Friday Dec. 14 Webcast

Wednesday Dec. 13 Webcast

Update from Deacon Dave from www.vancouver.indymedia.org 17/12/01

Hate Bill C-36? Wait until you meet its brother by Naomi Klein

The Teddy Bear Brigade, ended their occupation of Stephen Owen's office on a positive note. They had occupied Owen's Vancouver-Quadra constituency office on December 12 and refused to leave until Owen met their demands for a meeting to discuss their concerns. It was standing room only as about 30 people crowded into Owen's storefront office for the meeting today at 1:00 pm.

The Teddy Bear Brigade, a diverse group of concerned citizens are protesting Bill C-36 - the Federal Liberal Government's so-called 'anti-terrorist' legislation - by occupying the constituency offices of Liberal MP Stephen Owens. He is Parliamentary Assistant to Justice Minister Anne McLennan and played an important role in drafting the bill.

Update on the occupation of
the constituency office of MP Stephen Owen

A huge success !!

by [email protected]
posted 17/12/01 to www.vancouver.indymedia.org

Upwards of 100 people carried out a prolonged demonstration outside Owen's office demanding the scrapping of Bill C-36 on Saturday December 15th. The Teddy Bear Brigade, a diverse group of concerned citizens, and other individuals also met with Stephen Owen to discuss C-36 yesterday. Various media were present.

This meeting satisfied the first of our initial demands

At the meeting, the following additional demands were made:

1. A large scale public forum to discuss C-36 and other pending 'anti-terrorist' legislation
2. Dropping the charges of trespass against the protestors arrested in Anne McLellan's office in Edmonton
3. The scraping of C-36, C-35, and C-42 until Canadian citizens and Parliament have been given meaningful and participatory decision making processes concerning the impact of these bills for Canadian civil liberties.
4. The budget for CSIS be used to fund nation-wide Mariachi bands and the Raging Grannies (who have been targets of CSIS investigations).

Outcome of the meeting:

1. Owen has committed to participating in meaningful discussions with members of the public in a series of forums to be held in Vancouver. The time and place for these events will be posted in the immediate future.
2. Owen agreed to 'find out the facts' concerning the Edmonton arrest and to convey our request that all charges be staid to Justice Minister McLellan.
3. Members of the audience raised a number of points about the legislation and about the root causes of terrorism. While defending the legislation, Owen conceded that: C-36 has flaws and requires active oversight to prevent abuses The causes of terrorism can be found in unjust social conditions That he would personally commit to speaking out if abuses occur
4. Owen conceded that CSIS has in the past overstepped its mandate (he claims that he himself has come under scrutiny) and requires active monitoring by independent bodies
5. Owen assured us that it is not the intention that any of this legislation be used against protestors and that it will not be used at Kananaskis. He said there will be an area for lawful and unlawful protest in Kananaskis.

Why we are concerned with this legislation:

In addition, the bill gives police and CSIS greatly expanded powers of surveillance, including wiretapping and e-mail monitoring. Those accused could be 'listed' by the Solicitor General without being able to clear their names and their assets could be seized.

C-36's definition of terrorist is so broad that literally anyone involved in legitimate civil protest could be targeted. In fact, anyone deemed to aid in the planning for protests, even if such protests never occur, could be targeted.

Companion Bills C-35 and C-42 are equally repressive. C-35 provides for severe legal penalties for anyone interfering with a member of an international (i.e., 'trade') organization. C-42 allows the Minister of National Defense to declare any place or thing in Canada a military zone, even a whole province.

Taken together, these Acts appear to be aimed more at Canadian citizens than foreign terrorists and designed to target and punish civil dissent. These Acts, if passed and given Royal Assent, could be used to label as terrorists those who protest against 'trade' agreements and could have been used to prevent the anti-FTAA protests in Quebec City last April. The concern is that they will now be used to criminalize in advance possible protests about the G-8 summit next year in Kananaskis, Alberta, or anything else deemed subversive by the government.

