The group cancelled an end-of-term event amid backlash for disinviting Syrian Canadian speaker
The Advocates’ Society cancelling its end-of-term dinner amid criticism of its decision to call off a talk by a Syrian-Canadian keynote speaker was the right move but raises concerns about how the organization will handle similar issues moving forward, some lawyers say.
Muneeza Sheikh, an employment and human rights lawyer in Toronto, told Law Times on Friday that she and others have heard that some members of the organization’s leadership “did not know about or were not consulted” about the decision to rescind Tareq Hadhad’s keynote invitation. The Advocates’ Society did not confirm to Law Times whether this was the case.
Hadhad, the founder of Antigonish, Nova Scotia-based artisan chocolate maker Peace by Chocolate, was slated to deliver the keynote address at the Advocates’ Society’s end-of-term dinner in June. In late March, the CBC reported that the organization had cancelled the speech after some members raised concerns about his social media posts on the conflict in the Middle East, which includes a post on X that uses the word “genocide.”
“What a lot of lawyers have learned about the Advocates’ Society insofar as it relates to this incident, at least, [is] that there isn't enough transparency and accountability when it comes to decision making,” Sheikh says.
Michael Karanicolas, an associate professor of law at the Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie University, said in an email that he is concerned “about what this whole incident says about the legal profession as a whole and the Advocates’ Society in particular.”
Karanicolas, who organized an open letter protesting the cancellation of Hadhad’s speech, noted that the Advocates’ Society’s stated mission is to “ensure the presence of a courageous and independent bar and the maintenance of the role of the advocate in the administration of justice.”
However, their treatment of Hadhad was “catering to an angry few, and… most Canadians were rightly appalled by the frivolous attacks being directed at Mr. Hadhad.”
Karanicolas added, “Their future, as an organization, really depends on their ability to reflect carefully on their mission and reason for being, and whether they are actively committed to cultivating a strong, independent and courageous bar, which defends Canadian rights and Canadian values.”
In an email to members on Thursday, the Advocates’ Society announced that its board of directors had decided to cancel the organization’s end-of-term dinner. The move came less than a week after the organization said it had created a task force to handle the controversy around the event.
“We sincerely apologize to all our members who have been made to feel unwelcome by the decisions we made surrounding the end of term dinner,” the email said. “Our decisions are especially problematic where anti-Palestinian, anti-Semitic, and Islamophobic racism are a reality and where the impacts of global conflicts are felt intensely by our members here in Canada.
“We understand that words are not enough and that we will be judged by the concrete actions that we take from here forward,” the email continued, adding, “TAS must be a safe, respectful and welcoming environment for everyone.”
The organization’s cancellation of Hadhad’s speech has prompted criticism from legal organizations and lawyers and resignations from executive and board of directors members, including incoming president Sheree Conlon and treasurer Sheila Gibb.
Peter Henein, a partner at Henein Hutchison Robitaille LLP, told Law Times on Friday that he resigned from the board but did not confirm the date or reason for his resignation.
In a LinkedIn post announcing her resignation this week, Gibb said, “Over the past few weeks, it became increasingly clear that consensus among the executive about this matter and next steps could not be reached.” She added that the organization “must take immediate and decisive action” to be more inclusive.
In a letter to the Advocates’ Society’s board dated April 5, Conlon noted that she had invited Hadhad to speak at the end-of-term dinner.
Conlon said that members of the organization’s executive “faced immense pressure” to cancel his speech, and she was involved in the decision to ultimately revoke his invitation.
“I knew from the beginning what it would mean for my continued involvement with the TAS,” she wrote. “As incoming president, I would be – and have been – asked to explain and justify our decision, which is not aligned with my own core values and ethics, or what I thought TAS’s values and ethics were. This is impossible for me to do.”
Conlon said she believed the end-of-term event should be cancelled.
“With the executive having decided that we could not proceed with a party while alienating Jewish members, TAS cannot then conclude it is acceptable to have the party having alienated other members who are racialized, particularly Muslim lawyers,” she wrote.
In a statement on Friday, Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association chair Husein Panju said the organization appreciated the Advocates’ Society’s decision to cancel its dinner, calling it “the responsible course of action.”
The organization added that it looked forward to holding the Advocates’ Society “accountable to be more transparent and to challenge bias – especially when that process is uncomfortable. We will continue to make ourselves available as a resource as true inclusion requires more than apologies and reactive damage control.”
Sheikh agrees that cancelling the dinner was the right move.
“I've spoken to a number of racialized lawyers, and what they've said is, it's really clear that there's a deficiency insofar as it relates to diversity of thought and experience at the board and director level,” she says.
“We want to see changes in terms of how the [organization] deals with how speakers are vetted, what representation looks like at the mothership level. And we really want to see that the Advocates’ Society is taking the experience of racialized lawyers into consideration, because we are important members as well.”
