SHUR Committee Meeting

SUB-COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

SOUS-COMITÉ DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT INTERNATIONAL DU COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 24, 1998

• 1544

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.)): I call to order the meeting of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

We know there are members on their way here. I'd like to get started, because this is of great significance to the committee, especially when we're talking about a country within the NAFTA agreement. So I would like to introduce Charlotte Gray, and Charlotte will introduce the panel. Thank you.

Ms. Charlotte Gray (Chair, Writers in Prison Committee, PEN Canada): Thank you very much indeed, Madam Beaumier. I'd like to thank you for inviting PEN to address this committee.

I will make some introductory remarks and then Marco Vinicio Gallardo will talk a little more about the case of his father. Isobel Harry is here to answer questions.

Isobel, perhaps you'd like to introduce yourself.

Ms. Isobel Harry (Policy Director, PEN Canada): Yes. I'm Isobel Harry. I'm policy director with PEN Canada in Toronto.

• 1545

Ms. Charlotte Gray: And I'm Charlotte Gray. I'm the chair of the Writers in Prison Committee of PEN Canada.

Marco Gallardo is the son of the general who we're going to talk about mostly today.

First of all, I did want to just start by telling you a little bit about PEN Canada itself, which is the Canadian branch of a worldwide organization consisting of more than 12,000 members of the writing community, gathered in 124 centres around the world.

PEN Canada itself, our organization, is an influential and effective writer organization, with 750 members in this country. We stand for freedom of expression, both in Canada and around the world. We believe freedom of expression is a fundamental human right important to all Canadians and that the vigorous, committed defence of human rights such as freedom of expression must form an integral part of Canadian foreign policy. This is why we wanted to come and talk to this committee.

I am not going to go through the whole brief that you have in front of you. I just wanted to point out that we've been increasingly concerned about what's happening to writers, reporters, and editors in Mexico.

As you know, after the election last year, it seemed that Mexico was on a path towards increased democratization. The government, after decades, actually found itself challenged by a viable opposition, and we were very hopeful that the abuses of human rights in Mexico, which have been of some concern to us for as long as PEN has existed, would decelerate.

In fact what's happened is the reverse. There's been an acceleration of human rights abuses: arbitrary arrests, assaults, kidnappings, and the torture of Mexican writers, editors, and journalists. Within the last 15 months, at least five journalists have been murdered, with no satisfactory investigation of their deaths.

So in general we're very concerned about the fact that reporters, writers, and editors in Mexico seem to be working under an increased threat if they use what most of us would absolutely assume is a fundamental right, which is freedom of expression.

The context in which we appear to you today is a general concern about freedom of expression in Mexico. The particular case we would like to talk to you about today is the case of General Gallardo.

Brigadier-General José Gallardo Rodriguez, who's an honorary member of PEN Canada, was recently sentenced to nearly 15 years in jail. We're appalled by his treatment, as was, I want to point out straight away, the Inter-American Human Rights Commission of the Organization of American States, who describe the treatment that he's been subjected to over the last nearly 10 years as a campaign of persecution, defamation, and harassment.

The sentence actually relates to events that occurred over 10 years ago. These particular charges were first brought five years ago, immediately after General Gallardo had written an article suggesting that the armed forces in Mexico should be brought under a minor degree of legislative control. He called for an independent rights monitor for the armed forces.

This particular trial dealt with a charge against him that in fact is only one of 16 charges that have been brought against him. All the rest have had to be dropped through various legal means; he's not been convicted, for shortage of evidence.

As for the particular case he has been convicted on, I want to read to you an extract from the New York Times on Thursday, March 12, 1998, dealing with the court martial at which he was convicted:

The court-martial convicted General Gallardo of stealing horse feed and uniforms

—when he was commander of a military stable 10 years ago—

and burning army documents to cover up the theft.

But the evidence presented included documents that showed that the uniforms had been sent to the private ranch of a former Defense Minister....

• 1550

And after 34 witnesses testified, it was never clear that any grain was missing from the stables. [...]

The court refused to hear the testimony of two military investigators who had once determined that no charges could be brought against General Gallardo, then reversed their findings several years later after the general had a falling out with a new Defence Minister, Gen. Antonio Riviello Bazàn. [...]

The animated trial, inside a vast military base, lasted nearly three weeks, one of Mexico's longest courts-martial. The five judges, all high-ranking officers,

—who, incidentally, had no legal training—

deliberated for four and a half hours.

When the general spoke in his own defence, he said in a tremulous voice that made some officers bow their heads with emotion: “During my command at the stables, I was decorated three times and promoted twice. My personal and military conduct is clean for all to see.”

Nevertheless, the judges “showed some impatience with the arguments of General Gallardo's lawyers” and as I said, convicted him and sentenced him to nearly 15 years in jail.

I'm very briefly just going to tell you that General Gallardo is a general who 15 or 20 years ago would have been seen as an absolute rising star of the Mexican military establishment. He became a general at 42, which is a very young age. He was a member of Mexico's pentathlon team at the Seoul Olympics, a national equestrian champion, a national sharpshooting champion, and seemed in fact on a path to great seniority within the military.

While he was pursuing a conventional but illustrious career, he also studied in his own time to get a bachelor's degree in political science and public administration at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, which was a very unusual step for a member of the Mexican military to take. Most of them, in fact, study at the Escuela Superior de Guerra, the war college. So while he was pursuing his military career, he also looked at how a civilian society works.

