If Prime Minister Mark Carney wins the Canadian federal election, new Attorney General and Minister of Justice Gary Anandasangaree — appointed by Carney on March 14 — will likely remain in the role as he now faces a moment that directly parallels his earlier career as an international human rights lawyer advocating for Tamil victims of war crimes in Sri Lanka.
On November 5th, 2024, Palestinian-Canadian plaintiffs Hany el Batnigi and Tamer Jarada, represented by the Legal Centre for Palestine alongside a coalition of Canadian legal advocates, commenced proceedings in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the Attorney General of Canada seeking declaratory relief. The lawsuit alleges Canada’s failure to act to prevent genocide in Gaza is a violation of its legal obligations under the Genocide Convention (1948) and of the plaintiffs’ rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The lawsuit also highlights the government’s disparity in its treatment of Israeli-Canadians versus Palestinian-Canadians. Within days of the war starting in Gaza, nearly 1,300 Israeli-Canadians were evacuated on Canadian military planes. No similar assistance was provided to Palestinian-Canadians, forcing many—including Hany el Batnigi, one of the two plaintiffs—to make multiple attempts to cross into Egypt, during which he was injured in a bomb blast.
This suit presents a moral test for both Canada and Anandasangaree’s commitment to justice. Anandasangaree’s journey from refugee to cabinet minister is remarkable. Fleeing Sri Lanka after the 1983 anti-Tamil pogroms, he became a passionate community activist advocating for education and justice. His efforts led Canada to recognize May 18 as “Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day” and to impose sanctions on former presidents of Sri Lanka.
Anandasangaree’s approach to human rights advocacy, however, has been notably selective. He has refrained from condemning Israel’s atrocities in its offensive in Gaza despite the striking parallels to Sri Lanka’s treatment of Tamils during the final stages of that country’s civil war. And his silence has not gone unnoticed.
At a Tamil Heritage Month event in Scarborough in January 2024, Canadian Tamils from Anandasangaree’s Scarborough-Rouge Park riding interrupted his speech and asserted, in solidarity with Palestine, that “we know the pain of losing generations of our families, of war crimes. The same thing that happened in the 2009 massacre of Tamils is repeating itself in Gaza. If Canadian politicians are silent, then what is the point of any of this remembrance?”
Faced with this direct challenge from members of his own constituency—the very community whose rights he had long championed—Anandasangaree refused to address the demonstrators’ comments about his silence on Gaza. Furthermore, when his Tamil constituents sent petitions to his office and requested meetings calling for him to advocate for a ceasefire in Gaza, sanctions against Israeli leaders, and an end to Canada’s military exports to Israel, he refused to even answer their requests.
The parallels between the Sri Lankan government’s actions against Tamils during the final stages of the civil war and Israel’s current military campaign in Gaza are unmistakable. In both conflicts, the civilians are directed to “safe zones” only to be bombarded once there; both involve denial of essential supplies, mass casualties, and displacement; and both sparked warnings about potential genocide.
If he were to remain Attorney General after the federal election, Anandasangaree will have no choice but to respond to the lawsuit, and the charges are damning. Despite the global outrage at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s atrocities, Canada maintained military exports to Israel, permitted recruitment of Canadians for Israel’s military, and allowed Canadian charities to fund programs to directly benefit Israel’s Ministry of Defense.
“The first principle, in my view, is that there must be excluded any consideration based upon narrow, partisan views, or based upon the political consequences to me or others.” This declaration by Canada’s then-Attorney General Ron Basford in 1978 places a profound responsibility on Anandasangaree as he addresses the lawsuit’s serious claims about Canada’s compliance with international law. His constitutional obligations should transcend political allegiances or government policy preferences. His former work as a human rights lawyer advocating for Tamil victims of atrocities makes him intimately familiar with the legal principles at stake.
Dimitri Lascaris, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, revealed in a comment to JURIST that “shortly before Trudeau announced his resignation, the Attorney General advised us that he would bring a motion to strike the entire claim. That motion has now been brought and will be argued in November. Among other things, the Attorney General has invoked the ‘political question’ doctrine, which was used to defeat a similar lawsuit in the United States.” Notably, Lascaris added, “In my view, the bringing of this motion signals that the Liberal government will use all the tools at its disposal to avoid accountability for its complicity in Israel’s genocide. Since Mark Carney became Prime Minister, we have seen no indication that the Attorney General intends to alter its approach to the litigation.” Lascaris expressed further skepticism about any potential shift under the Carney government, stating, “given that [Carney] has appointed fanatical Zionist Marco Mendicino to be his chief of staff, I expect that Carney will be just as supportive of Israel as Trudeau – and perhaps even worse.”
Notwithstanding these concerning signals, Carney’s government faces mounting public pressure and international scrutiny that could yet catalyze meaningful change. This transition presents a crucial moment for politicians like Anandasangaree to reconcile their approach, having so effectively wielded sanctions, international pressure, and parliamentary motions for accountability in Sri Lanka, but not against Israel. The weight of this moral inconsistency, combined with growing public awareness, may finally compel action where there has previously been silence.
This discrepancy towards universal human rights invokes Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s philosophical position that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” King’s words offer a powerful lens through which to examine Canadian actions. His opposition to the Vietnam War, notwithstanding the political and personal consequences, exemplified that justice cannot be compartmentalized; the fight for human dignity encompasses everyone, everywhere: Tamils, Palestinians, Uighurs, Rohingyas, and anyone else facing state-sanctioned slaughter. Anandasangaree understood this principle well when advocating for Tamil rights, asserting passionately: “We need to follow a path of non-violence and express solidarity with others who share similar struggles.” Yet his current selective approach to human rights contradicts this very principle.
As a relatively young nation, we stand at a pivotal moral crossroads. In a multicultural society, our individual ethics and collective responses as a country to global atrocities reveal whether our commitment to human rights and international justice extends beyond our own personal and ethnic connections, or to the broader principles of peace, equality and the rule of law.
With Netanyahu’s regime restarting its bombardments and the killing campaign in Gaza, the question is not whether we know what to do, but whether we have the moral courage to do it.
The Palestinian-Canadians seeking accountability deserve no less than what anyone, including Anandasangaree, so vigorously demanded for the Tamil victims of genocide—recognition, justice, and human rights protection under international law. The real test of Carney’s campaign is not if he’ll win, it’s what his government will do after to protect the most vulnerable amongst us.
