Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SYLLABUS FALL 2014
Civil Liberties - Eliadis – Fall 2014_final_rev Page 1
FACULTY OF LAW, McGill University
CIVIL LIBERTIES
CMPL 573
Fall 2014
COURSE: 3 Credits
Lecturer: Pearl Eliadis
(514) 344-5431 (Office)
[email protected] (Office)
Meetings with students: I am generally available after class, or at other times by
appointment. Students should feel free to email or call when they would like to discuss any
aspect of the course or their work. I will try to respond within 24 hours during weekdays.
All course notices, class summaries, information on course materials, updates, cancellations,
required readings, etc. will be placed online on MyCourses starting September 2.
Email notices are sent out regularly to advise when updates are provided, but students should
consult MyCourses regularly.
CONTENTS
1. Class Meeting Times & Location ..................................................................................... 2
2. Course overview ............................................................................................................... 2
3. Course and Learning Objectives ....................................................................................... 3
4. Teaching Method and Expectations .................................................................................. 4
5. Evaluation ......................................................................................................................... 5
6. Guest Lecturers ................................................................................................................. 7
7. Readings ............................................................................................................................ 8
8. Cancellations and makeup sessions .................................................................................. 9
9. Detailed Course Overview and Readings ......................................................................... 9
SYLLABUS FALL 2014
Civil Liberties - Eliadis – Fall 2014_final_rev Page 2
1. Class Meeting Times & Location
Tuesdays and Thursdays, September 2 to December 2
(N.B. Thursday, December 4 is a Monday schedule).
PLEASE NOTE CHANGE IN ROOM: CLASS WILL MEET IN NCDH 316 for the
term, with the exception of Thursday 30/10/14 where we meet in NCDH 201.
2. Course overview
INTRODUCTORY LECTURE
MODULE 1: INTRODUCING CIVIL LIBERTIES
What are civil liberties? Torture: a case study in the emergence of civil liberties
MODULE 2: WHO PROTECTS CIVIL LIBERTIES? Roles of social movements/civil society, legislatures, the judiciary, the executive, the press
MODULE 3: WHAT DO CIVIL LIBERTIES PROTECT? Freedom of speech, conscience and religion; life, liberty and security; right to peaceful
assembly; right to life/right to die
SPECIAL WORKSHOP: DISSENT, DEMOCRACY AND THE LAW
MODULE 4: WHO IS PROTECTED? Exploring the promise of universality v. historical reality of exclusion of women, people
with disabilities, racialized minorities, LGBT people.
MODULE 5: Special topic: NATIONAL SECURITY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES
2.1 This course introduces students to the theory and practice of civil liberties using an
interdisciplinary and multimedia approach. It traces the evolution of civil liberties through
the contributions of social movements (mobilization campaigns, civil rights, anti-Semitism,
anti-racism, student protests, the Occupy Movement), the roles of the press, of legislatures,
the executive, and the judiciary as protectors of civil liberties. The course looks at how the
choice of forum and of the type of right may influence how way we understand civil
liberties, and analyzes critically the standard narratives about civil liberties, namely that they
are:
“negative rights” rather than rights requiring positive State action;
counterweights to the State, as distinct from other powerful interests, including the
media, private sector interests, civil society etc.;
pre-eminent rights rather than rights that are interdependent and non-hierarchical;
SYLLABUS FALL 2014
Civil Liberties - Eliadis – Fall 2014_final_rev Page 3
universal, as contrasted with lived experiences of those who have been excluded at
different times in our history, including Aboriginal peoples, women, people of African
descent, Chinese and Japanese immigrants, and people with disabilities, to name a few.
Sources of law: The emphasis is mainly on Canadian sources with some international
human rights law, i.e. (1) national legislative frameworks (constitutional and legislative
rights protections), (2) case law and (3) international human rights law. These help to locate
civil liberties in the broader context of human rights law and show connections to other
classes of rights. The course uses primary legal sources, as well as historical records, media
reports and case studies to explore how traditional civil liberties developed in Canada, how
they are understood and used today.
2.2 Prerequisites: This course requires that students have successfully completed
Canadian constitutional law. Some exposure to international human rights law or public
international law would be an asset.
2.3 Civil Liberties is a complementary human rights course at McGill. The language of
instruction is English. In accord with McGill’s Charter of Students’ Rights, students have the
right to submit in English or in French any written work that is to be graded.
3. Course and Learning Objectives
3.1 Course objectives: The principal objective is to introduce students to the theory and
practice of civil liberties through legislative sources, jurisprudential developments and
contemporary news sources. Students should develop the capacity to assess critically
underlying assumptions and standard narratives in the civil liberties literature, by placing
civil liberties in the broader context of human rights protections, and by using these tools to
evaluate emerging legal issues.
The course links historical and current social developments to the practice of law, helping to
show how and why these rights emerged, and the role of individual human rights defenders
and civil society organizations in shaping the new parameters and boundaries of these rights.
Students will be expected to develop an understanding of:
• how governments have protected civil liberties in Canada
• which groups have been included in or excluded from protections
• the obligations on States in international law to respect, protect and fulfill rights
• The role of the Charter, criminal law, and human rights legislation
3.2. Learning objectives: Principal substantive objectives include the development of
critical capacity to analyze legal and historical developments; the ability to assess policy
choices made by governments to respect, protect and fulfil these rights or to restrict them;
and the development of knowledge of the general framework of protections in Canada and
comparable international protections.
SYLLABUS FALL 2014
Civil Liberties - Eliadis – Fall 2014_final_rev Page 4
There are also several practical learning objectives in the course, including strengthening
students’ ability to discuss difficult and controversial subjects, to interact with instructors
and peers constructively; the ability to manage group work, and improving research and
writing skills aimed at a lay audience. Finally, students are expected to develop sufficient
familiarity and ease with their chosen subject to write a significant research paper.
4. Teaching Method and Expectations
The course is taught primarily as a lecture, with short in-class exercises and scheduled
opportunities for group work and presentations throughout the term. Lecture summaries are
generally posted in MyCOURSES within about a week. Audiovisual materials are used
extensively and special guests will diversify the perspectives to which students are exposed
in the course. Moderated online discussions have been used successfully in past years to
deepen debate and discussion and will be used this year. Students should be aware that
certain topics discussed in the class are controversial and difficult, and in some cases,
upsetting.
