Literature Matters with Karen Connelly and Tanya Tagaq

The Avie Bennett Chair in Canadian Literature in the Department of English at University of Toronto, presents the annual Literature Matters lecture on Wednesday, October 16 at the Isabel Bader Theatre.

Poet, novelist and creative non-fiction writer Karen Connelly and singer, avant-garde composer and author Tanya Tagaq discuss the value of literature and share their views about their creative process. Challenging stereotypes of culture and genre, Connelly’s and Tagaq’s work offers inspiring, provocative and timely ways of thinking about human rights, the environment and the legacy of colonialism.

Admission is free though registration is required. For full details and to register, visit https://www.eventbrite.ca/e/literature-matters-karen-connelly-tanya-tagaq-tickets-72178851889.

Canadian companies criticized for abuses abroad

The occlusive power of Canadian corporate identity

Canadian companies criticized for abuses abroad

In 2015 Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told The New York Times that Canadian values include “openness, respect, compassion, willingness to work hard, to be there for each other, [and] to search for equality and justice.”

Of the prominent corporations headquartered in Canada, such as the mining companies Barrick Gold, Nevsun Resources, and Hudbay Minerals; the transportation company Bombardier Inc.; and the software company Netsweeper, most carry out the majority of their operations overseas. This means that although they are technically Canadian, they overwhelmingly impact the non-Canadian communities that they operate within and employ from.

Nevertheless, their reputations are buoyed by their Canadian identity. The Globe and Mail reported that such corporations enjoy a “strategic advantage” in Canadian markets.

In other words, Canadian consumers are more willing to trust, purchase products or services from, and work for corporations with Canadian identities.

This is especially true for mining corporations, reports The Walrus. Such companies headquartered in Canada enjoy “a positive national image, a solid reputation for mining expertise, and access to government resources through [Canadian] embassies abroad.”

Yet as Canadian companies enjoy these perks back home, advocacy groups have questioned whether they are acting in accordance with Canadian values in their operations overseas. Many have grappled with lawsuits and protests stemming from alleged human rights violations in foreign countries, contravening the so-called Canadian values of compassion, equality, and justice.

Barrick Gold is a recent example of a Canadian corporation that made headlines for alleged human rights violations. The firm was founded by philanthropist Peter Munk, after whom the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy is named.

The Munk School of Global Affairs. File photo: BERNARDA GOSPIC/THE VARSITY

Munk donated $6.4 million to the construction of the Munk School of Global Affairs, which was at the time named the Munk Centre for International Studies. The institution opened in 2000, and in 2009 his foundation made an additional donation of $35 million. In 2018, the school merged with U of T’s School of Public Policy & Governance to form the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy.

His foundation’s donations to the Munk School have drawn criticism from students and professors alike, some of which questioned whether the U of T is compromising its institutional integrity by accepting Munk’s donations.

Gold, human rights, and Papua New Guinea

On May 7, Barrick Gold faced scrutiny from the advocacy group MiningWatch Canada during its annual general meeting, a mandatory gathering for the corporation to hold for its shareholders.

“It is shameful that year after year since 2008, either I or people affected by your mines from all over the world, have had to stand here to testify to ongoing environmental and human rights abuses at your mines,” said Catherine Coumans, a research coordinator for MiningWatch Canada at the general meeting.

Coumans cited Barrick Gold’s alleged complicity in abuses including “excessively violent security guards” and unsafe disposal of waste byproducts from mining.

This corresponds with earlier accusations, including research from 2009 led by legal scholar Sarah Knuckey, now associated with Columbia Law School, alleging that Barrick Gold did not do “due diligence in hiring security” for its facilities in Porgera, Papua New Guinea.

According to Knuckey, Barrick Gold’s lack of diligence in hiring security contributed to a number of problems. Her team has since submitted “evidence of eight rapes and two other acts of sexual violence” to the Canadian government.

Flag held by demonstrators agitating against Barrick Gold. SHANNA HUNTER/THE VARSITY.

According to The National Observer, Barrick Gold “dismissed reports that security forces were killing men and raping women as lies,” until a report in 2011 by Human Rights Watch documented six alleged incidents of gang rape by mine security personnel in Papua New Guinea from 2008–2010.

