Richard Falk Detained in Canada Over National Security Claims

Former United Nations special rapporteur Richard Falk was detained by Canadian authorities for over four hours on suspicions related to national security as he traveled to Canada this week. Falk, an expert in international law, was en route to attend a Gaza-related event in Ottawa when he and his wife, legal scholar Hilal Elver, were questioned at Toronto Pearson International Airport on March 14, 2024.

In an interview from Ottawa, Falk recounted the experience, stating, “A security person came and said, ‘We’ve detained you both because we’re concerned that you pose a national security threat to Canada.’” This incident marked Falk’s first experience of such a nature, underscoring the unusual circumstances surrounding their travel.

The couple was in Canada to participate in the Palestine Tribunal, an event focused on examining the Canadian government’s role in the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The tribunal featured international legal and human rights experts who convened to address the implications of the Israeli military actions, which have been described by various organizations, including a UN inquiry, as tantamount to genocide.

During the interrogation, Falk noted that while the questioning was not aggressive, it felt “random and disorganized.” He believes this incident reflects a broader trend of suppressing dissenting voices that seek to address issues related to Gaza and Israeli actions. “It suggests a climate of governmental insecurity, I think, to try to clamp down on dissident voices,” Falk added.

Response from Canadian Authorities and Lawmakers

The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) responded to inquiries regarding Falk’s detention, stating that they cannot comment on specific cases due to privacy regulations. A spokesperson, Rebecca Purdy, clarified that the CBSA’s role involves assessing security risks for all individuals entering Canada, which may involve secondary inspections as part of normal border procedures.

Canadian Senator Yuen Pau Woo, who supports the Palestine Tribunal, expressed his dismay over Falk’s treatment. He stated, “I am appalled that two international law and human rights experts were questioned… on the grounds that they might pose a national security threat.” Woo emphasized that Falk and Elver were in Canada to advocate for justice concerning the situation in Gaza, suggesting that the government’s actions could indicate a view that such advocacy poses a security risk.

Broader Context of Canadian Policy on Gaza

The incident comes at a time when Canada faces increasing pressure to reevaluate its longstanding support for Israel, particularly in light of the humanitarian crisis resulting from the Israeli military operations in Gaza, which have reportedly resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians. In response to public outcry, the Canadian government announced in early 2024 that it was suspending weapons permits to Israel.

Despite this, human rights advocates argue that loopholes in Canada’s arms export regulations have allowed Canadian-made weapons to continue reaching Israel, primarily through the United States. Organizations have called on the Canadian government to take more decisive steps to hold Israel accountable for its actions against Palestinians.

During the closing day of the Palestine Tribunal, Rachel Small, a representative from the antiwar group World Beyond War, highlighted the ongoing violence in Gaza. “This violence is not in the past tense; the bombs have not stopped falling,” she stated. Small attributed the ongoing crisis to the continuous flow of weapons from Canada and other Western nations, asserting that this complicity must be addressed.

In light of these developments, Falk reiterated the importance of exposing the realities on the ground in Gaza. He remarked, “There’s this whole false sense that the genocide is over,” underscoring the need for persistent advocacy and awareness regarding the situation in the region.

The interrogation of Falk and Elver raises significant questions about the implications of national security claims on freedom of expression and the ability of individuals to engage in discussions surrounding international law and human rights.