4.1 Students are expected to attend class, read the syllabus, and read the required
materials in advance. Cell phones should be off. Students are expected to pay attention to
those speaking and to turn off phones and other devices. Unless otherwise specified, laptops,
IPads etc. are permitted for course-reading and note-taking purposes only. Students are
expected to be able to debate issues in class, and to develop the ability to address a variety of
different perspectives. Because the evaluations are linked mainly to the ability to apply
learning to current events and emerging issues, it is important for students to keep current
with the daily press. Everyone is free to raise relevant current events in class.
Students will be expected to prepare significant term paper on a civil liberties topic and will
be expected to fulfill the remaining 25% of their grade by choosing one of the following two
options:
Presentation: Students who choose this option will work in teams of three to develop a
class presentation.
OR
Short case study: Students who choose this option will develop a short case study on
an individual basis.
Feedback during term: Students will get an opportunity for feedback on proposals for their
presentations, case studies and papers. All students are expected to adhere to time
limitations for oral presentations and to meet the required criteria for the case studies and
term papers. All materials, including proposals, must be submitted on time. Late proposals
and papers will be penalized.
4.2 Course Instructor
Individual feedback on progress during the term can be sought any time. I will provide more
structured feedback on proposals, draft case studies, presentations, and, where requested, the
term paper. Students can also expect me to:
Assign reasonable amounts of reading (with a few exceptions, about 40 pages per class)
SYLLABUS FALL 2014
Civil Liberties - Eliadis – Fall 2014_final_rev Page 5
Facilitate student learning and skills development
Be available for meetings outside class times at mutually convenient times.
Respond to emails and to proposals promptly
Provide feedback on written submissions and additional feedback, on request;
Treat all students fairly, with courtesy and respect
Respect timelines
Be open to constructive input and suggestions.
Ensure that opportunities to participate are enjoyed equally by students.
4.3 Integrity
McGill University values academic integrity. All students must writing and is very I think a
bit about me and my husband are lawyers and you and had an anyway I and you are t
understand the meaning and consequences of cheating, plagiarism and other academic
offences under the Code of Student Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures (see
www.mcgill.ca/integrity for more information).
5. Evaluation
Students will have the opportunity to provide feedback and input about the course and the
instructor by communicating with the instructor and are invited to do so throughout the
course. There will be a summative evaluation of the November 4 workshop and the formal
evaluation undertaken by the University at the end of the course.
The instructor will give students informal and formal assessment of progress in the class and
through assignments. Formal evaluation criteria are set out below.
Group presentation OR case study 25%
-AND-
Research Paper 75%
5.1 Group Presentation or Case Study 25 %
Group Presentation Case study Weight 25% 25%
Who Groups of 3 or 4 Individual
Proposal 1- page proposal with key references. Proposal must identify each group member and confirm that everyone agrees to the proposed topic.
1-page proposal with key references on a topic linked to Dissent, Democracy and the Law.
What 30-minute presentation to class followed by discussion.
Case Study (about 10 pages incl. references and implications)
Division of Labour
Each group can select a spokesperson or divide the presentation between themselves
N/A
Format Open. Students can use traditional presentations, moot formats, Power Point, role play, Prezi, audiovisual materials, social media,
Case studies are based on templates to be provided in class.
SYLLABUS FALL 2014
Civil Liberties - Eliadis – Fall 2014_final_rev Page 6
Group Presentation Case study etc. to enhance presentations and encourage class participation.
Key dates
Select option and teams: Sept 18 Proposal: Oct 3 at 3 PM Presentations: See course dates below (Workshop: Tues Nov 4. Workshop: Students not required to attend, but are welcome to participate in discussions)
Select option: Sept 18 Proposal: Oct 3 at 3 PM Draft case study: Oct. 17 at 3 PM Workshop: Tue Nov 4. Mandatory attendance for students who choose this option Final case study: Tues Nov 11
Feedback Feedback provided on proposals and on presentations
Feedback provided on proposals and on draft case studies
Grading 5 points (group): technical requirements; equitable division of work in group (peer evaluation). 5 points (group): Presentation respects allotted timeframe 15 points (individual, depending on nature of contribution): clarity; compelling argument for or against selected issue; research; innovative use of technology; use of role play, or other technique; audiovisual materials. N.B. Students who are absent for their group presentations forfeit 25% entirely.
5 points: technical requirements 5 points: ability to integrate constructive criticism and suggestions from workshop into final draft 15 points: Case study is concise, balanced, forceful and clear. Written in plain language; draws on relevant and recent media and reports. N.B. Students who are absent for the workshop forfeit the 25% mark entirely.
About the Democracy, Dissent and the Law workshop: Students will research and write case
studies that will be critiqued and discussed in a group context with seasoned legal
practitioners and a journalist from the research network Democracy, Dissent and the Law.1
5.2 Research paper: 75% of final grade
All Students are required to write independently a substantial research paper with a
minimum of 7,500 words (excluding footnotes, titles, bibliographies etc.). The paper should
have a bibliography and proper footnoting. Preparation and submission of the research
paper satisfies the Faculty Writing Requirement. The length of the paper is the same
for all students, whether or not they seek to fulfill the Faculty Writing Requirement.
Papers below 7500 words or above 8000 words will be penalized.
Topic Proposal: Topics must address emerging issues and questions in any area of civil
liberties, whether or not it is covered in the course. Topics must be approved in advance
through a 2-3 page proposal. The proposal should introduce the topic, its proposed approach
and key bibliographical sources.
1 The website is at www.voices-voix.ca and the Dissent, Democracy and the Law project is accessible at the tab
called Documentation Project.
SYLLABUS FALL 2014
Civil Liberties - Eliadis – Fall 2014_final_rev Page 7
Students are encouraged to meet with the instructor to discuss topics in advance. Students
can choose their topics and submit their proposals at any time prior to the deadline, but no
later than 3 PM on Friday, October 3, 2014 at 3 PM.
