Local News
Thoughts on Sid Green
By GRANT MITCHELL (Grant Mitchell is a well-known lawyer in Winnipeg whose father, Leon Mitchell, was Sid Green’s law partner for many years.
Following are remarks Grant delivered at the meal of remembrance which was held following Sid Green’s funeral on June 9:
Sid was a Gold medallist in law in the class of 1955.
He knew that my Dad, Leon Mitchell, was in sole practice in the Confederation Building. Leon was 13 years older than Sid but graduated just the year before. Leon had been the business agent for the Civic Employees Union of the City of Winnipeg before and during law school, and his union connections gave him a client base to start a practice.
After obtaining his call to the Bar, Sid attended Leon’s office and informed him, “You need me.”
Leon was taken aback. He was physically disabled from a major bout of Guillen-Barre syndrome, but felt fully capable of practising solo. He told Sid he didn’t need anyone.
Sid told Leon, “You don’t understand. I don’t mean you need me to advise clients, I mean I can do the physical side for you, attending court and hearings and other functions that require mobility.”
With that understanding, they became Mitchell & Green, and later Mitchell, Green and Minuk when Sam Minuk joined the firm. They were the only labour firm in Winnipeg at that time that acted exclusively on the Union side.
In around 1960, a Mitchell & Green client did not have the money to pay for his legal fees and offered the partially constructed cottage he was building at Big Whiteshell Lake to the firm as payment, with the excess to be refunded to the client. Sid and Leon became co-owners of that cottage. For years it had no plumbing and an incomplete ceiling. When Leon died in 1987, Sid got the cottage.
When Sid went into politics, Leon supported the move, and in fact delivered the nomination speech for Sid to be leader of the NDP when he ran against Russ Paulley and then Ed Schreyer.
When Sid was made a Cabinet Minister in the Schreyer government in 1969, Leon also left practice to go into public service, as Chair of the Municipal Board, Chair of the Mental Review Board and Commissioner in the Churchill Forest Industries inquiry. Sam Minuk became a Provincial Judge. It was the end of Mitchell Green and Minuk. That practice was the foundation of what has become the Myers firm.
Sid and Leon’s paths would cross again when Leon was mediator of the Northern Flood Agreement and Sid was the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro.
They had been professional partners with profound mutual respect, but they were also personal friends and remained so for the rest of Leon’s life.
Leon had a huge admiration for people he thought were unusually intelligent. Sid was at or near the top of that list.
At the funeral, I spoke of Sid’s relationship with my father, Leon Mitchell.
I will just add that during their years at the Confederation Building and then in the Crown Trust Building, they hired an articling student named Bill Rachman, who made Sid and Leon nervous about everything he did. When the articling period ended, Sid told Leon that notwithstanding their reservations about Bill’s ethics and practicing skills, Bill would be far more financially successful than either Sid or Leon. Leon agreed. They were correct.
When Sid returned to private practice after his time in government, the unions and he had a falling out and he found himself acting against unions rather than on their behalf
Sid’s philosophy on unions was that protective labour laws produced weak unions, who would not represent their members’ interests effectively. He felt that Wagner Act type labour legislation, now universal in North America, was a tragic compromise by unions. He believed that the recognition strike and the wildcat strike were fundamental weapons for successful trade unions, and that certification of unions, the duty to bargain in good faith and mandatory grievance arbitration were the poor cousins of the recognition and wildcat strikes. This was opposite to the position of the union movement at that time, which lobbied strenuously for union-friendly legislation in the form of greater and greater regulation of the union employer relationship.
In fact, Sid said that the only labour laws that unions should need were to protect the right to picket, and to take away a court’s power to order a person to work. These 2 provisions are found in sections 56 and 57 of the King’s Bench Act to this day, more than 50 years later, and still known to people of my generation as the “Sid Green amendments”. No injunction to enforce a personal services contract. No injunction to restrict assembly on a public thoroughfare to communicate accurate information, that is, a picket sign.
Sid supplemented professors at the law school, Robson Hall, by delivering several lectures in each term about the fundamentals of labour law. I taught that course for 22 years and I had Sid come for a guest lecture, as he had done in the labour law class when I was a student.
