VI. Factual findings and analysis – Report Regarding Appointment of the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (2024)

Previous Page
Table of Contents

(a) Mr. Dattani’s Past Activities (Allegations 1-12)

Allegations 1 through 12, which all pertained to Mr. Dattani’s past activities, including his tweets and speaking engagements, were put to him. In all cases, Mr. Dattani acknowledged his involvement in the past activities. However, in most instances, Mr. Dattani took issue with the manner in which these activities were characterized in the Media Reports or in the publicly-accessible documentation. Our analysis of these allegations and our findings are set out below.

(i) Mr. Dattani’s Attendance at the London Embassy Protest (Allegation 2)

Mr. Dattani confirmed that he attended the London Embassy Protest on November 17, 2012, but clarified that he did not participate in the protest but was there as an “observer, not a participant”. Mr. Dattani also advised that he wasn’t marching or chanting slogans. He had not planned to attend the protest but studied in central London and spent time there and “came across the protest”.

Mr. Dattani was asked what he recalled from the protest. He advised that he “understood why there was a protest and what was being protested”. He remembered speaking with someone affiliated with a newspaper or newsletter (he could not remember how it was characterized exactly).

Mr. Dattani was asked whether he recalled saying the quote as set in the original article from The News Line:^{Footnote 63}

VI. Factual findings and analysis – Report Regarding Appointment of the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (1)

Mr. Dattani said he recalled being asked a question like, “What has brought the people out today?” or something to that effect. Mr. Dattani advised that only one of the quotes was “more or less” accurate, which was: “This picket demonstrates the unequivocal need to show the state of Israel [sic] that people who respect human rights and the rule of law will express their outrage.”

Mr. Dattani explained that he was being interviewed at the same time as others standing around him. The protest was “cacophonous” and the remaining quotes were improperly attributed to him. Mr. Dattani specifically denied participating in the protest by chanting slogans referenced in the article such as, “FREE, free Palestine! Israel is a terror state!” or the other slogans, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free! Zionism is terrorism! We are all Palestinians!”

Mr. Dattani was also asked why there were two versions of The News Line article, one which mentioned “Mujahid Dattani”^{Footnote 64} and one which did not.^{Footnote 65}

Mr. Dattani explained that he wasn’t aware of the quotes attributed to him when The News Line article was first published, but became aware of them some months (but not many) after November 12, 2012. Mr. Dattani explained that he “poked around the website” but couldn’t figure out how to correct the misattributed quotes at the time. He thought the publication was obscure and so he “did not think too much about it at the time” and “forgot about it fairly quickly”.

When the news broke in The Globe and Mail article, which referenced his attendance at the protest, Mr. Dattani explained that he went to The News Line website and accessed the original article. He found and completed a web form, advising that the quotes were improperly attributed to him and asked The News Line to remove the references. Within twenty-four hours, any mention of Mr. Dattani and the quotes were removed from the article.^{Footnote 66}

The Investigators were able to verify, independently, that on or around June 25, 2024, the original article was amended and all references to “Mujahid Dattani” were removed from The News Line article.

(ii) The Richard Falk Letter (Allegation 5)

Mr. Dattani advised that he had signed his name as “Birju M. Dattani” on the letter posted on Richard Falk’s website,^{Footnote 67} as set out below:

VI. Factual findings and analysis – Report Regarding Appointment of the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (2)

Mr. Dattani explained that the open letter was brought to his attention by his PhD supervisor. He discussed the international legal norms identified in the letter with his PhD supervisor, which he believes were stated accurately by the drafters. Mr. Dattani believed the authors of the letter were international law scholars, not Mr. Falk.

Mr. Dattani described the letter as “calling on parties to abide by international humanitarian law. It condemned Hamas’ rocket attacks legally and morally. A lot of the letter is addressed to the State of Israel.” Mr. Dattani’s summary was largely accurate with one exception: the letter condemned the “rocket attacks” but did not ascribe such attacks to Hamas in particular.^{Footnote 68}

Mr. Dattani also stated that if Mr. Falk had made comments such as “Hamas has embodied the spirit of resistance”, which Mr. Dattani had not verified, he would disagree wholeheartedly with such a statement. He disagrees with the contention that “Hamas embodies any form of legitimate resistance”. Unprompted, Mr. Dattani also shared that he was aware of a cartoon shared by Mr. Falk that was criticized as anti-Semitic and Mr. Dattani agreed that the cartoon, which he only saw after signing the letter, was anti-Semitic in nature.

Mr. Dattani was also asked why he referred to himself as “Birju M. Dattani” in this instance, but in other instances, he referred to himself as “Mujahid Dattani”. In general, Mr. Dattani explained that his name at birth was “Birju Rajnikant Dattani” but he does not use “Rajnikant” as a middle name. Instead, since he was nineteen years old, he has used the name “Mujahid”. Mr. Dattani adopted the name “Mujahid” when he embraced a Muslim identity. Mr. Dattani also explained that “Mujahid” was a rough translation of his first name “Birju”, which is Sanskrit.^{Footnote 69}

Mr. Dattani explained that “Mujahid” was recommended as a name for him by three Muslim scholars from India. The scholars were visiting Calgary from India for a spiritual event and the three met and were asked for a recommendation for a name (they had Mr. Dattani’s given first name). They unanimously picked the name “Mujahid” for two reasons. First, it closely approximated his given name and, second, it represented individual attributes. Mr. Dattani explained that the translation of Mujahid is “someone who strives against the ego in the service of god” and the translation from Birju is “someone who possess and embraces an inner strength”.

Mr. Dattani also explained that “Birju” is a difficult name to pronounce but it is easier to read in written documents. If he’s appearing before a primarily Arab-speaking audience, he advised that the audience struggles with pronouncing “Birju” as a name and “Mujahid” is Arabic, so they do not have issues. Mr. Dattani explained that, as a racialized person, going through life there are a lot of conversations about names. He gets questions like: “Is it mystical?” “What does it mean?” Mr. Dattani explained that, “it gets annoying”. He then said, with reference to the open letter, “There was no specific reason for why I put my name that way, sometimes it is just whimsical.”

(iii) Mr. Dattani’s Participation on Panels (Allegations 3, 6, 9, 10, and 12)

Mr. Dattani confirmed that he presented on or participated in all of the panels identified at Allegations 3, 6, 9, 10, and 12 above. He also confirmed that he used the name “Mujahid Dattani” on many of the panels with the exception of the panel at Cambridge University entitled “Israel/Palestine: How can peace be made?” where he used the name “Birju M. Dattani”. Mr. Dattani was not able to provide any speaking notes or presentations associated with any of the panels because he had not prepared any formal notes or they were no longer available, but he identified if the presentations were based on either previous presentations or papers that were provided to us in the course of the Investigation.

In respect of Allegation 3, Mr. Dattani explained that the panel “Apartheid in Israel/Palestine: Reality, Legality and Resistance”, which occurred on February 14, 2014, was part of Israel Apartheid Week. Mr. Dattani advised that he lectured on “legality” and that the lecture was identical to the one given at LSE and for which he provided slides. Mr. Dattani specifically advised that he had no knowledge of Ben White prior to being on the panel and did not recall what Ben White said on the panel (or the other panelist).

