c-42 and north american security perimter: "canadian sovereignty has gone right out the window"

Two weeks ago, Prime Minister Stephen Harper signed a new border "security" agreement with the United States. Completed without public input or Parliamentary debate, the agreement aims to bring Canada's security "in line with" - read, under - US policy.

In Parliament, Bill C-42 - the Public Safety Act, or An Act to Amend the Aeronautics Act - would seal the deal at home, putting Canada's airspace under US control, too.

When the "no deep integration" cry was making the rounds of the Canadian blogosphere some years back, I didn't bite. (Some old posts here and here.) The fear of the US taking over Canada has a long and often well-founded history, but it seemed to me hyperbolic to claim that a trade deal would lead to Canada becoming the 51st state.

There are many reasons to oppose so-called "free" trade deals: they are usually free of labour laws and environmental protections, and they free your community of decent jobs. They are generally enacted without public consultation or debate - that is, outside of any kind of democratic structure - by governments more concerned with corporate profits than the people they supposedly serve.

But the language surrounding "no deep integration" seemed to me based more on fear than on reality. Take, for example, the "North American superhighway". Depending on who you ask, this would lead to Mexico taking over the US, or the US taking over Canada. In reality, it was a change in tariff and border laws on highways that already exist. What's more, I had only recently emigrated to Canada, and the nationalist tone of the "no deep integration" campaign struck a sour note for me.

But hyperbole and nationalism aside, I know a raw deal when I see one. And I know a Canadian Prime Minister who is a lackey to the US when I see one, too.

First, from the Council of Canadians.

Harper signs new security perimeter deal without consulting Canadians or Parliament

Late Friday afternoon, Prime Minster Stephen Harper announced he had unilaterally signed a deal with the United States government that some pundits have said is larger in scope than NAFTA.

The security perimeter deal, which Harper touted as being needed to further ease trade restrictions between the two countries, states that Canadian and U.S. governments will work “together within, at, and away from the borders of our two countries” to toughen security and promote trade.

In his comments following the announcement, Prime Minister Harper said the border plan is intended to “keep out terrorists and criminals,” “simplify regulations that hinder trade,” create “consistent inspection measures,” and to have “better management of our border” but not eliminate it.

The Council of Canadians has spoken out against this deal, which was reportedly negotiated in secret for six months with involvement from business groups, but not Parliament or public interest groups. While concrete details about the deal have been sparse, many concerns have already been raised about the implications of sharing security information with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the loss of sovereignty and trade-offs made to come to this agreement, and the degree to which any of the common measures being discussed will address the so-called “thickening” of the border.

"We've gone down this road before – it was called the Security and Prosperity Partnership – and North Americans rejected it," said Stuart Trew, Trade Justice Campaigner with the Council of Canadians. "The Harper government must disclose what terms it is negotiating with the Americans and open it to public and parliamentary scrutiny."

And on C-42, from Maclean's:

Please Uncle Sam, May We Enter Your Airspace?

We knew it was coming, but the way it’s being done is upsetting opposition politicians – not to mention raising a few ethical questions. As Canwest News Service reported this week, the federal government has quietly presented a bill in the House of Commons that would give U.S. officials final say over who can board aircraft in Canada if they are to fly through United States airspace – even though they are not landing in the U.S.

Bill C-42 allows airlines to pass on passenger information to “a foreign state” for flights over that country. The legislation is needed so that Canadian airlines comply with U.S. Homeland Security’s Secure Flight program, which requires airlines to submit personal information about passengers 72 hours before a flight’s departure. If the bill passes, passengers leaving Canada on one of the many flights that travel over U.S. airspace will have their name, birth date and gender subject to screening by U.S. officials. If you have the same name as someone on a no-fly list, you may be questioned, delayed or even barred from the flight. If your name doesn’t show up, you get your boarding pass.

Liberal transport critic Joe Volpe said Bill C-42 was introduced with no warning and no discussion with the opposition. Together, the opposition parties could vote down the legislation – a situation that could cause turmoil for air travel. “Canadian sovereignty has gone right out the window,” Liberal transport critic Joe Volpe told the Montreal Gazette in a recent interview. “You are going to be subject to American law.” NDP transport critic Dennis Bevington told Canwest that “We’re doing this without understanding what the threat assessment is. There’s no way that this is going to get an easy ride.”