What did he do that so upset the authorities? He published an article calling for a military ombudsman. Again, I just want to read for you a quote from an interview with his son—not Marco, in fact, but his eldest son—who simply explained what it was that his father had argued for. I quote:

A military ombudsman is the first step in modernizing the armed forces. Now, you have to understand “modernization” not like many in the military do, that is, buying new arms, tanks, helicopters, machine-guns, etc. That's not modernization for my father. As a social scientist, as a student of political science at the National University of Mexico, my father knows that modernization is the capacity that an institution, in this case the army, has to adapt itself to the changes and demands of society that grow daily.

Another question my father proposes is the end of “war powers”, which he calls unconstitutional and bad in principle. War powers can't exist during peacetime. The army must always exist, it has its function, but war powers that grant the military privileges can only exist during war, during exceptional periods when there is a crisis of governability in the country. But in peacetime the military must be subject to civil law, because before being soldiers they are citizens.

I've given you a little of the background of General Gallardo's imprisonment. Now, as I said, I'd like to hand over to Marco, who is here, who arrived from Mexico City this morning, and is happy to answer any questions on the circumstances of his father's arrest and imprisonment.

Isobel and I are happy to answer any questions on the work of PEN itself. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. Did Marco want to make a statement first?

• 1555

Mr. Marco Vinicio Gallardo (Son of Mexican Brigadier-General José Francisco Gallardo Rodriguez) (Interpretation): First of all, I want to thank you for giving me this opportunity to present my case before you.

I want to refer to the sentences my father got from being in the military. All he did was fight for renewing the armed forces so as to have some civil presence, especially an ombudsman, to supervise the political forces.

He was a person who started and did a lot of civil work study and participation. That was never done within the military, so they immediately looked at him as an enemy. Everybody in the military is used to going to rural schools, not to civilian schools or universities.

• 1600

The case I want to make here especially refers to his present situation in jail. He has been in jail since August 1997. He's almost in complete isolation. The only people who can visit him are the immediate family, but now they have suspended the visits of his wife privately—it was allowed two days a week before—and they also suspended contact with him from any other inmates. So he is in complete isolation. The telephone is restricted to one telephone call and no letters or anything in writing. He is harassed, because there is a photographer present around him 24 hours a day. So he cannot make any movement. He's followed everywhere.

To me, the 15-year sentence he received in this case is the maximum sentence that usually the military has given on it, because they want to use my father's case to set an example for the armed forces that nobody should criticize the armed forces.

The Mexican revolution has not been able to do anything to restrict in any way the powers of the military. This is what they want to keep, and that's why they are giving this sentence to my father, in order to keep the military the way it is, completely outside of civilian laws.

I want to mention that my father got the support of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. In 1997 and 1982 they ratified their study of the case, that he should not be convicted. So everything the military is doing in Mexico is against the signatories of that convention on human rights.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Thank you all for coming today to see us on this important and sad situation that we have in Mexico.

Ms. Gray, with respect to PEN, the violation of freedom of speech is, I think, a sensitive and specific indicator of future violations of basic human rights, with the potential for leading to conflict down the road. Are you working with other groups, such as Amnesty International, other NGOs both internationally and within Mexico, to try to put forth the case of General Gallardo and others, as you've mentioned in your document, who have had their basic rights violated in an egregious fashion, to have a concerted effort to bring this in front of the United Nations, to the OAS, to other countries? If so, how is that going?

You've suggested a course of action here for Canada to take. When our former ambassador to Mexico called a spade a spade on the economic goings-on in Mexico with respect to foreign contracts, he was promptly turfed by our government, and it caused—

A voice:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible].

Mr. Keith Martin: He was our ambassador to Mexico, and he was relieved of his duties.

Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): It was at the request of the Mexicans, or he retired. I don't think you can say he was turfed.

Mr. Keith Martin: Well, this particular individual was our ambassador to Mexico. He called a spade a spade and he was relieved of his duties. It caused an uproar between the Mexican authorities and us.

How would you propose that we actually take this to the Mexicans? Should we put provisos on our trade with them? Should we demand the release of political prisoners? How would you suggest that we do this, specifically, so we can take this and act on it?

Ms. Charlotte Gray: We work very closely with our NGOs. In fact, before coming here we took Marco Gallardo over to the Amnesty International offices, because his father is also a prisoner of conscience with Amnesty International.

• 1605

We work closely with other NGOs concerned with human rights to exchange information, to coordinate protest activities and to discuss what the appropriate strategies should be in terms of talking to our governments and making representations to the Mexican government.

I am going to leave it to Isobel to tell how we raise these issues and particular case histories like this at the international organizations. But when you ask what course of action we propose, one of the things that particularly concerns us at PEN is that in general when people in Canada—voters, politicians, reporters—think about human rights violations, they're always sort of out there on the other side of the world. They're in countries like Myanmar—Burma—Vietnam or Nigeria.

Certainly Nigeria and Burma are international pariahs and it's very easy for a country like Canada to say this is the way people are being treated, and the way freedom of expression is being curtailed is against every UN principle. It's easy for a minister of a western country to protest whenever there are bilateral relations or multilateral conferences.

We're particularly concerned about Mexico, where we've seen tremendous acceleration of human rights abuses and limits on freedom of expression. This is a country with which we share a continent. It's a country with which we have close trade relations. As far as we can see, these issues and our concerns about someone like General Gallardo are not being raised in government-to-government relations.

