Lettre de l’ALCO : Affaire Hassan Diab et la protection des citoyens canadiens

Posted on April 18, 2016 by admin

L’ALCO a envoyé la lettre ci-dessous à la ministre de la Justice du Canada, concernant l’affaire du Dr Hassan Diab :

Lettre de l’ALCO concernant Dr. Hassan Diab

Posted in Letters | Comments Off on Lettre de l’ALCO : Affaire Hassan Diab et la protection des citoyens canadiens

OCLA letter: Hassan Diab case and protection of Canadian citizens

Posted on April 18, 2016 by admin

The OCLA has written to the Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould, Minister of Justice of Canada, asking the Canadian government to secure the return and release of Dr. Hassan Diab to Canada.

The letter can be read below:

OCLA letter re: Hassan Diab

Posted in Letters | Comments Off on OCLA letter: Hassan Diab case and protection of Canadian citizens

Pétition de l’ALCO pour autoriser les caméras dans les tribunaux de l’Ontario

Posted on April 17, 2016 by Joseph Hickey

(ONTARIO, le 11 avril 2016) – L’Association des libertés civiles de l’Ontario a lancé une pétition en ligne demandant à la ministre de la Justice Madeleine Meilleur d’autoriser les caméras dans les tribunaux de l’Ontario.

La pétition est au lien suivant : https://www.change.org/p/madeleine-allow-cameras-in-ontario-s-courts

Le texte de la pétition est comme suit :

Pétition : Autoriser Caméras Dans Les Tribunaux Scribd by Ontario Civil Liberties Association

 

Posted in Petitions, Press Releases | Comments Off on Pétition de l’ALCO pour autoriser les caméras dans les tribunaux de l’Ontario

OCLA Petition “Allow Cameras in Ontario’s Courts”

Posted on April 11, 2016 by Joseph Hickey

The OCLA has launched an online petition calling on Ontario’s justice minister Madeleine Meilleur to “Allow Cameras in Ontario’s Courts”.

The petition is on change.org at the following link: https://www.change.org/p/madeleine-allow-cameras-in-ontario-s-courts

The petition text is as follows:

* * *

Allow Cameras in Ontario’s Courts

En français au lien suivant : http://bit.ly/1N9qBRq

In a democracy, court proceedings are public to ensure their fairness.

“Where there is no publicity there is no justice. Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion and the surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the judge himself while trying under trial.”

—Jeremy Bentham (~1790), as quoted by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin (2012)

In the words of Justice Judy Sheindlin (“Judge Judy”), in support of cameras in every courtroom:

“Closed courtrooms only protect bad judges and lawyers….  They also protect bad institutions that serve those courts, such as social services….  [Cameras] should be there as the norm.  If you have a specific exclusion, then you make it.”

Ontarians want to see their judges in action, want to see Crown attorneys make their arguments, want to see police witnesses testify under oath, and want to see the full court procedures. Likewise, litigants in family and civil courts, many of whom are self-represented litigants, want to know that they have the security of an actual open court. These self-represented litigants want to learn how the courts work, so they can better represent themselves. All citizens want to judge for themselves based on accessible video of what actually occurs in the courtroom. Media want reliable records that are adapted to modern communication methods, without being degraded by interpretation (into a tweet or scribbled notes) or reduced to a judge’s final reasons.

Citizens want to be empowered to decide for themselves if the courts are fair and if they can have confidence that justice is being done in their province. This is an age where everyone who has a cell phone has a video camera, and where storage is not an issue. It is reactionary to create a closed court by barring cameras. Ordinary folks do not have the luxury of attending court proceedings in person, and are prevented from doing so by a multitude of organizational and institutional barriers that are increasing.