The description for the panel lists Mr. Dattani as “Mujahid Dattani” and the Facebook event referenced is no longer available:

VI. Factual findings and analysis – Report Regarding Appointment of the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (3)

In respect of Allegation 6, Mr. Dattani confirmed that he spoke on a panel entitled “Conference on the BDS Movement” at Bogazici University with Osama Qashoo on August 12, 2014. Publicly-accessible tweets refer to Mr. Dattani as “Mujahid Dattani”.^{Footnote 70} Mr. Dattani advised that he only knew the professor organizing the panel who would also be a panelist at the event because the invitation was on short notice. Mr. Dattani advised that he did not know Osama Qashoo (who was not a public figure at the time). Mr. Dattani recalled that he talked about his research on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (“BDS”) movement and what motivates the BDS movement. His comments were limited to his work on the BDS movement. He recalled Mr. Qashoo speaking about his childhood and growing up in Palestine.

VI. Factual findings and analysis – Report Regarding Appointment of the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (4)

Mr. Dattani explained that he was invited to speak at this conference after he had presented a paper on a similar topic at the Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law conference entitled “Populism & the International Law of Self-Determination: Charting the Emergence of Populist Legal Movements (PLMs) from South Africa to Palestine”.

In respect of Allegation 9, Mr. Dattani confirmed that he sat on a panel at Cambridge University entitled “Israel/Palestine: How can peace be made?” as part of “Kings Politics” on February 9, 2015. He confirmed that the other attendees included Alan Johnson (the co-Founder of Labour Friends of Israel) and someone from the “Zionist Federation”.^{Footnote 71} Mr. Dattani’s name is listed as “Birju Dattani” and the panel is documented on the events section on the Kings Politics website which is reproduced to the right.

Mr. Dattani explained that he was invited in his capacity as a teaching fellow at the Centre for Palestine Students. The panel took a “question time” format. Mr. Dattani explained that he was invited to share a Palestinian perspective on the peace process and to discuss the independence of the state of Palestine. Mr. Dattani explained that he was there to provide research and analysis based on his research and because he specialized in international humanitarian law. He spoke about the concept of an “occupation” in terms of international humanitarian law.

Mr. Dattani also reviewed the following tweets from this event:

VI. Factual findings and analysis – Report Regarding Appointment of the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (5)

When asked if these tweets were quotes of Mr. Dattani, he stated that they should be “understood in context” of him talking about the importance of international law and that he was on the panel to share the Palestinian perspective of the peace process from 1994-2002. He advised that these tweets were paraphrasing his statements in some cases and quoting him in other cases. He advised that he spoke about international law’s importance when there is perceived asymmetry in the process, the peace process, and people’s various views. He also advised that the tweet stating “two state solution has been murdered” was Mr. Dattani quoting another academic, Reza Aslan.

Mr. Dattani also provided context for the tweet saying “justice is necessary & settlements are a war crime. ICC is responsible for adjudication!”. Mr. Dattani explained he was referencing the fact that settlements are considered a violation of the Geneva Convention and because the International Criminal Court (ICC) had taken the position that settlements are a war crime, the ICC had established jurisdiction.

In respect of Allegation 10, Mr. Dattani confirmed that he sat on a panel on February 20, 2015 entitled “The Fragmentation of the Arab World: A Centenary of Betrayal” with Adnan Khan. Mr. Dattani was asked to be on the panel to share his scholarship on the Hijaz and Statehood. It was about British organizing, the Arab Revolt and T.E. Lawrence. Mr. Dattani presented his research and then was done. He advised that there was no “cross-talk” between him and the other members of the panel.

VI. Factual findings and analysis – Report Regarding Appointment of the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (6)

Mr. Dattani advised that he had never heard of Mr. Khan or known him. Mr. Dattani wasn’t familiar with Mr. Khan’s views and Mr. Khan wasn’t introduced as a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir. Mr. Dattani did know in advance that he would be speaking on the panel with Mr. Khan but had assumed that all the members had been vetted and approved by SOAS (as was the usual course). This event was documented on the “Student Rights” blog^{Footnote 72} and was also included on a post on the Muslim Students Association at SOAS on February 12, 2015. Mr. Dattani is referred to as “Mujahid Dattani” on the advertisem*nt for this event (see right).

Mr. Dattani recalled at the panels there were individuals speaking about a “caliphate” and someone saying “we need a caliphate again” during the course of this discussion. Mr. Dattani did not recall who made this comment.

VI. Factual findings and analysis – Report Regarding Appointment of the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (7)

In respect of Allegation 12, Mr. Dattani also confirmed that he spoke on a panel at LSE with Moazzam Begg and others on March 17, 2015, entitled “The Global War on Terror from WMD to CTSA”^{Footnote 73}. Mr. Dattani advised that he was speaking about some parts of the CTSA and also spoke about “The Torture Report”, which reported on torture after 9/11.

Mr. Dattani also advised that there were four other people on the panel in addition to himself and Mr. Begg, which included: Louis Herrington (a lecturer at University of Warwick), Andre Walker (from Breitbart news), Caroline Varin (a lecturer in security and international organizations at Regents University of London), and Safaruk Chowdhury (a teaching fellow at SOAS and an author, a graduate of Al-Azhar University). Following our interview, Mr. Dattani provided the poster from the event (see left).

Mr. Dattani advised that he had not met Mr. Begg prior to this event, but he knew of Mr. Begg.

(iv) Mr. Dattani’s Other Speaking Engagements (Allegations 4, 8 and 11)

Mr. Dattani confirmed that he lectured or provided presentations referenced at Allegations 4, 8, and 11. He also confirmed that he used the name “Mujahid Dattani” for all of these presentations. He did provide speaking notes or slides in respect of two of the presentations. Mr. Dattani also provided additional information regarding his speaking engagements that were not publicly-available or contained in the Media Reports.

In respect of Allegation 4, Mr. Dattani also confirmed that he spoke at Bogazici University in Turkey about the “War on Terrorism and Islamophobia” on March 17, 2014. Mr. Dattani had been invited by a member of the faculty at that university to lecture on his research, which was in the laws of armed conflict or international humanitarian law. Mr. Dattani explained that because it was in Turkey, the audience was interested in the laws of armed conflict and how and to what extent it has been responsible for generating Islamophobia. There were no other panelists.

Mr. Dattani confirmed that the abstract was written by him and summarized the presentation:

It has been 13 years since the declaration of a “War on Terror”. The United States has declared this to be a “War” in the conventional sense while at the same time claiming that the Laws of Armed Conflict do not apply because of the “unique” nature of this conflict. How do we understand the actual status of this war and what are its consequences moving forward? This lecture will address how the Laws of Armed Conflict and the Criminal Laws have been cherry picked without regard for protections that these very laws provide. This talk will also touch on how this was [sic] contributed to a rise in islamophia [sic].^{Footnote 74}

VI. Factual findings and analysis – Report Regarding Appointment of the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (8)

Mr. Dattani was also asked about the poster for the event, which listed him as “Mujahid Dattani” and is reproduced right. Mr. Dattani advised that he had no hand in creating the poster and he did not provide any input into it. Mr. Dattani did not see the poster before he arrived in Istanbul, but he did see it at the event. Mr. Dattani also explained that he did not write, review or approve any of the communications about the events in Turkish, given that he does not speak Turkish.

In respect of Allegation 8, Mr. Dattani confirmed that, on January 14, 2015, he delivered a presentation on “Terrorism and the Targeting of Civilians under International Law”. Mr. Dattani explained that this was a chapter of his PhD thesis and part of a presentation he gave to the Muslim Research Forum. Mr. Dattani confirmed that he wrote the abstract posted on the Muslim Research

Forum website, where he identified himself as “Mujahid Dattani”. The abstract of the paper is provided below:

While there is no agreed upon definition of terrorism under Int’l Law, there are certain key ingredients which constitute the core concept of terrorism, particularly in domestic jurisdictions. The sina qua non components of these definitions include at least the following:

the threat or use of force against civilians or non-combatants;

the threat or use of force against non-military targets (i.e. hospitals, public transport, shopping centres, cafes and other civilian infrastructure);

For [sic] the purpose of bringing about some political, religious or ideological change.

