Independent inquiry into CADSI could look at the culpability of transnational arms companies in the genocide in Gaza
Video still: The Ottawa Police Service watches as arms dealers and officials enter the CANSEC arms show in Ottawa.
The International League of Peoples’ Struggle (ILPS) and affiliated groups, including the Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM), are demanding that the Government of Canada hold “an independent and in-depth inquiry into CADSI [the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries] and its direct involvement in human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian and human rights law.”
CADSI is the organizer of the annual CANSEC arms show that will be taking place this coming May 29-30 in Ottawa.
CADSI promotes CANSEC as “Canada’s leading defence, security & emerging technology event” and lists its co-sponsors including L3Harris, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Leonardo and BAE Systems. Exhibitors at CANSEC have also included Elbit Systems, General Dynamics, Rheinmetall and Raytheon.
The role these companies have played in arming the Israeli military’s assault on Gaza have been documented by the Oakland, California-based American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) Action Center for Corporate Accountability.
The CANSEC arms show also lists “Israel representatives” as exhibitors. While not further specified, this could refer to the International Defense Cooperation Directorate (SIBAT) of the Israeli Ministry of Defense.
The legality of arms exports – the Genocide Convention
On January 26, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a preliminary ruling on South Africa’s claim that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people, specifically in the Gaza Strip.
In paragraph 54 of its ruling, the International Court of Justice states: “In the Court’s view, the facts and circumstances mentioned above are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible. This is the case with respect to the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts identified in Article III, and the right of South Africa to seek Israel’s compliance with the latter’s obligations under the [the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide].”
As such, the ICJ ruled that it is “plausible” that Israel is currently committing genocide against the Palestinian people.
Toronto-based university law school professors Heidi Matthews, Faisal A. Bhabha and Mohammad Fadel have argued: “Because the ICJ found a serious risk of genocide in Gaza, continuing to export arms to Israel would be illegal. It would also be flagrantly inconsistent with Canada’s obligation to prevent genocide and could expose Canada and Canadian officials to liability for participation in genocide.”
They add: “The court’s provisional measures also impact Canada’s compliance with its own laws on military exports. … The Export and Import Permits Act forbids arms permits to be issued if there’s a ‘substantial risk’ that the goods could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian or human rights law.”
In early-March, Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights, the Palestinian human rights NGO Al-Haq and other applicants filed an application for judicial review at the Federal Court of Canada also citing a potential violation of the Genocide Convention, Canada’s Export and Import Permits Act, the Geneva Conventions, the Arms Trade Treaty, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Rome Statute.
Rome Statute
Article 25 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court states: “In accordance with this Statute, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court if that person … for the purpose of facilitating the commission of such a crime [within the jurisdiction of the Court, including the crime of genocide cited in Article 5], aids, abets or otherwise assists in its commission or its attempted commission, including providing the means for its commission.”
It is arguable that several of the weapons companies that will be present at CANSEC are aiding, abetting or otherwise assisting in the commission of a plausible genocide against the Palestinian people.
UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
This could also be extended to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights that places responsibilities on transnational weapons companies. It says: “The responsibility to respect human rights is a global standard of expected conduct for all business enterprises wherever they operate. It exists independently of States’ abilities and/or willingness to fulfil their own human rights obligations and does not diminish those obligations. And it exists over and above compliance with national laws and regulations protecting human rights.”
Does this mean CANSEC is violating international law?
Is CANSEC a lawful activity?
Does the presence of numerous transnational weapons corporations at the CANSEC arms show make that arms show a gathering that contravenes the Genocide Convention, the Rome Statute, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and other international human rights law norms?
Presumably, that is a question that could be addressed by the independent inquiry into CADSI and CANSEC that the ILPS is seeking.
The limits of “lawful protest”
In the meantime, protests are now being organized against CANSEC.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) has highlighted: “Protesting is an essential democratic tool and is given constitutional protection through the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ guarantees of freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.”
The Toronto-based CCLA then cautions: “If you want to organize a larger demonstration or protest that will include marches on roadways and interruption to traffic, you will have a few issues to consider. Although peaceful assembly is a constitutionally protected activity, the right to peaceful assembly, like all rights in the Charter, is subject to ‘reasonable limits’. This means that the government can restrict rights—including protests—in certain ways without violating the Charter.”
Furthermore, the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) says that its “objectives for demonstrations [include] maintain public order and preserve the peace [and] minimize disruption for Ottawa residents, businesses and visitors…”
Significantly, the OPS do not note any reference to international conventions or international human rights law.
The OPS further notes there are limits to “freedom of expression” at “demonstrations and protests” and that “Criminal Code sections that limit certain activities” include “breach of the peace or imminent breach (Section 31)”.
As such, there is a much higher probability, despite the evident irony, that the OPS would see a protest against genocide being in “breach of the peace” than transnational arms companies selling weapons to Israel.
Photo: The OPS shoves an activist holding a banner at the entrance to the overflow parking lot at the CANSEC arms show in 2023.
Limited legal interpretations of freedom of expression
The Department of Justice Canada also notes: “Freedom of expression, does not include the right to physically impede or blockade lawful activities: Guelph (City) v. Soltys, [2009] O.J. No. 3369 (Ont. Sup. Ct. Jus), at paragraph 26.”
The Department adds: “Freedom of peaceful assembly protected under section 2(c) of the Charter has received only limited judicial interpretation.”
As such, the right of someone to block the roadway leading to an arms fair has not been tested in Canadian courts.
Notably, we look to the case of four people charged by the Metropolitan Police with “highway obstruction” after blocking an approach road to the Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) arms show at the ExCeL Centre in London.
In the June 2021 UK Supreme Court ruling that exonerated the four, Lord Hamblen and Lord Stephens wrote: “There should be a certain degree of tolerance to disruption to ordinary life, including disruption of traffic, caused by the exercise of the right to freedom of expression or freedom of peaceful assembly…”
These judges added: “We consider that the peaceful intentions of the appellants were appropriate matters to be considered in an evaluation of proportionality.”
In an evaluation of proportionality, how would a Canadian court see a blockade of CANSEC in light of the ICJ finding of a plausible genocide and the killing of more than 13,800 children in Gaza between October 7, 2023, and April 4, 2024.
That number has only increased. On May 3, 10-year-old Shahed Awda Talla and ten other children were killed in an airstrike. CNN reports: “Three munitions experts who reviewed videos and photos showing damage caused by the strike and shrapnel left in its aftermath, independently drew the same conclusion: that the carnage was likely caused by a precision-guided munition deployed by the Israeli military.”
The culpability of transnational weapons companies in arming a genocide (and repression and human rights violations), the role of the state in permitting arms exports, the adherence to international law and human rights norms, the role of protesting in stopping arms companies implicated in genocide from conducting business, and the interpretation of freedom of expression, lawful activity and lawful protest by the police will all be crucial issues in relation to the CANSEC arms show later this month.
Further reading: More than 800 human rights defenders killed in Palestine over the past six months (PBI-Canada article, April 26, 2024).
Photo: Nour Naser Abu al-Nour of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights was killed by an Israeli airstrike on her family home in Rafah on February 20, 2024. The airstrike also killed seven members of her family including her two-year-old daughter Kenzi Jumaa.
0 Comments