  • Ontario is the only Canadian jurisdiction having a statute that outlaws the use of cameras in courtrooms (s. 136, Courts of Justice Act)
  • Increasing Ontario courthouse security systems make court attendance invasive and inconvenient for the public
  • Members of the public and media are a priori barred from access to the Ontario court audio recordings, even though these readily exist
  • Ontario does not even have a pilot program for camera access to trial courts (a tentative experiment in 1984 did not produce any report)

The letter below asks Ontario justice minister Madeleine Meilleur to endeavour to change Ontario’s laws to allow video cameras in all the courtrooms in Ontario. This would be in accordance with the open court principle (Dagenais test), where any limits to coverage must be necessary and imposed only to the extent necessary.

It is a matter of record that the main barrier against cameras in the courtroom has been judges and the Judicial Council. Another barrier is prosecutors who systematically oppose media requests for camera access. We ask Minister Meilleur to override these state sources of resistance. We adopt the words of Justice John Gomery who called the judicial resistance to cameras “judicial cowardice”.

The age of camera access to Ontario’s courts is overdue.

About the Ontario Civil Liberties Association
The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) defends civil liberties at a time when fundamental freedoms are being eroded in all spheres of social life. OCLA opposes institutional policies and decisions that deprive individuals of their personal liberty or exclude individuals from participation in the democratic functions of society.

Please add your name to the letter below to justice minister Madeleine Meilleur.

LETTER to justice minister Madeleine Meilleur

Minister of Justice Madeleine Meilleur — Allow cameras in the Ontario courtrooms so that the public can see what’s going on.

Posted in Petitions | Comments Off on OCLA Petition “Allow Cameras in Ontario’s Courts”

MUST SEE: Dr. Bruce Clark on unconstitutionality of Canada’s treatment of Native Canadians

Posted on February 19, 2016 by admin

The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) interviewed Dr. Bruce Clark, the lawyer and jurisprudential scholar who describes what ails the Canadian justice system when it comes to dealing with Aboriginal sovereignty issues. Bruce Clark represented Gustafsen Lake Faith Keepers at the Gustafsen Lake Standoff in 1995 near Shuswap, BC. From defender of Aboriginal rights before Canadian and international courts to being jailed and disbarred, Dr. Clark’s struggle has led him to a fight against the justice system itself. This interview is an important historic record in the story of Canada’s genocide of the aboriginal peoples.

 

Related links:

Dr. Bruce Clark: Aboriginal rights lawyer
Denis Rancourt: Interviewer, for the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA)
Produced by the OCLA
Filmmaker: Peter Biesterfeld

Posted in Video | Comments Off on MUST SEE: Dr. Bruce Clark on unconstitutionality of Canada’s treatment of Native Canadians

Release: Rancourt v. St. Lewis: Supreme Court judgement harms freedom of expression and fair trial rights in Canada

Posted on February 18, 2016 by admin

(OTTAWA, February 18, 2016) – The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) opposes the Supreme Court of Canada’s judgement released today, which denies the appeal application of Dr. Denis Rancourt. (Links below.)

The judgement erodes freedom of speech and fair trial rights in Canada:

• The Court condoned permanent censorship (enforceable by jail) of future and unknown expression if the defendant cannot afford to pay possible damages.

• The Court allowed the defendant to be barred from any defence because he chose to rely solely on the plaintiff’s evidence.

• The Court refused to consider the defendant’s argument that court-ordered legal costs themselves are an unconstitutional infringement on the right of freedom of expression when the plaintiff’s legal costs were paid by the University of Ottawa.

• The Court violated its own constitutional duty by refusing to hear that the Ontario appellate court itself had violated Dr. Rancourt’s French language rights.

• The Court refused to hear that the Canadian common law of judicial bias is contrary to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and is therefore unconstitutional.

Dr. Rancourt will appeal the Supreme Court’s decision to the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations, as allowed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Canada ratified.