He had a powerful and persuasive way of making his points. For example, he felt that a legislated duty to bargain in good faith was a mistake – let the parties fight it out, and let the stronger survive. If employers don’t bargain genuinely, the response is to hold a strike, not run to the labour board.
“If I offer $1, $2, $3, $5, $10 then I’m bargaining in good faith. If I offer $10, $10, $10, $10, then I’m bargaining in bad faith. But it’s still $10!”
He didn’t like certification and preferred the recognition strike. Settle disputes through battle, not argument. Conflict rather than compromise. He particularly objected to certifying unions by card count as opposed to secret ballot vote. A card signer had no meaningful way of revoking their support for the union if they changed their mind after the union applied for certification.
Sid said, “If I buy a vacuum cleaner from a door to door salesman, under the CPA I have a month to change my mind and get my money back. But if I sign a union card, the next day may be too late to change my mind. Which is more important, having a union take over my bargaining rights, or buying a vacuum cleaner?”
Apart from representing employees against unions, Sid also built a practice of representing lawyers who faced disciplinary action from the Law Society. When he ran to be a bencher, he received more votes than any other candidate, even though he was not affiliated with any of the larger law firms. As a bencher, he would send out a “Report from a Bencher” after each Bencher meeting, giving his analysis on the decisions the Society was making, often critical of the majority.
In so many ways, he believed in a “survival of the fittest” approach to human differences. He did not care for protectionist legislation like Human Rights laws. He particularly objected to affirmative action or any other form of “reverse discrimination”.
In one case I had with him, he was acting for Nabila Malik, an economist in the Cabinet secretariat who had been laid off. I was acting for the employer. He called me to tell me that he wished to amend his statement of claim. “I want to add a paragraph to the claim to say that in letting my client go, the government violated its own affirmative action policy because the policy said that there should be more women in senior civil service positions and yet my client, a woman, was let go when many men in senior civil service positions had remained employed.
“Do you object to my amendment?” “No.”
“You don’t think I believe in that affirmative action bullshit do you?” “I don’t know.”
“I DON’T!” But I say, ‘If you are going to preach bullshit, you have to practice bullshit.’”
Sid took up hockey when he was 50. As a young man, he had been a good athlete, quarterbacking the law school football team. It was a late stage of life to learn to skate and join a new sport but Sid approached it with the same gusto he applied to everything else. When he awoke after cardiac surgery a few years later, his first question was, “Will I still be able to play hockey?” You don’t have to be great at something to love it, as I well know. And Sid loved to play hockey, indoors or out.
An employer client of mine had one of its managers vilified in the union newsletter – the “Golden Turkey Award”. My client said, “We want a lawyer for the manager, and we want that lawyer be one with the kind of reputation that when the other side sees who is threatening to sue them, they will involuntarily cringe uncontrollably.” I gave them 2 names, with Sid’s being the second one. “Sid Green, that name sounds familiar. Who is he?” “Oh, he was once the Minister of Labour in the NDP government, but after he left politics, the unions treated him as a pariah, and now he fights them regularly.” “That’s the guy we want.” Sid took the case. He got a settlement offer so generous that the manager desperately wanted to accept it: full page retraction, apology, substantial payment. He may have been a turkey, but he was not foolish. Sid said it was not enough. He got more, before yielding to the client’s wish to settle. And oh, yeah, there were no more golden turkeys awarded.
Sid loved to litigate. He would rather fight than settle. His adversaries knew that, and as a result, he achieved great settlements. Sid’s rejection of an offer was never a bluff.
He had a fundamental belief in democracy, that the rules should be made by people who were elected, not appointed. If he had the choice, he would prefer to be a law maker rather than a lawyer or judge. He also felt that if a matter was worth taking on, it was worth taking all the way. I doubt that any private lawyer has been involved in more appeals.
Others know more about Sid’s career as a politician than I do. He did love to tell one story about his time in government. In 1975, Bob “Junior” Wilson had just been elected in a Wolseley by-election, narrowly defeating Sid’s friend, D’Arcy McCaffrey. In his first appearance in the Legislative Assembly, Wilson stood up to make his maiden speech. The protocol had long been that when a member speaks for the first time, they give a benign speech about how honoured they are to serve their constituents and how they look forward to working with everyone in the house. Instead, Wilson launched into an attack on the governing Schreyer government, accusing them of every misdeed known to politics, and demanding that they immediately resign and call a general election. It fell to Sid to respond on behalf of the NDP majority.