We would encourage members of this committee that since Mexico is a country with which we have a close and good trade relationship, surely this is absolutely the kind of country where in any discussions our concerns about human rights should be raised very forcefully and particular case histories and cases mentioned.

I'm going to hand it over to Isobel, who will talk a little about what we're doing at the UN.

Ms. Isobel Harry: We asked the Government of Canada, at the consultations we had last month with the Department of Foreign Affairs, to consider raising the issue of Mexico in the item 10 statement at the United Nations Human Rights Commission hearings in Geneva this year, which would be a first for Canada, and also perhaps consider working with Mexico on a statement from the chair. Other approaches we proposed included having a special rapporteur on Mexico.

These are difficult options in the sense that Mexico isn't on the agenda of the UN Human Rights Commission, so we would have to look at these ideas of proposing a special rapporteur or proposing that the rapporteur on freedom of expression be invited to visit Mexico to see what kinds of violations are ongoing.

In terms of the OAS, as I'm sure everyone here knows, Canada is not a signatory to the American convention and Mexico is, which is problematic in terms of Canada trying to ensure compliance with the recommendations of the OAS, for example.

Mr. Keith Martin: Are you working with other journalists within Mexico and outside to continually raise the issues of General Gallardo, Señor Leon and Señor Garcia and others who have been violated and develop a nucleus of journalists who are prepared to continually get this issue out into the public fora at every opportunity?

Ms. Isobel Harry: I can't say we're working directly with journalists in Mexico, but I know for a fact there has been a lot of coverage of this trial and the recent sentencing in all the major papers in Mexico, with a lot of support for the general. We've had some success in getting some coverage here in Canada. So there has been quite a lot and hopefully it will continue.

Mr. Keith Martin: Thank you.

• 1610

The Chair: Mr. Graham.

Mr. Bill Graham: I'm following up on the lines of Dr. Martin's questions.

This committee obviously has limited powers over Mexico, but what influence does our Mexican visitor believe Mexican congressmen have? Would it be worth our contacting our colleagues in Congress to ask them to do something?

Mr. Marco Vinicio Gallardo (Interpretation): Unfortunately, with the division of powers that we have in Mexico, the divisions among the executive, legislative, and judicial powers are not respected. We have a presidential system that really works on its own rather than respecting the three powers. Within this scheme, the armed forces are completely powerful.

In the past two elections, since the government in power was the PRI—the same government that is in power now—there was little we could do. In the last election in 1997, though, the power somehow was balanced among the PRD, the PRI, and the PAN, the three most important political parties.

Since the division of powers is now different, we think it is possible to do something. So far, though, all the PRD, one of the parties in power, has done is try to form a commission on human rights. I asked the commission to visit my father in jail to see what condition he's in, but among the observers there are no agreements on what to do and how to proceed. What I can see is that the army is still too powerful.

Mr. Bill Graham: But do you feel a representation in the form of a letter from this committee to our corresponding committee in the Congress in Mexico, both in the Senate and the House of Deputies, would be worth while?

Mr. Marco Vinicio Gallardo (Interpretation): There have been a lot of letters, but none of them have been responded to by the Senate or the lower chamber. There have been letters sent to the national defence secretary, to everybody.

When we thought all the legal possibilities were exhausted within the country, we resorted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights precisely because there is nothing we can do internally now in Mexico.

• 1615

Mr. Bill Graham: Could you tell us more about what you mean by war powers, about how the army is still operating in your country as if you're on a war footing? Does that mean they have total independence from the civil judiciary—is that what the consequence of this is?

Mr. Marco Vinicio Gallardo (Interpretation): The war powers were established in the constitution in 1917 under article 13, and this gives the military the power to take over in times of crisis or when it's a special crisis or a war. And the military has used this war power in what was not truly a crisis or war situation. Since we were living in peacetime, my father was fighting for the abolition of this war power. The military judges, lawyers and experts, are directly appointed by the secretary of the armed forces, so there's nothing we can do because everything is done at a higher level that no civilian can contest.

The Chair: I'm going to make a quick comment and ask a quick question. First of all, I'd like you to know that when our ambassador spoke out there were many of us who privately wanted to give him one of the highest awards that Canada could receive, because we admired his candour.

You're out of Mexico now. Are you being watched? How did they let you come here? Are you being watched and reported on while you are here? Are you going to feel safe when you go home?

Mr. Marco Vinicio Gallardo (Interpretation): At the beginning, yes, we in my family did receive some threats. In 1993, for instance, I received direct threats, and I was also beaten up in a military unit and there was another physical assault. But now we have gained some freedom and I'm sure that nothing is going to happen. They let us work now for this case.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Please forgive me for being late. I have read the documentation, so I am in a position to ask a few questions. At present, Canada is a signatory of NAFTA, the free trade agreement with Mexico and the United States. But as your father's case clearly illustrates, there are certain problems regarding human rights.

Canada has just been appointed to chair the first round of negotiations for a pan-American free trade zone. Now that we have concrete evidence of NAFTA's limitations, I think we should take the opportunity to avoid including the same or even more limitations in a pan-American free trade agreement.

• 1620

I would like to have your comments on this. What concerns do you have? In your opinion, what should this committee, and Canadian negotiators, be on the lookout for? The negotiations for a pan-American free trade agreement will soon begin. Once they start, what can we do to ensure that human rights are more rigorously defended in both North and South America?