Research Paper: The research paper should reflect a good understanding of the case law,
legislation and secondary materials relevant to the selected topic. It should contain an in-
depth, critical analysis of how the selected topic has been addressed by the courts and
secondary materials, and in public policy, canvassing not only majority and mainstream
positions on the topic, but also dissenting views.
The selected topic should reflect classroom discussions and the main course themes
The research paper should have a central thesis and main ideas that develop the thesis,
clearly supported by references. Papers should articulate clear references to the main themes
of the course. Pinpoint citations should be used. Citation style should follow the Canadian
Guide to Universal Legal Citation, 7th
ed.
In addition, research papers should:
o Develop main ideas analytically, with innovative, clear connections between ideas.
o Provide relevant and compelling arguments
o Use course materials and examples, drawing on classroom discussions and central
themes, even if the research topic is not one covered on class
o Provide a clear structure and a logical progression of ideas
o Ensure use of current and appropriate sources
o Demonstrate an appropriate writing style, free of errors.
Deadline for submission of research paper: Thursday December 11 at 3 PM.
Proposals and papers must be submitted electronically to SAO and to the Instructor. If there
is any discrepancy between the date of submission to the SAO and to the instructor, the
former will take precedence. Subject to the above deadline, students can submit their papers
at any time during the semester.
5.3. Student Identifier: When submitting papers/assignments to the SAO, students should
use their names.
5.4. Language: In accord with McGill University’s Charter of Students’ Rights, students in
this course have the right to submit in English or in French any written work that is to be
graded. This right applies to all written work that is to be graded, from one-word
answers to dissertations.
6. Guest Lecturers
o Melanie Benard, Disability rights activist and McGill law graduate. NOVEMBER 25
o Paul Champ, a leading civil liberties litigator, Paul focuses on human rights and public
interest law, with a practice in national security law. OCTOBER 21
o Yavar Hameed. See below for bio. SEPTEMBER 30
SYLLABUS FALL 2014
Civil Liberties - Eliadis – Fall 2014_final_rev Page 8
o Sasha Hart, Legal Counsel for the equality effect, which works in Kenya and Malawi to
protect girls and women from sexual violence. OCTOBER 28
Workshop Faculty: NOVEMBER 4
o Mary Eberts, is Constitutional-Litigator-in-Residence, University of Toronto and former
Ariel Sallows Chair in Human Rights at the College of Law, University of Saskatchewan
(2011-2012)
o Yavar Hameed, Ottawa based practitioner in human rights and civil liberties, including
constitutional litigation, and criminal law (in the context of civil protests and freedom of
expression matters)
o Tim McSorley is a journalist with extensive experience in research, social media, and
community outreach. Tim served as Editor and National Co-ordinator for the Media Co-
Op, and has worked in online and print publishing
More complete biographic information will be provided in MyCourses.
7. Readings
All required and recommended readings set out in the course outline, by week (see following
sections). Links to readings are also on MyCourses. Although efforts are made to keep
readings down to about 40 pages on average, students should be aware that some classes
have considerably more reading.
On reserve at the Nahum Gelber Law Library
o The Essentials of Human Rights (London: Hodder Arnold, 2005)
o Dominique Clément, Canada’s Rights Revolution: Social Movements and Social
Change, 1937 to 1982 (UBC Press, 2008)
o Pearl Eliadis, Speaking Out on Human Rights: Debating Canada’s Human Rights
System (McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2014)
o Peter Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, 2013 Student Edition (Toronto, Carswell)
o Lynn Hunt, Inventing Human Rights: A History (WW Norton & Company: New York,
2007).
o Jameel Jaffer and Amrit Singh, Administration of Torture: A Documentary Record from
Washington to Abu Ghraib and Beyond
o Andrew Solomon, Far from the Tree: Parents, Children, and the Search for Identity
(New York, Scribner, 2012)
If students wish to consult a relevant publication that is unavailable in the law library or
online, please let me know and I will arrange for a copy to be ordered.
Decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada and other Canadian courts are available through
< http://scc.lexum.org> (SCC only), the Canlii site <http://www.canlii.org> and the
websites of courts and human rights tribunals. UN international instruments are available
SYLLABUS FALL 2014
Civil Liberties - Eliadis – Fall 2014_final_rev Page 9
on the website of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights at
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/index.htm
Recommended readings are indicated for each lecture and posted on MyCourses. Additional
readings may be provided throughout the course and posted on MyCourses.
8. Cancellations and makeup sessions Class cancellations will be posted on MyCourses and/or announced in class.
9. Detailed Course Overview and Readings
Lecture 1 September 2 Introductory Lecture
The first class is a detailed overview of the course based on the syllabus, including course
content, learning objectives and expectations, and the evaluation framework.
o CBC, Opinions Fly Part I Broadcast Date: Jan. 17, 1965 (to be viewed in class) timecode
31:51
MODULE 1: INTRODUCING CIVIL LIBERTIES
Lecture 2 September 4 What are civil liberties?
This lecture locates civil liberties among fundamental rights and freedoms, common law
rights and other rights in the broader human rights framework. Key “markers” and narratives
about civil liberties are discussed critically, including their individual nature; their
legitimacy as implied or inherent rights, their justiciability as compared to other categories
of rights; their characterization as negative rights, and as constraints on State authority.
Required Readings:
o John Stuart Mill, Chapter 4 “Of the Limits to the Authority of Society over the
Individual” in On Liberty in The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XVIII -
Essays on Politics and Society Part I (1869). [available widely in print and online. I
used: https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645o/chapter4.html
o Shami Chakrabarti and Kathryn Kenny, “The Right to Liberty” in The Essentials of
Human Rights (London: Hodder Arnold, 2005) at 231- 233. (On reserve).
o Peter Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, 2013 Student Edition Chapter on “Civil
Liberties” (On reserve)
o Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority v. Canadian Federation of Students —
British Columbia Component, 2009 SCC 31, [2009] 2 SCR 295 (headnote only, for
discussion of positive v. negative rights); Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care v. Canada
(Attorney general) 2014 FC 651, paras 511-571 (s. 7 and positive rights, but also an
excellent overview of the caselaw on positive v. negative rights claims to date.)