“The Honourable Member has ignored the usual protocol for new members. I don’t mind that. I have no particular affinity for protocols. I think members should say what they genuinely feel. So I commend the Member for being so frank. I have some difficulty with his message, however. He says that we should resign and cease to govern. But that would be undemocratic. A majority of Manitobans have elected us to run the Province. That is our duty. He may not like it, but the fact is that we are his government. But if he feels badly about that, he should imagine how I feel. He is my member!!”
I’ll close by saying that in Sid’s pre-politics practising days, there were many colourful lawyers that made being a lawyer a fascinating profession. By the time he returned to practice, there were only a few of the wild ones left. The profession needed a gadfly like Sid to make practice fun. The reason he got so many votes from the profession is that Manitoba lawyers recognized that in Sid there was a fearlessness mixed with skill, humour, joy and a profound understanding of the policy reasoning behind the letter of the law. There was no one like him, and I doubt that there will be one. I will miss him.
Local News
Hundreds rally against opening of Nakba exhibit at Human Rights Museum
By NOAH STRAUSS Around 300 people gathered outside the Canadian Museum for Human Rights on Friday during the grand opening of the museum’s newest exhibit, “Palestine Uprooted: Nakba Past and Present.” (Ed. note: The CBC report on the protest said there were “100” people at the rally. I know there were more than 100, but I’m not sure there were 300 either.) The exhibit, which had a limited number of tickets available for opening night, sold out. The Canadian Palestinian Association of Manitoba had originally planned a rally in support of the exhibit’s opening, but it was cancelled just days before the event.
The Nakba, which means “catastrophe” in Arabic, refers to the displacement of an estimated 750,000 Palestinians during the 1947–1949 war surrounding the establishment of the State of Israel. The exhibit has drawn criticism from members of Winnipeg’s Jewish community and others who argue that it does not acknowledge the displacement and persecution of Jewish communities in many Arab and Muslim-majority countries following Israel’s independence and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Historians estimate that between 850,000 and 950,000 Jews left or were expelled from Arab and Muslim-majority countries during the decades surrounding Israel’s establishment. In countries including Iraq, Egypt, and Yemen, many had their property confiscated, while others left because of persecution or increasing hostility.
Supporters of the Jewish community came from all faiths and backgrounds. The Jewish Post spoke with Lisa Lewis, a longtime supporter of the Jewish community.
“I think there is a crisis of antisemitism happening right now,” Lewis said.
She was one of many non-Jewish community members who attended the rally. Lewis said she has been an active ally since the 2000s, helping Argentine immigrants come to Canada. Following the October 7 attacks on Israel, she said she has become a more vocal supporter of the Jewish community. During the rally, she wore a Magen David necklace.
Lewis also criticized the museum’s approach to the exhibit.
“The Jewish community organizations that represent the majority of the Jewish community weren’t consulted on something like this,” she said.
Cindy Clubb, another ally of the Jewish community who attended the rally, also voiced her concerns.
“I grew up with prominent businesspeople and members of the academic and medical communities. I don’t know what we would do without our Jewish cooperation. So I’m up here to support them, and I think all of Winnipeg should be out here,” Clubb said.
One protester, who identified herself as Michelle, said, “We are against the Nakba exhibit. It’s all lies.”
Gustavo Zentner, Vice President of CIJA Manitoba and Saskatchewan, said, “We are calling on Minister Miller to hold the museum leadership accountable. The Minister of Canadian Heritage needs to ensure that national institutions are not weaponized against Canadians to serve a one-sided political agenda. These concerns were expressed not only by the Jewish community, but by many concerned Canadians. At its core, this is a Canadian issue.”
Zentner did not participate in the community rally. He went on to say, “We are proud of the many community members, allies, and organizers who gathered at the museum before Shabbat began to demonstrate their concerns.”
The museum defended its decision to present the exhibit. CEO Isha Khan said that “human rights matter precisely when they are inconvenient.” She added that the museum “belongs in the collective memory of Canadians.”
The exhibit is scheduled to remain on display until November 2028.