I hope you will answer my question, but before you do I should just announce that we have submitted a topic for study to the committee: that topic is the relationship between trade and human rights. Your presence here illustrates just how important and relevant that debate is. If I understood correctly, the Chair talked about the highest award Canada could receive, because we are so well respected internationally. However, if we continue to put our head in the sand, we might be seeing that respect wane. Probably, and unfortunately, the party in power prefers to muddle the issue or avoid it all together, and will therefore strike this topic off the list. We'll soon find out.

I have two questions. What factors should be taken into account during negotiations on the free-trade zone? What do you think about the fact that Canada does not want to establish the link between trade and human rights here in committee?

[English]

Mr. Marco Vinicio Gallardo (Interpretation): Yes, it should be included in any trade treaty. For instance, we know that a treaty signed with the European Community has a clause that says human rights should be respected. This is the same thing we would like to see within NAFTA.

The Mexican government says that there are no violations of human rights in Mexico, but we know that there have been an increased number of violations with the Chiapas crisis now. Also, there was a visit by Amnesty International and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and they both found a lot of signs of violations of human rights in Mexico.

So I think the Canadian government should proceed with the study on the violations of human rights in Mexico and should include a clause within the NAFTA agreement, because of the three countries comprising the NAFTA treaty, Mexico is surely the one where the violations are...you find impunity there for human rights violations.

The Chair: Ms. Gray.

• 1625

Ms. Charlotte Gray: I just wanted to add something about the way PEN works to what Marco said.

We concentrate on individuals. We are an organization for freedom of expression. We work in countries where there are repressive regimes, everywhere from the right to the left. We focus on freedom of expression and try not to get drawn into any debate on government policies outside that area. And obviously we also recognize that NAFTA is fundamentally a trade and economic treaty and doesn't have a larger scope.

That being said, PEN welcomes any kind of multilateral forum where we feel that our representatives, whether they are MPs or members of the government, can bring some pressure to bear on the cases that we're working on. General Gallardo, for instance, is an honorary member of PEN Canada, and we decided to make him an honorary member because we tend to choose as our honourary members writers who are in countries where we feel we have leverage.

So for any country like Mexico, where we are a member of several of the same clubs, we feel that Canada should have influence in the huge range of issues that are discussed in the bilateral discussion with a government like the Mexican government. We want to make sure that human rights is there. We want to make sure that our member's name is mentioned.

And that's the way that PEN works. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. Ms. Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Thank you. Welcome to Canada on a very cold day.

I'd like to go back to the issue of the Mexican national human rights commission. Can you tell us how that commission works and how it is connected with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights? That's my first question.

Mr. Marco Vinicio Gallardo (Interpretation): The national commission was created by the then President Salinas and the people working there were personally appointed by the president of the country. Therefore, we do not consider the national commission to be independent, and any recommendations are usually not put into place. There is a general non-compliance with recommendations.

• 1630

Specifically in the case of my father, since it's a matter of more powers, they conclude that this is not under their jurisdiction, it's under the jurisdiction of the military, so they don't deal with things like that. That's why the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights was brought in: because we thought they could do something better.

About the relationship between the two, the national commission and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, they have exchanged communications on specific cases. There's nothing else.

In the OAS there was talk about having a closer relationship. Any case, for instance, that was going to be submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. It would go first to Mexico and then from there to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. But nothing came out of that idea.

In general terms, there's a problem of image with a national commission that is not respected. Usually they give recommendations on simple cases, but when there are complicated cases or where the military is involved, or the lower ranks of the government, they don't do anything.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Was there a human rights commission before NAFTA?

Mr. Marco Vinicio Gallardo (Interpretation): Before the signing of NAFTA there wasn't any national commission on human rights. Carlos Salinas created this precisely to be able to sign the agreement, because it was necessary at that time to have that commission. What we had before the NAFTA agreement was just some NGOs working on human rights, nothing more.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Before the NAFTA agreement you would not have been able to come to Canada or to have PEN work on its concerns.

Mr. Marco Vinicio Gallardo (Interpretion): We have never worked through the national commission for human rights in Mexico. We have always worked with the NGOs.

Ms. Jean Augustine: What would be a significant and effective way for Canada to press the Mexican government to respect human rights? I know PEN has laid out some recommendations.

Mr. Marco Vinicio Gallardo (Interpretion): Are you talking about it in general terms or are you talking about a specific case?

Ms. Jean Augustine: In this specific case I know PEN has laid out some recommendations in the paper it has presented to us. For example, they recommend launching thorough and impartial investigations of all reported threats to and attacks on journalists, writers, and human rights activists and defenders. As I read the recommendations, if you're saying the human rights commission is more or less useless in this regard and you are asking that the Mexican government do all these things, I'm just looking for a way by which we can make the Mexican government do all these things, and any suggestions you would want to make to us as a committee.

Ms. Charlotte Gray: We return here to the point of how Canada can bring pressure on the Mexican government. The answer simply is through every available channel, whether it's MP to MP or from foreign minister to foreign minister, through the various international links we have, whether it's at the UN or through the OAS or through NAFTA.

• 1635

For example, when I spoke earlier about Mexico and Canada belonging to a lot of the same clubs, at the Organization of American States, for instance, foreign ministers can request a meeting of foreign ministers, at which specific issues can be raised. This is something that obviously is an issue that could be raised at such a meeting.

Obviously we're not alone in sounding alarm bells about the increase in abuses of human rights in Mexico. There has been a lot of international attention paid to General Gallardo's case. But the Mexican government is unlikely to move on any of these issues without pressure from outside. That's why anything this committee can do, both through talking to the minister and through letters to the relevant organizations within Mexico, can be very effective.

