A thorn in the government’s side
Toronto lawyer Rocco Galati has been called a ‘one-man opposition’
Rocco Galati insists he is neither cynical, nor jaded.
But over the course of a 45-minute chat this week, the Toronto lawyer attacked the government for being a “machine” that doesn’t care for the little guy, called the war on terror “phoney,” said judicial appointments aren’t based on merit but who you know, and suggested that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service is likely listening in on his calls.
Jaded or not, the Italian-born Galati, known for his florid — some might say over-the-top — language, has carved a reputation for being a thorn in the side of the federal government.
He stuck it to the government when he successfully challenged the appointment of Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court of Canada. Now, he’s at it again with a court challenge against changes to the Citizenship Act that allow the government to revoke the Canadian citizenship of dual citizens convicted of terrorism or treason.
“You have to be a fighter if you’re an immigrant, a minority, except he doesn’t use his fists; he uses his brain,” said Manuel Azevedo, a Vancouver lawyer who has known Galati for years and calls him a “one-man opposition.”
Last month, Immigration Minister Chris Alexander called Galati a “disgraced, ideological former lawyer of the Khadr family,” referring to the fact that Galati once represented Abdurahman Khadr, the older brother of convicted war criminal Omar Khadr.
Galati insists he is not driven by ideology or politics (“I sued the Liberal government more than I can count,” he said), and denounced Alexander for resorting to mudslinging. “Instead of trying to deal with the message, he tries to denigrate the messenger. That’s not a responsible minister.”
Galati, 55, has had to develop a thick skin over more than two decades of defending terror suspects and other individuals pegged for deportation.
He counts among his influences his no-nonsense constructionworker father and growing up in Toronto’s Little Italy at a time when police, he said, did not hesitate to take their billy clubs to teens congregating on the street.
After a brief stint as a tax litigator for the Department of Justice, Galati went into private practice and devoted himself to “cases against the government.”
“You need a lawyer when the government’s after you. Private disputes you should be able to settle. But the government’s a machine,” he said. “Often there’s little room for negotiation. It’s all or nothing.”
In 1992, while honeymooning in Vancouver, Galati agreed to help a Salvadoran family whose refugee claims had been denied re-apply for admission to Canada as immigrants.
In the years that followed, he represented a Ghanian couple in a lawsuit that alleged blacks were targeted for deportation more than other groups; sued the Immigration and Refugee Board, alleging that appointments to the board were based on patronage; and took on the cause of Falun Gong practitioners who alleged intimidation from the Chinese government.
He also represented Mahmoud Jaballah and Mohamed Mahjoub, Egyptian refugees branded terrorists by the federal government. Galati famously walked out of a Federal Court hearing in 2002, calling the proceedings against Jaballah a “sham.”
Following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Galati appeared before a House committee and slammed the government’s proposed anti-terror legislation, saying it was “obscene in the net it casts” and would unfairly target Muslims and Arabs. “You might as well have deleted the Constitution from our landscape,” he testified.
Galati’s defence of terror suspects made him a target of death threats. The threats became serious enough that he announced in late 2003 that he was withdrawing from all national security cases.
He cited a voice mail from someone who did not like that he had helped secure Abdurahman Khadr’s release from U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. “You a dead wop,” the voice said.
Galati was convinced then, and maintains today, that the threat was not run-of-the-mill. “This was institutional, this was governmental,” he said this week, declining to elaborate.
Fellow Toronto lawyer Paul Slansky said they had tried to get police protection for Galati but were turned down. “This was real. When we were going outside, I was checking the rooftops for snipers,” he recalled.
But Galati couldn’t stay away for long. Three years later, he represented one of the suspects rounded up in the “Toronto 18” terrorism case.
During one hearing, after the judge said he would let court security decide if one of the suspects could access his reading glasses, Galati asked the judge if each suspect could be provided with a Qur’an, “unless that’s also a threat to his security.”
“Sir, don’t toy with me — I don’t like it,” the judge reportedly said.
Galati rankled the judiciary a few years later when he successfully
Galati famously walked out of a Federal Court hearing in 2002, calling the proceedings against Jaballah a ‘sham.’
filed a Constitutional challenge against the Federal Court’s practice of appointing deputy judges who were over the age of 75, and again last fall when he challenged Nadon’s appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada, arguing that he did not meet the criteria to fill one of three Quebec seats.
Slansky said the challenge was not intended as a personal attack on Nadon. “We were concerned for some time that the federal government had been, and was going to try to continue to, stack the Supreme Court with people with a strong ideological perspective supporting the Conservative government.”
Without an independent judiciary, you’re left with a dictatorship, Galati said.
As with the challenge against Nadon’s appointment, the challenge against changes to the Citizenship Act is similarly aimed at ensuring the government’s basic adherence to the Constitution, Galati said. “If you’re born here that’s the end of the discussion. The federal government has no jurisdiction over citizenship.”
Alexis Pavlich, a spokeswoman for the immigration minister, said in an email this week: “Canadians gave us a strong mandate to protect and strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship.”
So does Galati have anything positive to say about the current state of government? He said that he doesn’t pretend to know everything the government does. But, he said, we can’t take governance for granted and must remain vigilant over our rights.
“I’m neither cynical, jaded, nor pessimistic,” he said. “I’m simply an optimist with too much experience, OK?”