Local News
Interviews with the curator of the Nakba exhibit and the CEO of the Human Rights Museum
By BERNIE BELLAN On June 26, I was invited to attend the Canadian Museum for Human Right to see the Nakba exhibit prior to its being opened to the public. While I was there I was given the opportunity to interview the curator for the exhibit, Isabelle Masson, along with CMHR CEO Isha Khan. What follows are the transcripts of those interviews (edited only to remove pause words like “uh” and phrases that were repeated). The first interview was with Isabelle Masson:
Jewish Post: Several representatives of Winnipeg Jewish community organization say that they weren’t fairly consulted on this exhibit. How do you respond to that?
Masson: We came to this project with an awareness that Palestinian voices are often marginalized, even silenced, and an awareness that Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism have an impact on whose voice is heard and whose suffering is recognized. And so we intentionally chose to centre Palestinian voices with this exhibition.
JP: But to the point that many Jewish representatives of organizations and people within the community at large feel that the Jewish community should have been consulted on an issue that had such a direct impact on the Jewish community – did you not feel an obligation to consult with the Jewish community?
Masson: I think the best person to talk further about this issue is our CEO, Isha.
JP: In terms of the exhibit itself, I must say it really stresses the suffering that Palestinians have endured. But, in looking at other refugee situations around the world, the Palestinian situation seems to me to be unique in that there has never been an effort to resettle Palestinians within the countries to which they were forced to flee.
Do you not think that separates their situation (from other refugee situations) and, in some ways, it has made their situation worse than it could have been?
Masson: Well, the exhibit not only centres that experience of forced displacement and disposition as a longstanding experience across five generation that you know is tied to human rights violations that are ongoing today, but it also I want to point out, you know, foregrounds beauty, foregrounds resilience, foregrounds the maintenance of identity and belonging across time and across that experience. So there’s also these elements about this exhibition because it was also about humanizing Palestinians – about people with families with stories, with creativity – and coming back to some of the videos what interviewees say, right, we hope that Palestinians can be seen as fully human and hope that they can see Palestinians as having human rights and this this story today in this gallery is is a story about human rights.
JP: If I can focus on one particular aspect of the exhibit that I read this morning when I was sent the preview, it referred to what happened between the years 2000 and 2005 as a Palestinian uprising. But the Israeli term would be the Intifada which for them meant large-scale attacks – terrorist bombings by some Palestinians. Did you not think it necessary to include that in a larger context?
Masson: Well, we use uprising because it’s the most more accessible term in the exhibition and we, you know, we’re focusing really here on an artwork by artists – Palestinian American artist Reggie Cook and with an artwork that was trying to translate the experience of of occupation into what is created. So that’s the context in which we talk about that.
JP: But to ignore what happened during the uprising seems to me to leave out a major part of the context.
Masson: I don’t think that we are ignoring that. This exhibit is not about the full story of what has happened in Palestine, in Israel. It’s not, you know, the scope of this small exhibition. This small exhibition has a scope and the scope was really to create an opportunity and a place for Canadians to be able to encounter Palestinian Canadians and hear their voices.
JP: Given the current mood in the Middle East and the ongoing tensions between Israel and various other actors, the concern among many in the Jewish community that this is going to lead to a heightening of antisemitism and an exhibit like this seems that it’s not going to do much to improve relations between Jews and Palestinians when it focuses on only one side of the story. How do you respond to that?
Masson: Well, this is only one exhibit of of many, of many stories that we have.
Following is my interview with Isha Khan. Khan began by explaining that she is “the CEO at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights and I’ve been here as CEO of the museum since August of 2020. So almost six years.”
JP: So let’s get right down to discussing (the exhibit). I spoke to the curator. I asked a lot of questions about the exhibit itself. I’m more interested in asking (you) about the general context and the atmosphere in the community. The accusation has been made repeatedly by various leaders of Jewish organizations that you have not been willing to consult on this exhibit. How do you respond to that?
Khan: I think the word consult can mean many things. We have a community engagement practice. So for us that means that depending on the scope of the exhibit and this exhibit is about Palestinian Canadians and their experiences, the impacts of the human rights impacts, of forced displacement, which means we engage with that community as we share their stories. Many folks in the Jewish community will say we haven’t consulted with them and yet we have met with leaders of Jewish organizations from across Canada, main uh, major federations, foundations, local Jewish organization representatives many times to talk about this exhibit, to explain what its scope is, what it’s about, what it’s intended to do, and most importantly, what it isn’t. And unfortunately there continues to be misconceptions about what it is. So we hope people will come and see it.
