Samidoun: A Stain on Canada's Reputation and the Rule of Law
- Mark Sandler
- Aug 22
- 5 min read
Updated: Aug 23
Samidoun, also known as the Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network, is a federally incorporated not-for-profit organization that was designated a prohibited terrorist group nearly a year ago. The United States made a similar designation against Samidoun and one of its principals, Khaled Barakat. Samidoun has been banned in several other countries.
And yet, it continues to operate, glorifying terrorism, and spreading hate from coast to coast in Canada. Corporations Canada has still not dissolved its corporate status.
Recently, ALCCA amplified B’nai Brith Canada’s letter-writing campaign to demand that Corporations Canada dissolve Samidoun as a non-profit corporation.
However, dissolution, alone, represents an inadequate response to the well-documented allegations of criminal conduct by Samidoun and its leadership in Canada.
Samidoun joins several other organizations recently designated as prohibited terrorist groups in Canada. However, these designations are largely meaningless unless concrete action is taken by our national security and law enforcement agencies to shut down the terror-supporting activities of such entities and their principals.
Otherwise, the designation is not only of limited value but leads to the false perception that the serious risk these entities represent to the Jewish community and all Canadians has been addressed.
Former Deputy Attorney General Mark Freiman, Co-Chair of CIJA’s Legal Task Force and I have previously outlined the types of action that need be taken to address prohibited entities such as Samidoun. Please read the call to action set out in that editorial, and make these points with your MPs and MPPs – they remain valid and necessary.
The Samidoun case is particularly troubling. In April 2024, Charlotte Kates, Samidoun’s highly visible leader, was arrested outside Vancouver’s Art Gallery respecting allegations of wilful promotion of hatred and public incitement of hatred. Her support (and the support of her organization) for terrorist organizations and their leaders was on full public display, as was her support for the October 7 atrocities committed by Hamas.
Indeed, she and her husband, Khaled Barakat, identified as having served as a senior member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, another designated terrorist group, have unequivocally counselled others and promoted hatred in ways that violate Canada’s hate speech laws and potentially its anti-terrorism laws.
This hate propaganda – whether at annual Al-Quds Day events in Toronto or at Columbia University or on social media is well documented.
In November 2024, Vancouver police executed a search warrant on Kates’ home, presumably in furtherance of a continuing or secondary investigation. However, in May 2025, Global News (among others) reported that the B.C. Prosecution Service had yet to decide whether to approve charges. (It is also true for the Attorney General of British Columbia who must personally consent to charges involving the wilful promotion of hatred or counselling terrorism.)
The B.C. Prosecution Service’s communications counsel issued a statement, saying that the “matter remains under charge assessment, and I am unable to provide a timeline for completion.”
Let’s be clear. The case against Charlotte Kates for wilful promotion of hatred and public incitement of hatred in April 2024 would not have been difficult to assemble – indeed, much or all of it was publicly accessible. The prosecutorial decision whether to approve these charges in the public interest could surely have been made many months ago.
We know that antisemitic hate propaganda – whether during protests or on social media –fuels the fire of physical attacks on Jews, the desecration of synagogues, schools, and community centres, and the vandalism of Jewish-owned property – and worst-case scenario, the murders or attempted murders of Jews, such as occurred in Washington D.C. and Boulder, Colorado and similar crimes contemplated (but thwarted so far) here in Canada. It falls squarely within the public interest to prosecute hate propaganda – especially hate propaganda initiated by the leaders of a prohibited terrorist group – and to do so in a timely way.
If charges have been delayed for another reason, namely the potential addition of terrorism offences, then the need for the authorities to address terrorism-related activity in a timely way is even more pronounced.
Unfortunately, the silence over Kates’ prosecution – particularly when conditions placed upon her lapsed due to inaction – justifiably raises concern that this is not a priority item for the B.C. Prosecution Service or the British Columbia Attorney General or that extraneous considerations are at play.
While the prosecution must be careful not to prejudice criminal cases through the communication of too much information publicly, this concern does not justify the complete silence we are observing. It undermines public confidence in the administration of criminal justice.
We call upon Corporations Canada, national security agencies, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the B.C. Prosecution Service and the Attorney General of British Columbia to collectively address Samidoun’s continuing existence as a corporation, the failure to take adequate measures to address Samidoun’s ongoing hate activities or explain what has been done, and the failure to be transparent about the status of the criminal case against Charlotte Kates.¹
Samidoun was designated a prohibited entity under s. 83.05 of the Criminal Code because the evidence provided reasonable grounds to believe that it had knowingly carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in or facilitated a terrorist activity, or had knowingly acted on behalf of, at the direction of or in association with another prohibited entity.
Surely such a designation must come with consequences, including criminal and financial accountability where applicable. Otherwise, these designations are completely ineffective. Consideration should also be given to the designation of individuals as prohibited entities under s. 83.05 of the Criminal Code.²
Our national security is at risk. Canadians deserve better.
--
Endnotes
A British Columbia MLA laid a private criminal complaint against Charlotte Kates on August 20. However, the full range of criminal charges applicable to Kates cannot proceed without the Attorney General's consent. As well, the BC Prosecution Service may also intervene (and often does) to end any criminal case initiated by private complaint. The private complaint may, at least, result in additional attention to the case and the need for the authorities to act.
“Entity” is defined in s. 83.01 of the Criminal Code to include a single person: Ali, (2019), 383 C.C.C. (3d) 184. We have seen the designation of individuals under comparable American legislation.
About the Author
Mark Sandler, LL.B., LL.D. (honoris causa), ALCCA’s Chair, is widely recognized as one of Canada’s leading criminal lawyers and pro bono advocates. He has been involved in combatting antisemitism for over 40 years. He has lectured extensively on legal remedies to combat hate and has promoted respectful Muslim-Jewish, Sikh-Jewish and Black-Jewish dialogues. He has appeared before Parliamentary committees and in the Supreme Court of Canada on multiple occasions on issues relating to antisemitism and hate activities. He is a former member of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, a three-time elected Bencher of the Law Society of Ontario, and recipient of the criminal profession’s highest honour, the G. Arthur Martin Medal, for his contributions to the administration of criminal justice.