It has now been five months since we started hearing and reading about the Canadian kids affected by additional security screening measures when they try to board a plane, and unfortunately, the situation hasn't improved much since.

It is now almost a pattern: every time we, as a human right organization or activist, write to government agencies inquiring about cases of Canadians detained abroad or of Canadians subject to abuse or possible discrimination, the governmental response will certainly contain somehow the issue of "privacy."

When it was announced last week with big fanfare during the visit of Prime Minister Trudeau to President Obama in Washington that both countries plan to create within 60 days, a Redress Working Group to help resolve the false positive cases generated by the "No-Fly" list, it was not an indication that both countries are revamping their huge information sharing system, but rather a proof that the sharing of information will continue ahead at a bigger scale and with more sophistication and with of course "some bumps" on the way.

Ill-conceived measures, like the no-fly list must be made smarter so they do not target the innocent. Otherwise, they have the ironic potential to actually erode our national security by alienating those they single out and stigmatize. But the way the no-fly list works, with a total lack of transparency and overwhelmingly targeting just one group -- Muslims -- feelings of alienation and powerlessness are exactly what the no-fly list is causing.

The government's appeal to national security should not exempt it from rigorous accountability and oversight. As many critics have argued, the system envisaged by the Passenger Protect Program and as amended by SATA has proven neither necessary nor effective. It is unconstitutional.

“How do you explain to a 6-year-old? What do you tell them? ‘Oh, I’m sorry you’re Muslim; I’m sorry you’re brown’?"