Morning Star photo: Jo Frew (38), Chris Cole (54), lawyer Raj Chada, Nora Zeigler (28) and Henrietta Cullinan (56) after the first acquitted in February 2018.

The Guardian reports: “Four demonstrators who formed a blockade outside a London arms fair have had their convictions quashed by the supreme court, in what has been hailed as an affirmation of the right to protest.”

“Nora Ziegler, Henrietta Cullinan, Joanna Frew and Chris Cole were charged with highway obstruction after using ‘lock-on’ devices to block an approach road to the ExCel Centre in Docklands, east London, when it hosted the Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) arms fair in 2017.”

The article adds: “On Friday [June 25], in a majority judgment the UK’s highest court ruled the charges should be dismissed.”

The media release from the law firm representing the resisters noted: “[The Supreme Court] agreed that each case has to be judged on its own merits, and the state has to consider, under human rights legislation, whether the arrest, prosecution and conviction is a proportionate response to the defendants’ actions – which they agreed it was not.”

Lord Nicholas Hamblen and Lord Benjamin Stephens said: “There should be a certain degree of tolerance to disruption to ordinary life, including disruption of traffic, caused by the exercise of the right to freedom of expression or freedom of peaceful assembly… We consider that the peaceful intentions of the appellants were appropriate matters to be considered in an evaluation of proportionality.”

Chris Cole, one of those arrested at the arms show protest, welcomed the ruling and commented: “We are delighted that the right to protest, even if it causes disruption to public life, has been upheld by the supreme court.”

The Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) has confirmed its next arms fair will be an in-person event on September 14-17 at ExCeL London.

Cole says: “Arms dealers from around the globe will once again descend on London this September to promote their lethal wares at the DSEI arms fair. In the light of today’s judgement, we urge as many people as possible to protest the arms fair and say as strongly as possible that profiting from war and armed violence is abhorrent and must end.”

Similarly, it would appear that CANSEC, Canada’s largest arms show, is scheduled as an in-person event on June 1-2, 2022 at the EY Centre in Ottawa.

Protest against CANSEC in Ottawa, May 2019.

Video: On June 24, Peace Brigades International and 31 other organizations expressed concern about the militarization of borders in a Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants at the Human Rights Council session in Geneva.

Peace Brigades International affirms its support for the principle of non-refoulement that says migrants and asylum seekers should not be forcibly returned to a country where they may be subjected to torture or persecution.

PBI has signed this statement that further expresses the concern that the practice of returning migrants is being performed “in contexts of militarization of borders, particularly in the United States, Mexico and Guatemala.”

That statement adds: “We have witnessed an excessive increase of military and security personnel in migratory verification and control tasks.”

It also notes: “We are concerned by current negotiations between the United States, Mexico and Guatemala on increasing the militarization of their borders.”

Canada and migration from Central America and Mexico

Canadian Immigration Minister Marco Mendicino recently met with U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas. In that context, Reuters notes: “Canada is prepared to take in some Central American migrants to help the United States, which is grappling with an influx of migrants at its southern border with Mexico.”

Professors Anne-Emanuelle Birn and Liisa L. North have noted: “In 2017, Canada allocated a pitiful number of spots to Central Americans: out of 25,000 total spaces for resettled refugees, just 380 for all of the Americas.”

Global News has also provided the recent context that: “Three-quarters of the Mexican refugee claims that were heard by the [Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada] in 2017 were either rejected, abandoned or withdrawn.”

Canada to chair Central American and Mexico refugee platform

On June 4, World Refugee Day, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced: “Canada looks forward to becoming Chair of the Central America and Mexico Comprehensive Regional Protection and Solutions Framework (MIRPS) Support Platform next month. In that role, we will continue to champion the protection and meaningful participation of displaced women and girls on the international stage.”

Canada-US Safe Third Country Agreement

Canada is a signatory to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, meaning Canada cannot directly or indirectly breach the principle of non-refoulement.

That said, Reuters has reported: “Canada wants to expand the Safe Third Country Agreement (SCTA), under which asylum-seekers trying to cross at ports of entry are [automatically] turned back, so that it applies to the entire Canada-U.S. border.”

On July 22, 2020, Federal Court Justice Ann Marie McDonald ruled that the Safe Third Country Agreement infringes on the section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that guarantees “the right to life, liberty and security of the person”

The Trudeau government appealed that ruling and on April 15, 2021, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the Safe Third Country Agreement, that sees the United States as “a safe country” for refugees, does not violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Canada and human rights defenders

On June 4, Trudeau also announced: “This year, we will launch a dedicated refugee stream for human rights defenders at risk, which will enable Canada to become one of the first countries to offer dedicated protection spaces to this population of refugees.”

Earlier this year, PBI-Canada highlighted that the Canadian government does not have a program to support short term stays for human rights defenders. For more on that, please see Could Canada implement a relocation program for human rights defenders as Germany, the Netherlands and Ireland have done?

Video: On June 21, Paul Manly presented a petition in the House of Commons in opposition to the purchase of 88 new fighter jets. Last month, he submitted several key questions to the Department of National Defence about the timing of that purchase.