Recommended Readings
SYLLABUS FALL 2014
Civil Liberties - Eliadis – Fall 2014_final_rev Page 10
Baier v Alberta , 2007 SCC 31, [2007] 2 SCR 673
Lecture 3 September 9 Sources of Law in Civil Liberties
This lecture examines principal sources of law that protect civil liberties, starting with
historic documents: 1215 Magna Carta, the 1689 English Bill of Rights, the 1789
Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen, the American Bill of Rights, the 1948
Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR]. It also examines the Canadian Bill of
Rights, international human rights law, human rights legislation, the implied bill of rights,
and the Canadian Charter.
Required Reading:
o Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 7-15
o Canadian Bill of Rights, SC 1960, c. 44
o Charter of human rights and freedoms, RSQ c C-12, preamble, ss 1, 9.1, 52.
o Dale Gibson, Constitutional Amendment and the Implied Bill of Rights 12:4 (1966-67)
McGill LJ 497.
o Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217, re discussion on unwritten
principles of constitutional law and implications for the rule of law and civil liberties.
o International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). Articles 1-27.
o Divito v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 47 at paras.
22-23 (The SCC’s use of the phrase “at least as great” signals that Canadian Charter
protections may, in some cases, actually exceed those provided by international law).
Recommended reading:
o R. v. Spencer, 2014 SCC 43 (headnote only – re privacy, relevance of Criminal Code)
Lecture 4 September 11 Sources of law in Civil Liberties II
This lecture looks at two related principles that affect civil liberties. The first is the
interdependent and interconnected nature of human rights. The second is the rule of law, i.e.
the law must not favour unreasonably or arbitrarily any particular group of people. Human
rights are integrated into “thick” interpretations of the rule of law.
Required Readings:
o Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (1993) (Preamble and Articles 1-10).
Online: < http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/vienna.htm>. (Interdependence and
indivisibility of rights; no hierarchy of rights).
o Tom Bingham, The Rule of Law (London: Penguin Books, 2010), Ch. 7, “Human Rights
63-73 (MyCourses)
o Manfred Nowak, “Indivisibility of Human Rights” in The Essentials of Human Rights
(London: Hodder Arnold, 2005) at 178-180. (On reserve)
o Gosselin (Tutor of) v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2005] 1 SCR 238 (only on the issue
of a non-hierarchical nature of rights).
SYLLABUS FALL 2014
Civil Liberties - Eliadis – Fall 2014_final_rev Page 11
Lecture 5 September 16 Torture: Case study on the emergence of civil liberties
The right to be free from torture and other forms of cruel and unusual treatment is the one of
the oldest and best-established human rights and one of the few to be recognized as part of
customary law. It is absolute and non-derogable.
This two-part section of the course begins with the historical use of torture, mainly between
the 15th
and 18th centuries in Western Europe, to extract confessions and information about
accomplices, to exact punishment for religious infractions or to control and punish people
whose views were unpopular. Growing opposition to torture emerged as part of the
development of modern legal systems, not only from intellectuals but also from a general
public that had been exposed to fictional novels and developed empathy, allowing people to
experience and share with fellow readers what others might be are experiencing. The third
part of this lecture looks at the main definitional elements of “cruel and unusual” punishment
today.
Required Reading
o Ss 7, 12, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
o Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 SCR 3, 2002 SCC
1 [headnote only].
o Convention against Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment (1984) 1465. UNTS 85. Online: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm,
articles 1-16.
o Lynn Hunt, Inventing Human Rights: A History (New York: W.W. Norton & Company
2007), Chapter 2, "Bone of Their Bone: Abolishing Torture", pages 70-82 (Law Library,
on reserve).
o Nigel Rodley, “Freedom from torture” in The Essentials of Human Rights (London:
Hodder Arnold, 2005) at 332 (on reserve).
o R. v. Smith, [1987] 1 SCR 1045 (majority decision only re definition of torture)
Question for discussion: Does torture have to be state-inflicted?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/domestic-torture-should-be-a-crime-advocates-
say-1.2657385
Recommended Reading
o Jameel Jaffer and Amrit Singh, Administration of Torture: A Documentary Record from
Washington to Abu Ghraib and Beyond (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007),
pages 1-18. On reserve.
o CAT, General Comment No. 2: Implementation of Article 2 by States parties
(CAT/C/GC/2) 24 January 2008. Online: <http://daccess-dds-
ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G08/402/62/PDF/G0840262.pdf?OpenElement >
SYLLABUS FALL 2014
Civil Liberties - Eliadis – Fall 2014_final_rev Page 12
Committee against Torture 48th session 7 May to 1 June 2012. Consideration of reports
submitted by States parties under article 19 of the Convention.
The parameters of “cruel and unusual punishment” in Canadian law
• Inmates (Steele v Mountain Institution (Warden), [1990] 2 SCR 1385)
• Extradition: Kindler v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1991] 2 SCR 779
• By persons appealing sentences, mandatory minimum sentencing context: R v
Latimer, [2001] 1 SCR 3; R. v. Smickle, 2013 ONCA 678
In class
Heritage Canada, Torture and the Truth: Angélique and the Burning of Montreal
http://www.canadianmysteries.ca/sites/angelique/accueil/indexen.html
Lecture 6 September 18 Torture II: Cruel and unusual Punishment
Part II examines the legal implications of modern forms of torture, especially since 9/11, the
“war on terror” and the normalization of “coercive interrogation techniques.”
Required Reading
o Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar:
Report of the Events Relating to Maher Arar: Analysis and Recommendations (Ottawa:
Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2006), online:
<http://www.pch.gc.ca/cs-kc/arar/Arar_e.pdf>. [Section on torture, pages 51-59].
o Jameel Jaffer and Amrit Singh, Administration of Torture: A Documentary Record from
Washington to Abu Ghraib and Beyond (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007),
pages 18-34. On reserve.
o Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr, 2010 SCC 3, [2010] 1 SCR 44 (section A of Decision
only)
o Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care v. Canada (Attorney general) 2014 FC 651 (Section
XI) only.