Several areas will be explored in this paper. The first part will look at the value of the concept of ‘terrorism’. The term is, more often than not politically loaded which has rendered int’l consensus impossible for the purposes of definition. I will attempt to navigate through some of the hazards that recent scholarship has pointed out.

The second part of this paper will deal with those tactics which legally allow States [sic] to target civilians (almost exclusively) in order to bring about political and ideological change during peace time.

The third part will look at the reasons why belligerents target civilians in armed conflict. The final part of this chapter will look at ‘terror’ as strategy. Contrary to conventional wisdom (which is far more convention than it is wisdom), terror is not an irrational strategy pursued solely by fundamentalists with politically and psychologically warped visions of a new political, religious or ideological order. It is in fact, it is a rational and well calculated strategy that is pursued with surprisingly high success rates. [Emphasis in original.]^{Footnote 75}

Mr. Dattani provided a copy of this draft PhD chapter that he presented, which was unfinished. Mr. Dattani explained that this was a presentation to an audience primarily comprised of Muslim PhD students; it was a peer support network. After these presentations, the audience would give comments on how to structure a chapter, suggest that he think about a particular source, or suggest that he structure something differently.

Mr. Dattani went to great lengths to explain the existing academic literature and background that this paper was drawing upon in respect of its analysis of terrorism. He was clear that the paper was in no way an endorsem*nt of “terrorism as a strategy” but rather, this was a concept borrowed from Robert Pape at the University of Chicago (and others) and his paper drew upon that analysis and existing research in this area demonstrating that terror sometimes has “high success rates” in that it can achieve the political or ideological aims of the responsible actors.

Mr. Dattani was asked about his current beliefs on the topic of “terrorism as a strategy”. He advised that he did not engage with the academics of it much anymore. However, to be clear, he also advised that he did not think terrorism was anything other than morally repugnant. He added, “It is not ever justified as a strategy or tactic, or anything else.” Mr. Dattani advised that the purpose of his PhD was to analyze International Humanitarian Law and the way in which “terrorism” is, at times, rendered permissible under the framework. In his Supplementary Materials and in follow up to the discussion regarding his current belief on the topic of “terrorism as a strategy”, Mr. Dattani advised that he found this question “triggering” due to common stereotypes that Muslims are associated with terrorism or harbour terrorist sympathies and because “multiple media outlets” had reached out to him to ask him a similar question.

In respect of Allegation 11, Mr. Dattani confirmed that he lectured as part of Israel Apartheid Week on the topic of “Palestine 101: Apartheid” or “Palestine 101: Apartheid?” on February 27, 2015. Notably, this event seems to have two titles. The event was organized by the LSE Palestine Society and SOAS Muslim Students Association.

On Facebook, the event and Mr. Dattani are described as follows:

VI. Factual findings and analysis – Report Regarding Appointment of the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (9)

As set out above, Mr. Dattani confirmed that he had used the name “Mujahid Dattani”. Mr. Dattani provided a copy of his presentation as part of this event entitled “Palestine 101: Apartheid”.

Mr. Dattani explained that he was speaking about the international legal framework around apartheid. The presentation referenced a legal study that looked at those norms relative to Israel. Mr. Dattani explained that the presentation included a decision of the Israeli Supreme Court saying that the government had violated equality rights. Mr. Dattani then explained that he was a “big fan” of the Israeli Supreme Court. Mr. Dattani stated that he was making the opposite case (i.e., the case against apartheid). In contrast, the final slide included a document entitled “Children in Military Custody” that demonstrated that Israel was engaged in the arbitrary deprivation of liberty, which is one of the elements used to prove apartheid (under the legal framework from international law).

Mr. Dattani was also presented with tweets from this event, which he characterized as either paraphrases or misquotes of his lecture and which are reproduced below:

VI. Factual findings and analysis – Report Regarding Appointment of the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (10)

Mr. Dattani characterized the tweets from Muhammed Saif @Abu_Yusuf1924 (whom he stated was not someone he knew) as being inaccurate insofar as they purported to quote his lecture. Mr. Dattani denied making the statements that are in Mr. Saif’s tweets. Mr. Dattani instead explained:

This is the person’s take on what I was saying. It is not really what I set out to do. I have always approached most of my work in scholarship to provide the legal norms and let the people decide. Some people naturally would have taken that away from the lecture but it was not what I set out to do. I will add one other thing, people were throwing the word “apartheid” around, particularly back then. People looked at South Africa and said “that is what this is”. I wanted to explain what apartheid was. For reference, there are four places where the allegation of apartheid has been made: South Africa, Namibia, Myanmar and Israel/Palestine. There was a framework of apartheid used to make that determination.

Mr. Dattani also stated that the tweets from LSESU PalSoc @LSESU_PalSoc were also inaccurate or lacked the required context. Specifically, Mr. Dattani denied using the terms “Israeli apartheid”. In addition, Mr. Dattani explained that he was asked about the BDS movement because of his scholarly interests, and would have explained that people were turning to BDS, because, in their view, the international community hasn’t held Israel to account.

Mr. Dattani also advised, that he had moderated a discussion, which had not been referenced in the allegations, in respect of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising as part of the SOAS Israel Society (“SOASIS”). Mr. Dattani stated that he was a member of the SOASIS and participated in their events alongside other events. Mr. Dattani referenced this event when asked if he held anti-Semitic views. Based on the post about the event from the website, this event was part of a week to mark “Israeli Independence, the Palestinian Nakba, and the 70^th anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising”.^{Footnote 76} Mr. Dattani advised us that he was honoured to be asked to moderate the event given that he had “no lived experience in relation to the Holocaust” but that the organizers had stated that they wanted the event to be multi-faith and multi-ethnic.

The SOASIS describes itself as follows:

The initiative to start SOASIS in 2012 came from two Israeli SOAS students who recognised the need for an alternative space within which to voice perspectives on Israel often unheard in other on-campus sites. The society is made up of Israeli and non-Israeli SOAS students and staff, interested in creating a more nuanced discussion of Israel.

Throughout this year, we are building the foundation for an Israel Society that asks integral questions of Israeli hegemony, its systemic exclusion of huge swathes of Israeli society, the rising tide of deliberately anti-democratic legislation and its policies towards the Palestinian refugees inside and outside the occupied Palestinian territories. These debates are not new, but it is felt that little is discussed in light of what motivates these trends and their repercussions to Israeli society….^{Footnote 77}

Notably, SOASIS’s mandate was to provide a space where Israeli and non-Israeli students and staff can have open and critical discussions in respect of Israel and its treatment of Palestinians.

(v) Allegations regarding Mr. Dattani’s Tweets (Allegations 1 and 7)

It was alleged in the Media Reports that under the Twitter handle @mujahid_dattani and Mr. Dattani tweeted “Palestinians are Warsaw Ghetto Prisoners of Today” linking to an article of that name.^{Footnote 78} As noted above, this tweet was not publicly-accessible although the article that Mr. Dattani tweeted was still accessible.^{Footnote 79}

In advance of our interview with Mr. Dattani, we asked him to provide any and all tweets. Mr. Dattani advised, during the course of our interview, that he deleted his Twitter account either very late in 2015 or early in 2016 in its entirety. Mr. Dattani explained that he initially used Twitter primarily as a post-graduate student and used it as a tool to transmit and communicate things to his peers. When he left his post-graduate school (SOAS), he felt that Twitter was not of any use to him any longer and deleted the account. Mr. Dattani advised that he had none of the tweets from this time period preserved elsewhere.