During its 2019 annual general meeting, Barrick CEO Mark Bristow responded to Coumans by acknowledging that there are “specific issues that you [Coumans] refer to,” but noted that Barrick has “dealt with them in the past, and… will always continue to deal with those allegations.”

However, Bristow downplayed the role of Barrick in alleged incidents of rape, arson, and assault by mine guards in Tanzania, saying that Acacia Mining, which employed or hosted the guards, operates independently of Barrick, even though they are Acacia’s majority stakeholder.

Bristow further contended that Barrick seeks to “create value” for the communities in which it operates, raising the quality of life of its 17,000 employees across Africa by giving them training and employment to contribute to their local economies.

This echoes a previous defence given by Munk to the Toronto Star in response to protests in Toronto against Barrick’s activities in Papua New Guinea in 2010.

“By moving into these countries and developing their mines, we provide — way beyond the importance of money — we provide human dignity,” said Munk. “We provide an opportunity for these people to earn their money, rather than hold out their hands and depend on charity.”

While Barrick may not have deliberately directed violence against the locals, advocacy groups contend that the company had a responsibility to prevent violence committed by its personnel. Barrick’s response has been to deny responsibility and deflect attention from the negative consequences of its operations by drawing attention to its role in job creation.

Though Barrick’s response may minimize its legal exposure, advocacy groups contend that it has not prioritized the lives of its employees or local residents in the areas where the company operates.

Similar allegations levelled against Hudbay in Guatemala

Barrick is not the only Canadian mining company under fire for alleged complicity in human rights violations overseas. Hudbay Minerals has faced similar allegations in Guatemala, resulting in Canadian lawsuits for negligence.

Eleven women reported gang rape in 2007 and identified the perpetrators as men employed by Hudbay to remove them from their homes in Lote Ocho, Guatemala for the company’s operations, according to a report by The New York Times.

The Times further reported that Hudbay has faced legal claims over alleged negligence which resulted in the death of local leader and teacher Adolfo Ich Chamán, as well as the shooting and paralysis of a bystander, German Chub, as the result of gunfire during protests against Hudbay’s operations in El Estor, Guatemala in 2009.

Hudbay has denied wrongdoing, saying that no “mining security officials” were present during the evictions at Lote Oche, and that no rapes took place.

The corporation further disputed that it was liable for any alleged damages affecting these women, saying that the mine responsible for the evictions was owned by a subsidiary of Skye Resources Inc., another Canadian company, until 2008, when Hudbay purchased it.

In response to legal claims that Hudbay is responsible for the death of Chamán and severe harm to Chub, the corporation maintains that these resulted from self-defence on the part of the mine’s security guards against armed protestors.

Despite Hudbay’s position, Mynor Padilla, the mine’s head of security during the El Estor shootings, has been placed on trial in Guatemala for the death of Chamán and the paralysis of Chub.

Bombardier, Netsweeper face allegations of complicity in human rights violations, by virtue of their clients

Barrick and Hudbay have faced accusations of negligence due to severe crimes allegedly committed by their employees. Yet Canadian corporations such as Bombardier and Netsweeper have also come under fire for allegations of knowingly conducting business with entities likely to use their services to violate human rights.

Following the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea, which used to be Ukrainian territory, Canadian foreign policy has been to support Ukraine in the de facto Ukrainian-Russian conflict.

But in July 2018, Bombardier won an $8 million contract to install rail-control systems which would help construct a railway line between Russia’s western and southern military districts.

According to military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer in an interview with The Globe and Mail, the railway line is “of highly strategic importance” to Russia, as the primary function of the line is to transport military personnel within areas of Russian territory near Ukraine.

In response to The Globe’s inquiries, Bombardier has maintained that its projects are “compliant with Canada’s sanctions against Russia,” despite the Ukrainian Canadian Congress lobby group contending that the project has “evident military implications.”

Bombardier has also come under fire for allegedly enabling human rights violations by Israel against Palestinians, according to a recently published book by Associate Professor David P. Thomas of Mount Allison University in New Brunswick.

Thomas, who studies politics and international relations, has contended that Bombardier has been “complicit” in the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territory of Beit Surik, due to Bombardier’s sale of supply trains for Israel’s A1 railway. The high-speed rail link, which connects Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, uses land near Beit Surik, reports Reuters.

