On March 11, 2003, at Concordia University in Montreal, where a lot of ugly stuff has happened on campus over the Israel/Palestine conflict, some angry “tabling” (“tabling” is just sitting at a table that has leaflets and posters on it and giving them out to passersby) was going on. A member of Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR) was tabling next to a member of Hillel (see this note on Hillel). In the exchange, the SPHR member told the Hillel member: “I’ll be famous one day and you’ll be selling falafel.”
What happened next? A chain of events that led to an acquittal today.
Who was acquitted? For what? How could the rather banal exchange above lead to a criminal prosecution? See below, dear reader, for details…
Acquitted! Palestinian Concordia student Nidal Alalul cleared after bogus charges by Hillel members
MONTREAL, June 11, 2004 — This morning in Montreal’s Municipal Courthouse, Concordia student Nidal Alalul was acquitted of the charge of “uttering a death threat”. Judge Antonio Discepola, who is regarded as one of the most pro-prosecution judges in Montreal, nonetheless found Nidal not guilty with a terse four word statement: “The information is dismissed.” In his written judgement, Discepola found Nidal’s testimony very credible, while casting doubt on the accounts provided by the complainants, who were members of Hillel Concordia and Birthright.
On March 11, 2003 — several months after Benjamin Netanyahu was shut down by pro-Palestinian students at Concordia University — Nidal was arrested on campus and charged with “uttering a death threat”. Nidal, a member of Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR) had been in an argument with Schlomo Lifshitz, 47, of Birthright, which offers free trips to Israel to Jewish youth (in his judgement, Discepola describes Birthright as “a non-governmental organization funded by the Israeli government”). Schlomo was tabling with Hillel, and began to bait Nidal, who is a foreign student orginally from Nablus. When Schlomo said that Nidal had “a weak personality”, Nidal replied: “I’ll be famous in two years … a lawyer or a politician … and you’ll be selling falafel.”
Nidal’s comment was interpreted as a death threat, with Schlomo, members of Hillel, Concordia security, and eventually the Crown attorney assuming that Nidal meant that he wanted to be a suicide bomber. The overtly racist assumption throughout the trial was that the only way for a Palestinian youth to be famous is by becoming a suicide bomber. That racist assumption was backed by Concordia University, whose security guards detained Nidal, and did not attempt to get his side of the story. Moreover, Concordia University lawyers attended the trial, helping the Crown make her case, in a clear show of bias against Nidal. (Similarly, Concordia lawyers have been helping the Crown in cases against other pro-Palestinian students and their allies, in relation to the September 9, 2002 protests at Concordia University, with little success. In one case, a defendant has already been acquitted of five charges before even having to present a defence!)
Written complaints against Nidal were made by several members of Hillel, including Rachel Guy (who now sits on Concordia student council). Rachel testified against Nidal, but her credibility was severely weakened when she conveniently forgot to admit that she actually wrote Schlomo’s written statement to the police for him.
That Nidal was ever charged is another example of the biased treatment of Palestinian, Arab and Muslim students, and their allies, by Concordia University. Nonetheless, Nidal’s acquittal — as well as other recent acquittals and dropped charges — indicates that victories are possible in court, especially when the charges are so racist and bogus in the first place.
To stay in touch about ongoing court proceedings related to Concordia University, please e-mail noii-montreal@resist.ca.
