On Wednesday, October 29th, former NDP leader and Trent’s Ashley Fellow Thomas Mulcair gave a public talk in Trent’s Champlain College titled “Do we have to accept variable geometry in human rights in Canada?” In this lecture, he discussed linguistic rights in Canada, highlighting the harsh regulations on Anglophone rights in Québec. 

Much of Mulcair’s speech was focused on the Québec government’s continuous use of the notwithstanding clause to override religious and linguistic rights. He discussed Bill 21, which criminalizes government service workers and teachers wearing religious symbols, including hijabs, niqabs and turbans. 

The bill has been widely criticized for being overtly Islamophobic, with women’s advocacy groups such as LEAF stating it “disproportionately targets women, and particularly Muslim women, impairing their equality rights and excluding them from being full participants in Québec society”. Bill 21 also prevents anyone from covering their faces while accessing public services, allowing for further discrimination against muslim women trying to secure education, employment, and childcare.

Mulcair himself highlighted Bill 21 being extended to daycares as indicative of a greater push for discriminatory legislation in Québec and wider Canada.

Mulcair expressed fear for the future of religious freedom in Québec, stating, “Everyone in Québec understands that this is fertile territory for political gain . . . If you said it was good and brought social peace in this case . . . then what’s the trade-off?”

Mulcair also cited Indigenous sovereignty as one of Canada’s most pressing human rights concerns.

“It’s always going to be a constant struggle to atone for centuries of racism and colonialism and indeed genocide,” he said.“But there will always be a struggle, and we see that in the case of Bill C5.” 

He claimed that “No one who witnessed TRC Report can remain insensitive” to the abuses Indigenous children experienced in the Indian Residential School system. 

Mulcair stated that “No law in Canada can infringe on First Nations cultural and traditional rights,” and went on to say that the use of Indigenous-occupied land still requires the informed consent of Indigenous communities. Only BC and the Northwest Territories’ governments have formally agreed to the legal standardization of this consultation. 

“The denial of these [human] rights in Canada is ongoing and. . . is an assault on rights across Canada and worldwide,” Mulcair said. 

He also pointed out that denying the Holocaust is considered a hate crime under the Criminal Code of Canada, and posed the question, “Should the denial of the historical treatment of First Nations people be included in this?”

During his speech, Mulcair also discussed human rights on the global scale, condemning the ongoing assaults on human rights—especially the right to housing—by the Trump administration. 

He stated that he was impressed by the simplicity of the message of the “No Kings” movement and questioned the legal conditions that allowed the Trump administration to seize control over the USA so quickly. 

He went on to express worry over global trends in right-wing rhetoric. 

“There is an increase in authoritarianism [worldwide] . . . What’s the role for laws in curbing such violent intolerance and hate?” Asked Mulcair.

Mulcair’s speech ended with a call to action.

“Who will ensure everyone’s rights—protestors, for example—are protected, and how? . . . Stand up to intolerant political scapegoating like Québec’s Bill 21, but also those who undermine the rule of law. Being free to fight for rights, for equality, and for fairness is itself a right. Let’s use it,” he concluded.

However, Mulcair’s human rights advocacy appeared to stop short at one issue.

In a widely controversial 2024 column featured in the Montréal Gazette, he referred to protests against Israel’s internationally-recognized genocide and human rights violations in Gaza as “antisemitic”. Since then, Mulcair has only doubled down on this, calling on the NDP to quell  “anti-Israel rhetoric.”

Audience members at Mulcair’s October 29th lecture took the opportunity to confront him on this contradiction, directly asking him if he condemned Israel as a genocidal state. 

“I spoke about the horrific war between Gaza and Israel,” Muclair responded. “I said it’s horrific. I also want to discuss the creation of Israel as a home for Jewish people. The state of Israel was created in the late 1940s on the ashes of the Holocaust and the murder of 6 million people. The day it was created it was attacked on all sides.” 

An audience member replied, “On the ashes of the Palestinian people!” To which Mulcair said, “No, on the ashes of the Holocaust.” 

One audience member posed a question concerning Palestinian rights in both English and French, arguing that “the right to exist must be there for the right to freedom of speech [to be exercised] . . . Shouldn’t people simply start by having the right to live, the right to food?” 

Mulcair dodged this question, focusing instead on the recent history of Francophone rights in Manitoba. 

“There’s a detail we don't agree on historically… Manitoba did not become monolingual because of a lack of French minority, it was a legislative decision. It had nothing to do with candidates. It had everything to do with the government going against the Manitoba Act. It was removed provincially the same way Bill 17 removed the rights to French schools here in Ontario,” he said 

When another audience member pointed out that he hadn’t answered the question, Mulcair replied, “I was trying to compare the fact that sometimes history moves faster for the majority than the minority.” 

Ann de Shalit, a professor of Gender and Social Justice at Trent, posed a follow-up statement.

“What I think the people in this room are trying to point out is that many of us already know what is happening in Palestine in terms of the genocide going on right now. I say this as a Jewish person who has lived in so-called Israel. We don’t learn what colonial efforts were taken in the late 1800s [as children] … which very well proceeds what we know as the state of Israel. It is a colonial project that they had no shame about whatsoever,” said de Shalit. 

“We need to see what is happening in front of our eyes not as part of history, but as something going on now in front of our eyes. If we are atoning for history, we don’t need to wait generations and generations for that to come to light. Palestinian people are telling us this.”

After the public talk, Arthur interviewed Mulcair about his lack of commentary on the genocide occuring in Palestine. 

“That case is currently before the international court of law,” said Mulcair, referring to the International Court of Justice’s genocide case against Israel.

Arthur then asked Mulcair if he considered the UN, an organization created in response to the Holocaust, an authority on defining genocide.

“I wouldn’t say the United Nations was created in response to the Holocaust . . . While it’s true that a body in the UN did recently call it that, the only authority that can decide such a thing is the International Court of Law. I won’t express an opinion on this until a verdict has been determined by the International Court of Law,” he replied.

Arthur also spoke with Ann de Shalit about Mulcair’s use of Zionist revisionism to justify his viewpoints. 

“We came into this questioning where it would go—it’s a talk about human rights from a defender of genocide. There’s a history of suppressing people who spoke out against Israel in the NDP. . .[they] evicted members who spoke out against the genocide early, so it’s difficult to believe another perspective will be taken,” explained de Shalit.

Mulcair’s word choice was not lost on de Shalit. 

“When he talked about global affairs, he only mentioned Hamas once, and he stood by his position,” said de Shalit. Mulcair also used the words “Hamas” and “Israel” in his speech, but never “Palestine.”

De Shalit also commented on the contradiction in Mulcair’s viewpoints.

“He talked about freedom of expression in academic studies, but when it comes to Palestine, it’s not being protected at all,” she said, citing cases of professors and students being fired and penalized at Canadian universities for protesting Canada’s complacency in the ongoing genocide. 

“Freedom of expression means you have to talk about Palestine, especially [in the context of] the Holocaust,” de Shalit added.

“You don’t need to get entangled in antisemitism in order to be pro-Palestine. We are united with the Jews who believe it and Palestine, and we stand with the long-standing Jewish-supported movement of pro-Palestine.”