By selling the trains to Israel, Thomas asserts that Bombardier contributed to a project that requires the occupation of Palestinian territory, which Canada considers to be illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Netsweeper, a Waterloo, Ontario based company, has faced similar criticism for creating software that has enabled 10 countries to prevent access to “news, religious content, LGBTQ+ resources, and political campaigns” from their citizens, according to research by U of T’s Citizen Lab.

“Canada is a country that’s defined by its values. This is a Canadian company headquartered here,” said Citizen Lab researcher Ron Deibert to CBC News. The researchers maintained that the censorship enabled by Netsweeper’s software has posed serious concerns to the human rights of residents in those countries.

The role of Canadian courts

Canadian courts will judge whether companies like Hudbay are legally complicit in human rights violations.

A precedent-setting lawsuit against Vancouver-based mining company Nevsun Resources Ltd. has reached the Supreme Court of Canada, as three lawsuits stemming from allegations against Hudbay have been under review by the Ontario Superior Court.

The charges against Nevsun stem from its alleged complicity in using conscripted labour to build a gold mine in Eritrea. In an interview with The Varsity, Yolanda Song, a U of T research associate in the International Human Rights Program, said that conscripts allegedly faced conditions of “slavery, forced labour, and torture” from members of the Eritrean military.

The Supreme Court of Canada. RWHGOULD/CC FLICKR

The refugees who filed the case against Nevsun allege that the corporation knew or should have known about the use of forced labour in its mine, failed to do anything to stop it, and “knowingly decided to work with the Eritrean government, despite its poor track record of human rights violations,” explained Song.

Nevsun’s defence lies in the “act of state doctrine,” which asserts that Canadian courts cannot judge the lawfulness of the sovereign acts by another country. Song explained that Nevsun has asserted that the act prevents Canadian courts from determining whether the Eritrean program of indefinite forced labour is illegal.

If this is true, Nevsun argues that the corporation is not liable for the human rights violations of using forced labour in Eritrea.

“Our big concern is that if the rule was applied in this way,” said Song, “then you could have huge implications for corporate accountability for their practices.”

“It essentially immunizes companies who knowingly partner up with dictatorships… and it helps incentivize the corporations to pass off their responsibilities, and turn [a blind eye] if they do eventually discover evidence in some wrongdoing.”

Possible solutions 

As Maighdlin Mahoney of The Varsity wrote, corporate sponsorship of public events can deflect attention away from alleged complicity and enablement of human rights abuses.

Mahoney wrote about the hypocrisy of Bud Light in becoming a major sponsor of Pride Toronto while also being a major sponsor of the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia, despite Russia’s anti-gay purges in Chechnya.

Use of student activism, both inside and outside of social media, can draw attention to the alleged lack of accountability of such companies, mounting pressure on key stakeholders to act.

A key influence in pushing for accountability in companies, argues opinion columnist Errol Mendes of The Globe and Mail, is the stakeholders of these companies. Mendes contends that shareholders of Canadian companies have a responsibility in ensuring that the firms they invest in act ethically.

These ethical standards can be set by international instruments such as the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which provides a mechanism for companies to best ensure they do not contribute to human rights violations.

In contrast, Associate Professor Penelope Simons of the University of Ottawa, and Professor Audrey Macklin of the University of Toronto have placed greater emphasis on change stemming from legislation, in an op-ed to The Globe and Mail.

“The government needs to take bolder steps to protect the human rights of individuals and communities affected by resource extraction by Canadian companies,” they wrote. “Companies insisting that voluntary self-regulation is adequate and that their conduct already meets or exceeds global standards have little to fear from regulation.”

“They should welcome measures that compel their less scrupulous colleagues to cease engaging in the kind of conduct that gives Canadian extractives — and Canada — a bad name.”

Flaw in WhatsApp exploited to target human rights lawyer, finds Citizen Lab

Lawyer has been embroiled in lawsuit against NSO Group, controversial Israeli technology firm

Flaw in WhatsApp exploited to target human rights lawyer, finds Citizen Lab

On May 12, a London-based human rights lawyer received peculiar video calls on his WhatsApp account while visiting Sweden.

Concerned by receiving the calls at such odd times in the morning, he reached out to cyber specialists at U of T’s Citizen Lab to investigate.

The Citizen Lab is a multidisciplinary research institute located at the Munk School for Global Affairs and Public Policy. The lab explores issues related to cybersecurity, surveillance, and digital censorship.

