Mayor Mark Sutcliffe, Capital Pride & Palestinian Solidarity: Ottawa People’s Commission’s Concerns & Recommendations

The Commissioners and Co-Chairs of the Ottawa People’s Commission on the Convoy Occupation were deeply troubled by Ottawa Mayor Mark Sutcliffe’s decision not to participate in Capital Pride organized events in the city in August, 2024 because he objected to a Palestinian solidarity statement that the organizers had released. The nature of the mayor’s decisions and its impact highlight the importance of a number of human rights-related recommendations in OPCCO’s April 2023 final report. OPCCO met with Mayor Sutcliffe in June, 2023 to discuss those recommendations but there has unfortunately been no progress in implementing them. In this Open Letter we lay out the importance of doing so and reiterate our willingness to work with the mayor, councillors and city staff towards that end.

The letter can also be downloaded here.

September 6, 2024

Dear Mayor Sutcliffe,

We write this Open Letter to share our deep concern about your decision last month not to participate in activities organized by Capital Pride, including the parade, because you objected to the Palestinian solidarity statement they issued. The decision itself and the manner in which you reached it undermine important human rights principles regarding peaceful protest, equality and non-discrimination, transparency, and accountability that should guide all aspects of your administration. We urge you to take substantive steps to strengthen regard for human rights obligations at municipal level to better ensure that human rights are bolstered and respected, and not undermined and violated, by the city’s regulations and policies, and the actions of city officials, including yourself.

We write as the former Commissioners and Co-Chairs of the Ottawa People’s Commission on the Convoy Occupation (OPCCO). Over the course of 2022-2023, the OPCCO heard from over 200 residents of Ottawa and issued comprehensive reports in January and April of 2023.  As you will recall we met with you on June 22, 2023, to present our findings and recommendations.

As you know, the conclusion reached by the OPCCO after many months of testimony, consultations and deliberation was that the experience of the convoy occupation for residents and workers in central Ottawa represented what we termed an overarching, wholesale failure of human rights, the impact of which was greatest on the most vulnerable members of the community.

Many of our recommendations directly or indirectly propose measures to strengthen institutional, policy and legal frameworks to better uphold the city’s human rights obligations. Some of those recommendations focus specifically on obligations relevant to protests, including a call for a human rights-based policy on protests and community impact. More widely, we recommended the adoption of a Human Rights Charter for Ottawa to “better equip residents to hold the City to account for upholding human rights at all times.”

The circumstances surrounding your decision to boycott Capital Pride events, in a manner which disregarded and undermined crucial human rights principles and processes, followed by a cascade of similar decisions from bodies and organizations that included the Liberal Party of Canada, the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, the Ottawa Carleton District School Board and the University of Ottawa, underscore how vital it is for the City of Ottawa to move ahead and implement those key recommendations.

We have, in recent months, met with Ottawa Police Chief Eric Stubbs, other senior members of the Ottawa Police Service (OPS), and with members of the Ottawa Police Service Board, including the Board’s Policy and Governance Committee.  Those exchanges have focused on our recommendation that OPS adopt a human rights-based policy with respect to the policing of protests in the city.  We have, unfortunately, not yet had that same degree of engagement with you or city council more widely regarding our call for a Human Rights Charter for Ottawa. We remain open to doing so.

Ottawa’s Human Rights Obligations and the Capital Pride Statement

We note, as we did throughout our earlier reports, that the City of Ottawa is bound by numerous human rights laws, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Ontario Human Rights Code, and international human rights obligations enshrined in instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.  Those principles oblige the city to respect, protect and fulfill human rights.  That means that not only must city officials and employees refrain from any acts that violate human rights, the city must take steps to protect residents from human rights abuses committed by other groups and individuals, and also promote human rights through positive measures and action that ensure residents have access to programs and services that will enable them to enjoy their human rights.

When it comes to an event such as the Pride parade, each of these dimensions of respecting, protecting and fulfilling human rights are engaged. The core message of the parade, organized by and lifting up the city’s 2SLGBTQIA+ community, is clearly grounded in human rights, honouring and celebrating the community’s ongoing struggle for equality and, increasingly, safety. It is incumbent upon all relevant city officials, departments and agencies, including the Ottawa Police Service, Bylaw Services, and the mayor and other municipal political leaders, to support and facilitate the parade and provide protection from threats of violence and disruption.  While that may not carry with it an explicit obligation to attend the parade in any given year, there are human rights considerations that arise with a deliberate and public decision to withdraw support, given the messages that are conveyed by that decision: that public space for Palestinian solidarity and criticism of human rights violations by Israel in Ottawa is conditional and limited, and that public support for the equality rights of LGBTQ2SI+ is conditional on organizers refraining from expressing solidarity with Palestinian liberation.

That invariably leads to a consideration of the rationale you provided for your decision to boycott the parade. You indicated that the Capital Pride Statement of Solidarity with Palestine, issued on August 6, “caused significant hurt and distress for many members of the Jewish community” and had “created an atmosphere where many now do not feel welcome to participate.” You have not provided any evidence or greater detail in this regard, nor have you laid out the principles and process used in reaching this decision. Given that lack of transparency, we are left to speculate, which is not acceptable for a decision with such consequence and impact.

