Canada Has Recognized a Terrorist State
While many scholars, pundits, and activists are criticizing Canada’s recognition of Palestinian statehood as performative foreign policy – the move does come with some upside. First and foremost – it opens the door to designate Palestine as a state supporter of terrorism under Canadian law – something that could benefit Canadian victims of terrorism.
The Criminal Code of Canada is unambiguous. A “terrorist activity” is any act committed for political, religious, or ideological purposes that intentionally causes death, serious harm, or endangers lives. A “terrorist group” is any entity that has as one of its purposes or activities the facilitation or carrying out of terrorist acts. Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, both formally listed as terrorist organizations in Canada, govern or dominate the political and security structures of Gaza.
Their very raison d’être – their heartbeat – is terrorism.
Meanwhile, in the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority entrenches terrorism in its political life: glorifying so-called “martyrs,” paying stipends to convicted terrorists and their families, embedding fanaticism and incitement into its education system, and refusing to disarm militias or renounce Hamas. This is governance not for peace but for perpetual violence.
Normally, under the State Immunity Act, recognition of a state in Canada brings privileges, foremost among them immunity from Canadian courts. But Parliament has made a clear exception: states that support terrorism can lose that immunity. Canada has already applied this principle to Iran and Syria. Under the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (JVTA), victims of terrorism may sue those regimes in Canadian courts because their sponsorship of terror disqualifies them from the protections of sovereignty. The same must now be done for Palestine.
Without statehood, victims of Palestinian terrorism could sue the terrorists themselves, but not the governing authorities behind them, making it virtually impossible to bring anyone to justice or to receive any type of compensation. However, by recognizing Palestinian statehood, Canada can now designate Palestine a state sponsor of terrorism, which, in practice, means at least three things.
First, it would require representatives of the Palestinian government to appear in court and to answer for their crimes, which could potentially increase pressure on the Palestinian government to change its ways and finally, appropriately crack down on terrorism. Second, it means certain state assets of Palestine could be seized and used to compensate victims and their families – something which cannot be done today. Third, it would be an important symbolic measure, sending a signal to Canadian victims of Palestinian terrorism that the government responsible for the crimes committed against them is being correctly labelled for those offences, while serving as another mechanism to compel Palestinian officials to curtail extremism and terrorism – the more important changes needed to ensure lasting peace.
For individuals, then, the pathways are clear but limited: they can sue terrorists directly under ordinary civil law, knowing they almost certainly will not reach a positive outcome, or they can sue a foreign state under the JVTA – but only once Canada has designated that state a sponsor of terrorism.
In the midst of the Jewish High Holidays, Canada sought to confer legitimacy to Palestine, and in doing so, they have given Canadian victims of terrorism a potential opportunity to seek justice and to hold Palestinian authorities to account for their barbaric crimes. It is undeniable what our own laws tell us: the State of Palestine is a terrorist state. The only question now is whether Canada will have the courage to live by its own principles.
*This article was co-authored with Alan H. Kessel, the former Assistant Deputy Minister Legal Affairs and Legal Adviser at Global Affairs Canada, now senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.
