 Print
When Security Becomes a Shield Against Scrutiny: Denial of Canadian MPs’ Entry to the West Bank
12-23-2025
When Security Becomes a Shield Against Scrutiny: A Canadian Muslim Editorial on the Denial of MPs’ Entry to the West Bank
From a Canadian Muslim perspective, the denial of entry to six Canadian Members of Parliament and a broader civil society delegation at the Allenby Crossing is not just a diplomatic incident — it is a troubling signal about whose voices are allowed to witness, question, and engage with realities on the ground in the occupied Palestinian territories.
On December 16, a delegation of roughly 30 Canadians, including Liberal, NDP, and Bloc MPs, arrived at the Israel–Jordan crossing en route to the West Bank. The trip, organized by the Canadian Muslim Vote, was transparent, pre-notified to the Canadian government, and — according to MPs involved — communicated to Israeli authorities in advance. Electronic travel authorizations were initially approved and then revoked on the day of arrival. Israeli officials cited “public security, public safety, or public order considerations” as justification for denying entry.
That explanation, broad and undefined, has become the centre of concern.
Disturbing Treatment of an Elected MP
Most alarming were the allegations raised by Mississauga–Erin Mills MP Iqra Khalid, who described being verbally assaulted and physically pushed by Israeli border officers while detained for hours at the crossing.
“An Israeli officer came up to me, to my face, and started yelling, telling me to go away,” Khalid recounted. When she asked not to be touched, the officer allegedly replied, “I will touch you as much as I want,” before pushing her again. Khalid said she was shoved with such force that she nearly fell and had to be pulled away by fellow delegates to prevent escalation.
Multiple witnesses corroborated the account. NDP MP Jenny Kwan and Liberal MP Gurbux Saini later wrote to Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand, calling the incident “an egregious violation of personal dignity and basic diplomatic norms.” For Canadian Muslims — already acutely aware of how power is exercised at borders — the image of a Muslim woman MP being physically manhandled while carrying out parliamentary duties resonates painfully.
Canada’s Official Response — Firm, but Limited
Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand publicly acknowledged the seriousness of the incident, stating that Canada had “expressed its objections regarding the mistreatment” of the delegation. She emphasized that these were parliamentarians acting in a professional capacity, and that their denial of entry was “not in keeping with the bilateral relationship” Canada has maintained with Israel for decades.
While the minister’s response was necessary and welcome, many in the Canadian Muslim community question whether diplomatic language alone is sufficient. When elected representatives are blocked from fact-finding — after following proper procedures — and allegedly subjected to physical aggression, it raises fundamental questions about accountability and reciprocity in bilateral relations.
MPs Reject the “Security” Narrative
Jenny Kwan, the NDP MP for Vancouver East, forcefully rejected Israel’s justification. “I categorically reject the assertion that elected officials and civil society organizations engaging in humanitarian and fact-finding work pose any risk to public safety, security, or public order,” she said.
Kwan noted that the delegation had met openly with Palestinian families, humanitarian organizations, and the Canadian ambassador in Jordan, and that the trip aimed to engage Muslim, Jewish, Christian, and Palestinian voices alike. “At no point did we try to hide the information. We were completely forthright,” she added.
Her pointed question cuts to the heart of the issue: “What is it that the Israeli government is trying to hide?”
Israel’s Defence — and Its Implications
Israeli authorities, through the Defence Ministry agency overseeing civilian affairs in the territories, maintained that the group arrived “without prior coordination” and was denied entry for “security reasons.” Delegates (excluding MPs) were asked to sign a form acknowledging the denial on public security or public order grounds — a procedural detail later clarified after initial reporting errors.
Yet even with that clarification, the substance remains unchanged: vague security claims were used to bar peaceful, transparent parliamentary observation. For Canadian Muslims, this mirrors a broader pattern in which “security” is invoked not merely to prevent violence, but to restrict scrutiny, documentation, and narrative balance — especially when Palestinian realities are involved.
Why This Matters to Canadian Muslims
This incident cannot be viewed in isolation. It lands at a moment when Muslim civil society organizations in Canada are already pushing back against shrinking civic space — whether through concerns over free expression at home or barriers to humanitarian engagement abroad.
Canadian Muslims know what it means when security language is stretched beyond necessity. We also know that opposing hate does not require silencing witnesses, restricting elected officials, or blocking humanitarian engagement. As the National Council of Canadian Muslims has repeatedly stated in other contexts: we stand firmly against hate — but we do not achieve that by undermining fundamental freedoms.
When parliamentarians are prevented from seeing conditions firsthand, informed debate suffers. When Muslim-led initiatives are treated with suspicion by default, equality in international engagement erodes. And when physical force is alleged against an MP, diplomatic norms themselves are strained.
A Call for Accountability and Principle
Canada must now press for clear answers — not only about the treatment of MP Iqra Khalid, but about the broader policy of denying access to elected officials under amorphous security claims. Upholding human rights, democratic transparency, and respectful diplomacy should not be optional, nor selectively applied.
For Canadian Muslims, this is not about partisanship or ideology. It is about principle: that witnessing injustice is not a security threat; that dialogue is not disorder; and that democracy depends on the freedom to see, question, and report — even, and especially, when the truth is uncomfortable.
Footnotes:
|