 That in turn invites consideration of the Capital Pride Statement. We do so from a human rights perspective. We note that the statement categorically condemns both antisemitism and Islamophobia and rising levels of hate-motivated crimes, and affirms that intolerance has “no place” at Pride events. None of this has been flagged as a source of complaint, leading us to conclude that the issues arising must be found in the sections of the statement dealing with Israel, Palestine and Gaza which we note begin with unequivocal condemnation “in the strongest possible terms” of the October 7th attacks launched by Hamas in southern Israel, referring to those attacks as a “horror” and describing them as “atrocities” and “terrorism”. 

We also note that at no point does the statement make a single reference to Jewish people, the Jewish community or the Jewish faith. Concerns about what is happening in Gaza are attributed to the state of Israel, and the points raised in that regard are done so in keeping with Israel’s obligations under international law.  “Israel’s endless and brutal campaign in Gaza and mounting violence in the West Bank” is decried, a concern that has been widely echoed by UN human rights experts, UN and civil society humanitarian agencies, international and national human rights organizations, journalists, and many governments around the world.  Understandably strong language is used – slaughter, dehumanization and dispossession – highlighting that such actions contravene international law, again resonating with the legal analysis and conclusions of countless human rights experts. The importance of international law is further reinforced by reference to the International Court of Justice’s ruling that Israel’s actions in Gaza give rise to a “plausible risk of genocide”.

We speculate that the sections of the statement to have been the source of greatest controversy and perhaps led to your decision to withdraw from Capital Pride events are the references to pink-washing and to the boycott, divest and sanction (BDS) movement.

The statement highlights concern that pink-washing, described as portraying the state of Israel as a “protector of queer and trans people in the Middle East” in ways that seek to deflect criticism of the country’s human rights violations against Palestinians, has perpetuated, “racist notions that all Palestinians are homophobic and transphobic.”  As such Capital Pride states that the organization will not, “withhold our solidarity from Palestinians in the name of upholding 2SLGBTQIA+ rights” because to do so would, “betray the promise of liberation that guides our work.” There may well be a variety of views around this important human rights debate, but clearly it is an issue with which an organization such as Capital Pride, with its leadership role within Ottawa’s 2SLGBTQIA+ community, should be actively engaged. We fail to see how this can be seen as unreasonable or inappropriate from a human rights perspective.

The statement also declares that Capital Pride will make use of “resources such as the Palestinian BDS National Committee’s boycott list in our existing review process of current and future sponsorship agreements.” It does not announce the termination of any sponsorships, it merely points to a review process already underway. The United Nations Human Rights Council itself publishes a list of companies operating in the occupied Palestinian territories, so that states and NGOs alike can review their economic relations with companies that are complicit in violations of international law.

We draw to your attention the recent Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice - the world’s top court - in response to a referral from the UN General Assembly. The Court concluded that Israel’s decades-long occupation of Palestinian Territory violates international law, including the right of Palestinians to self-determination and provisions in the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination that prohibit “racial segregation and apartheid.”  Notably, the Court specifies that its legal conclusions mean that “all States… are under an obligation not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory [emphasis added].”

That obligation not to render aid or assistance is directly applicable to Canada and, it is important to emphasize it fully applies to sub-national governments, including municipal governments, such as the City of Ottawa. Further to UN standards such as the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, it also gives rise to a responsibility applicable to businesses and to organizations such as Capital Pride to follow suit. As such, Capital Pride’s commitment to review its sponsorships, with an eye to avoiding relationships with entities that may contribute to or benefit from human rights violations against Palestinians, is very much in keeping with the International Court of Justice’s advice.

This is, in fact, a step that the City of Ottawa should take as well. Indeed, and ironically, the Board of Capital Pride has come under criticism for having undertaken the work to prepare a statement that the City of Ottawa and other public institutions, including several that distanced themselves from Capital Pride, should have or should now begin to prepare in order to meet their obligations under international law.

It is not our intention to embark on a detailed discussion of international law and the situation in Israel-Palestine. We are, however, of the view that your understanding of the Capital Pride statement and reaction to it, should very much have been grounded in the important international human rights legal principles and rulings that are centrally applicable to so much of the statement’s content. That is what we would expect from the mayor of a city that fully embraces its human rights obligations. We are deeply troubled by the lack of any indication of that having been your approach.

Human Rights, Protest and the Responsibilities of the Mayor

Last year, the OPCCO called for the development of a protest policy for the city following the experience of the convoy occupation.  From the testimonies we gathered and research we undertook it was clear that there had been an abject failure to recognize the vital obligation for governments and police, including the City of Ottawa and Ottawa Police Service, to protect the rights of residents and workers in the communities directly impacted by the convoy. We recommended that a human rights-based policy on protest for the city pay particular attention to community impact. Notably at that time we were not concerned that there had been undue restrictions on the protest rights of convoy participants.  Quite the contrary, all indications were that the right to protest had been robustly accommodated, including allowing extensive harmful and even violent conduct that was detrimental to the rights and well-being of people living and working in communities in central Ottawa.