Screening: Tairah Firdous’ 2013 Kashmiri film: Cargo: Stories from a Torture Cell
Recommended Reading
o Letter from Minister of Public Safety Vic Toews to CSIS Director Richard Fadden (7
December 2010) released under the Access to Information Act; Letter and attached
Ministerial Direction from Public Safety Minister Vic Toews to CSIS Director Richard
Fadden (28 July 2011) released under the Access to Information Act [July Direction] (In
class)
o "Ottawa allows RCMP, border agency to use torture tainted information" Globe and Mail,
August 24, 2012, <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-allows-rcmp-
border-agency-to-use-torture-tainted-information/article4497677/>
o Human Rights Joint Committee – 23rd
Report Allegations of UK Complicity in Torture,
<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/152/15202.htm>
o Parliament of the United Kingdom, The Meaning of Complicity, Allegations of UK
Complicity in Torture - Human Rights Joint Committee (2009).
SYLLABUS FALL 2014
Civil Liberties - Eliadis – Fall 2014_final_rev Page 13
o CAT General Comment No. 2: Implementation of Article 2 by States parties
(CAT/C/GC/2) 24 January 2008. Online: <http://daccess-dds-
ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G08/402/62/PDF/G0840262.pdf?OpenElement >
MODULE 2 WHO PROTECTS CIVIL LIBERTIES?
The classic view in parliamentary democracies is that civil liberties are protected by the state
and its institutions (the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive branch of government).
Prior to the enactment of the Charter and of human rights laws, there was little legal
protection against civil liberties violations: government proved to be a poor or at least
inconsistent guarantor of rights. The Press plays an important role, as do independent
watchdog organizations established by the executive to protect rights.
Lecture 7 September 23 State As Guarantor of Civil Liberties
This lecture begins with the role of the state as the main guarantor of civil liberties, starting
with role of Parliament, the implied Bill of Rights, the advent of the Charter, and the role of
the state in international human rights law in protecting civil and political rights.
Required Readings
o International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) Preamble, Parts I, II
o Reference re Alberta Statutes, [1938] SCR 100 [headnote].
o Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] SCR 121.
o Switzman v. Ebling and AG of Quebec, [1957] SCR 285 (Rand, Kellock & Abbott only)
o Hunter et al. v. Southam Inc., [1984] 2 SCR 145 (headnote only - one of the first Charter
cases at the SCC, on the impact on the supremacy of Parliament).
o Hillel Steiner, “Libertarianism and Human Rights.” in The Essentials of Human Rights
(London: Hodder Arnold, 2005) at 229 (on reserve).
Recommended readings
o Seneca College v. Bhadauria, [1981] 2 SCR 181; Parry Sound (District) Social Services
Administration Board v OPSEU, Local 324, [2003] 2 SCR 157 (headnotes and text re
public policy in favour of human rights/prohibiting discrimination).
Lecture 8 September 25 Social Movements and Civil Liberties in Canada I
The promise of civil liberties contains at its core the seed of possibility that people acting in
concert can come together, go to the streets, assemble (peacefully), form associations, and go
to the press to raise awareness and demand change. This module starts by looking at the role
of civil society/social movements to demand civil liberties. In the Canadian context, a
historical perspective shows that the state is rarely the instigator of human rights protections,
and that pressure to enact legislation and to formalize rights has often come from social
movements and human rights defenders.
Required Reading
o Re Drummond Wren [1945] OR 778 (Ont. SC)
SYLLABUS FALL 2014
Civil Liberties - Eliadis – Fall 2014_final_rev Page 14
o Dominique Clément, Canada's Rights Revolution: Social Movements and Social Change,
1937-82, Ch. 2 (on reserve).
o Dominique Clément, The Human Rights Movement: A History
http://www.historyofrights.com/movement3.html
o Pearl Eliadis, Speaking Out on Human Rights: Debating Canada’s Human Rights System
(McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2014) pp 63-73.
Two case studies on the role of civil society organizations and social movements
o Mack v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] O.J. No. 3488 (Ont CA)
o Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care v. Canada (Attorney general) 2014 FC 651 Parts I
and II.
Recommended reading
o Christie v. York Corporation, [1939] SCR 50
o A. Alan Borovoy, Uncivil Obedience: The Tactics and Tales of a Democratic Agitator
(Toronto: Lester Publishing:1991), Chapter 1, “Fighting City Hall”
Lecture 9 September 30 Social Movements and Civil Liberties in Canada II
“Social movements create material conditions that induce state action or create the facts on
the ground that are essential to the effective litigation of fundamental rights concerns”
- Yavar Hameed
What should be the role of the state in supporting, or creating the regulatory conditions, that
allow social movements and civil society organizations to thrive? In recent years, a plethora
of organizations have seen their funding cut, their charitable status threatened, or their
regulatory burden increased. Do these issues engage with a new and more “positive” vision
of civil liberties, imposing duties on the state to act, or alternatively, should the judiciary
remain with a more restrained and libertarian approach to civil liberties? What role do civil
society organizations have in advocating for a more participatory version of democracy
where they benefit from “an enabling environment” and give full expression to civil
liberties?
Note: This lecture will help students prepare for the workshop of Nov 4 and will be co-
taught with Yavar Hameed (see short biographical note, above).
Required Reading
o Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care v. Canada (Attorney general) 2014 FC 651 paras 1-
250; 441-689.
o Lawyers Rights Watch Canada, “The Shrinking Space for Dissent in Canada”
Interactive Dialogue Agenda Item 3 – Freedom of Expression. Written Statement to the
26th
Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (May 27, 2014).
o McKinney v. University of Guelph [1990] 3 SCR 229 HEADNOTE per Dickson CJ and La
Forest and Gonthier JJ.
o The IFRAN case study: http://voices-voix.ca/en/facts/profile/irfan-canada
SYLLABUS FALL 2014
Civil Liberties - Eliadis – Fall 2014_final_rev Page 15
Recommended reading
o Gosselin v Quebec (Attorney General), 2002 SCC 84,[2002]4 SCR 429 headnote, and
paragraphs 80-85
o Canadian Arab Federation v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2013 FC 1283
(focus on freedom of expression arguments)
o Nathalie Des Rosiers, “The Advocacy Function in a Democracy and the Role of Non
Governmental Organizations”
Lecture 10 October 2 Civil Liberties and the Press
The press enjoy a privileged status through constitutional protections and the protected
platform from which they can shape public opinion. In this respect, they are often the “front
line” defenders of civil liberties including, of course, freedom of the press itself. The press is
also subject to other rights, including privacy rights, the right to reputation (libel and
defamation law), and rules against inciting hate.
