Mai Abdulhadi at a protest
In short: A woman participated at a protest where she performed a Nazi salute, made antisemitic remarks, and yelled "The final solution is coming your way", referring to the extermination of Jews. The woman owned two franchises of Second Cup.
As a result, Second Cup terminated the franchise agreement, closed down her two cafes (ironically both located in the Montreal Jewish Hospital đŸ™‚), while Montreal police arrested her.
Something very important is missing from this story: Why was she arrested?
The simplest assumption is that she actually did act in a violent, threatening manner and CBC forgot to mention it. I doubt it. The last two paragraphs reveal the justification.
<<Jewish advocacy group B'nai Brith Canada commended the Service de Police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM) for making the arrest.
"This sends a clear and powerful message: hate and antisemitism will not be tolerated on Canadian streets," the post read. "Thank you to the SPVM for standing up for justice and protecting Canadian values. Together, we remain vigilant in the fight against hate.">>
If this is indeed the reason for the arrest, then this is as wrong as it gets. Hate and antisemitism are not valid grounds. "Final solution" and the Nazi salute are not violent actions, or real threats to commit one. They are manifestations of an individual's Right to Free Speech. That her cause is wrong, that her behaviour was abhorrent, that she went against "Canadian values (whatever that means)" as true as they might be, they're definitely not enough to put her in jail.
I am really afraid that in fact she did not display a violent behavior and she was arrested simply for what she said and for the meaning of her acts. In a free country as Canada claims to be, to arrest someone for that is much more abhorrent than the woman's behaviour. If there is one Canadian Value, Freedom of Speech should be it.
_________________
What about Second Cup's unilateral act to terminate the woman's franchise agreement? Aren't they also guilty of violating her right to speak freely? No. In a free society an individual is free to act in any way it wants as long as it's not violent. A contract is a limitation of an individual's basic freedoms, including free speech. Second Cup might be guilty of breach of contract, but this has nothing to do with rights, and everything to do with lawyers.
