Opinion Editorials, June 2007
June 2007 Opinion Editorial Links
|
|
Canada's No-fly list, which takes off this
summer, provides false sense of security
By Faisal Kutty
ccun.org
"Nothing personal sir, but your packages
are not allowed on passenger airlines," said a United Parcel Service
customer service agent, sitting in an American call centre. She was
explaining to me that my package could not be delivered on an "early
a.m." basis from Toronto to Peterborough.
I was interrogating the agent about why this
was so, since I had been using UPS without any problems since starting my
practice in 1996. Initially reluctant, the agent eventually confessed that
when my account number was entered into their system, the "Flight
Guardian" software flashed a red signal.
"Sir," she said, "after 9/11 we
can only pick up packages if the green light is given."
The next day I called the UPS head office and
inquired about the situation. The supervisor apologized and informed me
that I could use the expedited service within Canada, but that I did not
have the requisite clearance to use this service to the U.S.
We will never know how many Canadians have
been so specially designated on more than a dozen lists maintained by the
United States. The proliferation of these watch lists around the globe has
been a troubling development in the "war on terror."
Now the Canadian government will complicate
the situation even more by introducing its own no-fly list (set to be
launched on June 18, 2007), which will inevitably be shaped by, and be
available to, the Americans and perhaps even others.
As we consider the need to improve our
intelligence and law enforcement systems, we must have an open and
informed dialogue about what measures truly make us safer while ensuring
that our fundamental values and liberties are not sacrificed.
The proper forum for such a debate is our
legislature.
Bypassing this necessary debate in introducing
the cleverly named "Passenger protect program" is irresponsible
and cavalier, particularly given what we learned from the case of Maher
Arar, the Canadian citizen who was rendered to Syria for torture while in
transit through New York.
This charge is not being made lightly, as the
information- sharing protocols and mechanisms, which were criticized by
Justice Dennis O'Connor in the Arar inquiry findings, have not been
improved or addressed – yet Ottawa is pushing ahead with its list.
Though the government has claimed national
security privilege in refusing to confirm or deny this, the Smart Border
Declaration and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,
as well as intelligence agreements, make it certain that the list will
cross-fertilize with U.S., and perhaps even other nations' lists.
Making lengthy watch lists based on subjective
and political criteria and then giving the power to add and remove names
to agencies that have a vested interest in the national security agenda is
akin to asking the fox to guard the hen house.
Such lists – they will inevitably fill up
quickly with "false positives," political dissidents, those whom
our friends and neighbours subjectively view as threats – have not yet,
as far as the public is aware, caught any terrorists in the U.S.
Indeed, common sense should make us wonder how
someone can be too guilty to fly and yet be too innocent to be charged.
Should those who pose a threat to our security be kept off our flights,
but be free to roam our streets?
To make matters worse, real terrorists may not
even be placed on the list for fear of tipping them off; no kidding, this
is the official U.S. position.
How can such a list provide anything more than
a false sense of security while leaving it rife for blacklisting innocent
people as well as racial and religious profiling?
The no-fly list will threaten many basic
rights and leave little practical recourse.
Yes, in theory there is the office of
reconsideration. But the inability to know whether you are on the list
until boarding time, the potential use of secret evidence as well as the
use of unreliable and illegally obtained information by foreign sources,
will make it near impossible to get off the list in many cases.
This is based on a close review of the U.S.
experience as well as the plight of individuals who are already
encountering difficulties in flying within Canada without Ottawa even
having an official list of our own yet.
The extraterritorial application of U.S. watch
lists is already impacting us; how will we fare once we have our own list
interacting with, confirming and/or merging with other lists?
Hasty and ill-considered national security
initiatives, which are essentially aimed at managing public perceptions
more than they are in really addressing legitimate and manageable security
concerns, will not move us forward in the fight to disrupt terrorism.
It will only complicate the lives of innocent
Canadians and increase the opportunity for religious and racial profiling.
No matter how vigorously it is denied,
racial/religious profiling is too often the reality for a growing number
among Canada's Muslim and Arab communities and certainly in the national
security context.
The experience of many Canadians who have
already been caught up in the web of watch lists, in areas other than
flying – be it for opening bank accounts, wiring money, sending courier
packages, etc. – does not bode well for the no-fly list.
And my package? The one that was flagged by
"Flight Guardian?"
Well, I drove to a depot close to my office
and sent it off – without using an account number and by paying cash.
So much for the security offered by a watch
list.
Faisal Kutty,
a Toronto lawyer (www.ksmlaw.ca) and
doctoral candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School at York University, is also
vice-chair and counsel to the Canadian Council on American Relations.
Email: faisal@ksmlaw.ca
URL: www.ksmlaw.ca
URL: www.faisalkutty.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
||||||
