Are you an academic, professional, or student involved in human rights advocacy? Write for the CLAIHR Blog and have your work read by an international audience.
For more info, please email info@claihr.ca with the subject line CLAIHR Blog.
On March 5, 2024, CLAIHR initiated legal proceedings together with Al-Haq – Law in the Service of Man, Ayman Oweida and an anonymous Palestinian applicant challenging Canada’s continued export of military goods and technology to Israel.
CLAIHR and its fellow applicants remain committed to closing all loopholes in Canada’s arms trade with Israel and ensuring that previously authorized Canadian military exports do not contribute to Israel’s violations of international law in Gaza and the West Bank.
Please read our full press release regarding our continued legal action in the light of new circumstances and ongoing human rights violations: English | French
by Karen Segal
Today, CLAIHR has announced the formation of an ad hoc Working Group on the situation of human rights in Israel and Occupied Palestine.
The current moment highlights the necessity of this group. In addition to the 1,139 Israelis and nationals of other countries tragically killed by Hamas on October 7, Israel has killed 25,000 Palestinians in three months, including 160 children per day, and injured close to 61,000 more. At the same time, Israel has engaged in countless human rights abuses of Palestinians, such as deprivation of food, water, and energy, targeting civilian infrastructure such as schools and hospitals, targeting aid workers, health care workers and journalists, and using chemical weapons, and Hamas continues to hold Israeli civilians hostage. According to leading experts on the ground, the situation in Gaza is catastrophic and unprecedented.
Join CLAIHR at 12 E.T. on Friday, Nov. 4 for a timely discussion on climate change litigation in Canada. We will host experts on climate change litigation in Canadian courts, including David Wu from Arvay Finlay (La Rose), Richard Overstall from Richard Overstall Law Office (Lho’imggin et. al.), Bruce Johnston from Trudel Johnston & Lesperance (ENVironment JEUnesse), Andrew Gage from West Coast Environmental Law (Sue Big Oil), and Fraser Thomson from Ecojustice. CLE credit may be available.
Sign up here: https://bit.ly/3Wcjz9E
Could you patent the sun? – Polio vaccine inventor, Jonas Saulk
By Harmit Sarai and Karen Segal
The World Health Organization (WHO) declared the COVID-19 outbreak a public health emergency of international concern on January 30, 2020, and a pandemic on March 11, 2020. At the time of writing, over 150 million people have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus which causes COVID-19) and the global death toll has exceeded three million people. Over the last two months, the number of new COVID-19 cases globally has almost doubled, nearing the pandemic’s peak infection rate. As the infection rate began multiplying faster, the epicentre of the pandemic shifted to developing countries like Brazil, Mexico, and India—all three countries have surpassed the United Kingdom and Italy in numbers of confirmed fatalities from the virus.
By James Yap, CLAIHR President
This post originally appeared on the blog of the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC).
Momentum continues to gather for transnational human rights litigation brought in Canadian courts against Canadian corporations, with the release on February 28 2020 of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Nevsun Resources Ltd. v. Araya.
The key legal takeaways from the decision can be summarized as follows:
• There is no independent act of state doctrine[1] in Canadian common law (unanimous)
• Violations of customary international law may be civilly actionable in Canadian courts (5-4 majority)
• Rules of customary international law that are binding on individuals are also binding on corporations (5-4 majority)
The decision looks to be foundational in terms of the treatment of customary international law in Canadian common law courts. This and certain other aspects of the decision, notably the ruling on corporate liability under international law, may also have implications further afield.
By Heather Cohen, CLAIHR Board Member
“Aren’t I human? Am I not the same as you?” my client asks.
She sits across the small, round table from me in the neon sweatsuit that marks her as an inmate of the South Texas Family Residential Center. Words do not seem enough, particularly when chosen in my second language. I want to reach across the table and take her hand to convey our shared humanity, but I cannot. Core Civic, the corporation that runs the jail, has decreed that we may never touch the thousands of women and children that the Dilley Pro Bono Project assists each year.
Wikicommons: #BringBackOurGirls
By William Onyeaju, JD candidate, Osgoode Hall Law School
As the Western gaze has shifted away from the conflict in the Lake Chad region of Nigeria, Boko Haram’s assault on the Nigerian state has continued unabated. On 19 February 2018, 110 schoolgirls were abducted by Boko Haram in a repeat of the Chibok kidnapping which shocked the world and led to the social media campaign to secure their release, #BringBackOurGirls. Following negotiations with the Boko Haram faction which seized the schoolgirls, the Nigerian government secured the release of 101 girls, except those who allegedly died and another schoolgirl (Leah Sharibu) who defied Boko Haram by refusing to renounce her Christian faith. The rescue of over 100 girls has been met with statements of relief by the Nigerian state and the families of the rescued schoolchildren. However, this tragic incident marks another sad reminder of the human cost of Nigeria’s war with Boko Haram. A cost which is brought to bear with statements from victims of Boko Haram such as Leah Sharibu’s father, Lathan, who says, “I expect the federal government to bring her back to me the way they brought the others home.”
The crisis in North-East Nigeria requires significant international attention if we truly desire to see a betterment of the human rights situation in the region. Canada could play a significant role in improving the conditions of the people who have been horribly affected by nearly ten years of war.
By Isabel Dávila, JD Candidate, Osgoode Hall Law School
On June 28, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released its judgement in Google Inc. v Equustek Solutions Inc. The SCC outlined what remedies are available when there is a clash between one party’s legitimate intellectual property rights (here, Equustek) and a third party’s (Google’s) role in accessing the information that is infringing the other party’s IP rights. Ultimately, the SCC’s decision in the case may set a potentially concerning precedent regarding access to information online, by enabling domestic courts to effectively censor the internet’s content.
![Bay St. at King St., in the heart of Toronto's financial district [Wikimedia]](https://claihr.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Bay-King-1-300x201.jpg)
Bay St. at King St., in the heart of Toronto’s financial district [Wikimedia]
Canada has approached its recent trade negotiations with the goal of forming treaties that both benefit Canadians and advance its progressive trade agenda (hereafter, the “Agenda”). The Agenda integrates gender equality, labour standards, environmental protections, and human rights more broadly into Canada’s trade agreements.[1] Despite its potential human rights advantages, critics say the Agenda has presented a significant hurdle to Canada’s trade negotiations. It has been partly blamed for crippling trade negotiations with China, and for stalling the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP, formerly the TPP).[2] The Agenda is also becoming a contentious issue in the North-American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) renegotiation.[3] Critics have suggested that if Canada wishes to successfully negotiate trade deals, it will need to either abandon or loosen the requirements set forth in the Agenda.[4]
