Free Expression Under Attack*

The Advocates’ Society, one of Canada’s largest lawyers’ associations, is facing a barrage of criticism, including high-profile resignations from past and incoming presidents of the board, for having disinvited a prominent Syrian Canadian entrepreneur and peace activist from speaking at its annual gala.

Tareq Hadhad is a widely respected public figure who founded Peace by Chocolate in Antigonish, Nova Scotia after his family settled in Canada as refugees in 2015. He has received awards and accolades for his community work and has spoken at numerous high-profile events about resilience, diversity, and inclusion. His family’s story was turned into a successful film and referenced in a speech at the UN General Assembly by former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

His invitation to deliver the keynote speech at the gala was rescinded because several lawyers complained about a social media post he made in May 2024. They claimed that selecting him for the event was “highly insensitive and in poor taste.” In the post in question Mr. Hadhad wrote: “Just looking at this and thinking of all the children that we failed everywhere and continue to fail in Rafah and all of Gaza. This genocide must be stopped. Children should wake up to the sounds of birds not the sounds of bombs. Time for this to end and be stopped.”

What is wrong about mourning the suffering of children and calling for an end to genocide? According to the complaints, it is the reference to “genocide” that is offensive. But, replace Gaza with Myanmar, and these are the same sentiments expressed by last year’s keynote speaker, Bob Rae, on many occasions prior to his speech. Having frequently lamented the plight of Rohingya children and the wider impact of Myanmar’s genocide against the Rohingya, he even broke down in tears on one occasion.

As international human rights lawyers, we are clear; there is nothing offensive about defending the right to life and dignity of children, nor about calling what is happening in Gaza what it is: genocide. What is offensive is to censor those who draw attention to this wrenching reality.

Genocide has been defined in international law since 1948 to have three components: (1) specific prohibited acts, (2) carried out with the intent to destroy, (3) a protected group of people based on ethnic, racial, religious, or national identity. The prohibited acts include killing, inflicting mental or physical harm, imposing conditions of life meant to bring about physical destruction, imposing measures intended to prevent births, and the forced transfer of children.

Palestinians qualify as a protected ethnic group. Since October 2023, Israel has killed more than 50,000 Gazans, including over 14,000 children. Israel has inflicted severe mental and physical harm, such as injuring over 113,000 and displacing 1.9 million Gazans. Israel has imposed conditions of life meant to bring about physical destruction, such as denying access to adequate food, water, medical care, and humanitarian aid. Israel has also imposed measures intended to prevent births, such as killing and injuring pregnant women and new-borns, and systematically destroying reproductive healthcare facilities across Gaza. The intent to destroy this group, in whole or in part, is well evidenced by Israel’s military tactics, state policies and government statements.

In January 2024, the International Court of Justice determined that a genocide was plausible. Since then, the devastation has only escalated. Prominent human rights and international law organisations, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Doctors Without Borders, Al Haq, and B’Tselem have all concluded that the violence in Gaza amounts to genocide. The United Nations, including the Special Committee on Israel/Palestine established in 1968, and a long list of expert Special Rapporteurs, have concluded the same.

This is not a controversial, inflammatory, or offensive position, nor is it a personal opinion. It is now a legal conclusion. And Mr. Hadhad has every right to express it. What is particularly chilling is that this is not even the topic he was intending to address at the gala.

Another complaint against Mr. Hadhad was that he had not expressed sufficient public concern about the 7 October Hamas attacks in southern Israel. As the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has noted, focusing on what Mr. Hadhad did not say is “not a standard or analysis that has been applied to past [Society] speakers.” Indeed, no one looked to see if Bob Rae reflected the other side of the Rohingya genocide – whatever the other side of genocide could possibly be – in his public comments or social media.

Mr. Hadhad has been held to a different, double standard that, frankly, cannot be seen as anything but racist. Racist, because of the heightened scrutiny over his views as a racialised person, and racist because of the censorship of Palestinian human rights advocacy. Indeed, this is what Palestinian lawyers have called the Palestine exception to free speech.

Many prominent legal associations – particularly those representing racialised lawyers – agree. Groups like the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association, the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association, the South Asian Bar Association of Toronto, and the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers have expressed disappointment with the Society’s capitulation to the complaints, rightfully pointing out that this decision sends a message to racialised individuals, including lawyers, that expressing their opinion on issues that affect their communities can have serious professional consequences.

In response to the backlash, The Advocates’ Society issued an apology for “the harm [they] have caused,” and appointed a special taskforce to make recommendations to the board on how to proceed. In the end, they did not apologise to Mr. Hadhad personally, nor did they reinstate his invitation (should he have still wanted to participate). Instead, they tacitly condoned censorship by cancelling the dinner altogether. This should not end here. The Society must now seriously reckon with its alienation of a large segment of the legal community, including its own members, and re-commit itself to defending free speech.

This incident is another stark reminder that fundamental freedoms, such as free expression, are susceptible to attack in Canada as much as anywhere else. In an increasingly polarised society, the health of our democracy is at stake if we are unable to have open discourse based in fact, law, and a respectful exchange of ideas. Civil liberties exist to protect our right to critique government policies, including the policies of foreign governments, especially when precious life is on the line.

Of all the professions, lawyers should be the most ardent protectors of these rights. It’s a shame to see some Canadian lawyers actively eroding these values.

* Originally published as an opinion piece co-authored with Amanda Ghahremani, in Open Canada on April 15, 2025.