Public outcry has killed bills and deals like this before. Here are a few actions you can take to add your voice.

* Sign a letter to Stephen Harper at the Council of Canadians website.

* Read the Canadian Civil Liberties Association's response to amendments to Bill C-42. The amendments don't go far enough: the bill must be killed.

* Write to your MP opposing Bill C-42. Find your MP by entering your postal code here (scroll down).

* Educate your friends and colleagues about Bill C-42. Email the Council of Canadians link asking people to sign the letter.

* Get rid of this *&@#$! government!

Read More

the people vs george galloway: documents finally on wmtc

Earlier this year - and more than once - I promised to upload the documents submitted by the applicants (our side) in the suit against the federal government for refusing to allow George Galloway into Canada. Finally, for those interested, here they are:

• the brief itself, and

• the timeline of the email chain between CIC and CBSA, which the government sent to the applicants by mistake!, but which the court ruled could not be suppressed.

They open as read-only Word documents. Sorry for the delay, and enjoy.

Read More

george galloway: "à bientôt, canada. we will hold your crooked government to account."

George Galloway, on the close of his 12-city, ban-busting tour of Canada. He'll be back!

Read More

in which we cross the border without incident

Was it a fluke? Has the harassment order been rescinded? Was the border guard at Lewiston just having a bad - or good - day? We don't know. We only know that we crossed the border from Canada to the US without being detained. No surrendering of keys, no armed escort into the station, no pointless waiting, no pointless questions.

There was a lot of traffic at the crossing, and after waiting almost an hour to get to the booth, I was dreading another long wait inside. Plus I was quite nervous about having Tala with us during this ordeal.

And then... nothing. The usual questions about reason for visit, length of stay, and such, and we were on our way. Once safely out of range, we whooped and shouted. Then I promptly started texting like mad.

Thanks for all your good wishes. It's been a long day, but a good one. I have some posts percolating and free time on the way, so you might hear from me.

Read More

annual u.s. thanksgiving road trip

We're off - all three of us! Tala is joining us this year. I'm not looking forward to finding out how the border goons deal with dogs. But once we're on the other side, it will be great.

This trip marks one year since our border troubles began, after I used my passport for something concerning a war resister a few months earlier. Having been detained four times in the past year, I'm wondering if there's a sunset provision on the harassment, or if it will go on as long as my friend is AWOL, or perhaps forever.

Allan has now crossed twice without me, and breezed through with no problem. Nice to know I'm special.

Read More

george galloway to speak in toronto this weekend

The Globe and Mail headline put it best: "‘I'm coming to get you,’ George Galloway tells Jason Kenney".

Galloway arrives in Toronto Saturday, and will speak at Trinity St Paul's United Church the following day, Sunday, October 3, at 3:00 p.m.

It will be quite a triumphant scene! We sure could use that right now.

Read More

(updated) victory for free speech and sanity: federal court slams government interference in galloway ban

See update below.

The media is trying to sell this as a defeat for Galloway and his supporters. It is anything but.

Subject: Federal Court slams government interference in Galloway ban
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – Monday, September 27, 2010

Federal Court slams government interference in Galloway ban
Former British MP to announce plans to return to Canada

Toronto – Federal Court Judge Richard Mosley issued a 60-page ruling today that slams the federal government for attempting to ban former British MP George Galloway from entering Canada. The ruling vindicates Galloway and his Canadian supporters who argued that Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Jason Kenney made a political decision to try to keep Galloway out of Canada, not one based on national security claims.

According to Justice Mosley, “the main reason why the respondents [the Federal government] sought to prevent Mr. Galloway from entering Canada was that they disagreed with his political views.”

The ruling also refutes government claims that Galloway’s humanitarian aid convoy to Gaza made him a national security risk: “From the evidence on the record, the question of Galloway’s admissibility was never an issue of national security… CSIS was consulted prior to the writing of the CBSA assessment and had no national security concerns about his visit.”

The ruling exposes how staff in Jason Kenney’s office attempted to ban Galloway from Canada, although no final decision had been made: “It is also clear that the preliminary assessment was prepared with the intention that it be used to justify a CBSA officer’s determination that Mr. Galloway was inadmissible should he appear at the border.”

Galloway’s Canadian supporters are claiming victory.