Required Readings
o Section 2(b) Charter
o Edmonton Journal v. Alberta [1989]2 SCR 1326 (1326-1337)
o Grant v. Torstar Corp. 2009 SCC 61 (libel, defamation and the defence of responsible
journalism)
o Bou Malhab v. Diffusion Métromédia CMR inc., 2011 SCC 9, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 214
- Question for discussion: Is there a right to protection from the press?
Leveson Inquiry: Culture, Practice and Ethics of the Press (London: The Stationary Office,
2012) Executive Summary pp. 4-30.
Hate Speech and the Press
o Elmasry and Habib v. Roger’s Publishing and MacQueen (No. 4), 2008 BCHRT 378
o African Rights, Rwanda: Death, Despair and Defiance (African Rights: London, 1995),
pp. 36-45; 69-76. (See MyCourses) (the role of media in inciting genocide)
In class: Video http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/about/the-report/
Recommended Reading
o R. v. Dyment, [1988] 2 SCR 417
o Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, [1995] 2 SCR 1130
o R. v. National Post, 2010 SCC 16
MODULE 3 WHAT IS PROTECTED?
Lecture 11 October 7 Freedom of Thought, Belief, Opinion and Expression I
Free speech is a fundamental freedom that is justified by a number of theories, including an
instrumental theory regarding its importance to democracy, and its inherent value as a
SYLLABUS FALL 2014
Civil Liberties - Eliadis – Fall 2014_final_rev Page 16
mechanism of personal agency that is essential to our ability to communicate views and to
receive opinions. It is also central to our ability to influence our political and social
environments, and to hold governments to account. International law specifically includes
the right to both receive and impart information and opinions (ICCPR article 19.2).
Required Reading
o ICCPR articles 19 and 20
o Sections 2(a) and 2 (b), Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
o Articles 19 and 20 ICCPR
o E.M. Barendt, Freedom of Speech (Clarendon Press, 1985) “Why Protect Free Speech?
pp. 1-10 (Copy online in MyCourses).
Question: When is speech not protected speech?
o McIntosh v. Metro Aluminum Products, 2011 BCHRT 34 (when it is employment)
o Pardy v. Earle and others (No 4), 2011 BCHRT 101 (when it is a service)
o “Students suspended for anti-Semitic photo” Winnipeg Free Press 01/11/12
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/students-suspended-for-anti-semitic-photo-
137076828.html (when it is public mischief)
o Mugesera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 SCC 40, [2005] 2
SCR 100 (Headnote) (when it incites genocide)
o Eliadis, op. cit. 206-232
Recommended Reading
o Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1988] 2 SCR 712 (free speech and language)
o Irwin Toy ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney general) (free speech and commercial speech)
o RWDSU, Local 580 v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd. [1986] 2 SCR 573 (picketing, leafleting)
o Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2000] 2 SCR 1120
(obscenity)
o Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority v. Canadian Federation of Students —
British Columbia Component, 2009 SCC 31, [2009] 2 SCR 295 (headnote – political
speech)
Lecture 12 October 9 Free Speech and Hate Speech
What happens when free speech suppresses or interacts with the rights of others? When does
speech cross the line, and what forms of regulation if any are appropriate?
Required reading
o R. v. Zundel, [1992] 2 SCR 731 (headnote)
o Warman v. Kouba, 2006 CHRT 50 (only re hallmarks of hate)
o Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott 2013 SCC 11
SYLLABUS FALL 2014
Civil Liberties - Eliadis – Fall 2014_final_rev Page 17
o CBC, Opinions Fly Part II Broadcast Date: Jan. 17, 1965 (to be viewed in class) timecode
31:51
Recommended Reading
o Bailey, “Private Regulation and Public Policy: Toward Effective Restriction of Internet
Hate Propaganda” (2003) 49 McGill LJ 5.
o Eliadis, op cit 214-232
Lecture 13 October 14 Freedom of Conscience and Religion I
Modern western societies were built on freedom from religious persecution and oppression.
Freedom to express one's religious views and the sanctuary provided by progressive
countries in the face of religious oppression is part of our history and national identity, while
respecting the separation of religion and the State. And yet today, religions - or at least
certain religious expressions - are seen as inimical to equality, to social cohesion or to other
important values and legal principles.
Required Reading
o Section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
o Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys, 2006 SCC 6, [2006] 1 SCR 256
(headnote: freedom of religion, reasonable limits /reasonable accommodation and
multiculturalism).
o Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37, [2009] 2 SCR 567
(headnote: accommodation v. exceptionalism re photos on drivers’ licences)
o R. v. N.S., 2012 SCC 720 (right to wear niqab v right of counsel to face accused)
o “Toronto court rules woman must remove niqab to testify” CBC News Apr 24, 2013.
Recommended Reading
o Saguenay (Ville de) c. Mouvement laïque québécois, 2013 QCCA 936 (CanLII) (prayer in
public/municipal meetings)
Lecture 14 October 16 Freedom of Conscience and Religion II
Required reading
o Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15, [1996] 1 SCR 825
o Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Christian Horizons, 2010 ONSC 2105 [Christian
Horizons (2010) (religion and equality)
o Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 SCC 47, [2004] 2 SCR 551 (freedom of contract v.
religious rights; headnote)
Recommended Reading
o McAteer v. Canada (Attorney General), 2014 ONCA 578 (citizenship oath)
SYLLABUS FALL 2014
Civil Liberties - Eliadis – Fall 2014_final_rev Page 18
Lecture 15 October 21 Guest Lecture: Paul Champ
Prominent civil liberties and human rights litigator Paul Champ will provide a practitioner’s
perspective on litigating civil liberties and national security issues.
Lecture 16 October 23 Class reserved for group presentations
Lecture 17 October 28 Sexual Violence and Civil Liberties
Guest Lecture: Sasha Hart, Legal Director for the equality effect. This lecture explores the
role of the state from another perspective: the life, liberty and security of the person of girls
and women who are subject to sexual violence when the state fails to properly investigate
and prosecute cases using a recent decision from Kenya as case study. Continuing the theme
of the role of social movements, the lecture will look at the initiatives of two non-profit
organizations, the equality effect and Ripples that spearheaded the litigation.
