 |
The B’nai Brith Canada Institute for International Affairs has a mandate to protest the abuse of human rights throughout the world and advocate on behalf of worldwide Jewish communities in distress. The Institute has a special focus on pro-Israel advocacy and education. |
|
|
Rochelle Wilner |
Frank Dimant |
Amos Sochaczevski |
Ruth Klein |
In 2002, a UNCHR resolution reaffirmed that “terrorism, in all its forms and manifestations, wherever and by whomever committed, can never be justified in any instance…”xxiii The resolution deplored “the large number of civilians killed, massacred and maimed by terrorists in indiscriminate and random acts of violence and terror, which cannot be justified under any circumstances”.
However, these cardinal principles are entirely and routinely ignored in the discourse of the UNCHR when it comes to acts of terrorism directed against Israel. This was amply illustrated in last year’s resolution validating Palestinian “resistance” and thereby implicitly legitimizing acts of terrorism against Israel,xxiv a formula which Canada found “fundamentally unacceptable”.
Canada has been forthright in its opposition to terrorism. It has passed Anti-Terrorism legislation domestically in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1373 and has signed and ratified all 12 UN counter terrorism conventions and protocols.
The UN International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism gives a clear definition of terrorism as any act that is
“…intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.”xxv
Article 6 of the Convention further states:
“…criminal acts within the scope of this Convention are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.”xxvi
This language is repeated in various other UN Conventions, such as the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings:
“Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention if that person unlawfully and intentionally delivers, places, discharges or detonates an explosive or other lethal device in, into or against a place of public use, a State or government facility, a public transportation system or an infrastructure facility.”xxvii
“Each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary, including, where appropriate, domestic legislation, to ensure that criminal acts within the scope of this Convention, in particular where they are intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature and are punished by penalties consistent with their grave nature.”xxviii
Given the clear parameters outlined in these UN Conventions, the Commission’s continuing practice of excluding Israel from the protections of these instruments is morally and legally reprehensible. Canada’s commitment to ensuring all UN member states receive equal treatment and protections will be all the more crucial in future Commission deliberations on the issue of terrorism.
¤ Canada should continue to resist all efforts by Commission members to endorse terrorist activities and tactics against Israel
¤ In any new resolutions against terrorism, Canada should press for inclusion of the language enshrined in the relevant UN Conventions, which clearly outlaws all terrorist acts, whatever their motivation
Table Of Contents
| Introduction
| The Need For Reform Of The UNCHR
| The UNCHR Agenda
| The Mandate of The Special Rapporteur
Canada’s Voting Record At The UNCHR
| Positions Of The Department Of Foreign Affairs
| Terrorism
| Racism And Racial Discrimination
Freedom Of Expression
| Conclusion
| Summary Of Recommendations
| Footnotes