JP: I think the fear in the community – and I think it’s well founded is that this will foment an increase in antisemitism. Can you understand that concern?
Khan: Absolutely. I personally and any member of our team who’s talked to folks about this has said that we unequivocally share the concern about antisemitism in Canada today. That is part of our mandate. And we will continue to do that work and we can also share these stories of Palestinian Canadians – you know, telling the story of one community’s human rights violation in no way should negate or minimize the experience of another community. That’s what this museum was designed to do….designed to build understanding of shared humanity and that’s what we believe we’re doing responsibly.
JP: Just before I began this interview, I was taken (down to the fourth floor; the Nakba exhibit is on the fifth floor) to see the gallery of other human rights violations. I’m not sure what it’s called. (It’s where there is a ) recitation of various human rights violations, including what happened in 1947 and 1948 (in Palestine). They offer passing reference to the displacement of both Jewish and Palestinian refugees. Would you consider ever having an exhibit about the displacement of Jewish refugees from Arab lands in 1948 and subsequent years?
Khan: We would absolutely consider it and in fact have shared with leaders of the Jewish organizations months ago that yes, these are important stories that need to be told (and) invited them to work constructively with us on developing that content. Unfortunately we didn’t really receive much response.
JP: How long is this exhibit supposed to be on for?
Khan: So this exhibit right now we’re saying is a minimum of two years. That’s because it is an exhibit in a standing gallery and so it also depends on our updating of our other galleries and, you know, exhibits take a bit of time. This one is four years in the making and so we’ve just committed that it’ll be a minimum of two years and we’ll see where things go.
JP: There are a lot of other refugee situations in the world – (for instance) South Sudan, and just this morning I was saying to Isabelle that I received an email about the situation for people from Burundi in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
I didn’t realize that was a problem. I know that the Congo has had ongoing problems with displacement of populations. It it seems to me it’s not an unlimited number of stories like this you could tell, but there are a lot of others. How do you decide which ones take priority?
Khan: We’re often asked the question of how we decide, and it comes back to how this museum is designed. Each gallery is intended to tell a different story. It has an objective. So this exhibit, Palestine Uprooted, is in our Rights Today gallery. It’s to talk about global human rights issues. And we know that people want to better understand human rights of Palestinians. There’s no question. It’s being talked about, debated, discussed all over the world. And so we’re being responsive there to that need. And we know that Palestinian experiences were under represented in our galleries and have heard that for years. To your point though that there are other stories – the design of this museum is that you ought to be able to feel something, understand something about the forced displacement of one community and apply it to another. So now this story stands along the forced displacement of the Rwanda people, indigenous peoples, Ukrainian people, the Igbo people. You’ve named a number of others that we do need to develop content on over time, but it’s done depending on what gallery it is, what we are trying to invoke…because we’ll never be the encyclopedia of all human rights atrocities in the world. That’s actually why we’re called the Canadian Museum for Human Rights rather than the Canadian Museum of Human Rights.
We’re here to to develop an understanding through the stories that will impact people.
JP: Okay. I want to ask a politically loaded question.
Khan: Okay.
JP: The Jewish population of Canada is at best 450,000. In that range, Jews don’t have the political impact that they used to. At most, there are 12 to 16 ridings where the Jewish vote can make a difference. The Muslim population has grown substantially. It has a much larger political impact. Did that factor in to this exhibit being mounted in any way?
Khan: Absolutely not.
JP: So, I’ll ask the question that I asked the curator of the exhibit. Where did the impetus for this come from? Did it come from Palestinian Canadians?
Khan: This exhibit came from a recognition, our decision. I hold responsibility ultimately for the decisions made by my team. It was made based on the recognition that Palestinian experiences were under represented in this museum. We absolutely heard from the Palestinian community organizations in Canada and had heard for many years that their stories were underrepresented. Ultimately, the decision was ours. And as we look at this gallery and updating our content, this is ‘rights today’ – global human rights. We know that the world is talking about Palestinian human rights and the stories of Palestinian Canadians naturally belong in our collective memory alongside many other stories that are told here.