Required reading:
o C.K.(A CHILD) through Ripples International as her guardian and Next friend) &
11 others v Commissioner of Police/Inspector General of The National
Police Service & 3 Others, [2013] Eklr
Recommended reading:
o Jane Doe v. Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) Commissioners of Police 1998 CanLII
14826 (ON SC)
o Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v.
Mexico Judgment of November 16, 2009
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_205_ing.pdf
Lecture 18 October 30 Right to Peaceful Assembly
The right peaceful assembly is a “proto-right” in terms of its role in democracy, advocacy
and dissent. Anyone can go out and protest, or communicate a position without being
literate, having access to a publishing platform or even the Internet, while at the same time,
all of these means of communication can significantly enhance the right to peaceful
assembly. And yet, the right to peaceful assembly is among the most heavily regulated of all.
Stripping out the right to free expression, what is left of “free assembly”? Once
demonstrators are re-routed, subject to prior restraints, cordoned off, fined, kettled, arrested,
and detained incommunicado, what remains?
Required reading
o Section 2(c) of the Canadian Charter, s. 63 Criminal Code; Article 21 ICCPR
o Vancouver (City) v Zhang, 2010 BCCA
o Batty v. City of Toronto, 2011 ONSC 6862 (CanLII)
SYLLABUS FALL 2014
Civil Liberties - Eliadis – Fall 2014_final_rev Page 19
o NUPGE, Cdn Civil Liberties Association, Breach of the Peace Report on the Policing of
the G20 in Toronto (2011) http://ccla.org/2011/02/28/take-action-g-20/ (pp 14 – 45)
Recommended reading
o R. v. Berntt, 1997 CanLII 12528 (BCCA)
o Règlement modifiant le Règlement sur la prévention des troubles de la paix, de la sécurité
et de l'ordre publics, et sur l'utilisation du domaine public (Regulation P-6, City of
Montreal).
o Victoria (City) v Adams, 2009 BCCA 563
Lecture 19 November 4 Special Workshop on Democracy, Dissent and the Law
See the separate materials in MyCourses. Workshop faculty: Mary Eberts, Pearl Eliadis you
Yavar Hameed, and Tim McSorley.
Lecture 20 November 6 Right to Live or Right to Die?
If the essence of civil liberties is individual choice and freedom from state interference, what
right does the state have to interfere with end-of-life decisions? What are the implications
for the right to life for vulnerable patients, the elderly, and people with serious disabilities?
Required reading
o Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1993] 3 SCR 519 (headnote)
o Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 BCCA 502.
o “Be wary of assisted dying” National Post August 20, 2014
o Quebec, Bill 52, An Act respecting end of life care, First Sess. 40th
Leg. (2013)
o R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 SCR 30 (section 7 rights, rights of fetus)
In class: CBC, The Current, “Physician-assisted death in Oregon:
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/popupaudio.html?clipIds=2500002298
Recommended reading
o Michael Cormack, “Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in the Post-Rodriguez Era: Lessons
from Foreign Jurisdictions,” (2000) 38 Osgoode Hall LJ.
o Andrew Solomon, op. cit., Chapter IX, “Rape” (on reserve)
MODULE 4 WHO IS PROTECTED?
The idea that civil liberties are for "everyone" is not a foregone conclusion. This module
assesses the question of differential access to rights and freedoms, with a focus on historic
and legal exclusions from rights language and a rights framework. Distinct legal regimes, the
use of private law, and the failure to recognize the human rights of entire groups of people
have combined to strip marginalized and minority communities of many civil liberties.
SYLLABUS FALL 2014
Civil Liberties - Eliadis – Fall 2014_final_rev Page 20
Lecture 21 November 11 Aboriginal peoples
The treatment of Aboriginal peoples is among the most serious stain on Canada’s human
rights record, but it is rarely articulated in terms of civil liberties. This lecture continues the
thematic discussion on the role of the state and the extent of its positive responsibility to
respect, protect and fulfill rights by looking at what language, history, literature and law
have to tell us about Aboriginal rights. Issues include self-determination, the right to vote,
the right to security of the person and to family.
Required Readings
o Sandra Lovelace v. Canada, Communication No. R.6/24 (29 December 1977), U.N. Doc.
Supp. No. 40 (A/36/40) at 166 (1981) Online:
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/cc245da4e1c73a55c1256a16003b21a8?Opendocume
nt. (Aboriginal women denied protection).
o “Seeking Change, Aboriginal People turn to Human Rights Law” Canadian Human
Rights Commission web site http://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/eng/content/seeking-change-
aboriginal-people-turn-human-rights-law (impact of repeal of s. 67 of CHRA)
Recommended reading
o United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (endorsed by Canada in
2010) A/RES/61/295. Online: http://daccess-dds-
ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/512/07/PDF/N0651207.pdf?OpenElement
o Mary Eberts “Knowing and Unknowing: Settler Reflections on Missing and Murdered
Indigenous Women” (2014) 77(1) Sask L Rev.
Lecture 22 November 13 Lecture reserved for Group Presentations
Lecture 23 November 18 Nations, States and Allegiance: Who Belongs?
There has been extensive litigation and discussion about the extent of the application of the
Charter and international human rights law to immigrants, refugees, and persons requiring
protection. Borders, nationalities and public safety make even “absolute” civil liberties more
negotiable, more difficult to enforce, and less secure, especially since 9/11.
Required Readings
o Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 SCR 177 [headnote].
o Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Chiarelli, [1992] 1 SCR 711
(headnote)
o Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 SCR 817
(headnote)
o Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 SCR 3, 2002 SCC
1 (headnote)
o Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care v. Canada (Attorney general) 2014 FC 651 (NOTE:
UNDER APPEAL) Parts I, III, IV, VII and IX.
Recommended reading
SYLLABUS FALL 2014
Civil Liberties - Eliadis – Fall 2014_final_rev Page 21
o UN 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees; 1967 Protocol Relating to the
Status of Refugees
o Mugesera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 100,
2005 SCC 40
Lecture 24 November 20 “What it means to be a human being”: LGBT rights
Since at least the 1970s, Canada has had no place in the bedrooms of the nation -- at least in
criminal matters. And yet, it was not until 1998 that the Supreme Court of Canada included
sexual orientation as an analogous Charter ground in section 15, opening the way for LGBT
people to assert their rights. We look at issues like life, liberty and security; identity, and the
right to form a family as part of the relationship between LGBT rights and civil liberties.
