World

Demands for Canada to stop supplying weapons to Israel grow louder

Published

2 years ago

February 9, 2024

Demands for Canada to stop supplying weapons to Israel grow louder

Montreal, Canada – Human rights advocates are accusing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government of misleading the public over weapons sales to Israel, which have come under greater scrutiny amid the deadly Israeli bombardment of Gaza.

At issue is legislation that prohibits the government from exporting military equipment to foreign actors if there is a risk it can be used in human rights abuses.

But regulatory loopholes, combined with a lack of clarity over what Canada sends to Israel, have complicated efforts to end the transfers.

Dozens of Canadian civil society groups this month urged Trudeau to end arms exports to Israel, arguing they violate Canadian and international law because the weapons could be used in the Gaza Strip.

But in the face of mounting pressure since Israel’s war on Gaza began on October 7, Canada’s foreign affairs ministry has tried to downplay the state’s role in helping Israel build its arsenal.

“Global Affairs Canada can confirm that Canada has not received any requests, and therefore not issued any permits, for full weapon systems for major conventional arms or light weapons to Israel for over 30 years,” the department told Al Jazeera in an email on Friday.

“The permits which have been granted since October 7, 2023, are for the export of non-lethal equipment.”

But advocates say this misrepresents the total volume of Canada’s military exports to Israel, which totalled more than $15m ($21.3m Canadian) in 2022, according to the government’s own figures.

It also shines a spotlight on the nation’s longstanding lack of transparency around these transfers.

“Canadian companies have exported over [$84m, $114m Canadian] in military goods to Israel since 2015 when the Trudeau government was elected,” said Michael Bueckert, vice president of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, an advocacy group.

“And they have continued to approve arms exports since October 7 despite the clear risk of genocide in Gaza,” Bueckert told Al Jazeera.

“Unable to defend its own policy, this government is misleading Canadians into thinking that we aren’t exporting weapons to Israel at all. As Canadians increasingly demand that their government impose an arms embargo on Israel, politicians are trying to pretend that the arms trade doesn’t exist.”

Lack of information

While Canada may not transfer full weapons systems to Israel, the two countries enjoy “a consistent arms trade relationship”, said Kelsey Gallagher, a researcher at Project Ploughshares, a peace research institute.

The vast majority of Canada’s military exports to Israel come in the form of parts and components. These typically fall into three categories, Gallagher explained: electronics and space equipment; military aerospace exports and components; and finally, bombs, missiles, rockets and general military explosives and components.

But beyond these broad categories, which were gleaned by examining Canada’s own domestic and international reports on weapons exports, Gallagher said it remains unclear “what these actual pieces of technology are”.

“We don’t know what companies are exporting them. We don’t know exactly what their end use is,” he told Al Jazeera.

Global Affairs Canada did not immediately respond to Al Jazeera’s question about what “non-lethal equipment” the government has approved for export to Israel since October 7.

“What does this mean? No one knows because there’s no definition of that and it really could be quite a number of things,” said Henry Off, a Toronto-based lawyer and board member of the group Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights (CLAIHR).

Human rights lawyers and activists also suspect that Canadian military components are reaching Israel via the United States, including for installation in fighter jets such as the F-35 aircraft.

But these transfers are difficult to track because a decades-old deal between Canada and the US – 1956’s Defence Production Sharing Agreement – has created “a unique and comprehensive set of loopholes that are afforded to Canadian arms transfers to the US”, said Gallagher.

“These exports are treated with zero transparency. There is no regulation of, or reporting of, the transfer of Canadian-made military components to the US, including those that could be re-transferred to Israel,” he said.

The result, he added, is that “it is very difficult to challenge what are problematic transfers if we do not have the information with which to do so”.

Domestic, international law

Despite these hurdles, Canadian human rights advocates are pressuring the government to end its weapons sales to Israel, particularly in light of the Israeli military’s continued assault on Gaza.

Nearly 28,000 Palestinians have been killed over the past four months and rights advocates have meticulously documented the impact on the ground of Israel’s indiscriminate bombing, and its vast destruction of the enclave. The world’s top court, the International Court of Justice, also determined last month that Palestinians in Gaza face a plausible risk of genocide.

Against that backdrop, eliminating weapons transfers to Israel is effectively a demand for “Canada [to] abide by its own laws”, said Off, the Toronto lawyer.

That’s because Canada’s Export and Import Permits Act obliges the foreign minister to “deny exports and brokering permit applications for military goods and technology … if there is a substantial risk that the items would undermine peace and security”.

The minister should also deny exports if they “could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights laws” or in “serious acts of gender-based violence or serious acts of violence against women and children”, the law states.

Meanwhile, Canada is also party to the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), a United Nations pact that bans transfers if states have knowledge the arms could be used in genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and other violations of international law.

But according to Off, despite a growing list of Israeli human rights violations since October 7, Canada “has been approving the transfer of military goods and technology that might fuel” them.

Late last month, Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights wrote a letter to Canadian Foreign Minister Melanie Joly demanding an immediate end to the transfers. The group said it would consider next steps, including possible legal action, if action is not taken.