“This ruling confirms what we have been saying from the beginning: Jason Kenney attempted to ban Galloway because he disagreed with his views,” says James Clark, a member of the Toronto Coalition to Stop the War and an applicant in the case. “This kind of behaviour is completely unacceptable in a democratic society, and represents a serious attack on Canadians’ free speech rights. We are pleased that the Court agrees with us.”

Galloway and his supporters will announce in the coming days the details of an upcoming speaking tour that will bring Galloway back to Canada.

* * * *

Update.

I was involved in a discussion on Facebook about whether or not this ruling can be considered a full or partial victory for our side. James Clark said:

The fact the judge dismissed the application actually works in our favour, because he also argued that any negative decision at the border to bar Galloway (then or in the future) could only be seen as biased and the result of obvious and documented political interference - what we've been saying all along. This means the path is clear for Galloway to come to Canada. Stay tuned for dates...

The bulk on the 60-page ruling, by the way, is a sharp criticism of the government's role in trying to ban Galloway. The judge agreed with us that the ONLY motivation to keep Galloway out was a political one: the government tried to ban someone it disagreed with. Welcome to free speech, Harper-style.

The decision also vindicates Galloway by stating in no uncertain terms that the government went too far in trying to label Galloway a terror support. The court said definitively: humanitarian aid is NOT support for terror. Galloway's aid to Gaza is just, fair and legal.

This case will have lots of legal repercussions on many fronts, all good for the movement.

Read More

the u.s. border is 161 kms wide

Some friends of us were recently driving near New York State's Thousand Islands, and were caught in a sudden traffic jam. They were horrified to learn that the cause was not an accident or construction, but US border patrols. Guards were stopping cars, requesting ID and questioning people about their reasons for being in the US. Our friends - who are Canadian - were offended and repulsed. Can you imagine such a thing occuring in Canada, nowhere near the border?

We already know that the US border is a Constitution-free zone, where laws prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure do not apply. (Of course, for millions of US citizens, the entire US is a Constitution-free zone.) But many people are unaware that, since 2001, the "border" has become an elastic area up to 100 miles (161 kilometres) wide.

While several people sent me a recent New York Times story on transportation checks, this story appeared two years earlier in USA Today.

Border Patrol agents are stepping up surprise inspections on domestic trains, buses and ferries, nabbing illegal immigrants far from the border.

In Vermont, Washington, Louisiana, New York and elsewhere, the agents, who have the authority to search any mode of transportation within 100 miles of the border, are working routes that don't cross into Canada or Mexico. Most checks are at bus and train stations and ferry terminals.

"The first line of defense is on the immediate border," says Joe Giuliano, deputy chief in the patrol's Blaine, Wash., sector, which includes Alaska and Oregon. "We have to have a second line of defense."

In February, agents began checking passengers taking the ferry between Washington's San Juan Islands and the terminal in Anacortes, Wash. So far, Giuliano says, they have caught 59 illegal immigrants, two with criminal records, and eight U.S. citizens, most on drug violations.

The patrol started ferry checks after hiring more agents, he says. "To be honest, it's something we should have done for a long time," he says. "We were so short on resources."

Immigrant and civil liberties advocates argue that the agents focus more on certain passengers based on skin color and accent.

"They will see a white person and ask, 'Where were you born?' Then they will see a person of color and ask, 'Do you have ID?' " says Caroline Kim with the Detainment Task Force in Syracuse, which provides bail for some detained immigrants and helps them through the legal process.

The Border Patrol says it does not engage in racial profiling. . . .

This story in Wired also followed up on an incident in 2008.

Government agents should not have the right to stop and question Americans anywhere without suspicion within 100 miles of the border, the American Civil Liberties Union said Wednesday, pointing attention to the little known power of the federal government to set up immigration checkpoints far from the nation’s border lines.

The government has long been able to search people entering and exiting the country without need to say why, which is known as the border search exception of the Fourth Amendment.

After 9/11, Congress gave the Department of Homeland Security the right to use some of its powers deeper within the country, and now DHS has set up at least 33 internal checkpoints where they stop people, question them and ask them to prove citizenship, according to the ACLU.

"It is a classic example of law enforcement powers expanding far beyond their proper boundaries – in this case, literally,” said Caroline Fredrickson, who heads the ACLU’s Washington, D.C., Legislative Office.

