Ahmad Waseem case illustrates Canadas foreign fighter problem

Good range of commentary on the challenges on stopping “terror tourism” and Australia’s legal framework:

Its telling that Waseem is wanted by the RCMP on charges of passport fraud but not terror-related crimes. In his case, says [Craig] Forcese, it is more than likely that if he ever returns to Canada, hell be prosecuted on those charges — which carry a sentence of up to 14 years in prison — rather than for his activities in Syria.

“It’s sort of an Al Capone strategy,” Forcese said, referring to the FBIs inability to pin any charges but tax evasion against the notorious Chicago gangster.

Alex Neve, the secretary general of Amnesty International Canada, said his concerns lie with whether foreign fighters violate the Geneva Convention, which set out the international rules of war, during their travels.

“Human-rights law would be concerned that if an individual is going to take part in an armed conflict or insurgency … and there’s reason to believe that in doing so, they’re likely to be involved in the commission of war crimes or crimes against humanity, then it would be important to look at what kinds of legal restrictions would be imposed,” Neve said.

Another consideration is that the labels “terrorist” and “insurgent” are highly charged.

“Some of these terms can be very politicized,” Neve said.

Forcese’s proposal? Adopting a Canadian “neutrality act” modelled after Australia’s Crimes Incursions and Recruitment Act, with a blanket ban on taking up arms with any non-government army.

The Australian law includes a maximum prison sentence of  20 years if a citizen or resident enters a foreign state with intent to engage in hostile activity.

“That includes trying to overthrow the government or injuring public office holders, or basically engaging in a war,” Forcese said.

It would also prohibit financing armed groups on behalf of a faction that isn’t part of a foreign government.

Would have been interesting to know the experience Australia has in enforcing the law.

Ahmad Waseem case illustrates Canadas foreign fighter problem – Canada – CBC News.

Australia: Imams warn against radicalism to Aboriginal inmates converting to Islam

Interesting article from Australia on radicalization and Aboriginals, and the role prison chaplains can play in reducing risks. Radicalization while in prison is a fairly common issue in a number of countries:

Australian National University researcher Clarke Jones, who is writing a book on prison radicalisation, said extremist conversions were rare because terrorism inmates tended to be at the bottom of the prison pecking order in Australia.

He cited the recent case of Sydney man Khaled Sharrouf, who posted images of himself fighting in Iraq and standing over slaughtered bodies, as an unusual case of an inmate committing acts of jihad upon release.

Sharrouf served four years for his role in the Pendennis terror plot and recently said on Twitter he received weekly lessons from al-Qaeda leader Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi via the jail phone, a claim that had not been verified.

“The problem is a lot of these de-radicalisation programs are very generic … and tend to be a one-size-fits-all model,” Dr Clarke said.

Asmi Wood, senior research fellow at the National Centre for Indigenous Studies, was aware of Aboriginal conversions in prison and said elders were concerned that converts would join foreign jihad but he had seen no evidence of it.

Rod Moore, chaplaincy co-ordinator for Corrective Services NSW, told the conference NSW had “a long way to go” to increase chaplaincy services but the program led the way globally.

Imams warn against radicalism to Aboriginal inmates converting to Islam.

Denying dual citizenship is a double-edged sword | The Australian

The Australian debate on citizenship revocation. Similar to that on C-24 revocation provisions. Commentary by Ben Saul, an international law professor at University of Sydney:

Finally, stripping citizenship is unnecessary because Australia has enough laws to deal with the threats. Since 9/11, the Australian parliament has been among the most hyperactive counter-terrorism lawmakers on the planet.

Australians who fight overseas can be prosecuted for innumerable offences, including terrorism, war crimes, crimes against hum­anity and foreign incursion. Prosecution takes terrorists off the streets altogether, and does not ­irresponsibly shunt them on to other countries. It also ensures ­decisions are made based on evidence with judicial safeguards. Stripping citizenship based on untested intelligence about what a person is doing overseas risks miscarriages of justice.

Instead of prosecution, federal police can apply for control orders to prevent terrorism by restricting a person’s freedoms. In emergencies, preventive police detention is available, and ASIO has questioning and detention powers. Other powers range from surveillance to passport cancellation.

Governments are often tempted to reach for new laws when ­security is threatened. Intelligence agencies never say they have enough power or stop asking for more. Giving more power to the government, and making citizenship more provisional, is not the answer.

The answer lies in ­better intelligence and action to prevent people leaving, and in bringing them home to prosecute them.

Denying dual citizenship is a double-edged sword | The Australian.

Australia: Multiculturalism faces uncertain future in more polarised nation

Results of a survey for Australia’s Special Broadcasting Service (somewhat equivalent to OMNI) by Andrew Jakubowicz, and some of the divisions within Australian society:

A more “traditionalist” group perhaps as high as 47% wants conservative certainties, rejecting or fearing social change. A large middle group around a third of Australians is “open-minded” about the future, but highly protective of its own lifestyles and interests. Only a “cosmopolitan” minority one in five is drawn towards new opportunities while welcoming an evolving and changing world.

Evidence from the Census for the past two decades reveals some basic information. Australians are ageing; we are more culturally diverse; we live in smaller family units or alone; we are less religious; and we consume more stuff per head.

The divisions between us – the shape of the society we desire and the threats we fear – are deepening. The focus is on apprehension about, as against desire for, diversity and innovation. The multicultural future that all expect to increase lies at the heart of these tensions.

Multiculturalism faces uncertain future in our more polarised nation.

