After more than 20 months of silence, Elizabeth May finally used the word “genocide” to describe Israel’s actions in Gaza on June 10. During a press conference for the Canada–Palestine Parliamentary Friendship Group, she stated:
“What we see now is a genocide… The genocide must end… Israel is seen as a country that practices genocide… and that is horrific.”
Elizabeth May at June 10th press conference
Although this marks a rhetorical pivot for May, critics argue its timing and framing remain deeply inadequate.
⸻
Yves Engler: “Activist Language Has Moved to ‘Holocaust’”
Montreal-based activist Yves Engler said May’s use of “genocide” is right, but insufficient:
“Elizabeth May should be applauded for finally employing the word ‘genocide’ to describe Israel’s actions in Gaza… better late than never. While Israel is undoubtedly committing genocide, that term no longer captures the utter horror of Israel’s actions. Increasingly activists are labelling Israel’s actions in Gaza a ‘holocaust.’”
Engler’s observation highlights that grassroots discourse has already escalated past May’s current framing.
⸻
Jane Sterk: “20 Months of Silence—Unbelievable”
Jane Sterk, former leader of the British Columbia Green Party, expressed profound disillusionment:
“I don’t trust this as real change and will never again support the Green Party of Canada as long as she remains its leader. 20 months of silence—unbelievable!”
Sterk’s words signal a critical fracture among Green supporters due to May’s prolonged inaction.
⸻
Alex Tyrrell: “Genocide Words Require Sanctions, NATO Reversal”
Green Party of Québec leader Alex Tyrrell welcomed May’s use of the term but demanded more:
“The Green Party of Canada should be leading the way on the fight for justice and peace in the world. I welcome May’s change in rhetoric but it follows a pattern of reluctant support for Palestine with numerous backtracks and inconsistent statements. I hope she will… call for meaningful economic and political sanctions on the entire state of Israel. If she does that, drops her support for NATO, increased military spending and escalation of tensions with Russia and China she may be able to begin rebuilding her credibility within the peace movement but significant damage has been done.”
Tyrrell emphasized that real credibility must follow with decisive policy action.
⸻
Victoria Archad: Too Hesitant to Lead
Former Quebec and federal Green Party candidate Victoria Archad commented sharply:
“Sadly she is hesitant to be innovative. A cautious person.”
Archad’s critique echoes a growing call for visionary and timely leadership—qualities she suggests May has failed to demonstrate.
⸻
Ryan Newbergher: “Sheep-Herding the Left”
Former Quebec Green candidate Ryan Newbergher warned May’s tactics may be sidelining genuine radical energy:
“And what about Ukraine, Sudan, Myanmar… whatever happened to the anti‑war left? Her job is to sheep‑herd any left energy back into Liberals and NDP. It’s gross and she’s feckless. Enough with these unprincipled leftists.”
Newbergher argues that May’s cautious approach risks co-opting dedication to justice into mainstream party politics, diluting its transformative potential.
⸻
Bottom Line
Elizabeth May’s long-overdue use of the word “genocide” marks a rhetorical milestone—but without accompanying action, it risks sounding hollow. Activists, former leaders, and party insiders now demand:
• Economic and political sanctions against Israel,
• A public renunciation of NATO alignment while rejecting increased military spending
• Consistent solidarity with global anti-war justice movements.
Words matter—but as Tyrrell, Engler, Sterk, Archad, and Newbergher make clear, only policies and principles will decide whether May’s pivot is genuine—or yet another moment of performative alignment with popular pressure.