Links:
Supreme Court judgement of February 18, 2016: http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/news/en/item/5165/index.do
Closing submission: https://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2015-11-06-RvStL-SCCLTA-Reply.pdf
Originating application submission: https://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2015-09-28-RvStL-SCCLTA-Application.pdf

About the Ontario Civil Liberties Association
The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) defends civil liberties at a time when fundamental freedoms are being eroded in all spheres of social life. OCLA opposes institutional policies and decisions that deprive individuals of their personal liberty or exclude individuals from participation in the democratic functions of society.

Contact:

Joseph Hickey
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) https://ocla.ca

Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off on Release: Rancourt v. St. Lewis: Supreme Court judgement harms freedom of expression and fair trial rights in Canada

Communiqué : Rancourt c. St. Lewis : Le jugement de la Cour suprême porte atteinte à la liberté d’expression et au droit à un procès équitable au Canada

Posted on February 18, 2016 by admin

(OTTAWA, le 18 février 2016) – L’Association des libertés civiles de l’Ontario (ALCO) s’oppose au jugement de la Cour suprême du Canada rendu aujourd’hui, qui rejette la demande d’aller en appel de M. Denis Rancourt. (Liens ci-bas.)

Le jugement nuit à la liberté d’expression et au droit à un procès équitable au Canada :

• La Cour a donné le feu vert à la censure permanente (exécutoire par la prison) de toute expression future et inconnue si le défendeur ne peut probablement pas payer des dommages possibles.

• La Cour a autorisé que le défendeur soit interdit de tout moyen de défense parce qu’il a choisi de se fonder uniquement sur la preuve fournie par le demandeur.

• La Cour a refusé d’examiner l’argument du défendeur selon lequel les frais juridiques ordonnés par le tribunal eux-mêmes sont une atteinte inconstitutionnelle au droit à la liberté d’expression lorsque les coûts juridiques du demandeur ont été payés par l’Université d’Ottawa.

• La Cour a violé son propre devoir constitutionnel en refusant d’entendre que la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario avait elle-même violé les droits du Dr Rancourt de plaider en français.

• La Cour a refusé d’entendre que la common law canadienne de partialité judiciaire est contraire au Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques, et est donc inconstitutionnelle.

Dr Rancourt fera appel contre la décision de la Cour suprême au Comité des droits de l’homme des Nations Unies, comme le permet le Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques, ratifié par le Canada.

Liens :
Jugement du 18 février 2016 : http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/news/fr/item/5165/index.do
Soumission de clôture : https://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2015-11-06-RvStL-SCCLTA-Reply.pdf
Soumission d’origine : https://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2015-09-28-RvStL-SCCLTA-Application.pdf

À propos de l’Association des libertés civiles de l’Ontario
L’ALCO défend les libertés civiles à une époque où les droits fondamentaux subissent une érosion systémique dans toutes les sphères de la vie sociale. L’ALCO s’oppose à toute décision qui prive l’individu de sa liberté individuelle ou qui l’exclut des fonctions démocratiques de la société.

Contact:

Joseph Hickey
Directeur exécutif
Association des libertés civiles de l’Ontario (ALCO) https://ocla.ca

Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off on Communiqué : Rancourt c. St. Lewis : Le jugement de la Cour suprême porte atteinte à la liberté d’expression et au droit à un procès équitable au Canada

Release: OCLA Asks Attorneys General to Make Canadian Defamation Law Compliant with International Law

Posted on February 5, 2016 by admin

(OTTAWA, February 5, 2016) – The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) has asked the Attorneys General for Canada to make Canadian defamation law compliant with international law.

The OCLA’s letter is at the following URL and its text is reproduced below: https://ocla.ca/email-to-attorneys-general-of-canada-re-canadian-defamation-law/

February 4, 2016

Attorneys General of Canada

Jody Wilson-Raybould, Suzanne Anton, Brad Cathers, Kathleen Ganley, Gord Mackintosh, Wade MacLauchlan, Madeleine Meilleur, Paul Okalik, Andrew Parsons, Serge Rousselle, Louis Sebert, Stéphanie Vallée, Diana Whalen, Gordon Wyant

Honourable Attorneys General:

Re: Canadian defamation law is noncompliant with international law

The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) has determined that Canadian defamation law is noncompliant with international law. The OCLA’s report in this regard is attached, and is posted on our website at:

https://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/DGR-Canadian-Defamation-Law-Violates-ICCPR-for-posting.pdf

The noncompliant common law of defamation negatively affects many Canadians, by violating their freedom of expression and fair trial rights, immeasurably and negatively affects Canadian society at large, and is incompatible with Canada’s international human rights obligations.