At our interview, Mr. Dattani provided a copy of the tweets that were shared with him by Ms. Woolf of The Globe and Mail. The tweets are reproduced below for ease of reference:

VI. Factual findings and analysis – Report Regarding Appointment of the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (11)

Mr. Dattani confirmed that his Twitter handle was @mujahid_dattani. He confirmed that he made the above-noted tweets and that the article by John Wight dated July 23, 2014, was the article referenced in his tweet of that same date.^{Footnote 80} When asked why Mr. Dattani tweeted that article, he explained that, with the benefit of hindsight, he would not have sent that tweet. He stated that he “was a grad student” and “was doing a lot of rapid fire tweeting”. He stated that by tweeting or retweeting a particular article, he was saying, “Let’s discuss it,” to his audience, which was largely academic.

Mr. Dattani advised that the reason for this was that his understanding of “Twitter ethics” were that one didn’t “comment” on the links that one was tweeting. A tweet, for him, was the equivalent of saying “look at this” without comment.^{Footnote 81}

When asked whether Mr. Dattani believed the comparison in the tweet, he responded, “Absolutely not.” Mr. Dattani explained that, in hindsight, he would not have posted the same tweet today. He stated, “The people that I am dealing with in my day-to-day work are not the same. Having had a career in the public service, I am no longer thinking like an academic and I am much more sensitive to tweets like these given what I do professionally.”

Mr. Dattani was then asked about his views on the State of Israel. He responded, that it was a significant question. His view, in summary, was that Israel has “the right to exist like any other state”. He stated that Israelis have national rights in the State of Israel and “they have a right to nationhood”. He explained, however, that he was a member of the Centre for Palestine Studies and he had been critical of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. He advised that his criticism was consistent with the topics that he has spoken on and written about. He also added that he had been critical of other countries as well, including in respect of the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada. Mr. Dattani advised that he has been more stridently critical of Canada “in respect of its treatment of its Indigenous population”.

In respect of Allegation 7, Mr. Dattani was asked whether he tweeted an article about summary executions, which referred to actions taken by Israel and executions by the Nazis and other regimes. The only reference to this was on the Student Rights Blog.^{Footnote 82} Mr. Dattani explained that he believes that this referred to a tweet of a report from Al-Jazeera. Mr. Dattani stated that it talked about summary executions in the Gaza strip. The byline said something like “from the Boer War to Saudi Arabia, summary executions have been used”. Mr. Dattani explained:

It was a byline explaining what summary executions were. I tweeted that story. At the time, I was doing a PhD in the laws of armed conflict. We were in the middle of an armed conflict and there was a report of summary executions. Among my colleagues are front line human rights workers. I was trying to generate traffic on what is happening there. That is the reason I tweeted it.

Given that Mr. Dattani no longer has Twitter, he could not access this specific tweet, nor was he able to identify the exact article that was tweeted.

(b) Factual Findings in Respect of Mr. Dattani’s Past Activities (Allegations 1-12)

Based on Mr. Dattani’s own admission, we find that he attended the protest of the Israeli Embassy on November 17, 2012. We also find that he identified himself as “Mujahid Dattani” and made the statement while at the protest, “This picket demonstrates the unequivocal need to show the State of Israel that people who respect human rights and the rule of law will express their outrage.”

Based on Mr. Dattani’s own admission, we find that he signed the open letter on Mr. Falk’s website and identified himself as “Birju M. Dattani”. During the course of this discussion, Mr. Dattani advised that there was no reason that he signed the letter as “Birju M. Dattani” as opposed to “Mujahid Dattani” or otherwise, and sometimes it is just “whimsical”. For further reasons, detailed below, we do not accept that explanation.

Based on Mr. Dattani’s own admissions, we find that he was a panelist on the following panels, which also included the other guests alleged below:

Mr. Dattani, referred to as “Mujahid Dattani”, sat on the panel entitled “Apartheid in Palestine/Israel: Reality, Legality and Resistance” on February 24, 2014, as part of Israel Apartheid Week. That panel also included Ben White, who was not previously known to Mr. Dattani.
Mr. Dattani sat on a panel entitled “Conference on the BDS Movement” on August 12, 2014 at Bogazici University in Turkey. That panel also included Mr. Qashoo, who was not previously known to Mr. Dattani.
Mr. Dattani, referred to as “Birju Dattani”, sat on a panel entitled “Israel/Palestine: How can peace be made?” This included panelists from Zionist organizations.
Mr. Dattani, referred to as “Mujahid Dattani”, sat on a panel on February 20, 2015 entitled “The Fragmentation of the Arab World: A Centenary of Betrayal”. That panel also included Mr. Khan, who was not previously known to Mr. Dattani.
Mr. Dattani, referred to as “Mujahid Dattani”, sat on a panel entitled “The Global War on Terror from WMD to CTSA”. That panel also included Mr. Begg, who was previously known to Mr. Dattani but Mr. Dattani had not met Mr. Begg until this event.

Based on Mr. Dattani’s own admissions, we find that he presented or lectured on the following occasions:

Mr. Dattani, referred to as “Mujahid Dattani”, lectured at Bogazici University in Turkey about the “War on Terrorism and Islamophobia” on March 17, 2014.
Mr. Dattani, referred to as “Mujahid Dattani”, presented a draft chapter of his PhD Thesis on “Terrorism and the Targeting of Civilians under International Law” to the Muslim Research Forum on January 14, 2015.
Mr. Dattani, referred to as “Mujahid Dattani”, gave a lecture entitled “Palestine 101: Apartheid” or “Palestine 101: Apartheid?” as part of Israel Apartheid Week to the LSE Palestine Society on February 27, 2015.
Mr. Dattani, referred to as “Mujahid Dattani”, also moderated a discussion in “In Commemoration of the 70th Anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising” organized by SOASIS as part of a week marking “Israeli Independence, the Palestinian Nakba, and the 70^th anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising” on April 19, 2013.

Based on Mr. Dattani’s own admission, we find that Mr. Dattani used the Twitter handle “@mujahid_dattani” and that:

On July 23, 2012, Mr. Dattani tweeted the article from John Wight “Palestinians are Warsaw Ghetto Prisoners of Today”.
In 2014, Mr. Dattani tweeted something about summary executions; specifically, it was a report from Al-Jazeera with the byline “from the Boer War to Saudi Arabia, summary executions have been used”.

In addition, by Mr. Dattani’s own admission, we find that he participated in the following relevant speaking engagements, which were not publicly-accessible:

A radio program entitled “Edward Said, Orientalism and Islamophobia” for the Shamaj Views Radio Program, London on November 26, 2014.
A speaking engagement at the “University of Birmingham Israel-Palestine Forum” at the University of Birmingham on June 4, 2015.

While we have largely accepted Mr. Dattani’s evidence in respect of these allegations, we do have to note some qualifications to our findings. We were unable to independently verify many of these allegations with anyone other than Mr. Dattani given the passage of time and in light of Mr. Dattani’s Twitter no longer existing.

We also have some concerns with the manner in which Mr. Dattani has characterized his conduct or activities while he was a post-graduate student at SOAS. Mr. Dattani was forthright at times, sharing that he had been critical of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians in his scholarly work in response to the question regarding his view on the State of Israel. He also specifically advised that he attended the panel entitled “Israel/Palestine: How can peace be made?” to provide the Palestinian perspective. However, on many another occasions, Mr. Dattani appeared to characterize his position at the panels as detached or neutral by stating he focused on the legal framework or explaining that his work was descriptive of the BDS movement. For example, Mr. Dattani stated that he only provided the international legal framework in his lecture on apartheid– as part of Israel Apartheid Week–and that he left it to the audience to reach their own conclusions. During our interview, Mr. Dattani also sought to characterize a majority of the tweets as “paraphrases” or “misquotes”; there is unfortunately a lack of information in respect of the presentations he provided that gave rise to those tweets.