More recently, in our meetings with OPS and the OPS Board we pointed to numerous concerns about excessive and unjustified enforcement measures by police and bylaw officers against trans-rights advocates, union leaders and individuals involved in Palestinian solidarity protests in the city since October 7th, in particular issuing tickets for the use of megaphones and speakers (in sharp contrast to how relentless horn blaring by convoy participants had been handled). That has underscored that there is a need for a comprehensive policy on human rights and protest that lays out clear guidance with respect both to upholding the rights of protesters and protecting the rights of community members, in a manner that highlights the roles and responsibilities of police, other departments and agencies, and of political leadership, including the mayor.

Your decision to withdraw from Capital Pride events  is a compelling example of why such a policy is urgently needed. We recognize that politicians will always make decisions about participating in or withdrawing from public events, such as a parade, for a variety of reasons.  However, we would urge that when it comes to events such as Pride, which is clearly rooted in a history and tradition of being a political movement for liberation, human rights considerations should be central to that decision-making. That some groups or individuals have objections to some or all of the protest messages should not be the test you apply, even if that means that they decide to boycott the event. 

As mayor, you must be able to demonstrate, in a way that is transparent and accountable, that any decision you make to participate or not is responsive to applicable human rights principles. One means of ensuring you are giving proper consideration to the factors that should inform such a decision is to engage in a process that is transparent, and in consultation and collaboration with members of Council and senior City staff who are charged with providing leadership on issues related to human rights and to equity, diversity, accessibility and inclusion. Where members of diverse communities will be impacted by the decision being taken, it is imperative that you meaningfully engage those communities in good faith. That applies equally to other elected representatives.

You are no doubt aware that your decision and the lack of any clarity around the framework or process you used to reach that decision, has fueled an existing perception that you are insufficiently concerned about the impact of the grave situation in Gaza on Palestinian, Arab and Muslim residents of Ottawa. Members of those communities point to the scant public statements you have made, events you have attended and actions you have taken which demonstrate a serious level of concern for their experiences, compared to a considerable number of statements, and events such as the Israeli flag raising ceremony (which many Arabs, Muslims, Palestinians, and Jewish allies and other supporters indicated they would experience as creating a hostile environment in the city), which express solidarity with the state of Israel and the Jewish community in the city.

Your decision similarly left an impression that your support for the 2SLGBTQIA+ community in the city is tenuous and conditional, at a time when violence, intolerance and hate against the community continues to grow and solidarity is, therefore, more important than ever.

We do not raise this to suggest that there is a statistical measure of solidarity. In the current circumstances we would expect you to make a concerted effort to exhibit meaningful solidarity with all communities and individuals in the city who are particularly impacted by the situation in Gaza, and by heightened levels of antisemitism, Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism. We would similarly expect you to demonstrate strong solidarity with the city’s 2SLGBTQIA+ community at a time when that is very much needed.  That is not necessarily a question of how many statements you issue and events you attend, but of the degree to which you demonstrate a genuine understanding of a community’s concerns and level of distress. Your decision to withdraw from the Pride parade has undermined that responsibility.

It is important to note as well that a substantial number of public institutions, organizations, companies and government agencies and departments appeared to follow your decision to withdraw from the parade.  That points of course to the mayor’s influence in such a situation, which further underscores the care, responsibility and transparency you must exhibit in reaching such decisions, guided by a comprehensive human rights policy and in consultation with others at the City charged with leadership responsibilities in relation to equity, diversity, accessibility and inclusion.

The Road Ahead

Others will no doubt offer advice as to the steps you should take to redress the harms inflicted by your decision, including through dialogue with and apologies to Capital Pride and the communities whose rights were sold short by your boycott decision. 

We return to our specific recommendations as to steps the City of Ottawa should take to substantially strengthen respect for human rights at municipal level.  That includes adopting a Human Rights Charter for Ottawa, committing to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, developing a city-wide “needs map”, developing a human rights-based protest policy, increasing funding for community safety and well-being, increasing diversity among elected and senior municipal officials, and supporting community initiatives that promote inclusion, mutual support and solidarity. 

We continue to be open to engagement with you and your officials, so as to advance these important reforms. We remain committed to a vision of Ottawa as a ‘human rights city’ and hope that we can count on your support and leadership in advancing that agenda.

Sincerely,

Robert Fox and Brenda Knight, Co-Chairs, Ottawa People’s Commission on the Convoy Occupation (2022-2023)

Leilani Farha, Monia Mazigh, Alex Neve and Debbie Owusu-Akyeeah, Commissioners, Ottawa People’s Commission on the Convoy Occupation (2022-2023)

cc:           Ottawa City Councillors, OPS Chief Eric Stubbs, OPS Board Chair Salim Fakirani, Capital Pride