Mr. Marco Vinicio Gallardo (Interpretation): Of course anything or any statement that would help to free my father I would welcome, but the most important thing for us is that the recommendations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights be respected, because there were two years of hearings and testimonies, and finally their recommendation was that my father should be acquitted of any charges and should be freed. That's the main thing for me.

The Chair: Thank you.

I think our time is up. We have another group waiting. It was a great opportunity for us to hear from you today, and we will be making recommendations. I believe we will be writing to our minister, asking him to represent you on behalf of the committee. Thank you so much for coming.

Ms. Charlotte Gray: Thank you again for inviting us and for giving us this opportunity to explain both the case of General Gallardo and also the wider concerns of abuse of human rights in Mexico. We do appreciate this opportunity and we really value the chance to speak to our legislators. Thank you on behalf of all of us here.

Mr. Marco Vinicio Gallardo: Muchos gracias.

The Chair: We will suspend for five minutes.

• 1638

• 1647

The Chair: We will now hear from B'nai Brith. We have with us Lisa Armony, the national director at the Institute for International Affairs; Rubin Friedman, director of government relations—I think we've probably all seen Rubin around, he's a busy man; and Stephen Scheinberg, vice-president.

Who's going to take the lead?

Mr. Rubin Friedman (Director of Government Relations, B'nai Brith Canada): You've taken some of the words right out of my mouth. You've introduced everybody, so I don't know if I have anything to say now.

[Translation]

First, I'll just say a few words about B'nai Brith Canada. Founded in this country over 120 years ago, B'nai Brith Canada is the oldest jewish organization in Canada. B'nai Brith Canada is also part of an international organization dating back 150 years. B'nai Brith is an amalgamation of organizations that provide community services and fight against discrimination and anti-semitism.

[English]

Stephen Scheinberg, our national vice-president, will be presenting the latest instalment on our reports on international right-wing extremism and its effects, and will be talking about the terrorist bombings and the Jewish community of Argentina.

We wanted to raise one other issue with you, and it deals with the politicization of the United Nations Human Rights Commission and some of the issues that have arisen on that. Lisa Armony will be talking about that. And finally, I'll just add a few words in terms of the very real problems and effects that politicization has caused right here in Canada.

With your permission, I'll hand it to Professor Scheinberg.

Dr. Stephen Scheinberg (Vice-President, B'nai Brith Canada): Mr. Friedman remarks that we've been doing studies of right-wing extremism. In 1997 our book on right-wing extremism in Europe, the United States, and Canada was published by HarperCollins. There were several peculiar omissions of various countries. Personally, I felt rather badly that we had not covered Argentina, which had long been known to have given haven to, for instance, escaped Nazis after World War II.

• 1650

I don't come here today to talk about Argentina as one of the places in this world to which this committee has to turn its attention as one of the hotbeds of the denial of human rights. Rather, I'd like to point out that there have been some changes in Argentina, and they have been positive changes.

Most of you are probably familiar with the fact that from 1976 to 1983 the Argentine military controlled the government and conducted what became known as the Dirty War. It was particularly dirty for Argentina's Jewish community.

During that period, somewhere between 9,000 and 30,000 people “disappeared”. It was found out subsequently that one of the favourite methods of disappearance was to tranquillize the prisoners, take them out in military planes over the ocean, and then drop them out into the ocean. A recent fiction article in The New Yorker portrays one such occasion.

Of the 9,000 to 30,000 who disappeared, depending on the estimates, 10% to 15% of those numbers were Jewish. The Jewish population of Argentina accounts for perhaps a little under 1% of the total population. Any reasonable conclusion would therefore say that the Jewish population was a peculiar victim of the Dirty War, but we don't have time to go into that long history.

By 1983, democratic government of a sort had been re-established in Argentina. Reasonable elections have been held in Argentina since then. Today's government in Argentina, which is headed by Carlos Menem, includes two or three Jewish people in the cabinet, including the Minister of the Interior. That does not mean, however, that the Jewish community of Argentina is without problems.

Since you've just had a Spanish lesson before we came into the room, I'll give you one more Spanish word: impunidad, “impunity”. It's a word that we all know. In the Argentine context, it means that crimes are committed with impunity. First, most of those responsible for the crimes of the Dirty War are at large—and I think you all know the arguments about how you handle the military and how you handle the crimes of the past. You've probably heard this in reference to other countries around the world.

In 1992 a bombing took place at the Israeli embassy in Argentina and 29 people were killed and 252 were wounded. That was six years ago. The sixth anniversary of that occasion was marked one week ago today, on March 17.

Four years ago, on July 18, 1994, a car bomb was directed at the Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and 86 people were killed and 300 were injured.

These were horrible events. Compare this with the bombing that took place in Oklahoma City, and the rapid work of the law enforcement officials in the United States when it came to capturing the people responsible, bringing them to trial and hopefully to justice. That's a model for how one should deal.

• 1655

At this moment no one has been arrested or convicted for either of these horrific crimes in Argentina. So impunidad, impunity, continues in Argentina. What that means for Argentinians at large, but particularly for its Jewish community, is a state of continued nervousness, of knowing the nation doesn't protect foreign embassies, doesn't protect its own citizens, and doesn't make arrests in these cases. And that means a third occasion that many predict may take place. Nobody can predict when it might take place.

What we know about these bombings is that various groups took responsibility. Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad took responsibility not only for attacking an Israeli institution but for blowing up a Jewish community institution. Just horrendous.

