be negligence, but it's not a criminal offense. If it's just an intention but no act-I just want to hit you but I don't-that's not a crime either. But 'anti-terrorism' legislation doesn't just limit the elements of an offence to the act and the accompanying intention. It broadens the elements so that it is about who you are, who you associate with and what you believe in. So if I'm an anarchist and I hit you, or a Muslim and I hit you then it becomes a terrorist act, when in fact it is no different from an assault by a monarchist or a conservative. An assault is assault and it shouldn't matter what you believe you should be treated the same. So 'terrorist' offences are a recipe for prejudice and racial profiling because it invites law enforcement agents to take who the person is and what they believe into account in laying a charge.

The definition of terrorism is far too broad, and at the same time it exempts the state. It actually contemplates it, and specifically exempts the state. So the aggressions by police and the military against the indigenous, for example, aren't acts of terrorism.

** The Montreal defendants were acquitted by a jury. The trial of the 'OCAP Three' ended in a mistrial, and the state has decided to re-try John Clarke of OCAP alone