This legislation targets Canadian civil liberties and must be rejected by those who value democracy. We call upon the Senate and the Governor General to withhold assent from legislation that would curtail the fundamental liberties of all Canadians.

For information, contact: [email protected] at 604-253-1806
or Prof. Chris Shaw at 604-924-1467
Vancouver Teddy Bear Brigade

Hate Bill C-36?
Wait until you meet its brother

By Naomi Klein,
from the Wednesday November 28 Globe and Mail

Ever since Vancouver hosted the APEC conference in 1997, Canadian politicians have faced a dilemma. How do you clamp down on messy street protests without violating fundamental laws that guarantee freedom of assembly and prohibit political interference with policing? Post-Sept. 11, the answer has revealed itself, as elegant as it is brutal: Ditch the laws.

For the past month, civil libertarians and politicians have been duking it out over whether Bill C-36 could be used against political protesters. Justice Minister Anne McLellan says the law is designed to "target terrorists and terrorist groups," and insists it isn't an attempt to crack down on "legitimate political activism and protests," such as the demonstrations during the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City.

In the face of these assurances, as well as minor amendments to the bill, many have relaxed, convinced that the right to dissent is still protected in Canada. That's because they haven't looked at Canada's other antiterrorism law, Bill C-35.

Bill C-35 has been quietly making its way through Parliament, downplayed as a "housekeeping" measure. On the surface, all the bill does is expand the definition of an "internationally protected person," those foreign dignitaries who are granted diplomatic immunity when they come to town. Some opposition MPs have objected to this largesse, saying Canada should not be a safe haven for foreign criminals, even if they are politicians. These concerns about "protected persons" only tell part of the story. The rest is revealed when C-35 is cross-referenced with several clauses in Bill C-36 that classify many actions taken against those "protected persons" as terrorist activities. As the research of Dr. Michael Clinchy at the University of Western Ontario has shown, taken on their own, both sections look benign. Together, they form a one-two punch that will knock out the right to protest outside of international meetings. Call the legal combo the Kananaskis clause, because it is clearly designed to kick in for the next G8 summit in June, to be held in Kananaskis, Alta.

It works like this. First, Bill C-35 sweepingly defines "internationally protected persons" as "representatives of a foreign state that is a member of or participates in an international organization." The principle is taken from the UN Convention granting diplomatic immunity to politicians attending UN conferences.

But Bill C-35 expands the UN definition to include foreign state representatives attending meetings of any kind. That means delegates to a trade summit with China, an APEC summit, and yes, a G8 meeting. In a pen stroke, these events will be placed behind a shield of diplomatic immunity.

Next, C-36 steps in, defining interference with "protected persons," including visiting dictators, as not just criminal acts but terrorist ones. Bill C-36 states that anyone who commits "a violent attack on the official premises, private accommodation or means of transport of an internationally protected person that is likely to endanger [that person's] life or liberty" has committed a terrorist act. In fact, anyone who "threatens" to commit any of these acts is guilty of terrorism, and will lose many of their constitutional rights, as outlined in the rest of the bill.

These vague definitions raise many questions: Is blocking a road on the way to a summit an attack on the "means of transportation" of "internationally protected persons" that restricts their "liberty?" Was pushing against the chain-link fence that surrounded so much of Quebec City during the Summit of the Americas in April "a violent attack on the official premises" of a protected conference?

If both C-35 and C-36 become law (which looks very likely) and a group puts out a flyer announcing its intention to block the road on the way into Kananaskis (a pledge some have already made), its members could be charged with committing a terrorist act, a crime punishable by up to five years in prison. Anyone who follows through on the threat and blocks the road -- a common tactic during strikes, summits, and native blockades -- could face up to 14 years in prison.

To be clear, the question is not whether activists have the right to inconvenience conference delegates or push against chain-link fences. Under current laws, many protesters are already facing criminal charges for precisely these activities. The question is whether these are acts of terrorism, on a legal par with hijacking planes and planting bombs. If Ms. McLellan is to be believed when she says that her government is not trying to use the antiterrorism campaign to outlaw political protest, she has more amendments to make. She needs to take out the Kananaskis clause.