Silencing Dissent: The arrest of Yves Engler and the criminalization of political speech in Canada

Editor’s Note: Yves Engler is a contributor to Mondoweiss. His work can be found here.

The criminal charges laid against Montreal-based author and activist Yves Engler should concern anyone who values freedom of expression and the rule of law in Canada. Engler, known for his outspoken critiques of Canadian foreign policy and Israel’s actions in Gaza, has been charged with harassment and indecent communication for responding to the social media posts of pro-Israel influencer Dahlia Kurtz. Disturbingly, he now faces additional charges merely for writing about his own case.

This case raises fundamental questions about the criminalization of political speech, the use of law enforcement to silence dissent, and whether Canada is sliding into a pattern of repression that weaponizes the justice system against pro-Palestinian voices.

Weaponizing the legal system against political speech

On February 21, Engler turned himself in to Montreal police after being informed that he was being charged with harassment for publicly responding to Kurtz’s posts on X (formerly Twitter). Kurtz, a media personality known for inflammatory rhetoric, claimed Engler’s responses made her feel unsafe, despite the fact that she had never blocked him—a basic feature on X designed to prevent unwanted interactions.

Engler has made it clear that he never directly contacted Kurtz, nor sent her private messages, nor followed her on X. “I’ve never met Kurtz. Nor have I messaged or emailed her. Nor have I threatened her. I don’t even follow her on X,” he stated​. His comments were public, critical of her pro-Israel stance, and—while pointed—fell squarely within the domain of protected political speech.

His arrest and charges raise serious concerns about the misuse of the criminal justice system to stifle legitimate criticism of state and media narratives. That Kurtz is reportedly represented by a law firm linked to Conservative Party candidate Neil Oberman—who has been involved in multiple lawsuits against critics of Israel—further underscores the political nature of this case​.

Shortly after his arrest, Engler wrote about the charges against him, discussing his case publicly. In response, Montreal police laid additional charges of intimidation, harassment, and interference with law enforcement. According to Engler, these charges stem from an investigator, Crivello, who claimed to feel threatened by his public commentary​.

To describe these additional charges as absurd would be an understatement. It is a hallmark of democratic societies that individuals can publicly discuss their own legal battles. The notion that Engler’s writing about his case constitutes intimidation of law enforcement sets a dangerous precedent—one that could be used to punish and silence any individual who dares to criticize the justice system.

Furthermore, Engler has reported serious procedural violations during his detention. While being held at Montreal’s Bordeaux jail, he was reportedly denied access to his lawyer, was not given pen and paper to take notes, and was prevented from fully participating in his hearing. Such restrictions violate basic due process rights and raise questions about the fairness of the proceedings against him.

A gag order disguised as a bail condition

Following the additional charges, the prosecution offered to release Engler on Friday—but only if he agreed not to discuss the case publicly or name Kurtz​. Engler refused the condition, correctly identifying it as a flagrant violation of his constitutional rights.

There is no strong legal precedent in Canada for outright prohibiting an accused from commenting on their own case, particularly in a political context. Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 2(b) guarantees freedom of expression, and courts have historically ruled that any restriction on speech must serve a compelling public interest, such as preventing harm or obstruction of justice.

The imposition of speech-restrictive bail conditions is notoriously difficult to justify under Canadian law. Canadian courts have ruled that broad speech restrictions in bail conditions were unconstitutional because they were not narrowly tailored to preventing real harm​. Similarly, in R. v. Oakes (1986), the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that any limitation on Charter rights must be proportionate and must minimally impair freedoms.

Based on available information, Engler’s case does not meet this legal threshold. His speech did not incite violence, nor did it pose a credible threat to public safety. Instead, it was engaged in a critical discussion about political actors and their narratives. Criminalizing such speech is an affront to the principles of a democratic society.

A chilling pattern of repression

Engler’s arrest is not an isolated incident. Pro-Palestinian voices across Canada have faced growing legal and political suppression in recent months.

• In November 2023, Calgary police arrested Palestinian-Canadian activist Wesam Khaled for chanting “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” at a protest. While the charges were later dropped, the case had the intended chilling effect—discouraging others from exercising their free speech rights​.
• In January 2024, Birju Dattani, Canada’s former human rights chief commissioner, was forced to resign before assuming his role after facing a coordinated attack over his past comments on Palestine​. Dattani is now suing Conservative MP Melissa Lantsman, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), and Rebel News’ Ezra Levant for defamation, arguing that their attacks were deliberate and politically motivated​.

These and many other less high-profile cases signal a troubling shift in how free expression is being policed in Canada.

A legal and moral crisis

The criminal charges against Engler and the prosecution’s attempt to impose a gag order as a bail condition are clear violations of fundamental rights. If this case is allowed to stand, it will set a dangerous precedent—one where criticizing a public figure on social media can lead to criminal harassment charges, and where police can punish individuals simply for speaking about their own legal cases.

These charges go beyond stifling speech to cross into the realm of oppression and persecution of a dissident. Based on available details, there is no reasonable prospect of conviction, and the charges will most likely be withdrawn or dropped. But the damage is already done.

Bringing negative attention to an accused upends their life, damages their reputation, and chills them—and others—from future activism. Even seasoned activists will think twice before expressing opposition to even ethnic cleansing and possible genocide. The suppressors have already achieved their goal.

I, too, have a long list of pro-genocide supporters who have harassed, doxxed, and threatened me. Should we expect them to be arrested next? Or does the law only apply selectively, used as a weapon against critics of power?

Engler’s bail hearing is scheduled for Monday, 9:00 a.m. at the Palais de Justice, Montreal (1 Notre Dame East, Room 3.12). His case is not just about his own legal battle—it is about whether Canada still upholds its commitment to free expression, or whether it will allow the criminalization of dissent.

The author reached out to the Montreal Police and the Public Prosecution’s office for comment, but they did not respond by the time of publication.

Update (2/25/2025):

Yves Engler was released on bail on February 24 after rejecting the prosecution’s attempt to bar him from naming Dahlia Kurtz. While he agreed not to tag her on social media, he remains free to speak openly about his case and those behind it, including Federal Conservative Party candidate and lawyer Neil G. Oberman. This is a clear setback for those who sought to silence him, but the larger issue of prosecutorial overreach and the criminalization of dissent remains unresolved.