There's been a distinct lack of action. The judiciary is incapable. The police force is pointed to by most journalists as the instrument that was probably used by Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, in association with their activities, to do the deed.

To just bring it up to date, in the last Christmas period, on Christmas day and again at New Year's, there were tombstone desecrations in Jewish cemeteries outside of Buenos Aires, with the police on guard at both cemeteries. That tells you something about the police.

I could go on about other groups in Argentinian society. I'm most hopeful about the army. This long-term bane of Argentinian society, the army, has made positive steps, but not the intelligence agencies and not the police forces.

I'd just like to make a few recommendations, finally, to the committee. When our delegations visited South America, including Argentina, we read nowhere that any attention was paid to these human rights violations, whereas in contrast, when President Clinton visited Buenos Aires recently, he made it a special point to meet with the leaders of the Argentine Jewish community and the human rights community. That's one thing to keep in mind: we have yet to meet our responsibilities in that area, and hopefully we will. I understand questions related to trade and human rights.

Also, representation should be made of course to the Argentine government that we are hopeful of action.

And lastly, there is a program under way in Winnipeg where 13 Argentinian Jewish families have been admitted as regular immigrants. They've been given every assistance by our Department of Immigration and by the local Jewish community of Winnipeg. These people would not normally qualify as refugees—the situation in Argentina would not make them eligible as refugee claimants—but still they're people who live with this awful fear.

If you go to Argentina, and I hope you have the occasion to visit at some point—my wife and I were there for the month of May last year—and if you go to the Jewish community institutions, you'll see concrete boxes surrounding the institutions, you'll see the security and the guards, and you'll know you're inside an armed camp defending itself from external dangers. It's that kind of problem that the Jewish community of Argentina faces in particular.

• 1700

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Armony.

Ms. Lisa Armony (National Director, Institute of International Affairs, B'nai Brith Canada): I'd like to take a few minutes to talk about the politicization of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, as Rubin mentioned in his introduction.

As you know, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights is currently under way in Geneva. B'nai Brith Canada, as an NGO, participates every year in the Department of Foreign Affairs-NGO consultations in preparation for the commission. We did so again last month. The brief that we submitted to the government I believe you have, and I have extra copies as well. The comments I'm going to make are reflected in the brief.

When I speak about the increasing politicization at the CHR, what I'm talking about are attempts by like-minded blocs of states to seize and manipulate the agenda of the CHR for their own political means. It is done by a variety of member states and it happens on a variety of issues, including attempts to seize the entire agenda and the decision-making mechanism of the CHR. But what we're finding is that this politicization has also been targeted particularly at issues of direct relevance to Israel and to Jewish communities worldwide.

One of these aspects that I'm not going to go into is the singling out of Israel for special treatment. I really want to focus more today on what we feel is tolerance of anti-Semitism at the commission. I'm going to give you two examples from last year to illustrate this.

At the 53rd session, on 11 March 1997, the PLO representative, Nabil Ramlawi, accused Israeli authorities of having infected 300 Palestinian children with the HIV virus during the Intifada. He claimed that this story had come out of the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Aharonoth, a charge that is not substantiated. Several NGOs intervened immediately to have the statement condemned. However, no action was taken.

This charge was again raised by the Israeli ambassador and by the U.S. deputy permanent representative on July 22 at a meeting of the Economic and Social Council, at which point the charge was called a “malicious, patently false and uncorrected statement by the observer from the Palestinian Liberation Organization”. The denunciation notwithstanding, the Palestinian ambassador refused to apologize or to correct the AIDS libel, and his statement remained in the official UN summary record until March 15 of this year, at which time Mr. Ramlawi submitted a letter to the chairman retracting his statement, which 6 weeks earlier had actually been retracted in the Egyptian daily al-Ahram because it was absolutely unsubstantiated. Secretary-General Kofi Annan also admonished the chair of the commission for having let the malicious allegation stand.

During the same session several days later, when they were reviewing the report of the special rapporteur on racism, one of the sections that was included in the report of the special rapporteur had to do with anti-Semitism coming from radical Islamic camps. Particularly it said that one of the tactics that the radical Islamic elements use is to manipulate religious texts, particularly the Koran, as a means of justifying hatred against Jewish people. The reference was met with very strong protest by the Organization of the Islamic Conference. It was called blasphemy, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference delegation demanded that the section of the report be stricken from the report of the special rapporteur, which it was.

• 1705

The fact that a modern-day charge of blood libel that lacked any evidence whatsoever was allowed to remain on the CHR record without objection from all but two member states—and Canada, by the way, did not object—while the description of radical Islamic anti-Semitism, for which there exists extensive documentation, was allowed to remain in the record is indicative of an increasingly hostile environment at the CHR on issues of direct relevance to Jewish communities. It may also be indicative of a growing tendency by radical Islamic elements to blur the lines between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, and that is, there is now almost no distinction between political criticism of Israel and the propagation of hatred against all Jews.

It's a mockery that while the UN Commission on Human Rights is celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, member states are using the forum to propagate anti-Semitism and others turn a blind eye to this.

Obviously these examples also set a very dangerous precedent for the CHR. First of all, of course they threaten the independence of special rapporteurs and therefore decrease their ability to effectively monitor anti-Semitism or any form of racism, or for that matter anything they're reporting on. It therefore also becomes much more difficult to seek remedies to the problem. It also threatens the integrity of the UN Commission on Human Rights as a human rights organization.

