top of page
Writer's pictureMark Sandler

A Vigil for Hate: Is Honouring a Terrorist Leader Now Normalized Behaviour?

Sinwar is our Mandela event on Nov 26
The planned vigil to honor Yahya Sinwar raises serious concerns over the normalization of hate speech in Canada.

An organization, self-described misleadingly as a defender of human rights, announced a vigil on November 26 at Mississauga City Hall’s Celebration Square to honour the memory of Hamas’ leader Yahya Sinwar, the architect of the October 7 massacre, and implicated in the murders of Israelis and Palestinians alike. Canada and the United States have both designated Hamas a terrorist group, making Sinwar by definition – a terrorist. Indeed, the United States specifically designated him as such.


According to the poster, the aim of the event is to commemorate “40 days after the martyrdom of the leaders of the resistance fighting for Palestinian freedom.” The original poster displayed three red poppies and “Lest We Forget” above a photograph of Sinwar, one of the purported martyrs being recognized.


Not surprisingly, Canadians of all faiths are appalled that a genocidal terrorist is being honoured, leaving aside for a moment the gross indignity in appropriating the red poppy for this event. The poppy of course memorializes the sacrifices made by Canadian men and women in defence of democracy.


In R. v Keegstra, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of the hate speech law that criminalizes the wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group. The Court affirmed the high constitutional protection given to freedom of speech while upholding the prohibition against extreme forms of hate speech as a justified limitation in a free and democratic society.


One might be forgiven for thinking that the decision had gone the other way given the impunity usually afforded vitriolic hate speech in Canada. Or maybe moral judgement has been so eroded by specious assertions of freedom of speech that some officials don’t recognize or more likely, have now normalized antisemitic hate speech when it stares them in the face.


Like now.


Sinwar’s stated life goal was to wipe out Israelis and to kill Jews. He was a war criminal. He advocated genocide. He not only promoted hatred against Jews, he was responsible for their slaughter.


So, explain to me how holding a vigil for him, and for describing him as a martyr can be interpreted as anything but hate speech. As wilfully promoting the hatred he spewed. As inciting others to hate, as he did, in a way that would likely cause others to break the law.


But the City of Mississauga’s response and of its mayor are at best inadequate and at worse, inaccurate and tone deaf.


The mayor reportedly said this:


“As you know, public demonstrations of a peaceful and respectful nature are not subject to permits or permissions… We can’t stop one group and not another.”


In response to the suggestion that the event be cancelled, the mayor said this via X: “That would be called censorship, preferential treatment, being judgmental — the stifling of freedom of speech which is something most Canadians value.”


The city’s statement contained more of the same:


“The City of Mississauga takes any gathering on City property seriously, and while the Charter does protect the right of peaceful assembly, there is no right to violence, damage to property, or threat to the safety of others.”


What is implicit, if not explicit, in these statements is that as long as hatemongers don’t damage property, engage in on-scene violence or expressly threaten someone, they are free to promote hatred, and even genocide against Jews and Israelis, although both are identifiable groups (which include groups distinguished by religion or national origin) protected under the Criminal Code.


A gathering to celebrate Sinwar’s martyrdom is an endorsement of what he said and what he did. The poster inviting others to join can reasonably only be regarded as criminal hate speech.


This isn’t about “stopping one group and not another” or not giving “preferential treatment” presumably to Jews or Israelis or “being judgemental.” It is about taking criminal hate speech seriously.


The mayor added to her ill-advised comments by drawing upon Nelson Mandela’s prior status as a named terrorist to observe that “your terrorist and somebody else’s terrorist may be two different things.” Does she really foresee a day when burning babies alive, killing hostages in cold blood, and committing to the slaughter of civilians a thousand times over will no longer be regarded as terrorism?


This absurd thinking can only serve to embolden terrorists and their enablers, and will inevitably undermine public confidence in government and police taking all available measures to combat extremism. To highlight the absurdity, does the mayor really believe in the possibility that someday, like Mandela, Sinwar might be eligible to receive (albeit posthumously) the key to her city? Or any Canadian city? What a foolish insensitive statement, divorced from any reality.


The mayor did say that the police will lay charges as they did in Brampton a week before “when free speech descends into hate speech or threats.” But her illustration makes my point. There appears to be a perception in some official circles that speech must trigger immediate violence or threats of violence to specific people before the police can act. The Brampton charges involved precisely that — a descent into actual violence.


The police should advise the organizers of this vigil that they may have already violated the Criminal Code and that the vigil, if it materializes, may result in additional criminal charges. If the vigil does take place, police should evaluate whether criminal offences other than hate speech prohibitions have also been committed (such as intimidation, membership in an unlawful assembly, disguise with intent to commit an indictable offence or during an unlawful assembly, mischief, counselling terrorism, etc.).


The organizers of this vigil have stated that Sinwar is a martyr - that can only mean that he died for a cause (which happens to be terrorism) well worth pursuing. As such, the vigil should be treated for what it is – a hatefest – whether by the city, police or all Canadians.


--

November 17 Editor's Note: The organizer of the event has indicated on social media that the event has been cancelled, at least for now. The organizer is entirely unrepentant about the hatefest that was contemplated and that may yet be resurrected. The City of Mississauga and the mayor’s response remain problematic should this or similar issues arise in the future.

 

About the Author

Mark Sandler, LL.B., LL.D. (honoris causa), ALCCA’s Chair, is widely recognized as one of Canada’s leading criminal lawyers and pro bono advocates. He has been involved in combatting antisemitism for over 40 years. He has lectured extensively on legal remedies to combat hate and has promoted respectful Muslim-Jewish, Sikh-Jewish and Black-Jewish dialogues. He has appeared before Parliamentary committees and in the Supreme Court of Canada on multiple occasions on issues relating to antisemitism and hate activities. He is a former member of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, a three-time elected Bencher of the Law Society of Ontario, and recipient of the criminal profession’s highest honour, the G. Arthur Martin Medal, for his contributions to the administration of criminal justice.


 


bottom of page