• Hilal Elver is a former UN special rapporteur on the right to food (2014-2020) and a member of the High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) of the UN Committee of World Food Security (CFS)
• Richard Falk is a professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University and a former UN Human Rights Council special rapporteur on occupied Palestine

ISTANBUL

Just a few weeks ago, on Oct. 23-26 in Istanbul, we completed the final session of the Gaza People's Tribunal. It was a very successful event due to the high quality of experts and witnesses’ testimonies, as well as the enthusiastic response of the live audience at the Tribunal. After this very good experience in Istanbul, and an uneventful return to the US, we never thought the Canadian government would deny us entry to Canada to attend another Peoples’ Tribunal two weeks later in Ottawa.

Upon arriving, in response to a question as to why we were in Canada, we informed the Canadian Border Services Agency that we were formally invited to participate in the Palestinian Tribunal on Canadian Responsibility in Ottawa over the course of the next two days, Nov. 14-15. The Canadian immigration authorities, who at the outset of the interrogation informed us about the purpose of this questioning, said: "We have the responsibility for determining whether you pose a threat to Canadian national security." This explanation was confusing to us and still doesn’t explain why deem two professors with admittedly controversial views on the Israel/Palestine conflict were treated as threats to national security rather than marginalized individuals who harbor no wish more dangerous than that their voices be heard and heeded by those controlling government policy. It is our belief that the world becomes less dangerous and unjust when international law is applied rather than being ignored, as in Gaza for decades, especially for these two plus years of genocide.

At first, we were both amused and surprised by such a framing. Amused as the charge of threatening Canada’s national security seemed so disproportionately grandiose as compared to our actual capabilities. We present ourselves as independent scholars using nothing more than the language at our disposal to demand justice for the vulnerable Palestinian people, long victimized by a deeply rooted apartheid structure and by the genocidal assault on Gaza in supposed retaliation for the attack on Oct. 7, 2023. We were coming to Ottawa to support our Canadian brothers and sisters in their brave resolve to plan a Palestinian Tribunal on Canadian Responsibility that would depict and reject Canadian complicity with Israel by way of arms exports, diplomatic support, and a refusal to live up to the expectation of the Genocide Convention that parties to the treaty would seek to prevent and punish genocide, and certainly not enable it.

It was our hope that Canada would go beyond its welcome conditional support of Palestinian statehood in recent weeks to reject both Israeli impunity and a peace process that rewards a government that engaged in genocide while further punishing and humiliating the much-victimized Palestinian people. We were determined to get this message across at the Tribunal, but in what sense is this properly considered a threat to Canadian national security? More correctly understood, such advocacy should be seen as aligning Canadian national security with international law put aside, thereby sacrificing regional and global stability.

Harassment or security?

We emerged from this experience at the Toronto Airport quite exhausted. We quickly realized that our detention involved far more than routine protocol at the original immigration window when the official kept looking at his computer until finally telling us to wait while he went to check with more senior staff. After many minutes, he finally returned with several questions about the logistics of the event. He asked whether we were being paid to speak and whether our travel expenses and hotel costs were covered. It seemed strange to us that nothing was asked about the conference, its themes, and its relation to Canadian national security. Then the interrogating agent indicated that he had to check with his boss on whether we would be allowed to enter Canada.

By then, we had missed our connecting flight to Ottawa and were kept waiting for another 90 minutes until the agent returned with a different line of questions, but still somewhat peculiar as very body_abstract and general. Did I realize that I was widely accused of being an antisemite? Were we connected in any way with Hamas? Did I have any connection with the Euro-Med Human Rights Organization? We gave straightforward, honest answers and expected follow-up questions aimed at developing some useful evidence of why we were security threats, but none were forthcoming. Once more, the agent left for an exasperating further 30 minutes or so before returning to tell us we were free to enter Canada but giving us no further explanation.

In conclusion, this was a puzzling experience. If there was a serious security concern, then why did they fail to inspect our luggage, including devices such as smartphones and laptops? Or at least ask questions that if answered in certain ways would be self-incrimination. Their questions were very body_abstract and vague, not meant to elicit information about the tribunal nor about Canadian national security. The most reasonable interpretation of the incident was that, by keeping us from taking part in the tribunal, the authorities were pursuing a broader strategy of harassment directed at those critical of Israel’s behavior in relation to the Palestinian struggle to achieve basic rights.

A university backs out, a senator steps in

After our lengthy interrogation at the airport after a long flight, we learned that the initial site of the tribunal at the University of Ottawa was no longer available due to a decision to cancel made by administrative officials. Canadian Senator Yuan Pau Woo, himself a critic of Canada’s approach to the Palestinian ordeal, stepped up to host the conference in the Senate building. We hope that our detention will have the unintended effect of having the border agency operate more carefully by addressing authentic security threats and not using “security” investigations as an excuse to harass scholars and others for adopting views alleging Israel’s responsibility for genocide and exhibiting Canada’s responsibility by being complicit.

The tribunal completed its two-day program, we testified as planned, and the event focused its energies on Canada’s distinctive responsibilities rather than addressing the underlying questions as to whether genocide and crimes against humanity can be assumed short of an International Court of Justice decision on the legal allegations. Our detention occurred in this atmosphere, made more confusing by the UN adoption of the US framework for a long-term solution.

The entire intimidation effort by the border agency taught us that the global civil society movement to defend the Palestinian people, stop genocide, and ask for accountability has an important impact on the domestic political life of perpetrators and complicit governments. They want to silence hostile voices. Such tensions actually give us hope that crude intimidation tactics do not work, and we, as members of civil society of conscience, are gaining influence slowly but surely over national public policy that violates international law in setting global and regional security and genocide prevention and punishment. Despite this, there is scant prospect of Palestinian self-determination without continuing the Palestinian sumud (steadfast perseverance) and the solidarity initiatives of activists throughout the world as to Israeli compliance with judicial orders to withdraw from occupied Palestine and to refrain from further interference with the international delivery of humanitarian aid.

*Opinions expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Anadolu's editorial policy.