Balancing liberty and security

The balance between individual liberties and national security was the subject of much discussion at the first-ever Symposium on Counter-Terrorism and Civil Liberties last week at McGill University’s Faculty of Law. The conference, co-hosted by the Human Rights Working Group, the Arab Law Students Association, the Muslim Law Students Association, the Comparative Constitutional Law Society, and the Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism, brought together prominent policy-makers, practitioners, academics, and members of the public for an engaging series of lectures and panel discussions.

The panels revolved around three central themes: the securitization of immigration policy, the role of civilian oversight of intelligence and security agencies, and Canadian intelligence cooperation with the United States in the war on terror. The challenge from the point of view of the organizers was to avoid creating a “false dichotomy” between security and civil liberties. While panelists approached the issues from a wide range of perspectives, all acknowledged the seriousness of both the threat of terrorism and the erosion of constitutionally-protected freedoms, and proposed various mechanisms for bridging the two. “We have to recognize that it is the responsibility of states to ensure that citizens are able to exercise their rights,” said Paul Kennedy, former chair of the Commission of Public Complaints against the RCMP, “terrorism is a direct attack, a direct threat, on those very rights and freedoms. The challenge for the state is to craft a response that is proportionate to the threat.”

Montreal-based human rights lawyer Pearl Eliadis talked about the need to view security considerations through the lens of domestic and international human rights instruments; this was echoed by Simon Potter, former president of the Canadian Bar Association, who spoke of the need to avoid a knee-jerk reaction to evolving security circumstances that would risk undermining the foundations of individual rights and liberties that have been built over centuries. Craig Forcese, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, addressed the practical and legal constraints under which security agencies operate and discussed detainees’ rights in the context of recent events and jurisprudence. Among other things, he talked about the government’s considerations in crafting legislation and the effectiveness of the often ad-hoc or judicial measures used to ensure Charter compliance, pointing to the controversial use of special advocates since Charkaoui I[1] as a measure that has proven at least somewhat effective. Participants also heard the narratives of individuals and communities on the front line of challenges to Canada’s anti-terrorism legislation from documentary film-maker Alexandre Trudeau and torture victim Maher Arar.

According to event organizers, the Symposium emerged in response to the recent series of high-profile cases dealing with security certificates and the securitization of immigration. The student planners wanted to see these matters discussed publicly, in a forward-looking manner that could openly address concerns and shortcomings with the current framework and generate policy recommendations. To that end, they will shortly be publishing a policy memo based on the analyses presented during the conference. Though some organizers expressed disappointment that circumstances prevented the attendance of many members of parliament, the RCMP, and CSIS, overall they were pleased with the attendance and level of participant engagement and they hope to use the momentum generated by the conference’s success to organize further related events in the near future.

For more information, or to receive updates about future events, email ctcl.mcgill@gmail.com. Video recordings of the three major panel discussions from the Symposium can be viewed here: http://prism-magazine.com/prism-tv/.

Share/Bookmark