As I mentioned, we brought these issues to the attention of the Department of Foreign Affairs during the consultations. At that point, we called on the Government of Canada to oppose vigorously and visibly the deliberate machinations that trivialize genuine human rights for the purpose of political gain.

We hope that this committee would see fit also to bring this to the attention of the department, particularly now while the commission is going on. We are monitoring it very carefully and we hope we don't see repeat incidents of this. We do have to be vigilant and demand that the Canadian government does not allow this to occur again this year.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Friedman, did you have a comment?

Mr. Rubin Friedman: Yes. I have a few brief words.

The blood libel that Jewish doctors, Israeli doctors, infected Palestinian children has now found its way into Canada and is being distributed in campuses across the country. It's really easy to download this information off the Internet. It's really easy to go to Hamas sites and Hezbollah sites and even the site of the Palestinian National Authority and pick off a whole series of things that promote the view that Jews are conspiring to take over the world, that Monica Lewinsky is a Zionist agent because she's Jewish.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Rubin Friedman: We're laughing here, but the problem is that in Arabic countries and in Islamic countries this is presented as serious. I'd like to laugh at it. As a matter of fact I see some Jewish groups making up similar jokes. But the fact is it's being taken seriously.

It affects the way people of Arabic origin see Jews. Some of those people of Arabic origin live in Canada. They are subject to the same bombardment of information, misinformation and propaganda as the rest of us. The context for them to evaluate that information is very different. They have long-standing grievances. Their approach to receiving this information is going to be very different from the way other people in Canada might receive it. But it's having its effect.

We've just picked up two examples from university campuses that are being widely distributed in copies of 250, and that stuff is being distributed right alongside legitimate political information criticizing Israel. There's a thing called legitimate political discourse and then there's anti-Semitism. The two are not the same thing.

I wanted to bring to your attention how the flow of information nowadays goes really quickly, and that when we hear about a calumny that was made overseas about Jews, it's really possible to find it in Canada very soon thereafter. And I can vouch for the fact that we have found it in Canada. So I'd like to bring that to your attention to point out the urgency of dealing with this issue on an international level. It comes from international sources, not from inside Canada.

• 1710

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin: Thank you very much to all of you for coming here today to speak to us. I've always admired the work that B'nai Brith has done to bring examples of egregious human rights abuses against people of the Jewish faith to our attention and in fact to the world's attention.

Your organization has enormous opportunities as a peacemaker, and I've asked myself whether the B'nai Brith has taken it upon themselves to go and champion the cause of speaking out against human rights abuses against people who are not Jewish, whether they have decided to speak out against human rights abuses against people such as Kurdish people in Turkey, whether they have decided to ask moderate Arab human rights groups to speak out against human rights abuses against Jewish people in various countries and whether they have asked moderate Arab groups to join with B'nai Brith in speaking out against human rights abuses against the Jewish community, thus also helping them to speak out against human rights abuses against Arab people in various parts of the world.

As a non-Jewish person, I think there is an enormous opportunity for you as peacemakers, as leaders of peace, to go beyond yourselves in bringing to the attention of the world horrible examples of what has been done not only against people of your faith but against people of other faiths.

Lastly, can you suggest to us what we can do to stem the growing tide of hate literature and radicalism that is spreading not only anti-Semitic sentiment but other sentiments against various minority groups?

Mr. Rubin Friedman: I'd like to answer this way. B'nai Brith has always highlighted human rights abuses in its reports to the Department of Foreign Affairs when those human rights abuses are in the areas of our competence and our knowledge.

For instance, we have talked about human rights abuses against the Turks and the Roma. We have established an intercultural dialogue with the Moslem community in Toronto.

But there has to be a dialogue. You must have somebody on the other side to talk to. Sometimes this is perhaps more difficult than you might imagine in terms of official spokespeople. There are many individuals to whom one can speak, but it becomes problematic when it's a matter of an organization speaking to an organization. That has been the case until now. That's not to say that we won't keep trying or that all such efforts are in vain. It's just that's where we are today on that front.

Finally, I appreciate the need to speak out on all human rights abuses. Unfortunately, we have found in the past that if we don't speak out about human rights abuses against people of Jewish origin, very few others do. So in a sense we are trying to fill a void. We're not necessarily trying to cover the whole map. We're trying to fill a void which we feel is usually present. The examples that Lisa gave you from the United Nations give you a perfect example of what we're talking about, where there are very few people who are speaking up on those issues. And if Jewish organizations don't do it, then I don't know who will.

Mr. Keith Martin: I understand exactly what you're saying. I didn't make myself clear. It's not an either/or situation. It's both. And the reason, in some ways, is pragmatic. By reaching out your hand to other people and getting them involved, maybe they will also speak out and join you, without even being asked, in speaking out against human rights abuses against Jewish people in Argentina, which, any way you cut it, you have to conclude are appalling. So by doing that, you'll be able to build a consensus such that you might not always be able to speak out together on certain issues, but at least on some you will be able to do that.

• 1715

Dr. Stephen Scheinberg: I'd like to say that we started here in Canada on human rights abuses, and we believe as an organization that human rights are indivisible. We work with every community in Canada when we see human rights abuses. We often form coalitions in Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, and elsewhere in order to work together with other communities because we think that's the most effective way to work on human rights.

On the international level, it just is a lot more daunting to try to build such coalitions. These coalitions do better at a grass roots kind of level than they do between organizations. To find B'nai Brith's counterpart somewhere in the Arab world.... I would hope that the Arab world will develop its human rights organizations, its fraternal organizations that have a human rights emphasis that we can reach out to. We haven't found them yet, but we'd love to find them.

