Please see our letter to the president here:
March 27, 2025
Darryl A. Cruz
President, Advocates' Society
250 Yonge Street
Toronto, ON. M5B 2L7
Sent by email to: dcruz@mccarthy.ca
RE: Decision to rescind Tareq Hadhad's invitation to speak at the End-of-Term Dinner Keynote Speaker
Dear President Cruz:
On behalf of the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association (“CMLA”), we are deeply disappointed by the decision of The Advocates’ Society to rescind Tareq Hadhad’s invitation to serve as the keynote speaker at the End of Term dinner.
Mr. Hadhad is a highly-respected Syrian-Canadian refugee and entrepreneur. The Society’s decision is not only an affront to Mr. Hadhad personally, but also a breach of the very principles that the Society purports to represent.
The End of Term invitation was not Mr. Hadhad’s first public speaking engagement. His remarkable story of perseverance, resilience, and success after fleeing the Syrian war and building Peace by Chocolate in Nova Scotia has earned him widespread recognition, including being named the EY Entrepreneur of the Year for 2021 in the Atlantic region, the RBC Immigrant Award, and the Queen Elizabeth II Platinum Jubilee Medal. Mr. Hadhad has been invited to speak by substantially all of Canada’s major financial institutions and consulting services. He is a hero to many, including for many Canadians who have escaped war and made this country their home.
On March 18, 2025, we wrote to you after hearing that Mr. Hadhad’s invitation was in jeopardy. In response, the Society confirmed that it could not point to any specific conduct by Mr. Hadhad that was offensive or disrespectful, or that would justify rescinding his invitation.
When we pressed about this issue, we were told that certain unknown lawyers and law firms had complained to the Society about a single social media post made by Mr Hadhad that used the word “genocide” to describe Israel’s conduct in Gaza. We were told that the concern expressed by these unknown lawyers and firms was that Mr. Hadhad had not made “equal comment” with respect to the victims of Hamas’ horrific attack on October 7th.
This purported concern is baffling for several reasons:
First, the Society has either misconstrued or been misled about Mr. Hadhad’s social media posts. Mr. Hadhad has repeatedly and publicly called for unity and peace. In one article, he said that the war was “unthinkable” and “horrific” Our world is so divided. It made me pause. What do we need to do to understand all life has equal weight? What we must do is work to stop these atrocities. When is enough enough? When can we come together as one race and bring dialogue to the table? I believe there will be a time when everyone will look back and ask, ‘what is this all for?’” The purported concern that Mr. Hadhad’s public comments are somehow unfair or uneven—or suggest that all human life is not worthy of protection—is simply false.
Second, Mr. Hadhad cannot be deemed unfit to speak to members of a advocacy-focused organization simply for expressing an opinion that aligns with judicial rulings and the views of leading human rights authorities. The International Court of Justice has already found that South Africa has made out a plausible case that Israel’s conduct breaches the Genocide Convention. The International Criminal Court has also issued warrants for the arrest of Israeli officials for war crimes. These judicial determinations are consistent with the views of every major international human rights organization, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Oxfam, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian Territory and even Israeli human rights organizations like B’Tselem.
Third, the decision to remove Mr. Hadhad sends a dangerous message that only those who share a particular view on the Israel - Gaza conflict are welcome to attend Society events. Besides the obvious viewpoint discrimination problem this decision poses, the view that the Society has silenced is held predominantly by lawyers of visible minority background, including lawyers of Palestinian, Arab, Muslim and South Asian descent. By policing views on this issue, the Society is making it very clear that it is not committed to diversity of opinion or colour and sending a clear message to its visible minority members that they are not welcome. The Society’s actions show that it and its board place a higher value on appeasing certain anonymous constituencies than on promoting free speech, intercultural dialogue, inclusivity, and the open exchange of ideas. We can think of few things that are more at odds with fundamental Canadian values.
As you know, we have hundreds of members across Canada, including law students, lawyers in private and public practice and in-house counsel. Our membership has asked us to inquire about the full particulars of your decision so that they can evaluate their future relationship with the Society, if any. To that end, we ask that you provide us with (a) the names of any law firms that have student recruitment programs that advocated for the rescission of Mr. Hadhad’s invitation (b) the specific actions of Mr. Hadhad that caused the Society to rescind his invitation, and (c) how the Society determined that its decision is consistent with freedom of speech, diversity, multiculturalism and the obligations of legal professionals not to discriminate.
We are confident that any failure by the Society to provide full transparency into the decision will result in numerous CMLA members (and members of other equity seeking groups) declining to attend the End of Term Dinner and withdrawing from the Society or never joining it to begin with. We urge you to consider your response in light of the increasingly diversifying demographic of the bar and the Society’s public commitments to diversity.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Husein Panju
Chair, Canadian Muslim Lawyers Associationcmlapresident@cmla-acam.ca