The ACLU says it has scores of complaints from citizens and wants Congress to investigate and roll back the buffer zone. According to a map the rights group released Wednesday, some 190 million citizens live within what the ACLU dubs the "Constitution-free Zone."

Read More

in which all questions about our new canadian passports are answered

The good news is the US border guards didn't care about my Canadian passport.

The bad news is the US border guards didn't care about my Canadian passport.

Several people had warned me that as a dual Canadian-US citizen, I could be hassled, denied entry or - as one person put it - "face certain criminal prosecution" for entering the US without a US passport. I know many dual citizens who hold only Canadian passports, and who regularly travel back and forth to the US without the slightest hitch, so I knew this wasn't true. I understand it may technically be true, a law on the books, but it's obviously not enforced in any way.

The only unanswered question was whether my troubles at the border would continue - whether, without my US passport to scan, if I would be flagged. That question has now been definitively answered. Border hassles are now a way of life.

The border guard saw the US birthplace on our passports, typed in our names, and we were off to the races: surrender the keys, escort into the building, the long wait, the questions they already know the answers to. This one took about an hour and 15 minutes.

Once we were cleared, Allan asked the guard returning our passports, "Can you tell us why we were brought in here?"

The guard was clearly uncomfortable with the question. "Don't you know?"

We both said, "We have no idea. No one ever tells us anything. We just come in, answer questions, and they let us go."

Guard: "Have you ever been in trouble?"

Us: "No, never."

Guard: "I'm not at liberty to tell you." He said he could give us a paper explaining how to apply for more information. We said we'd like that, and he went off to get it. When he returned, he was downright chatty. "Here's the information, you fill this out, and you will get a response. I'm sorry, I'm not at liberty to tell you more, but you can apply here, and they will respond. . . . "

Yeah thanks have a nice day.

So. I am flagged with the US state department, and that is that.

* * * *

We had dinner with our friends Bruce and Mary and Russell, great peace activists from Buffalo, then stayed up til all hours talking. Bruce Beyer is kind of a legendary figure in the peace movement, a Vietnam draft resister who turned in his draft card, lived in Sweden and then Toronto, returned to the US without amnesty, and continues to work tirelessly for peace and on behalf of military resisters. Bruce is a mainstay of the War Resisters Support Campaign. And becoming friends with him is one of my favourite benefits of this blog.

We had a really good time last night, and we're now groggy and sleep-deprived. (Those things often go together, eh.) Now we're in JFK Airport with about a five-hour wait for our flight to Oakland, equipped with music, netbook and plenty of reading material.

Read More

drew taylor harden: "do i need a passport or a ouija board?"

On this post about my new Canadian passport, a friend left a link about the Iroquois lacrosse team that was refused entry to the UK because they carry passports from their Iroquois nation, not Canada.

A few days earlier, I blogged about Oka.

And everyone here knows about my troubles at the US border.

This excellent Op-Ed in the Globe and Mail pulls it all together.

Do I need a passport or a Ouija board?

I have a theory, though I can't prove it, based on several recent visits to the United States. Specifically, it's based on going through American customs as you get ready to board a plane for that country. And I wonder if the Iroquois lacrosse team that was stranded at the airport in New York this week is thinking the same thing.

On their way to England to play at the Lacrosse World Championships – a game the Iroquois invented, by the way – the 23 members of the team were prevented from boarding the plane because they insisted (as always) on using a passport by the Iroquois Confederacy. English officials were afraid the team would not be allowed back into America afterward, now that the airports have much stricter immigration rules. After some swift negotiations with the State Department and in particular Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, an agreement for this particular event was worked out. Still, it was not enough. They missed their plane, and their chance to play. Getting in and out of America can be such a pain.

Ever since the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001, crossing that imaginary border between our two countries has become increasingly difficult. Contrary to popular jurisprudence, at the border you are now assumed to be guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. Everybody now needs an official passport to go south. Even the Canadian Indian status card – I never left Canada or home without it – is no longer accepted to cross the 49th parallel, one customs agent informed me. Native people on their own continent must whip out their Canadian passports to prove who they are, in order to travel to Turtle Island.

I never knew Canadian native terrorists were such a threat down there, Tyendinaga's Shawn Brant notwithstanding. His claim to fame, if you remember, was blocking the 401 several years back, thus making a thousand or so white people late for work. Hardly an Osama bin Brant. . . .

Read it here.

Read More