Ms. Lisa Armony: I can give one example that will illustrate the difficulty that Rubin spoke of in terms of finding a partner.

Very recently, we were approached by a Canadian-Arab organization that was looking to set up a program through which hospital equipment would be collected in Canada and sent to a children's hospital in Jordan. We were very eager to participate with this organization. We went full steam ahead. We had a lot of volunteers lined up and ready to go. The brakes were put on the program perhaps because of the political climate in the Middle East right now. Perhaps the Jordanian government, which was also a party of the joint venture, felt that the time wasn't right to work openly with a Jewish organization. The program has sort of fallen by the wayside because of that.

So it's very difficult even on an issue that has nothing to do with the conflict. This was a purely humanitarian project with Israel's closest neighbour in the Arab world in terms of geography and also in terms of its relationship. I think that should indicate the difficulty we have when trying to find partners on the other side.

Mr. Keith Martin: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: No, that's all right. Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Folco.

Mr. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): I want to thank you for this presentation, which albeit short said a great deal about what is going on in the world.

Obviously, what I find very worrying is that a little more than 50 years ago we thought that things were going to get better; we thought some of these problems might even disappear. However, we are now seeing a sharp resurgence of anti-semitism throughout the world, and as you said it is all-too-often disguised as anti- zionism.

I have a few comments to make. I'll begin with the issue of Jews living in Argentina. You said that a number of families have come to Canada. You said that 13 jewish families from Argentina have come to Winnipeg. I assume that you are familiar with the Montreal Jewish community's program. The community sponsored two large groups of Soviet Jews, for whom they were legally responsible. They helped the Quebec government select them in the Soviet Union and bring them to Canada, and are now responsible for them for a number of years.

I wondered whether you had examined the possibility of doing the same thing with Jews from Argentina. The Montreal Jewish community has done this, but they are not the only group to take that approach. The Ismaili community has done the same thing to help Ismailis from Pakistan come to Canada, working together with the Quebec government. This is not necessarily the best solution, but in the short term, it is a solution.

• 1720

I know that this is not easy, because I have tried it myself, but I wonder what sort of links you have with Arab or Muslim community groups in order to help them open up in various parts of Canada. We know that they are often influenced by extreme-right anti-islamic and occasionally anti-semitic views promulgated on the Internet and by other means.

Lastly, I just wanted to say that this notion of contaminated blood very easily ties in with the business of the Protocols of Zion, which we all know. This worries me, as I imagine it worries you—the wheel continues to grind.

[English]

Dr. Stephen Scheinberg: We are well acquainted with the program in Montreal for the Russians who have been coming in. The program in Winnipeg for the Argentinians is quite recent and may serve as a model we would like to pick up. It may be possible to go to the Government of Quebec, for instance, and have a similar program in Montreal and perhaps in Toronto and Ottawa. It's certainly an open issue for us that we might very well try to watch that kind of program. We would welcome all the assistance we could get through the normal immigration channels.

On the question of our alliances with women's groups and other groups, every year in Toronto at Passover there is an interfaith women's Seder that generally welcomes women and feminists—a diversity of women. Certainly we have wonderful, excellent contacts. Rubin referred to the Muslim-Jewish dialogues we had both in Montreal and Toronto. We deem those to be important on a local level, and from time to time we meet with all the communities we can.

Mr. Rubin Friedman: I just want to add to that and reinforce what Steve said.

On a local level we are much more successful than we are dealing with either national or international-level issues. On a local level we usually talk to people who face common problems. Whenever there is talk of a gulf war or any such thing in the Middle East, both Jews and Muslims become the targets of various forms of aggressive hate crimes. So they have something in common, even though theoretically they are on opposite sides of that particular conflict. Nevertheless, both groups become greater targets as soon as conflict is mentioned. On that level there is usually much ground for cooperation. Whenever we face common issues of dealing with hate crimes we find it very easy to cooperate, but on international issues that's another matter.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I wanted to add that I mentioned Quebec because there is a specific clause in the Canada-Quebec immigration agreement. But the new Canadian statute—and I don't want to go too quickly here—could well contain a provision allowing groups to sponsor other groups from elsewhere.

In answer to the question Mr. Martin put a few moments ago, I am also aware that the Canadian Jewish Congress—particularly the Montreal chapter, which I obviously know best—has done a great deal to seek out other groups and bring them into Quebec, and perhaps into other provinces, I don't know too much about that. It has also declared it is quite prepared to help other groups who are victims of discrimination, even if they are not Jewish.

• 1725

The Quebec chapter of the Canadian Jewish Congress has often volunteered its assistance to the government, the media and other groups. I just wanted to point this out. Unfortunately, Mr. Martin has left, but he will have an opportunity to read this in the proceedings. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: I think the questioning is finished. Do you have a statement you want to make?

Dr. Stephen Scheinberg: I think that's a helpful suggestion on group immigration. I'm well acquainted, of course, with the activities of Canadian Jewish Congress in the Quebec region. From time to time we might even cooperate with them when they're willing.

Mr. Rubin Friedman: I wanted to leave you with some copies of some of the things we downloaded from various sites on the Internet. If some of you are interested, I can give you copies of some of the material that was locally distributed here in Ottawa very recently.

The Chair: I'm sure we'd appreciate that.

We have a steering committee meeting. This meeting is adjourned.