‘It takes a village’

Still, Canada insists that it maintains one of the strongest arms export control regimes in the world.

Asked whether his government intends to end arms transfers to Israel, Trudeau said in Parliament on January 31 that Canada “puts human rights and protection of human rights at the centre of all our decision-making”.

“It has always been the case and we have been consistent in making sure that we are responsible in the way we do that. We will continue to be so,” the prime minister said.

Gallagher, at Project Ploughshares, told Al Jazeera, however, that Canada maintains “a level of permissibility” in choosing which countries it chooses to arm, including Israel.

“More than [27,000] Palestinians killed, the vast majority civilians; much of the Gaza Strip absolutely destroyed,” he said, referring to Israel’s offensive. “This is obviously an operation that is not being conducted within the bounds of international humanitarian law, which should be colouring the risk assessment performed by Canadian officials.”

Destroyed houses in the Al Bureij refugee camp, Gaza, on February 7, 2024 [Mohammed Saber/EPA]

And while Canadian weapons exports to the Israeli government pale in comparison to other countries – notably the US, which sends billions of dollars in military aid to Israel annually – Off said, “Any difference is a difference.”

“It takes a village to make these instruments of death and it should make a difference if we cut off Canada’s contributions,” he told Al Jazeera, adding that the pressure on Canada also sends a message to other countries “potentially aiding and abetting Israel’s slaughter of Gaza”.

“If you send arms to countries committing serious violations of international humanitarian law, you will be held to account.”

Click to comment

World

Colin Farrell Says Tom Cruise ‘Was Not Happy’ on ‘Minority Report’ Set After Farrell Drank Before Filming and Needed to Do 46 Takes of One Scene: ‘It Went Terrible’

Published

2 hours ago

October 30, 2025

Press Room

Colin Farrell Says Tom Cruise ‘Was Not Happy’ on ‘Minority Report’ Set After Farrell Drank Before Filming and Needed to Do 46 Takes of One Scene: ‘It Went Terrible’

Colin Farrell revealed to Stephen Colbert on “The Late Show” that Tom Cruise “was not happy” with him during the making of Steven Spielberg’s “Minority Report.” Farrell was in the midst of his substance abuse struggles during production and went out partying the night before his birthday, which happened to be a filming day.

“I had one of the worst days I’ve ever had on a film set [on ‘Minority Report’],” Farrell admitted. “It was my birthday on May 31, and we were shooting, and I begged production — who did I think I was? — of a $120 million film if they [could] not have me working on my birthday. So of course my pickup was 6 a.m. on May 31, and I got up to all sorts of nonsense the night before. And I remember getting into bed, and as soon as I turned off the light the phone rang and it was the driver, [who] said, ‘It’s 10 past 6.’ And I went, ‘Oh, shit.’”

Farrell was disheveled when he showed up on the “Minority Report” set, so much so that assistant director David H. Venghaus Jr. stopped him and said: “You can’t go to the set like this.’”

“And I went, ‘Just get me six Pacifico Cervezas and a packet of 20 [Marlboro] Red,’” Farrell said. “Now, listen, it’s not cool because two years later I went to rehab, right? But it worked in the moment. All the holy people that we look to on how to live a life would say the present is all that counts.”

Farrell “had a couple of beers” and went to set and “it was terrible,” he said. “I will never forget the line I had that I couldn’t get out. It was, ‘I’m sure you’ve all grasped the fundamental paradox of pre-crime methodology.’ That was the line that started the scene. I remember [the crew] coming up and saying, ‘Do you want to go out and take a breath of fresh air?’ And I remember thinking, ‘If I go out and take a breath of fresh air, then I’ll be under more pressure when I come back in to be better.’ And I went, ‘No, we’ll just go through it.’”

“We did 46 takes,” Farrell revealed. “Tom wasn’t very happy with me. Tom, who I love, was not very happy!”

Loosely based on Philip K. Dick’s 1956 novella, “Minority Report” is set in a future where police apprehend criminals by using psychics who give them foreknowledge of the impending crime. Cruise’s police chief is framed for a crime he did not commit, forcing him on the run. Farrell plays the police agent assigned with bringing Cruise’s character in. The movie was a critical favorite and grossed a strong $358 million worldwide.

Watch Farrell’s full interview on “The Late Show” in the video below.

World

Hegseth says military conducted another strike on boat carrying alleged narco-terrorists

Published

3 hours ago

October 29, 2025

Press Room

Hegseth says military conducted another strike on boat carrying alleged narco-terrorists

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth announced the U.S. military on Wednesday struck another boat carrying people he claims were narco-terrorists.

The strikes were carried out in the Eastern Pacific region at the direction of President Donald Trump, killing four men on board, according to Hegseth.

The military “carried out a lethal kinetic strike on yet another narco-trafficking vessel operated by a Designated Terrorist Organization (DTO) in the Eastern Pacific,” Hegseth wrote on X.