In reviewing Mr. Dattani’s scholarly work, he has criticized Israel and, in particular, its treatment of Palestinians. For example, Mr. Dattani wrote in his presentation on “Terrorism and the Targeting of Civilians under International Law” given at the Muslim Research Forum:^{Footnote 83}

Before the creation of the State of Israel, there were a number of militias (or what some may call terrorist groups) operating in the British Mandate of Palestine including the Haganah, Irgun, Palmach and Lehi (also known as the Stern gang by the British). Among the activities of these groups were the massacres of civilians in Palestinian villages, the assassination of politicians including Lord Moyne and Count Bernadotte and the bombing of civilian targets such as the King David Hotel. With the founding of the State of Israel, these militias were incorporated as the Israeli Defence Forces, the official military of the state. The leaders of these organizations were never held accountable for violations under International Humanitarian Law or any other legal regime. [Emphasis in original].^{Footnote 84}

Given that Mr. Dattani was forthcoming, we have largely accepted his evidence in respect of Allegations 1 through 12, but, in our view, during the course of our interview and in his additional submissions, he deliberately de-emphasized the manner in which his academic work was critical of the State of Israel in respect of its treatment of Palestinians.

To be clear, it is our view that his involvement in advocacy and criticism does not necessarily result in the inference that Mr. Dattani could not perform the role of Chief Commissioner. In some ways, Mr. Dattani’s scholarship and depth of knowledge of the Israel-Palestine could have been framed as an asset to the role of Chief Commissioner. However, Mr. Dattani’s efforts to downplay the critical nature of his work was concerning and, certainly, his failure to directly disclose this work deprived the Government of the opportunity to have a discussion with Mr. Dattani about what, if any, impact his scholarship and perspective would or could have if he were appointed to the role of Chief Commissioner.

We would also make an additional comment in respect of Mr. Dattani’s characterization of his use of the name “Birju Dattani” or “Birju M. Dattani” or “Mujahid Dattani”. We do not accept Mr. Dattani’s suggestion that his choice of name was sometimes “just whimsical”. Mr. Dattani was strikingly thoughtful in respect of what names he chose to use and when, in particular:

(c) Concerns Raised by Jewish Stakeholders (Allegation 13)

As part of this process, we asked a number of pointed questions to Mr. Dattani regarding his past and current beliefs as a result of the concerns raised by stakeholders such as CIJA, B’nai Brith, Jewish Educators and Families Association of Canada, and FSWC.

We asked Mr. Dattani about his knowledge of and views on anti-Semitism and whether he has any biases (whether conscious or unconscious) towards Jews or Israelis. Mr. Dattani was able to articulate a nuanced, well-considered definition of anti-Semitism. He was familiar with a variety of definitions proposed and used in the human rights literature.^{Footnote 85} He advised that he had attended training on combatting anti-Semitism. Mr. Dattani was also keenly aware of the impact that anti-

Semitism may have on Jewish and Israeli people. Mr. Dattani stated that in respect of anti- Semitism:

It is at historic highs in this country and elsewhere. That is of concern to me personally and professionally. In my job, in the domestic human rights world, I have taken it upon myself to hear from Jewish Israelis and to understand how intergenerational trauma operates. I would do what I could to understand things from their perspective.

Unprompted, Mr. Dattani unequivocally stated his belief during the course of our interview that Israelis have a right to nationhood in the State of Israel. He also commented that Israelis are immensely diverse in their politics, like any group of individuals.

In previous positions and while employed at Centennial College, Mr. Dattani advised that he had dealt with Jewish stakeholder groups, such as CIJA, B’nai Brith, and FSWC. Mr. Dattani provided examples of the types of work he has done with the Jewish community at Centennial College since October 7^th, giving examples of the ways in which he has supported Jewish, Israeli, and Zionist staff members. Mr. Dattani also advised that he “had his fingerprints on every statement that the institution made in the last six months since October 7^th ” and there were no concerns raised about them being biased or partisan.

When asked about collaborating with the Jewish community, Mr. Dattani explained that any rights promotion should be done with the communities, referencing the idea of “nothing about us without us”, he stated:

Communities do have a right to explain and share their own trauma and oppression. For example, how anti-Semitism is understood, there is a lot of weight to be given for how members of the Jewish community give voice to that. No matter what I’m reading intellectually, it never replaces what someone has experienced.

(d) Factual Findings in Respect of Concerns from Jewish Stakeholders (Allegation 13)

Based on Mr. Dattani’s evidence, the scholarship that was reviewed and provided, we cannot find that Mr. Dattani harboured or harbours any beliefs that would be characterized as anti-Semitic or that he has demonstrated any biases (conscious or unconscious) towards Jews or Israelis. While some may take issue with Mr. Dattani’s scholarship that we have been provided, the sources he relies upon in that scholarship, and his criticism of the State of Israel, he has not demonstrated any intentions or actions that suggest he is anti-Semitic or has beliefs that could be characterized as anti-Semitic. Throughout the interview, Mr. Dattani was careful to criticize the actions of the State of Israel and not the Israeli people.

Importantly, during the course of the interview, Mr. Dattani indicated that his knowledge and lived experience as a racialized person meant that he could listen sympathetically and empathetically to those experiencing discrimination. In his comments on anti-Semitism, Mr. Dattani demonstrated

a high degree of self-awareness and sensitivity to the current challenges faced by the Jewish community in Canada as well as a commitment to continue to learn about those challenges in the future.

(e) The Application Process for the Chief Commissioner Position (Allegation 14)

As we have concluded that some of the comments or conduct as alleged in the Media Reports occurred, we were also tasked, as part of our mandate, to determine whether or not Mr. Dattani disclosed such comments or conduct in the application and/or interview process.

It has been alleged that Mr. Dattani did not disclose any potential conflicts and/or anything in his personal or professional background, whether current or past, that could, if it were to become known, bring disrepute to the Government of Canada. It was also alleged that Mr. Dattani did not disclose all names that he has used during the application process.

The application process for the Chief Commissioner position was lengthy and, from our perspective, can be divided into three distinct phases: (i) Mr. Dattani’s initial application in June 2022; (ii) Mr. Dattani’s interview with the Selection Committee on June 17, 2022; and (iii) additional correspondence with the Government in respect of the position between March 18, 2024 and April 2, 2024.

(i) The Initial Application Process in June 2022

Mr. Dattani confirmed that he received, reviewed and read all forms (including the documents referenced therein and attached by hyperlinks) before signing them.^{Footnote 86} As part of the June 2022 application process, Mr. Dattani also submitted a CV as it then was in June 2022.

Mr. Dattani’s CV listed his name as “Birju Dattani”. In his CV, there is also a reference to involvement in some academic institutes and committees^{Footnote 87} while he was a Teaching Fellow with the Department of Law, SOAS (from September 2012 to December 2015). However, there was no information detailing his scholarship or speaking engagements (including those that have been reported in the Media Reports) in Mr. Dattani’s CV.

Mr. Dattani also included information in respect of his involvement as the Director of Legal Operations for the Syrian Legal Development Programme, UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (From May 2013 until December 2015) and information regarding his attendance at “the Manchester Guidelines on Justice in Non-International Armed Conflicts” sponsored by the “Manchester International Law Centre and the UN Office of Humanitarian Affairs for Syria”.