On May 5, Member of Parliament Paul Manly posed questions about the timing of the Government of Canada’s planned purchase of new fighter jets. This week he received a reply. Notably, the response that came from MP Anita Vandenbeld (the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence) included this information on key dates:

Early 2022 – selection of the successful bidder is anticipated

Late 2022 – contract is expected to be awarded

The response also notes: “Contract values will be made public, once an evaluation of costs is completed and a decision is made on the acquisition of a replacement fighter aircraft fleet.” This presumably means in early 2022 (though that is not entirely clear). The “evaluation of costs” refers to work being done by the Department of National Defence, not the Parliamentary Budget Officer (it’s unclear when that report would be done).

This timeframe suggests if the selection is to be made in “early 2022” and the contract signed in “late 2022”, next year will see more intensive campaigning on this issue.

And, given the speculation about a summer/fall election, it seems clear that the decision about the fighter jet will not happen until after that election.

QUESTION (Paul Manly)

With regard to the government’s acquisition of 88 advanced fighter aircraft for the Royal Canadian Air Force: (a) in what month are the successful bidder and aircraft expected to be chosen by the government; (b) in what month is a contract expected to be signed with the chosen bidder; (c) will the government conduct a revised cost analysis of the acquisition, and, if so, (i) when will the analysis be conducted, (ii) will the analysis be made public, and, if so, when; and (d) will the government sign the contract before the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s cost analysis of the acquisition is completed and made public?

RESPONSE (Anita Vandenbeld)

As outlined in Canada’s defence policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged, a modern fighter aircraft fleet is essential for defending Canada and Canadian sovereignty and contributing to our NORAD and NATO commitments, now and in the future. That is why on December 12, 2017, the Government launched an open, fair and transparent competition to permanently replace Canada’s fighter fleet with 88 advanced fighter aircraft. This project will provide a modern fighter capability to the Royal Canadian Air Force, ensuring that it maintains the ability to meet complex and evolving threats. This project will leverage Canadian capabilities while supporting the growth of Canada’s aerospace and defence industries for decades.

Parts (a) and (b) The Government of Canada is currently evaluating proposals for the Future Fighter Capability Project from the three eligible bidders. Selection of the successful bidder is anticipated in early 2022, at which time the Government of Canada will enter into discussions with the selected bidder to finalize the resulting contracts. A contract is expected to be awarded in late 2022. The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the project timelines with further impacts being possible. National Defence anticipates having more precise timelines at the completion of the proposal evaluation phase.

Part (c) i. and ii. The Government of Canada is currently evaluating the costs of acquisition of the Future Fighter Capability Project, as it is evaluating the proposals submitted by the bidders. Contract values will be made public, once an evaluation of costs is completed and a decision is made on the acquisition of a replacement fighter aircraft fleet.

Part (d) The Government of Canada will sign the contract once the Future Fighter Capability Project solicitation process has been concluded and appropriate approvals have been granted by Treasury Board.

The  response to the Inquiry of Ministry by Paul Manly (MP, Nanaimo-Ladysmith) signed by Anita Vandenbeld (MP, Ottawa West-Nepean).

To read the No Fighter Jets coalition report (written by Emma McKay, Fiona McKay and Rachel Small) that estimates the cost of new warplanes at $76.8 billion, please see: From Acquisition to Disposal: Uncovering the true cost of 88 new fighter jets.

Still from video of media conference launching model law.

On May 31, the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability (CNCA) released draft model legislation to provide parliamentarians with a blueprint for an international corporate accountability law in Canada.

The model legislation can be read here.

The CNCA has noted: “Several European jurisdictions have passed, or are considering, comprehensive human rights due diligence legislation – most notably France’s 2017 Devoir de vigilence legislation, and the 2021 resolution of the European Commission outlining its forthcoming human rights due diligence legislation.”

But it adds: “Canada has failed to establish rules that require Canadian companies to respect human rights and the environment overseas.”

Human rights defenders and enforcement mechanisms

The European Parliament resolution of March 10, 2021 recognizes: (V) “Whereas, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, a large number of human rights defenders are under threat because they raise concerns about adverse human rights impacts of business operations.”

While that is welcome, organizations including Amnesty International and Global Witness have highlighted that the European legislation should include:

“Enforcement mechanisms (through both public/administrative and private/civil enforcement mechanisms) in case of non-compliance with the due diligence obligations or for harm caused must provide an effective deterrent. In this regard, we expect the Commission to consider criminal liability or equivalent instruments.”

The CNCA has recognized the need for “meaningful consequences for non-compliance, including liability for harm and effective enforcement mechanisms.”

The model Canadian legislation (point 42) states:

“Any person who has suffered an injury as a result of an entity’s contravention of s. 25 (1) [thus causing adverse human rights impacts outside Canada], may, in a court of competent jurisdiction, bring an action against the entity for relief by way of [including] recovery of damages or losses [and] aggravated and/or punitive damages.”

The Canadian model legislation can be read here.

The European resolution can be read here.

Given the PBI’s accompaniment of social leaders in Colombia, Honduras, Guatemala and Mexico impacted by Canadian corporations, notably mining and oil and gas companies, we follow this model legislation with great interest.

#HREDD