A photo of a protest in Canada in support of women in Iran.
A protest in Canada in support of women in Iran. Credit: Taymaz Valley / Wikimedia Commons Credit: Taymaz Valley / Wikimedia Commons

In recent months, Canada has been increasingly preoccupied with two countries gripped by massive anti-government protests: Haiti and Iran. Yet Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s “feminist” foreign policy has cynically framed and engaged with these uprisings in contrasting ways – exposing how Ottawa acts for strategic imperialist interests, not moral principles.

Upon the request of the Haitian government last month, Canada and the U.S. have been seriously considering an international military intervention in the country. Ottawa seeks to resolve what it describes as a “security” emergency – namely, the violence of gangs that have taken over, which Foreign Minister Melanie Joly has framed as particularly affecting “women and girls.” 

As evidence of their feminist motive, the Canadian government cites its provision of millions in “gender-responsive humanitarian assistance” to Haiti this year. Ottawa has already sent armoured vehicles to the country to help the Haitian police quell “criminal actors” – claiming “Haiti needs us,” and that Canadians “have to intervene.” 

On one level, such paternalism reflects a tired racist and misogynist trope in which benevolent white countries feel obliged to save Black women from the brutality of Black men. 

Beyond that, Ottawa’s narrative completely overlooks the root cause of Haiti’s current upheaval: popular protests that have called on the unelected Prime Minister, Ariel Henry, to step-down amid the country’s deepening cost-of-living crisis, and that oppose the impulse of outside actors, such as Canada, to intervene.

After the assassination of president Jovenel Moïse last year, Henry was effectively appointed as Haiti’s leader by the U.S., Canada and other “Core Group” members, which are perceived to control the country’s internal affairs. Obeying the International Monetary Fund, Henry cut fuel subsidies in September – fuelling the anger of the demonstrators, given its impact on their livelihood.

In the name of feminism, then, Canada seeks to prop up an illegitimate leader against the will of protesters, including women, who want their sovereignty respected – and who reject a long history of foreign interference that has only worsened their material conditions. 

Of course, there is little acknowledgement on Ottawa’s part as to how Canada’s past anti-feminist behaviour toward Haiti undermines the credibility of its current saviourism. The scandal-ridden MINUSTAH occupation (2004-2017), for example, involved sexual misconduct on the part of UN peacekeepers, including the abandonment of women and girls whom they impregnated. Some alleged perpetrators were Canadian, who were not held accountable. 

There’s also the original sin of this century: the Canadian-backed 2004 coup d’etat of the democratically-elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, one of whose transgressions was attempting to double the minimum wage – threatening the profits of Western companies that super-exploit the country’s workforce. Early this year, garment workers, some of whom produce for Canadian manufacturer Gildan Activewear, protested to demand higher wages. Ottawa did not express support for the predominantly female labourers, even as the Canadian-funded Haitian police cracked down on the protesters. 

Evidently, Canada fails to look in the mirror when feminism becomes inconvenient and counterproductive to its imperialist objectives – which is to deny Haitian self-determination and defend Canadian economic interests, including mining. 

Ottawa’s attitude toward Haiti is curiously flipped in the case of Iran. The latest protests in that country were sparked by the death in police custody of Mahsa “Jina” Amini, a woman of Kurdish minoritized background, after she was detained for not wearing the hijab according to government rules. Women- and youth-led demonstrations for greater freedoms have been met with repression and violence from the authorities.

Unlike in Haiti, however, the Trudeau government is conspicuously supportive of these demonstrators. Joly is eager to host a meeting of women foreign ministers to show solidarity, or to sign an open letter in the New York Times alongside Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland to condemn the Iranian government’s record on women’s rights. The main policy response has been to impose sanctions on top individuals and entities associated with the government.

Trudeau, in his usual grandstanding ways, recently joined a solidarity protest in Ottawa. Though the Liberals have not called for regime change as blatantly as the Conservative opposition, the Prime Minister at that event equated its prospect with a “better” Iran. His American counterpart, President Joe Biden said, “we’re going to free Iran,” before adding in a quick correction that “they’re going to free themselves.”

Iranians certainly deserve solidarity for their exercise of self-determination and push for social advancement. But pressures from foreign governments – particularly hostile Western ones – must always be scrutinized. Decades of interventions have destabilized the Middle East, including Iran, and sabotaged its natural historical progress. 

In the context of the region, the disproportionate attention Canada places toward Iran is noteworthy, given its cautious approach to Saudi Arabia – which not only represses women within its borders, but uses Canadian-made weapons to kill Yemeni women. Ottawa is also silent on Israel, which has received increasing amounts of Canadian-supplied arms and uses them to kill Palestinian women. 

And yet, unlike with Tehran, Ottawa maintains diplomatic relations with both of those countries – reflecting a willingness to engage even where there may be difficulties, as in the case of Riyadh. 

The point here is not to engage in “whataboutery,” but to highlight the deeply hypocritical and selective fashion with which feminism is invoked. When a news story breaks about Iran violating women’s rights, Ottawa is quick to capitalize on the development because that country’s government is an adversary to Western power in the region – and especially to key ally Israel. Partners of the West, however, largely receive a free pass to commit atrocities against women.

A “better” Iran for Trudeau, or a “free” Iran for Biden, do not actually require more rights for women or a less repressive state, but rather any government in Tehran that would submit to Western imperialism as defined by economic and security interests.

This is even clearer when directly comparing the examples of Haiti and Iran. In Haiti, Ottawa weaponizes the safety of women in backing an unelected leader, despite the demands of protesters; in Iran, the Canadian government invokes women’s rights to support demonstrators against repressive authorities.

Which government deserves support versus which protesters warrant solidarity, or how women are framed – these contradictions reinforce that moralistic appeals in Ottawa’s foreign policy are ultimately used to disguise and advance strategic interests. One may recall how the brutal invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, in which Canada was a participant, was also justified as a feminist intervention. 

There is also the more fundamental question of Ottawa’s moral authority to judge or comment on women’s rights abroad. For example, Canada’s colonial treatment of Indigenous women – who are vastly overrepresented in prison, making up about half of federal inmates – suggests it first needs to work on its own human-rights record before earning the credibility to “help” other countries on feminist grounds. 

Whether in Haiti or Iran, women do not need Canada’s help; they will continue on their historical march toward a dignified, self-determined future. But when Ottawa claims to care for them, Canadians should remember that it is motivated only by imperialism – and challenge any push for intervention that would deny such peoples their sovereignty.