We have set out portions of the initial Candidate Declaration Form below, as Mr. Dattani had completed it on June 15, 2022. In completing this form, Mr. Dattani indicated that his given name(s) was “Birju” and his last name was “Dattani”. He did not include his legal middle name “Rajnikant” or his adopted middle name of “Mujahid”.

VI. Factual findings and analysis – Report Regarding Appointment of the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (14)

As can be seen below, in completing the Candidate Declaration Form, Mr. Dattani confirmed that when answering the question as to whether or not he might have any actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest with respect to serving the position of Chief Commissioner of the CHRC, he checked the box “no”. Mr. Dattani also confirmed he checked the box “no” in response to the question as to whether or not there is anything his personal or professional background, whether current or past, that could, if it were to become known, bring disrepute to the Government of Canada.

VI. Factual findings and analysis – Report Regarding Appointment of the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (15)

We note that the Candidate Declaration Form provides additional space (up to 300 words) for the candidate to provide any details, or additional information or context, should they answer “yes” to the question regarding conflicts and/or the question regarding whether there is anything in their personal or professional background, whether current or past, that could, if it were to become known, bring disrepute to the Government of Canada. Mr. Dattani did not provide any details or information for consideration.^{Footnote 88}

Mr. Dattani signed this Candidate Declaration Form on June 15, 2022. Immediately above the signature line, the form outlines that it is the candidate’s responsibility to ensure that the application is complete, that it includes all mandatory information and required supporting documentation, and that a failure to submit all required information may result in [his] candidacy not being considered.^{Footnote 89}

VI. Factual findings and analysis – Report Regarding Appointment of the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (16)

(ii) Mr. Dattani’s Interview on June 17, 2022

The Selection Committee interviewed Mr. Dattani for the position of Chief Commissioner of the CHRC on June 17, 2022.

We met with all members of the Selection Committee (individually) that had interviewed Mr. Dattani for the position of Chief Commissioner at the CHRC. We also interviewed the designated “scribe” who was present for Mr. Dattani’s interview. The scribe did not participate in the interview per se by asking questions, but acted as the note-taker for the Selection Committee during the interview itself and discussion with respect to Mr. Dattani’s candidacy for the role.

The evidence from the individuals who attended Mr. Dattani’s interview was relatively consistent. While they were unable to recall the exact nature of Mr. Dattani’s answers to the substantive questions during the interview, many advised that they would have recalled any “red flags” or if it had been a bad interview. They commented that Mr. Dattani’s interview had been a good one.

Some specific comments from the Selection Committee included:

He was collected, poised and well-spoken.
It was a good interview.
I don’t recall anything standing out.
There were no flags that came up in the interview.
He seemed very nice.
He seemed to have the qualifications and met the criteria for the position.
He gave a good interview.
He brought a unique perspective to the role.
He performed sufficiently well in the interview and was sent to references.

Like the Selection Committee members, Mr. Dattani could not remember the exact specifics of the answers he provided to the substantive questions that he was asked during his interview. He explained to us, however, that he would have talked about his background; specifically, that he is the son of a refugee and his lived experience as a racialized person who identifies as Muslim in Canada. Mr. Dattani explained that the Selection Committee had a copy of his CV^{Footnote 90} and he discussed his academic qualifications. He also talked about how he had served in a leadership position at two different human rights commissions, including being the Head of the Yukon Human Rights Commission (YHRC). He discussed the unique challenges of the north. He advised that he would have also discussed his experience working with Indigenous groups and the self-governing groups in the Yukon and his understanding of the “unique conditions and needs in Indigenous communities”. Mr. Dattani explained that he would have discussed the fact that he has a very good understanding of human rights law and that he had previously worked well with the CHRC and had “collaborated a lot with the CHRC during the pandemic”.

We asked Mr. Dattani about his response to a substantive question related to his understanding of the mandate and work of the Commission to support Canada in achieving its objectives and his role as Chief Commissioner. Mr. Dattani could not recall his response specifically but he explained that he would have talked about there being two components to the mandate of the Commission – rights promotion and rights protection. He went on to explain that one component relates to proactive compliance models which includes the education mandate of the CHRC. The other, the rights protection component, is the complaint resolution mechanism and the gatekeeping function (mediation, conciliation, etc.), with a view of fostering equality and reducing discrimination. He advised that he would also have talked about the role of Chief Commissioner as it relates to determining what case to be a party of (or not) before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

While Mr. Dattani did not remember being asked a question about working with stakeholders in his interview, he explained that his answer would likely have included reference to the unions in the federal sector, Indigenous communities, and various historically marginalized communities.

When asked if he was asked a question regarding any implicit biases, he could not remember specifically if there was a question but he thought there was one that he had been asked. He could not recall what example he gave but he knows he would have given one.

When asked in the interview with the Selection Committee about why he would like to be the Chief Commissioner and/or what the Selection Committee should remember most about his candidacy, Mr. Dattani, as best as he can recall, believed this was the question he answered in French. He recalled explaining that from his time in the Yukon and role at the YHRC, he felt it was a microcosm for problems currently facing the CHRC. For example, he had dealt with housing crises, public health issues, and opioid crises. Mr. Dattani told us that he would have explained that he had learned more about the challenges facing communities living in Northern Canada, which he thought had been ignored. He felt with his experience from working at the other Commissions that he was equipped “to centre some of those issues”. He was also aware of the anti-black racism challenges that the CHRC was facing.

Mr. Dattani explained that he would also have talked about the importance of his experience being racialized and the son of a refugee. He explained that he had a lived experience as a racialized person that he would bring to the position. He explained that he can listen both sympathetically and empathetically.

We learned in the course of interviewing the Selection Committee members that, at the conclusion of each interview, the PCO representative poses a few final administrative questions to the candidate. Those questions are reproduced below and have been highlighted due to their importance to our mandate:

Wrap-Up	Conclusion
PCO Representative to review Eligibility Factors and Conditions of Employment (separate document) with candidate, and pose final administrative questions: Do you have, or do you think you might have, any actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest with respect to serving in this position? Is there anything in your personal or professional background, whether current or past, that could, if it were to become known, bring disrepute to the Government of Canada? Are there any activities you are currently undertaking that are registered under the Lobbying Act? Have you ever had to deal with a harassment complaint or a formal grievance made against you? If yes, describe the situation and how it was resolved.	Le représentant du BCP à réviser les facteurs d’admissibilité et les conditions d’emploi (document à part) avec le/la candidat(e) et poser les questions administratives finales : Existe-t-il, ou croyez-vous qu’il existe un conflit d’intérêt réel, potentiel ou apparent à ce que vous occupiez ce poste? Y a-t-il quelque chose dans votre situation personnelle ou professionnelle, actuelle ou passée, qui pourrait, si elle devait être connue, nuire à la réputation du gouvernement du Canada? Êtes-vous engagé(e) présentement dans une ou des activités enregistrées en vertu de la Loi sur le lobbying? Avez-vous déjà eu à faire face à une plainte de harcèlement ou à un grief formel déposé contre vous? Si oui, décrivez la situation et comment elle a été résolue.

Wrap-Up

Conclusion

PCO Representative to review Eligibility Factors and Conditions of Employment (separate document) with candidate, and pose final administrative questions:

Do you have, or do you think you might have, any actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest with respect to serving in this position?
Is there anything in your personal or professional background, whether current or past, that could, if it were to become known, bring disrepute to the Government of Canada?
Are there any activities you are currently undertaking that are registered under the Lobbying Act?
Have you ever had to deal with a harassment complaint or a formal grievance made against you? If yes, describe the situation and how it was resolved.

