Tutu’s UNHRC Mission to Gaza: Canadian M.P. Tells Plenary Why He Rejected Invitation

PRESS RELEASE

Human Rights Advocate & former Justice Minister Irwin Cotler: “Mandate Violated Fundamental Justice”

Geneva, June 13, 2007 — Canadian parliamentarian and former justice minister Irwin Cotler revealed today that he was invited to join a UN Human Rights Council mission to Gaza headed by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, but turned it down because the mandate violated fundamental principles of justice.  The internationally-acclaimed human rights activist and former counsel to dissidents Nelson Mandela and Andrei Sakharov is scheduled to address the Human Rights Council plenary this morning with the following speech.  Professor Cotler is a board member of UN Watch and recently returned from the Prague international conference for democracy dissidents.

UN Watch Statement on Follow-Up

UNHRC 5th Session

13 June 2007

 

Delivered by M.P. Professor Irwin Cotler

 

__________

 

 

Thank you, Mr. President.

 

Mr. President, I come from a country, Canada, that has regarded the UN as an organizing idiom of Canadian foreign policy, and that has made a substantial contribution to the development of UN law and the cause of human rights, as reflected in the work of my late colleague John Humphrey, who was director of the UN Center on Human Rights and the principal draftsman of the Universal Declaration of Human  Rights.

 

I regret, therefore, that I could not accept your invitation to join the investigative mission into Beit Hanoun headed by Archbishop Desmond Tutu.  May I explain.

 

First, as a law professor and international lawyer, I could not accept — let alone validate — a mandate to examine and hear only one side of a dispute.  Indeed, the mandate’s terms of reference deliberately excluded from consideration the Palestinian rocket attacks on the Israeli city of Sderot that preceded Israel’s actions, and which continue as we speak.  I myself visited Sderot just two days ago — as I have visited Gaza — and once again Sderot was hit by a rocket attack, as it was hit during the visit of UN High Commissioner Louise Arbour.

 

The mandate’s terms of reference also excluded a fair and equitable assessment of the situation and needs of the Israeli victims and survivors, thereby also excluding them from protection.

 

The entrance to the McGill University Faculty of Law, where I am a professor, is engraved with the words, “Audi altarem partem” — Hear both sides.  How could one accept a mandate that violated this bedrock principle of the rule of law — that denied a member state the right to a fair hearing and fundamental due process?

 

Moreover, the terms of reference also violated the presumption of innocence, another fundamental principle of the rule of law.  The resolution established by this Council began by condemning, and I quote, “the Israeli wilful killing of Palestinian civilians.”  How could one accept to conduct a fact-finding mission, where the facts and the verdict were determined in advance — a kind of Alice-in-Wonderland inquiry where the conviction was secured and the sentence passed even before the inquiry began.

 

It is not surprising, therefore, that the members of the Council that are the most consistent supporters the human rights mechanisms of this body—including my country, Canada—all refused to support this mandate, as they refused to support the two other equally one-sided inquiries established last year.

 

Regrettably, this discriminatory and one-sided approach has become not the exception but the norm.  For the earlier sessions against Israel reflect not only the same contempt for the rule of law, but systematically singled out a member state for selective and discriminatory treatment, while granting the violators exculpatory immunity.

 

As a member of the Canadian parliament, and former Minister of Justice and Attorney-General, I can tell you that the Canadian people supported the changes establishing this Council because we genuinely believed it would herald reform, organized around the principles of universality, equality and fairness.

 

It appears that the Council is about to institutionalize the condemnation of Israel as a standing item on the agenda — the permanent singling-out of Israel for differential and discriminatory treatment — a permanent Alice-in-Wonderland situation — while continuing the shameful process of denying a member state — Israel — membership in any regional group — a permanent denial of due process.

 

The tragedy, Mr. President, is that not only is a member state the object of a one-sided and selective indictment — the tragedy is that this is taking place under the protective cover of the UN, undermining thereby the cause of the UN, international law and human rights.  I trust that this Council will restore in process and in substance the founding ideals that inspired the establishment of the UN, and the UN human rights system.

UN Watch