Required Readings
o Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 SCR 93 (headnote)
o Reference re Same-Sex Marriage, [2004] 3 SCR 698 (headnote) (right to family).
o Katy Steinmetz, “America’s Transition, Time magazine, June 9, 2014 at 38 (in class)
o Solomon, op. cit. “Transgender” 599-627 (on reserve)
Right to equality/security v. religious rights and free speech
o Lund v Boissoin, 2012 ABCA 300 (CanLII) Intro, Part I and paras. 58-78
o Whatcott v. Saskatchewan (Human Rights Tribunal, SCC, supra. Headnote
Recommended readings
o Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Christian Horizons, 2010 ONSC 2105 (Ont.
Div.Ct.)
o Haig v. Canada,[1993] 2 SCR 995 [headnote]
o C. Taylor et al, Every Class in Every School: Final report on the first National Climate
Survey on Homophobia, Biphobia, and Transphobia in Canadian schools (Egale Canada
Human Rights Trust, 2011). Online: <http://www.egale.ca/extra%5C1489.pdf>.
Executive summary.
Lecture 25 November 25 People with Disabilities
This class will be co-taught with Melanie Benard. For much of the 20th
century, people with
disabilities had limited access to civil liberties. From the right to life and liberty
(incarceration and forced sterilization) to mobility rights (access to transportation), people
with disabilities have experienced severe limitations on their basic rights.
Required Readings
o Andrew Solomon, Far from the Tree: Parents, Children, and the Search for Identity
(New York, Scribner, 2012) Chapter 7, Disability 355-395.
o Muir v. Alberta, 1996 CanLII 7287 (AB QB), <http://canlii.ca/t/1p6lq>
SYLLABUS FALL 2014
Civil Liberties - Eliadis – Fall 2014_final_rev Page 22
o Government of Alberta, News Release, 99 – 033, “Stratton Agreement concludes
sterilization negotiations” (November 2, 1999) Online:
<http://www.gov.ab.ca/acn/199911/8353.html>.
o Council of Canadians with Disabilities v. VIA Rail Canada Inc, 2007 SCC 15 (headnote)
o [Audio file CBC, The Current, “Leilani Muir successfully sues Alberta government for
wrongful sterilization” Online: <http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2011/11/14/leilani-
muir-successfully-sues-alberta-govt-for-wrongful-sterilization/> Clip:
<http://www.cbc.ca/video/news/audioplayer.html?clipid=2167354475>.
Recommended readings
o Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 (disability and eduction)
o Quebec (CDPDJ) v. Montreal (City); Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et
des droits de la jeunesse) v. Boisbriand (City), [2000] 1 SCR 665 (Mercier)
o Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, Online:
http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml
Module 5: National Security This module builds on the special lecture on October 21 by Paul Champ, and explores the
need to provide public safety, national security, and to engage the "fight against terrorism" at
both national and global levels, especially since the events of September 11, 2001.
Lecture 26 November 27 The Suspension of Universality
National security is aims at protecting the territorial integrity and existential security of the
state. How has the Canadian state responded to and addressed perceived or real national
security issues? How should a state respond to threats? What are the implications for civil
liberties, especially when specific groups of people are targeted?
Required reading
o Dominique Clément, “The Gouzenko Affair” Canadian Human Rights History online:
<http://www.historyofrights.com/gouzenko1.html>.
o David Cole, “The Brits Do It Better” The New York Review of Books, June 12, 2008, at 68
(reviewing Laura K. Donohue, The Cost of Counterterrorism: Power, Politics and Liberty
(2008) and David Bonner; Executive Measures, Terrorism and National Security: Have
the Rules of the Game Changed? (2008). http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/5/
o Canada, Internal Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Abdullah
Almalki, Ahmad Abou-Elmaati and Muayyed Nureddin, Supplement to Public Report
(Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services, 2010), online: http://dsp-
psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/collection_2010/bcp-pco/CP32-90-1-2010-eng.pdf, Iacobucci Report,
Supplement, pp 1-35.
o Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 SCC 9, [2007] 1 SCR 350
SYLLABUS FALL 2014
Civil Liberties - Eliadis – Fall 2014_final_rev Page 23
Recommended reading
o Anti-terrorism Act (S.C. 2001, c. 41)
o Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, (S.C. 2001, c. 27), Division 9 as am.
o International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group. Report of the Information Clearinghouse
on Border Controls and Infringements (2010), online: http://iclmg.ca/en/section/14>.
o David Jenkins, “In Support of Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Act: A Comparison of Canadian,
British, and American Anti-Terrorism Law” (2003) 66 Sask LR 419.
o Hamdan v Rumsfeld, 548 US 557 (2006)
Lecture 27 December 2 Terror, Profiling and Watchlists
Required Reading
o Abbdelrazik v. Canada (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 2009 FC 580
o Jeffrey Kahn, Mrs. Shipley’s Ghost: The Right to Travel and Terrorist Watchlists
(University of Michigan Press, 2013). Introduction (Mycourses)
o International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, Report of the Information Clearinghouse
on Border Controls and Infringements to Travellers’ Rights February , 2010
http://www.travelwatchlist.ca/
o Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar,
Report of the Events Relating to Maher Arar: Analysis and Recommendations (Ottawa:
Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2006), online:
<http://www.pch.gc.ca/cs-kc/arar/Arar_e.pdf> [Arar Commission of Inquiry] [pages 9;
13-33].
Recommended Reading
o Paul Koring, “Canadian Abousfian Abdelrazik taken off United Nations terror list” Globe
and Mail (Nov. 30 2011) http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-
mideast/canadian-abousfian-abdelrazik-taken-off-united-nations-terror-
list/article2255810/
Deadline for submitting research paper: DECEMBER 11, 2014 at 3 PM
![CORE 115 Syllabus [Fall 2015]](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/563dbb18550346aa9aaa37a4/core-115-syllabus-fall-2015.jpg)
