OTTAWA—National security agencies should collect race-based and other statistics about their operations in order to track whether they discriminate on the basis of characteristics like race, disability, religious or ethnic origin, says the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
A special report to Parliament by the federal commission calls for mandatory transparency and accountability from the dozen or so agencies that do the bulk of national security work in the post-9/11 era. At a minimum, it says, the RCMP and CSIS should be compelled to report on their actual practices.
Tracking would not only improve the effectiveness of security measures like the screening of travellers, secondary inspections, or compiling no-fly lists, watch lists or other security measures, but it would “bolster public support for new and existing security initiatives,” says the report.
National security agencies go out of their way to insist they do not target anyone as suspicious based on racial or ethnic background. It’s a practice called “racial profiling.”
But they fail to monitor their own practices, according to the report.
“Good policy is not enough,” it says.
In response, the RCMP insisted again Monday it operates under a “bias-free policing” policy, but did not directly answer the questions raised by the report.
Based on research over the past decade, the commission says federal organizations with national security responsibilities cannot demonstrate whether human rights policies are systematically followed. That’s true even of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the RCMP, which have public watchdog bodies. None collects the necessary data.
Charles Théroux, director of research for the commission, said researchers analyzed all legislation governing the agencies’ operations. None have a legal obligation to protect human rights, or an obligation to report to Parliament on how they respect human rights.
It analyzed all parliamentary testimony in the past decade by the heads of organizations where the leaders cited policy, but refused to answer specific questions as to their performance when questioned by MPs or senators about specific concerns raised by constituents.
“There is clearly a total lack of accountability mechanisms,” said Théroux.
Transport Canada and CATSA worked with experts at the human rights commission to develop a new “behavioural profiling” approach to screening air travellers instead of relying on random screenings, and agreed to collect race-based and other data to prove stereotyping by race or ethnicity was not used. The new “behavioural” approach to screening for risk was tested under a pilot project at Vancouver airport earlier this year. It’s not clear what turned up. The two agencies have not yet shared analysis of their data with the commission. Spokesman Patrick Charrette said Monday Transport Canada is “still analyzing the results.”
The report says data collection would prove security decisions are “based on objectively justifiable criteria and not discriminatory factors; prevent or address systemic barriers; improve service delivery; and demonstrate a measure’s effectiveness and soundness if it is challenged.”
The commission argues that watchdog agencies — like the Security Intelligence Review Committee (for CSIS) and the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP —investigate individual complaints of racial profiling, but do not track or report on agency-wide practices.
Without clear monitoring and reporting, “an organization leaves itself open to criticism and the loss of public trust,” says the human rights commission.
Data collection can be done in a way that does not violate the Human Rights Act or the Privacy Act. As long as data do not link to personal identifying information like names, it doesn’t breach privacy laws, said Théroux.
Origin
Source: Toronto Star
A special report to Parliament by the federal commission calls for mandatory transparency and accountability from the dozen or so agencies that do the bulk of national security work in the post-9/11 era. At a minimum, it says, the RCMP and CSIS should be compelled to report on their actual practices.
Tracking would not only improve the effectiveness of security measures like the screening of travellers, secondary inspections, or compiling no-fly lists, watch lists or other security measures, but it would “bolster public support for new and existing security initiatives,” says the report.
National security agencies go out of their way to insist they do not target anyone as suspicious based on racial or ethnic background. It’s a practice called “racial profiling.”
But they fail to monitor their own practices, according to the report.
“Good policy is not enough,” it says.
In response, the RCMP insisted again Monday it operates under a “bias-free policing” policy, but did not directly answer the questions raised by the report.
Based on research over the past decade, the commission says federal organizations with national security responsibilities cannot demonstrate whether human rights policies are systematically followed. That’s true even of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the RCMP, which have public watchdog bodies. None collects the necessary data.
Charles Théroux, director of research for the commission, said researchers analyzed all legislation governing the agencies’ operations. None have a legal obligation to protect human rights, or an obligation to report to Parliament on how they respect human rights.
It analyzed all parliamentary testimony in the past decade by the heads of organizations where the leaders cited policy, but refused to answer specific questions as to their performance when questioned by MPs or senators about specific concerns raised by constituents.
“There is clearly a total lack of accountability mechanisms,” said Théroux.
Transport Canada and CATSA worked with experts at the human rights commission to develop a new “behavioural profiling” approach to screening air travellers instead of relying on random screenings, and agreed to collect race-based and other data to prove stereotyping by race or ethnicity was not used. The new “behavioural” approach to screening for risk was tested under a pilot project at Vancouver airport earlier this year. It’s not clear what turned up. The two agencies have not yet shared analysis of their data with the commission. Spokesman Patrick Charrette said Monday Transport Canada is “still analyzing the results.”
The report says data collection would prove security decisions are “based on objectively justifiable criteria and not discriminatory factors; prevent or address systemic barriers; improve service delivery; and demonstrate a measure’s effectiveness and soundness if it is challenged.”
The commission argues that watchdog agencies — like the Security Intelligence Review Committee (for CSIS) and the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP —investigate individual complaints of racial profiling, but do not track or report on agency-wide practices.
Without clear monitoring and reporting, “an organization leaves itself open to criticism and the loss of public trust,” says the human rights commission.
Data collection can be done in a way that does not violate the Human Rights Act or the Privacy Act. As long as data do not link to personal identifying information like names, it doesn’t breach privacy laws, said Théroux.
Origin
Source: Toronto Star
No comments:
Post a Comment