By Fareed Khan
A version of this article can be found on Substack.
On May 29,
2024, outside Ottawa’s EY Centre, a 21‑year‑old Palestinian‑Canadian
woman in a hijab protesting a defence contractors conference was punched in the
face and knocked to the ground by a Swiss man attending the CANSEC expo. When she
told him he was “actively supporting genocide” by attending, he responded with
his fist. That moment was brutal, racist, and unmistakably criminal—but it was not when Canada’s
justice system failed her. The failure came earlier this week inside an
Ottawa courtroom, when Justice Norman Boxall decided that this assault deserved
no conviction, no sentence, and no meaningful consequence at all.
The facts are not in dispute. David Henschel, a 58‑year‑old
Swiss national and employee of defence contractor Rheinmetall Waffe Munition
Schweiz AG, encountered multiple protesters on his way to CANSEC. According to
agreed facts read in court, one protester called him a racist. Henschel
replied, “I’m
a f---ing racist and I’m proud of it.” He then crossed the street,
where the young woman told him his presence meant he was supporting genocide
and said, “Shame on you, sir.” In response Henschel swung his arm and struck
her in the face with a closed fist, dropping her to the ground, then forcefully
shoved another protester before continuing toward the conference.
He was arrested and eventually pled guilty to
assault in a 2025
court hearing. During sentencing submissions in June 2026, he tried to
explain the attack away with claims of low
blood sugar and PTSD,
supported by a psychiatrist whose assessment relied largely on Henschel’s own
self‑reporting. The Crown rightly challenged this as a thin, self‑serving
narrative designed to minimize responsibility for a targeted attack on a
visibly Muslim woman at a peaceful protest.
Then, on July
22, 2026, Justice Norman Boxall delivered the real blow—not to Henschel,
but to the victim and to public faith in the courts. He granted
an absolute discharge—a
finding of guilt with no conviction, no probation, no conditions, and no sentence
tied to the assault itself. The only financial consequence—a $5,000 surcharge—was
imposed not for the attack, but because Henschel had failed to appear in person
at an earlier sentencing date.¹
Boxall went further. He rejected the Crown’s
argument that the assault was fuelled by racist and hateful attitudes, despite
Henschel’s own declaration that he was a racist and proud of it, delivered
moments before he punched a Palestinian‑Canadian woman in a hijab. He framed
the assault as a “frustrated and emotional response,” a “situational” lapse,
and accepted the defence’s request for no conviction.
This was not neutral judging in support of justice
for the victim. It was judicial
complicity in the minimization of racist violence.
When a judge watches a video showing a man
openly proclaiming himself a racist, sees him striking a visibly Muslim woman in
the face at a peaceful protest, hears witnesses confirm the details of the
events, and reads victim impact statements describing the assault as part of a
broader pattern of anti‑Palestinian and anti‑Muslim hostility—yet still
concludes the attack was not motivated by racism—that judge has not made simply
made an error. Rather he is declaring, through his ruling, that racism against
Palestinians and Muslims does not count in his courtroom. And a judge who
cannot recognize racism in a case this blatant has no business sitting on the
bench or presiding over matters of justice.
The victim’s father, Bassam Hashem, captured the
reality outside court when he said, “We came to this country for one reason . .
. that we can express ourselves. That we are equal citizens. Today we were
told, ‘No. You are second‑class citizens. You can be assaulted and that’s OK.’”
Hashem’s children no longer attend demonstrations.
They no longer feel safe. That is the direct consequence of Boxall’s ruling: a
chilling effect on protest, a message to racialized communities that their
safety is negotiable, and a public declaration that a racist assault on a
Palestinian‑Canadian woman can be washed away as a momentary emotional lapse.
The Crown has already filed a notice of appeal,
calling the sentence “demonstrably
unfit.” They are right. But the problem is not only the
sentence—it is the judge. A justice who cannot recognize racism when a
perpetrator announces it; who accepts low‑blood‑sugar excuses over the lived
reality of a targeted attack; who treats a violent assault on a peaceful
protester as discharge‑worthy has forfeited the moral authority required to sit
on the bench.
This is not a marginal disagreement over sentencing
philosophy. It is a failure of judgment
so profound that it undermines the promise that “everyone is equal before the law.”
Justice Norman Boxall should not remain on the
bench. At minimum, he should be subjected to serious remedial training on hate‑motivated
violence, anti‑Palestinian and anti‑Muslim racism, and the rights of
protesters. But the deeper truth is more disturbing. A judge who refuses to see
racism in a case like this cannot be trusted to adjudicate cases involving
racialized communities at all.
On May 29,
2024, a Muslim Palestinian‑Canadian woman was assaulted for daring to
confront an arms dealer about genocide. On July 22, 2026, the Ontario Court of Justice told her, in effect,
that her attacker’s comfort mattered more than her safety, her dignity, or her
rights.
Only one of those events was unavoidable—and it
wasn’t the ruling.
If Canada is serious about equal justice, this
decision cannot stand. The appeal must succeed. And the judge whose reasoning
turned a racist assault into a consequence‑free discharge should be held to
account, not quietly shielded by the institution he has just disgraced.
Justice for the victim is not a discharge. Justice
is accountability for the person who committed the crime. And on that measure, Justice Norman Boxall has failed.
© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.