George Brandis won’t say if Australians fighting in Syria will lose citizenship

More on the Australian plan to revoke citizenship (Canadian Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Chris Alexander has announced forthcoming revisions to the Citizenship Act will include such provisions). And some interesting insights into how the threats of radicalization and extremism have changed:

Negus [federal police commissioner] said Australian authorities were “very concerned about those lone actors who have been radicalised through the internet, who are travelling overseas to fight in other conflicts and then returning to Australia with increased capability to conduct something here”.

“We’ve seen in the last three or four years a number of prosecutions in Australia for small groups who have come together and been radicalised amongst a small group of people separate to their community and looking to carry out some violent behaviour here in Australia,” Negus said.

“Whilst I agree with the attorney [that] it’s undiminished, the threat and the nature of the threat has modified to not just mass casualty events but smaller lone actors who are much more difficult for law enforcement to keep a handle on because they’re not having large communications, they’re not actually doing large organisations. These can be radicalised in their own lounge room.”

George Brandis won’t say if Australians fighting in Syria will lose citizenship | World news | theguardian.com.

Australians fighting in Syria could lose citizenship, Scott Morrison signals | World news | theguardian.com

Further to similar British measures (British fighters in Syria stripped of UK citizenship), appears that Australia is also considering similar measures. Given upcoming changes to The Canadian Citizenship Act, this may be something that we may see in Canada as well:

Australia, the minister said, had powers to stop potential combatants leaving Australia through the cancellation of travel documents, but added the Australian government lacked the British government’s more wide-ranging powers under the citizenship act. In the UK, the home secretary can strip dual nationals of their British citizenship if it has been obtained fraudulently, or if citizenship is not in the public interest.

“We are looking right now at all the options that are before us to strengthen powers when necessary,” Morrison told 2GB on Monday. “We are looking at every option available to us. We don’t want those troubles in this country and people who bring them here should not come.”

Referring explicitly to the revocation of Australian citizenship for dual nationals, Morrison said the Australian government would “definitely want to have things of that order to enable you to protect the country from the incursion of that sort of violent and unhelpful views”.

“You want to arm yourself with all the necessary powers to deal with what is a very serious threat to Australia if people come here and seek to stir up trouble,” the minister said. “The Abbott government is pretty clear: we are not going to put up with this sort of thing.”

Australians fighting in Syria could lose citizenship, Scott Morrison signals | World news | theguardian.com.

Australia: Multicultural melting pot threatened by hardliners

More on Australian policy debates. Peter Kurti is right; advocates of hard or deep multiculturalism undermine support for multiculturalism, given “anything goes” cultural tolerance, rather than placing this in a rule of law and human rights context with limits. He goes a bit too far in his views of the role of the state; there is place for the state to encourage soft multiculturalism, including respect for religious freedom, but in balance with other rights.

A more sophisticated discussion can be found in Clifford Orwin’s 2009 article, Shallow diversity — our national muddle:

In fact, we Canadians do have a way of life. It’s called liberal democracy. It offers us unprecedented freedom to live as we wish and, in this sense, it does indeed “foster diversity.” It does so, however, only on condition of a far more significant underlying unity.

As long as you observe prevailing liberal democratic norms on all fundamental social questions, you’re free in merely secondary matters to continue in the ways of your ancestors.

As to the question of whether Australia needs a multiculturalism act, Canada’s multiculturalism act is more aspirational than prescriptive, leaving the heaving lifting to the courts and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Multiculture melting pot threatened by hardliners | thetelegraph.com.au.

Why racial hatred laws are vital to Australian multiculturalism

Australia’s new government is following the lead of the Canadian government in scaling back hate and racism provisions. Canada repealed s. 13 of its Human Rights Act earlier this year, not without some debate between civil liberties advocates in favour of repeal, and some communities who wanted it maintained. Hate speech remains, however, in the Criminal Code; the threshold, however, is higher than the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Why racial hatred laws are vital to Australian multiculturalism.

‘Hate speech’ no longer part of Canada’s Human Rights Act …

Does Murdoch’s multiculturalism light Abbott’s path to the future?

For those interested in Australian multicultural debates, some criticism from the left on what appears to be the Abbott government’s approach. Some similarities to Canadian conservatives (who were also inspired in some of their early thinking by the Howard government on citizenship and multiculturalism):

Does Murdoch’s multiculturalism light Abbott’s path to the future?.

Departing FECCA chair holds fears for multiculturalism | SBS News

A joker, a skeleton, a pirate … and Rupert Murdoch

An ironic column in the Guardian of Rupert Murdoch’s recent speech on multiculturalism and Australia:

Murdoch’s argument had three steps – a toolkit, he said, to keep Australia prosperous. In fact, to lead the world. Number one: promote Australian values, such as equality of opportunity, the church, strong relations with allies, “real multiculturalism”. Number two: embrace migrants, those who “understand and share our values”, “intelligent university graduates”. Number three: turn Australia into “the world’s disruptive economy”; innovate through creativity, champion the young, embrace the internet and mobile technology…..

And then it ended. In a room packed with chief executives and politicians, he characteristically berated the elites. “We must be egalitarian, not elitist,” he said. “We must be victors, not victims.” …

The contradictions were stark though. Murdoch’s argument itself was elitist: migration is OK, but only for those with skill, no mention of those in need; multiculturalism, but only with Australian values at the heart; innovation and creativity, but in the spirit of boy scouts, girl guides and the church.

A joker, a skeleton, a pirate … and Rupert Murdoch | Media | theguardian.com.