the daily snivel

This was an interesting news item that only came to my attention yesterday when one of the law students who worked for the Montreal defence counsel assisting Mr. Alalul mentioned it to me. I was helping her move, and as we all cooled down on her new balcony in the lovely evening air and sipped water, she told us the fascinating story of her role in seeing justice done. The lawyer told my friend yesterday that she used her arguments against the charges word for word in court.

The story below is of a young Palestinian university student who was charged with uttering a death threat (contrary to s. 264.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada) after making what sounded like a truly innocuous remark to a Jewish man he was having an argument with.

Acquitted! Palestinian Concordia student Nidal Alalul cleared after bogus charges by Hillel members

by Jaggi Singh

MONTREAL, June 11, 2004 -- This morning in Montreal's Municipal Courthouse, Concordia student Nidal Alalul was acquitted of the charge of "uttering a death threat". Judge Antonio Discepola, who is regarded as one of the most pro-prosecution judges in Montreal, nonetheless found Nidal not guilty with a terse four word statement: "The information is dismissed." In his written judgement, Discepola found Nidal's testimony
very credible, while casting doubt on the accounts provided by the complainants, who were members of Hillel Concordia and Birthright.

On March 11, 2003 -- several months after Benjamin Netanyahu was shut down by pro-Palestinian students at Concordia University -- Nidal was arrested
on campus and charged with "uttering a death threat". Nidal, a member of Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR) had been in an argument with Schlomo Lifshitz, 47, of Birthright, which offers free trips to Israel to Jewish youth (in his judgement, Discepola describes Birthright
as "a non-governmental organization funded by the Israeli government"). Schlomo was tabling with Hillel, and began to bait Nidal, who is a foreign
student orginally from Nablus. When Schlomo said that Nidal had "a weak personality", Nidal replied: "I'll be famous in two years ... a lawyer or
a politician ... and you'll be selling falafel."

Nidal's comment was interpreted as a death threat, with Schlomo, members of Hillel, Concordia security, and eventually the Crown attorney assuming
that Nidal meant that he wanted to be a suicide bomber. The overtly racist assumption throughout the trial was that the only way for a Palestinian
youth to be famous is by becoming a suicide bomber. That racist assumption was backed by Concordia University, whose security guards detained Nidal,
and did not attempt to get his side of the story. Moreover, Concordia University lawyers attended the trial, helping the Crown make her case, in a clear show of bias against Nidal. (Similarly, Concordia lawyers have been helping the Crown in cases against other pro-Palestinian students and their allies, in relation to the September 9, 2002 protests at Concordia University, with little success. In one case, a defendant has already been acquitted of five charges before even having to present a defence!)

Written complaints against Nidal were made by several members of Hillel, including Rachel Guy (who now sits on Concordia student council). Rachel
testified against Nidal, but her credibility was severely weakened when she conveniently forgot to admit that she actually wrote Schlomo's written
statement to the police for him.

That Nidal was never charged is another example of the biased treatment of Palestinian, Arab and Muslim students, and their allies, by Concordia University. Nonetheless, Nidal's acquittal -- as well as other recent acquittals and dropped charges -- indicates that victories are possible in court, especially when the charges are so racist and bogus in the first
place.

To stay in touch about ongoing court proceedings related to Concordia University, please e-mail noii-montreal@resist.ca.

-- JBS

The article was e-mailed by Jaggi Singh, a Canadian activist of great notoriety, but despite the subjective rhetoric in his note, and the contentious milleu of the neverending Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the background, the facts of the case are almost exactly as my friend relayed them. This is a fascinating story of what happens when hidden assumptions and fears about other groups of people get the better of us. In the climate of suspicion that has followed the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, it is all too easy to twist an innocuous quip (that surely would have been allowed to pass had I said it to someone as a snarky retort) into a threat of violence.

Charges can be laid in an instant by authorities, and in the meantime lives are put on hold. Nidal Alalul was unable to attend school while the charge pended against him, and was subjected to the great stigma of being a criminal accused (and a supporter of terrorism no less). It's hard to see this as a case of an honest mistake by authorities. There is a bias revealed that I find troublesome. Would you, as a police officer or a Crown Attorney, press charges in a case such as this? And what do these actions say about the security guards and staff of Concordia University, who arrested and assisted in the prosecution of Nidal Alalul? Without ever daring to wade into the battle of ideas between those favouring Israel and those favouring Palestine, this strikes me as a tremendous step backwards in promoting a sense of fairness and integrity in the justice system.

If it could happen to him, it could happen to you. And that's why I'm going to be a defence counsel when I grow up.