Le représentant du BCP à réviser les facteurs d’admissibilité et les conditions d’emploi (document à part) avec le/la candidat(e) et poser les questions administratives finales :

Existe-t-il, ou croyez-vous qu’il existe un conflit d’intérêt réel, potentiel ou apparent à ce que vous occupiez ce poste?
Y a-t-il quelque chose dans votre situation personnelle ou professionnelle, actuelle ou passée, qui pourrait, si elle devait être connue, nuire à la réputation du gouvernement du Canada?
Êtes-vous engagé(e) présentement dans une ou des activités enregistrées en vertu de la Loi sur le lobbying?
Avez-vous déjà eu à faire face à une plainte de harcèlement ou à un grief formel déposé contre vous? Si oui, décrivez la situation et comment elle a été résolue.

The Selection Committee Chairperson was also the PCO representative. The Chairperson recalled that these “Wrap Up” questions were asked in Mr. Dattani’s interview.^{Footnote 91} The Chairperson further recalled that when asked the two highlighted questions, Mr. Dattani’s response was “no” to both questions. Almost all of the other individuals present in Mr. Dattani’s interview recalled that Mr. Dattani was asked these two questions and that his response was no.

When asked about these “Wrap Up” questions, Mr. Dattani advised that he thought the conflict of interest question was asked during the interview but he was not entirely sure. Mr. Dattani advised that he would have said “no” to that question^{Footnote 92} when asked by the Selection Committee.

During the course of our interview with Mr. Dattani, we asked if he recalled being asked the question: “[i]s there anything in your personal or professional background, whether current or past, that could, if it were to become known, bring disrepute to the Government of Canada?” Mr. Dattani could not remember if he was asked that question or not but he also stated that “I am sure it was”.

Mr. Dattani added that his “answer would have been no”.^{Footnote 93}

(iii) Request for, and Provision of, Additional Information Between March 18, 2024 and April 2, 2024

VI. Factual findings and analysis – Report Regarding Appointment of the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (17)

On March 18, 2024, Mr. Dattani was contacted by the office of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to advise that he was still being considered for the appointment of Chief Commissioner at the CHRC. Mr. Dattani was asked to complete some additional forms and to also provide a copy of his CV. Two of these forms are particularly relevant to our mandate: (i) the GIC Appointments Candidate Declaration and Certification Form; and (ii) the Background Check Consent Form.

There is no dispute that Mr. Dattani completed a GIC Appointments Candidate Declaration and Certification Form on March 31, 2024 and returned the completed form, by email, on April 1, 2024.^{Footnote 94} In our interview, Mr. Dattani confirmed that he had received, reviewed, signed and returned that form. We have set out right a portion of the GIC Appointments Candidate Declaration and Certification Form, as Mr. Dattani had completed and signed it on March 31, 2024.

Once again, Mr. Dattani only listed “Birju” as his “[g]iven name(s)”. He explained that he did not include “Mujahid” on this form as Mr. Dattani understood he was only requested to provide his “given” name(s). While Mr. Dattani confirmed that “Birju Rajnikant” is his given legal name at birth he did not provide an explanation as to why Rajnikant was not listed on the document.

As set out below, Mr. Dattani then confirmed that he answered “no” to the question related to whether or not he “might have[] any actual, potential or perceived conflict(s) of interest with respect to serving in the position” of Chief Commissioner and left the area where a candidate could provide more details, blank.

Mr. Dattani also confirmed that he answered “no” to the question “[i]s there anything in your personal or professional background, whether current or past, that could, if it were to become known, bring disrepute to the Government of Canada.”

VI. Factual findings and analysis – Report Regarding Appointment of the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (18)

In addition to the GIC Appointments Candidate Declaration Form, Mr. Dattani also completed and signed the Background Check Consent Form^{Footnote 95} on March 31, 2024 and returned it on April 1, 2024. We have reproduced the relevant portions of the Background Check Consent Form as Mr. Dattani had completed it below.

VI. Factual findings and analysis – Report Regarding Appointment of the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (19)

As set out above, the Background Check Consent Form requires the candidate to include: “Full given names (no initials; circle name normally used)” and “All other names used (e.g. nickname, pseudonym, married name)” [emphasis added].

When we asked about Mr. Dattani’s completion of this section of the form, Mr. Dattani explained that “Rajnikant” is his middle name given to him at birth. As set out above and in our interivew with him, Mr. Dattani explained that he had “embraced or adopted” the name “Mujahid” when he was nineteen.

Notwithstanding the above, we asked Mr. Dattani more than once why “Mujahid Dattani” was not included in any of the forms that he completed and, specifically, the Background Check Consent

Form. Mr. Dattani advised he included “Birju Mujahid” and “Birju M.”. Mr. Dattani was asked why “Mujahid” without “Birju” was not included, and Mr. Dattani advised that he provided “his full given name and then all other names used “‘Birju Mujahid’ and ‘Birju M.’” and then advised he did so “to cover off all of the bases”.

When asked if there were any other names that were missing from the Background Check Consent Form, Mr. Dattani advised that there were no other names missed, other than nicknames a parent has for their child.

Mr. Dattani was asked why he did not include “Mujahid Dattani” or “@mujahid_dattani” given that it was listed on his Twitter. He was also asked why he had not included “Mujahid Dattani” on the Background Check Consent Form, which specifically requested that he list “All other names used (e.g. nickname, pseudonym, married name)”. He responded that he had included on the form the name, “Birju Mujahid”.

During the course of this discussion in our interview, Mr. Dattani stated that there is reference in the documentation “to disclose anything in your professional or personal life, which if known, would be disreputable. It doesn’t ask you to share everything in your background and the tweets were not publicly available”. Mr. Dattani then referenced the “checks” listed under Section L, the Certification section, which has been set out below:

VI. Factual findings and analysis – Report Regarding Appointment of the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (20)

Mr. Dattani explained that he was required to sign a certification “that is about the checks about [his] personal background” which referenced “publicly available records”. He explained that, from his perspective, the Government undertook to conduct the searches as listed. He explained that “it wasn’t expected that [he] would provide any of the tweets. Of which, the one that was discussed,^{Footnote 96} was not even publicly available”. Mr. Dattani explained that he “needed to provide all of [his] information so the government could effectively do the searches at one through five.”

Mr. Dattani further advised in the course of our interview that “through all the layers of the government information that is available they make it clear that if it trips a flag, that they engage in things like security interviews or interviews of financial status to see if it could be mitigated or if it could be a risk”. Mr. Dattani stated:

If anybody found anything that they wanted to talk to me about, it explains the opportunity to do it. I have spoken at so many panels, I can’t even remember all of them. My understanding was that government would do the checks, including the check at number five as set out in the document (including checking all publicly available records).

Mr. Dattani was asked in the course of our interview, whether or not, with the benefit of hindsight and what is going on in the world—which we described as “the Middle East crisis”—he would complete the documentation and forms differently today. Mr. Dattani’s answer in this respect was “no.” He then added, “I would fill these pieces of paper out the same way today. I was aware of the time and place that we found ourselves in. I did not consider filling it out differently, while mindful of the world that we found ourselves in.”

The Background Check Consent Form^{Footnote 97} also requested that Mr. Dattani list all employment over the last 10 years, with no gaps and to indicate periods of unemployment:

VI. Factual findings and analysis – Report Regarding Appointment of the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (21)

Additional instructions regarding how to complete the employment section of this form is set out below:

VI. Factual findings and analysis – Report Regarding Appointment of the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (22)

The CV and Background Check Consent Form that Mr. Dattani completed both contained gaps in employment. As a result, on April 2, 2024, Mr. Dattani was asked to provide information to address those gaps. The gaps in his employment history were identified as being from December 2015 to

June 2016 and September 2016 to January 2017. Mr. Dattani identified those as periods of unemployment. When asked about this in the course of our interview, Mr. Dattani advised that the “missing time periods were periods of unemployment. I forgot to include the periods of unemployment….That was just an innocent lapse of me not putting it in.”