The OCLA urges the Honourable Attorneys General to review the OCLA report and to develop defamation legislation that is compliant with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Canada has ratified.

Yours truly,

Joseph Hickey
Executive Director

About the Ontario Civil Liberties Association
The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) is an organization formed to defend civil liberties at a time when fundamental freedoms are subjected to a real and palpable systemic erosion in all spheres of social life. OCLA opposes institutional policies and decisions that remove from the individual his or her personal liberty or exclude the individual from participation in the democratic functions of society.

Contact:

Joseph Hickey
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) https://ocla.ca

Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off on Release: OCLA Asks Attorneys General to Make Canadian Defamation Law Compliant with International Law

Email to Attorneys General of Canada re: OCLA report on Canadian defamation law

Posted on February 4, 2016 by admin

By Email

February 4, 2016

Attorneys General of Canada

Jody Wilson-Raybould, Suzanne Anton, Brad Cathers, Kathleen Ganley, Gord Mackintosh, Wade MacLauchlan, Madeleine Meilleur, Paul Okalik, Andrew Parsons, Serge Rousselle, Louis Sebert, Stéphanie Vallée, Diana Whalen, Gordon Wyant

Honourable Attorneys General:

Re: Canadian defamation law is noncompliant with international law

The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) has determined that Canadian defamation law is noncompliant with international law. The OCLA’s report in this regard is attached, and is posted on our website at:

https://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/DGR-Canadian-Defamation-Law-Violates-ICCPR-for-posting.pdf

The noncompliant common law of defamation negatively affects many Canadians, by violating their freedom of expression and fair trial rights, immeasurably and negatively affects Canadian society at large, and is incompatible with Canada’s international human rights obligations.

The OCLA urges the Honourable Attorneys General to review the OCLA report and to develop defamation legislation that is compliant with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Canada has ratified.

Yours truly,

Joseph Hickey
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) https://ocla.ca

Posted in Letters | Comments Off on Email to Attorneys General of Canada re: OCLA report on Canadian defamation law

OCLA Report: Canadian defamation law is noncompliant with international law

Posted on February 1, 2016 by admin

Dr. Denis G. Rancourt has prepared a report for the OCLA entitled “Canadian defamation law is noncompliant with international law“.

The report contains four sections:

  • Part 1: Demonstration that Canadian defamation law is noncompliant with international law;
  • Part 2:How defamation law has developed and is applied in Canada;
  • Part 3: Social and historic perspective;
  • Part 4: Recommendations

The summary of Dr. Rancourt’s report is as follows:

SUMMARY: Defamation law in Canada is contrary to international law, in both design and practice. Under international law, the right to hold an opinion is absolute, and the right of freedom of expression can be restricted “for respect of the rights or reputations of others” solely using written laws that must conform to the “strict tests of necessity and proportionality”. With Canadian civil defamation law, the state has unfettered discretion from an unwritten common law that provides presumed falsity, presumed malice, unlimited presumed damages, and broad gag orders enforceable by jail, using a subjective judicial test for “defamation” without requiring any evidence of actual damage to reputation. Also, Canada’s practice of its defamation law materially aggravates the noncompliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (eleven impugned rules and practices are described). A final section broadly examines the underlying social and historic reasons for having developed an oppressive defamation law, followed by recommendations.

Posted in OCLA Opinion Statements | Comments Off on OCLA Report: Canadian defamation law is noncompliant with international law