The lawyer, who remains anonymous due to fears of retaliation for speaking out, suspects potential foul play given his involvement with a civil lawsuit against NSO Group, an Israeli technology firm.

Foreign governments, including Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and the United Arab Emirates, have allegedly used NSO Group’s products to spy on journalists and political dissidents, including a critic of Saudi Arabia living in Canada.

According to reports from the Financial Times, the spyware targeting the lawyer’s phone had digital characteristics typical of NSO Group products.

Citizen Lab Senior Researchers John Scott-Railton and Bill Marczak led the investigative team that discovered WhatsApp’s vulnerability.

In an interview with The Varsity, Scott-Railton said he “observed a case where it looked like there was an attempt to target that lawyer’s phone with this novel attack, which would have happened over WhatsApp through a missed call.”

By exploiting the app’s vulnerability, NSO Group’s Pegasus spyware could enter a target’s iPhone or Android device through WhatsApp’s call function. The malicious code could then extract private information such as text messages and call histories, regardless of whether a target answers the call or not. The spyware can also collect new data by turning on the device’s camera or microphone.

 

WhatsApp’s response

WhatsApp engineers worked to patch the vulnerability as quickly as possible once they became aware of the susceptibility in the software. When finished, their company urged its 1.5 billion users to update their apps.

“WhatsApp encourages people to upgrade to the latest version of our app, as well as keep their mobile operating system up to date, to protect against potential targeted exploits designed to compromise information stored on mobile devices,” WhatsApp said in a public statement.  

The social network also informed the United States Department of Justice officials and issued a Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures notice to inform cybersecurity experts.

Scott-Railton praised WhatsApp for acting swiftly after discovering the vulnerability. “The way that WhatsApp has responded to this has been, I think, quite positive,” he said, noting how WhatsApp contacted a number of human rights organizations, which are common targets of the Pegasus spyware, before publicly announcing the security vulnerability.

According to Scott-Railton, this was an “unprecedented” move by a social media company and signals that it “felt there was something very wrong that had been done… and they didn’t like what they saw.”

It is unclear how many people were targeted or impacted by the vulnerability. However, based on WhatsApp’s comments, Scott-Railton said it seems like “there was a problem… [which was] much larger” than the attack on the human rights lawyer alone.

NSO Group promises reform

NSO Group maintains that it partners with governments to assist with law enforcement efforts and prevent criminal activity such as terrorism.

In response to reports that its software was targeting the human rights lawyer, NSO Group said that it “would not, or could not, use its technology in its own right to target any person or organization, including this individual.”

Earlier this year, NSO Group was partially acquired by the UK-based private equity fund Novalpina Capital. When Novalpina took over, it promised to reform the company in light of recent reports of suspected abuse.  

When the acquisition occurred, Novalpina was hoping to “establish a new benchmark for transparency and respect for human rights in full compliance with the [United Nations] Guiding Principal,” said Stephen Peel, co-founder of the fund.

Scott-Railton believes that “if indeed this was NSO, it suggests that this public story about human rights abuse may not [match up] with other things that we’ve observed.”

A bigger picture

Citizen Lab has been involved in multiple investigations tracking companies that sell spyware. Earlier this year, Citizen Lab itself had been targeted by undercover agents — masked as “socially conscious investors” — for its research on NSO Group.

Scott-Railton believes this case points to a larger trend of companies selling spyware to target individuals. “I think in the long run, we won’t really understand the digital risks and challenges that we all face until we see cases where harm happens to individuals,” he said.

“It’s very disconcerting to someone who has WhatsApp on their phones when they hear that there’s some company out there that’s selling a technology to basically use that as a way onto their phones, without any interaction,” Scott-Railton said.

“It’s almost unpreventable.”

Disclosure: Kaitlyn Simpson previously served as Volume 139 Managing Online Editor of The Varsity, and currently serves on the Board of Directors of Varsity Publications Inc.

Editor’s Note (September 28, 12:17 pm): This article has been updated to reflect the author’s former and current affiliations with The Varsity.

Ontario Human Rights Commission releases new policy on accessible education

Broader definition of disability, policy comes in wake of university-mandated leave of absence approval

Ontario Human Rights Commission releases new policy on accessible education

The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) released a new Policy on Accessible Education for Students with Disabilities on August 29.