JP: There was one particular aspect on one of the panels when I was sent a preview this morning and it referred to the Palestinian uprising from 2000 to 2005 which led to a lot of Israeli deaths that we generally refer to as the Intifada. There’s no mention of Israeli deaths on that panel. Would you agree that might have been an oversight?
Khan: I mean I know that there the factual point is absolutely accurate. The decisions on the curation of the exhibit are not ones that I make, but certainly if that is a concern that we will look at.
Local News
Nakba exhbit at CMHR now open – here’s what it looks like
By BERNIE BELLAN (Posted June 26)The following press release was sent to me early Friday morning June 26 (Photos supplied by Annie Kierans, CMHR) Nothing that follows has been edited. I leave it to you to form your own opinion:
Winnipeg, MB — June 26, 2026 — The Canadian Museum for Human Rights (CMHR) will open a new exhibit tomorrow that explores human rights violations related to the ongoing forced displacement of Palestinian Canadians.
Palestine Uprooted: Nakba Past and Present will be on display in the Rights Today gallery on Level 5 until 2028. Featuring personal stories told through artifacts and video testimonies, the exhibit presents Palestinian Canadians reflecting on their ongoing struggle for human rights. The small exhibit reveals enduring patterns of loss and resilience, helping visitors understand more about this contemporary human rights story.
Palestinian Canadian stories are now included alongside many other stories of forced displacement and human rights violations featured in the Museum’s galleries. Each of these stories contribute to our visitors understanding of human rights and help the Museum fulfill its mandate to foster reflection and dialogue.
Exhibition highlights
Personal stories and artifacts: Experience firsthand accounts from Palestinian Canadians sharing their journeys of displacement and memory through a series of five artifacts. Cases display artifacts like property deeds, house keys, and a traditional Palestinian embroidered dress, accompanied by short videos that deepen understanding of the impacts of displacement.
Powerful artworks: In her painting Bound Together in Gaza, Malak Mattar, a Gazan artist, captures the struggles and resilience of her generation shaped by conflict. Her work pays homage to Guernica, Picasso’s powerful masterpiece depicting civilian suffering during war.
Curfews and Closures, by Rajie Cook, bears witness to life under military occupation during the 2000–2005 Palestinian uprising, when curfews and closures were expanded and further limited basic rights and freedoms.
Cultural heritage: Discover traditional Palestinian embroidery called tatreez. Tatreez motifs and colours are tied to place, family history and regional identity. Patterns are associated with particular towns, villages or areas of Palestine. In this way, tatreez is a form of storytelling: a way of preserving memory, sustaining identity and expressing resilience across displacement and exile.
Poetry and reflection: Engage with Mahmoud Darwish’s evocative verses, inspiring personal reflection on exile, voice, and responsibility. Visitors can take a card containing Darwish’s poem and add a personal note, fostering ongoing dialogue beyond the exhibit.
Contemporary context: Witness striking images of current events in Gaza and the West Bank, connecting past displacement to ongoing struggles.
Quotes:
“No force can silence the truth we carry. Growing up in Canada, my children lived the Nakba through our stories. And now we watch it happen again, live, on our phones. When I see the images coming out of Gaza, I am not watching the news. I am watching my history repeat itself.” -Fouad Sahyoun, a Palestinian Canadian featured in the exhibit
“We developed this exhibit with a clear awareness that Palestinian Canadian voices have too often been marginalized, silenced or spoken over — and that anti-Palestinian racism affects whose stories are heard and whose suffering is recognized. That is why we intentionally centred Palestinian Canadian voices throughout the exhibit.” -Isabelle Masson, Curator of Palestine Uprooted
“Human rights matter precisely when they are inconvenient, when the question of who deserves the dignity of having their rights recognized is genuinely contested. These are the moments where having a national museum for human rights is most important.
There are people who believe this exhibit should not exist in its current form. There are people who believe it should have existed sooner. There are people who will visit this exhibit and feel that it does not say enough, and others who will feel it says too much.
We have listened to every one of these voices. We have reflected. And we have renewed our resolve to continue the difficult, sometimes contested, and often controversial work of building understanding about human rights. We are a museum grounded in Canada’s human rights framework, whose mandate requires us to bear witness to the full complexity of the human story. We are proud to open this exhibit because the story it tells will help achieve that mandate, and because this story belongs in the collective memory of Canadians.”
- – Isha Khan, CEO