Subsequent to our interview with Mr. Dattani,^{Footnote 98} he provided Supplementary Materials for our consideration, which we reviewed. In those Supplementary Materials, Mr. Dattani stated “while I provided a fulsome response to this during this investigation, I will take this opportunity to clarify any confusion with respect to my names in the Background Check consent form Box A.”

Mr. Dattani further explained, in writing:

My ‘surname at birth’ and ‘surname’ have remained the same for the entirety of my life, which is Dattani;
“Full given names” refers to the full name given to me at birth (as opposed to adopted names), which was Birju Rajnikant; this appears in some legal documents……, but not other legal documents……Other that the references to ‘Birju Rajnikant’ appearing in the items listed in this paragraph^{Footnote 99}, I do not use ‘Birju Rajnikant” in any public facing documents.
All other names used are Birju, Mujahid and Birju M. (which is rendered in the pdf [the Background Check Consent Form] as Birju Mujahid and Birju M. – the missing comma between Birju and Mujahid is an unintended typo, and my name has never appeared in anything public facing as hyphenated Birju-Mujahid).
Public facing documents either appear as ‘Birju Dattani’, Mujahid Dattani’, Birju M. Dattani’, ‘Birju Mujahid Dattani’ or (exceedingly rarely) ‘B.M. Dattani’, where the latter is simply initials combined with my surname. The single document with ‘B.M. Dattani’ is not public facing, and I am unaware of any public facing documents that contain ‘B.M. Dattani’.
I prefer to be called “Birju Dattani” and have preferred this for a few years – since approximately 2017. I did not have a preference which name (either Birju or Mujahid) that anybody used, other than my explanation at point f, below
As I mentioned in the investigation, Arab speakers (of any faith, and whether native Arabic-speakers or not) struggle with my first name (Birju) – they do not struggle with my adopted middle name (Mujahid). Consequently, I would use the name Mujahid where the audience was Muslim and often Jewish-Israeli, as Israelis of Jewish identity have a knowledge of the Arabic language. I have provided a few additional examples of where I have appeared as “Mujahid Dattani” […]
I have appeared as “Birju Mujahid Dattani” in at least two books that I am aware of…^{Footnote 100}
Given all of the above, the permutations and combinations have been as I described at point d. My twitter handle was my adopted middle name + my surname. I didn’t think to supply the twitter handle @mujahid_dattani as I wouldn’t have thought of a “twitter handle” to be a “nickname, pseudonym or married name” at box ‘A’ in the background consent form…In any event, I would not have considered a twitter handle I had abandoned nine years earlier in response to the request to supply “all other names used”, as @mujahid_dattani was neither a nickname nor was it a pseudonym. [Emphasis in original.]

(f) Factual Findings in Respect of the Application Process, Interview, and Information Provided by Mr. Dattani (Allegation 14)

We have considered all of the information provided to us and given the totality of the evidence, including but not limited to the forms, the information provided to us in our interview with Mr. Dattani and the information provided in the Supplemental Materials, we have made the findings below.

(i) Application Process and Interview in 2022

We find that during the initial application stage in June 2022, on Mr. Dattani’s CV, he listed his name as “Birju Dattani”. This was largely consistent with the other documents from the application process in June 2022.

We find that, with the exception of the societies that Mr. Dattani was involved in while at SOAS on his CV, Mr. Dattani provided no details or additional information with respect to his past scholarship, speaking engagements, or presentations.

We find that Mr. Dattani did not include “Rajnikant” or initial “R.” in the section requesting his “Given name(s)” on the Candidate Declaration Form completed in June 2022. In addition, the name “Mujahid” or initial “M.” is not listed anywhere on this Candidate Declaration Form.

We find that Mr. Dattani did not include his middle name (either “Rajnikant” or “Mujahid” or any initials) on any documents provided in June 2022.

We find, during the interview conducted on June 17, 2022, Mr. Dattani was provided with an opportunity to speak about his experiences, education and ability to perform the role of Chief Commissioner of the CHRC. During the course of the interview, Mr. Dattani was also provided with an opportunity to raise any past scholarship, speaking engagements, academic interests, activities, or any other information which may have been relevant to the Selection Committee and/or other members of the Government considering and selecting the candidate to become Chief Commissioner.

In respect of the interview conducted on June 17, 2022, the evidence as to what was discussed during Mr. Dattani’s interview was relatively consistent. We find that, during the interview, Mr. Dattani was specifically asked the following questions:

Q. Do you have, or do you think you might have, any actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest with respect to serving in this position?; and

Q. Is there anything in your personal or professional background, whether current or past, that could, if it were to become known, bring disrepute to the Government of Canada?

In response, Mr. Dattani answered “no” to both of these questions, without elaboration or additional information.

We further find that Mr. Dattani did not disclose any of his past scholarship, speaking engagements, presentations, or activities, in respect of allegations raised in the “Media Reports” in 2022 or 2024, verbally or in writing.

(ii) The Forms and Additional Information Provided between March 18, 2024 and April 2, 2024

Having considered the totality of the information provided in respect of the completion of the GIC Appointments Candidate Declaration and Certification Form and the Background Check Consent Form on March 31, 2024, we find Mr. Dattani’s explanation as to why “Mujahid Dattani” was not listed under “[a]ll other names used” lacks credibility.

We have made this finding for several reasons:

“Pseudonym” is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “a false or fictitious name, esp. one assumed by an author; an alias.” “Nickname” is defined by the Oxford English

Dictionary as “a (usually familiar or humorous) name which is given to a person, place, etc., as a supposedly appropriate replacement for or addition to the proper name”.^{Footnote 101}

The Background Check Consent Form, given its plain and ordinary meaning and in light of the definitions above, makes a clear distinction between “Full given names” and “All other names used (e.g. nickname, pseudonym, married name)”. We do not accept that Mr. Dattani misunderstood what was being requested in this form.
Mr. Dattani advised that “Mujahid” is not one of his given names but one he has adopted.
Mr. Dattani has used “Mujahid Dattani” for many speaking engagements and on Twitter (the details of which are set in more detail earlier in this Report), for those reasons, by definition, “Mujahid Dattani” is either a pseudonym and/or nickname.
Mr. Dattani’s had a demonstrated past practice of selecting different names at different times and for different matters (whether academic or otherwise) depending on the audience or the forum.

On a balance of probabilities and based on the totality of evidence, we find that Mr. Dattani intentionally omitted the reference to “Mujahid Dattani” on the Background Check Consent Form (and elsewhere) and at no time in the application or interview process disclosed that, in the past, he had used the name “Mujahid Dattani”.

We do not find his explanation provided following our interview and as set out in the Supplementary Materials that there was a comma missing between “Birju” and “Mujahid” to be credible.

We also find that Mr. Dattani did not include periods of unemployment until specifically requested to provide information related to gaps in his employment history.

Based on how Mr. Dattani filled out the Background Check Consent Form, we find that Mr. Dattani disclosed that he used the name “Birju Mujahid Dattani” or “Birju M. Dattani” for the first time when he sent in the Background Check Consent Form on April 2, 2024. We further find that Mr. Dattani did not disclose the name “Mujahid Dattani” on the Background Check and Consent Form or at any time during the application or interview process.

If you have any questions or require any additional information with respect to the above, please let us know.

Sarah C. Crossley
Date: July 29, 2024

Laura J. Freitag
Date: July 29, 2024

Previous Page
Table of Contents