This policy reflects a broader definition of disability, recognizes that education is important to a person’s development, and provides students with up-to-date information about their human rights and responsibilities.

It also reminds schools of their obligation to maintain accessible, inclusive, discrimination-free, and harassment-free spaces, along with recommendations on how to effectively meet legal obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Significance in relation to the UMLAP

The policy’s release comes months after U of T passed its new University-Mandated Leave of Absence Policy (UMLAP) in June.

The UMLAP allows U of T to put students on a mandatory leave of absence if their mental health affects their ability to complete their schoolwork, or if it poses a risk to themselves or others.

An early version of the policy was criticized strongly by OHRC’s Chief Commissioner Renu Mandhane, who sent a letter to the university asking it to delay the policy’s approval.

According to the letter, sent in January, “the Policy falls short of meeting the duty to accommodate under the Code, and as outlined in the OHRC’s Policy on ableism and discrimination based on disability.” 

The letter also said “the Policy appears to allow decisions to be made by University administration who do not have any specialized training on human rights or risk assessment.”

After this letter, the university withdrew that version of the UMLAP, but proposed another version in May, which was passed.

What’s in the new OHRC policy?

The new OHRC policy addresses “the evolving legal definition of disability and its implications for education providers.’

It also recognizes that “disability” includes “both present and past conditions,” as well as a subjective component based on the perception of disability.

The new policy also discusses ableism, negative attitudes, stereotypes, and stigma toward students with disabilities.

It states that “providers have a legal obligation under the Code to not discriminate against students with disabilities, and to eliminate discrimination when it happens.”

A major focus of the policy is on the “duty to accommodate,” which was also one of Mandhane’s main criticisms of the UMLAP.

“Under the Code, education providers have a legal duty to accommodate the needs of students with disabilities who are adversely affected by a requirement, rule or standard,” reads the policy.

The OHRC’s letter notes that “the decisions to exclude a student from school due to alleged health and safety risk without sufficient objective evidence… may constitute discrimination.”

It also adds that students with disabilities cannot be judged to be incapable of fulfilling their educational requirements unless proper accommodation has been provided and the capabilities of the students have been assessed.

The new policy also recommends that schools and postsecondary institutions collect quantitative and qualitative data to understand any barriers that may exist, and to identify and address any concerns that may lead to systemic discrimination.

Yemeni community stages protest against Canada’s arms deal with Saudi Arabia

Protesters in front of Chrystia Freeland’s office call for end to $15 billion deal

Yemeni community stages protest against Canada’s arms deal with Saudi Arabia

Yemeni protesters and allies gathered on September 8 in front of Chrystia Freeland’s constituency office at Spadina Avenue and Bloor Street West to protest Canada’s arms deal with Saudi Arabia. Canadian-made combat vehicles have reportedly been used by Saudi Arabia in its war in Yemen. The conflict was labelled by the United Nations as the worst humanitarian crisis of 2018, with at least 16,700 casaulties since it began in 2015, though the count could be much higher. Over two million people have been displaced by the conflict.

The protest comes in the wake of growing Canada-Saudi tensions after Freeland, Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, called for the release of two human rights activists in Saudi Arabia on Twitter. As part of its response to Freeland’s message, Saudi Arabia announced that Saudi students studying at Canadian universities had to leave the country.

Protesters gathered at around 2:45 pm, holding signs calling for Freeland to take action and immediately stop the arms deal.

The group of roughly 50 were affiliated with groups such as the Yemeni Community in Canada, the Canadian Defenders for Human Rights, and the Canadian Peace Coalition.

Protesters held signs depicting the victims of war crimes as young as nine years old.

Firas Al Najim, a member of the Canadian Defenders for Human Rights and one of the participants in the protest, criticized the Canadian government’s decision to sell arms to Saudi Arabia, saying that it makes the country “an accomplice to war crimes” and adding that “the government should speak up for human rights in the war-torn Yemen.”

The deal, initiated by the Harper government in 2014, is for $15 billion in armoured vehicles, and aims to create 3,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector — mainly in London, Ontario.

The protest comes after an August 9 airstrike on a school bus which killed 51 people, including 40 children. Some 79 people were injured, 56 of whom were children. The Saudi-led coalition airstrike has been condemned by Human Rights Watch, which called it an “apparent war crime.”