“This vessel, like all the others, was known by our intelligence to be involved in illicit narcotics smuggling, was transiting along a known narco-trafficking route, and carrying narcotics,” he said. “Four male narco-terrorists were aboard the vessel — and killed — during the strike, which was conducted in international waters. No U.S. forces were harmed in this strike.”

US STRIKES ANOTHER ALLEGED DRUG-TRAFFICKING BOAT NEAR VENEZUELA, KILLING 4

(Secretary of War Pete Hegseth via X)

“The Western Hemisphere is no longer a safe haven for narco-terrorists bringing drugs to our shores to poison Americans,” Hegseth added. “The Department of War will continue to hunt them down and eliminate them wherever they operate.”

This is the 14th strike on suspected drug boats carried out since September. A total of 61 have reportedly been killed while three survived, including at least two who were later repatriated to their home countries.

The Pentagon has refused to release the identities of those killed or evidence of drugs on board.

US DEPLOYS FORD CARRIER STRIKE GROUP TO COMBAT NARCO-TERROR IN WESTERN HEMISPHERE

Pete Hegseth addresses generals at Quantico.

Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth announced the U.S. military struck another boat carrying who he claims were narco-terrorists. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)

The Trump administration has been scrutinized in recent weeks over the strikes, including by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who raised concerns about killing people without due process and the possibility of killing innocent people.

Paul has cited Coast Guard statistics that show a significant percentage of boats boarded for suspicion of drug trafficking are innocent.

The senator has also argued that if the administration plans to engage in a war with Venezuela after it has targeted boats it claims are transporting drugs for the Venezuela-linked Tren de Aragua gang, it must seek a declaration of war from Congress.

The Pentagon has refused to release the identities of those killed or evidence of drugs on board. (Reuters)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee also penned a letter Wednesday demanding to review the legal justification behind the series of boat strikes they say appear to violate several laws.

“Drug trafficking is a terrible crime that has had devastating impacts on American families and communities and should be prosecuted. Nonetheless, the President’s actions to hold alleged drug traffickers accountable must still conform with the law,” the letter states.

World

RFK Jr walks back Trump administration’s claims linking Tylenol and autism

Published

5 hours ago

October 29, 2025

Press Room

RFK Jr walks back Trump administration’s claims linking Tylenol and autism

Kennedy, a top health official, urges ‘cautious approach’ after Trump baselessly claimed taking Tylenol is linked autism in children.

United States Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr has partially walked back his warning that taking Tylenol during pregnancy is directly linked to autism in children.

In a news conference on Wednesday, Kennedy struck a more moderate tone than he generally has in his past public appearances.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

“The causative association between Tylenol given in pregnancy and the perinatal periods is not sufficient to say it definitely causes autism,” Kennedy told reporters. “But it’s very suggestive.”

“There should be a cautious approach to it,” he added. “ That’s why our message to patients, to mothers, to people who are pregnant and to the mothers of young children is: Consult your physician.”

Wednesday’s statement is closer in line with the guidance of reputable health agencies.

While some studies have raised the possibility of a link between Tylenol and autism, there have been no conclusive findings. Pregnant women are advised to consult a doctor before taking the medication.

The World Health Organization reiterated the point in September, noting that “no consistent association has been established” between the medication and autism, despite “extensive research”.

But claims to the contrary have already prompted efforts to limit the availability of Tylenol, a popular brand of acetaminophen, a fever- and pain-reducing medication.

On Tuesday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton launched a lawsuit accusing Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue, the companies behind the over-the-counter pain reliever, of deceptive practices.

In doing so, he reiterated misinformation shared by President Donald Trump and government officials like Kennedy.

“By holding Big Pharma accountable for poisoning our people, we will help Make America Healthy Again,” Paxton said in a statement, giving a nod to Kennedy’s MAHA slogan.

The suit alleges that Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue violated Texas consumer protection laws by having “deceptively marketed Tylenol as the only safe painkiller for pregnant women”.

It was the latest instance of scientific misinformation being perpetuated by top officials. Both Trump and Kennedy have repeatedly spread scientific misinformation throughout their political careers.

Trump linked autism and the painkiller during a news conference in September, without providing reputable scientific findings to back the claim.

“[Using] acetaminophen – is that OK? – which is basically, commonly known as Tylenol, during pregnancy can be associated with a very increased risk of autism,” Trump said on September 22. “So taking Tylenol is not good. I’ll say it. It’s not good.”

Kennedy has offered his own sweeping statements about Tylenol and its alleged risks, despite having no professional medical background.

“Anyone who takes this stuff during pregnancy, unless they have to, is irresponsible,” he said in a cabinet meeting on October 9.

Kennedy also mischaracterised studies on male circumcision earlier this month. He falsely said the studies showed an increase in autism among children who were “circumcised early”.

“It’s highly likely because they’re given Tylenol,” he added.

Kenvue stressed in a statement on Tuesday that acetaminophen is the safest pain reliever option for pregnant women, noting that high fevers and pain are potential risks to pregnancies if left untreated.

“We stand firmly with the global medical community that acknowledges the safety of acetaminophen and believe we will continue to be successful in litigation as these claims lack legal merit and scientific support,” Kenvue said.