The fighting in Yemen has been going on for more than three years, and involves Saudi Arabia, allied Sunni Muslims, and the Houthi rebels who control much of northern Yemen and the capital, Sana’a. The rebels drove Yemen’s government into exile in 2014.

“Many innocent people will be victims of these weapons. I totally understand that these weapons are creating job opportunities in Canada, but it is coming in the interest of Yemeni innocent blood,” said Hamza Shaiban, President of the Yemeni Community in Canada.

Councillor Joe Cressy proposes amendments to enforce conformity with zoning laws

Job applicants with criminal records need human rights protections

Students and graduates seeking employment opportunities can face discrimination and barriers due to police record checks

Job applicants with criminal records need human rights protections

For most students, employment opportunities, volunteering, and experiential learning are a necessary stage in one’s academic and professional career. For some students — particularly in nursing, or education, or even medicine — your credentials may not be enough to get a placement: various types of criminal record checks may be required. These ‘checks’ may also be a standard part of screening for an eventual job.

But what you may not know is that record checks can reveal a lot of information: information that is very old, irrelevant to the position being applied for, or even information that a person may not even be aware is there. Even though the person may be legally innocent — in that they have not been convicted of a crime — such information on a record can create barriers to placements and employment and therefore have a negative impact on someone’s future as young professionals.

Employers are using record checks more and more as a risk screening tool and as a result, these ‘checks’ may create a stigma rather than depicting the reality of the situation and therefore must be used with caution as a risk management tool. According to the John Howard Society, having a record can reduce someone’s chances of getting a job by up to 50 per cent, and that number is likely worse for racialized populations. Some employers have policies on what to do when they see a positive result on a criminal check; others might just put the application in the garbage.

Many of those who have never been convicted of a crime are unaware that the current operating system of police record checks in Ontario can still pose barriers to employment through revealing sensitive information to employers. This can occur through disclosing criminal charges that were withdrawn or stayed, charges in which the individual was acquitted, and non-criminal police contact when there was no conviction or finding of guilt. There are currently no province-wide standards on what type of information can or cannot be disclosed on various levels of record checks.

Over 100,000 cases on average are processed through Ontario courts every year. Of those, more than 40 per cent are withdrawn, stayed, or acquitted. According to the article “Race, Crime, and Criminal Justice in Canada”, by Akwasi Owusu-Bempah and Scot Wortley, Indigenous people are overrepresented at nearly every stage of the criminal justice system. Moreover, Black people are overrepresented in cannabis possession arrests in Ontario. This police contact can be revealed in future background checks. However, allegations are not convictions. There is no legal basis for this information to appear in police background checks. It is important to notice that there is a racial dimension to the issue of non-conviction records and who they affect.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association created a report in 2012 with interviews of many who have lost educational or employment opportunities as a result of the disclosure of non-conviction records. Many of these people didn’t even know they had something on their record.

However, Ontario passed the Police Records Check Reform Act, 2015 on December 1 that year. Also known as Bill 113, the act standardizes disclosure practices across police services and promotes fairness and respect for the privacy of individuals when they request for a police record check. It will be implemented in law as of November 1, 2018.

There is currently very little protection in the Ontario Human Rights Code for people with criminal records, and no protection for people with non-conviction records, which means that employers are legally allowed to discriminate. It can also be the sole reason as to why you are denied a volunteer or employment opportunity. Even when the law comes into force later this year, employers should still know how to interpret a criminal or non-criminal record and should be encouraged to take a nuanced approach in assessing the relevance of a particular record to the specific position being applied for.

We as students must mobilize together and raise greater awareness about the barriers that the current system imposes on our professional future with regard to human rights protection. Raising awareness through engaging in activities such as signing petitions and participating in public demonstrations can be impactful. The Ontario Human Rights Commission must redefine how employer practices must be adhered to in the context of police record checks.

Sonia Gill and Proshat Babaeian both completed the 2017–2018 masters program in Criminology at the Centre for Criminology & Sociolegal Studies. They work with the John Howard Society of Ontario.

What’s Philosophy Got to Do With It? – Speaking with Barbara Jackman

Human rights lawyer Barbara Jackman on secret hearings and security certificates

What’s Philosophy Got to Do With It? – Speaking with Barbara Jackman