While Canada aspires to peace, order, and good government, officials there too often replace the law with politics when the Jewish community or Israel is involved. 

Recently, Prime Minister Carney took the position that Israel’s current incursion into Lebanon is illegal because it violates Lebanon’s sovereignty. What a breathtaking revision of the law of armed conflict! Mr. Carney’s novel approach would have states facing missile attack apparently not allowed to enter the aggressor’s territory by troops or aircraft. What a gift that would be to terrorists, which is why such a strange rule does not exist. By making it up, Mr. Carney undermines the rule of law, and in so doing encourages more conflict in the world. (His excuse that Lebanon has outlawed Hizbollah and  is disarming it is laughable.) Mr. Carney appears to be ignorant of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 of Aug. 11, 2006 that, in return for an Israeli withdrawal, required the disarmament of Hizbollah and other armed groups by Lebanon. Lebanon has completely failed in its obligations over almost 20 years. Does Mr. Carney expect Israel to accept a repeat of this ridiculous charade?

The undermining of law for political aims has almost become a tradition in Canada when the small Jewish community is involved.

Compare the application of two treaties ratified by Canada: the Rome Treaty creating the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

In the first case, both Prime Ministers Trudeau and Carney have claimed that the rule of law requires Canada to arrest the Prime Minister of Israel. 

In the second case, the ICCPR, the Canadian government has blatantly ignored its obligations. An expert committee found that Canada was violating the obligation for equal and effective protection against discrimination because Catholic religious schools are publicly funded in Ontario but other religious schools receive nothing. Both the federal government and the government of Ontario have simply ignored this violation for years. The Jewish community consequently pays over $100 million annually to run its schools besides paying regular school taxes for others. Other Canadian violations of the Covenant have been rectified quickly by the federal government and at great expense.

The rule of law is trumpeted in the first case.  ( Falsely as it turns out because Israel is not a party to the Rome Treaty and Palestine does not meet the legal requirements of a state.) In the second, the law is cast aside. The common denominator is perceived political benefit.

There are numerous other examples of this legal distortion:  Prime Minister Carney has recognized a Palestinian state.  A peace treaty was once a Canadian precondition to recognition.  Canada’s new position undermines a basic provision of the UN Charter, the one that obliges members to settle their disputes peacefully. For decades, Arab and Palestinian leaders have rejected Israeli peace offers but instead have repeatedly resorted to illegal use of force. The Canadian action is rewarding this fundamental Charter violation, thereby undermining the rule of law.

Historically, we have further examples.

States are obliged to prosecute or extradite war criminals, made clear at Nuremberg and in the Geneva Conventions. While Canada has now enacted laws to that effect and to prevent the immigration of war criminals, it rigorously excluded European Jews before, during, and after WWII. Yet Canada post-1945 knowingly admitted, for example, numerous members of the 14th Waffen SS Grenadier Division.

What is more, the only World War II crime case actually pursued in Canada resulted in a judgment that can best be described as legally perverse.  It granted a full defence to a Hungarian policeman (Imre Finta) who had arrested Jews for deportation because he was influenced by government propaganda against the Jews. 

Another problematic case was about a person (Helmut Oberlander) who illegally gained Canadian citizenship by keeping secret that he had been part of the mechanism that massacred entire villages of Eastern European Jews. Weak efforts to revoke his citizenship failed and he died in Canada in 2021, aged 97. Future genocides are discouraged only if both the bureaucracy that enables them and the actual perpetrators (including those subject to the duress of following orders) face appropriate criminal penalties. Otherwise, only  leaders can be held responsible.

Two further cases exemplify how Canada has managed to distort law even for clearcut cases targetting Jews:

A convicted hijacker (Mahmoud M. Issa Mohammad) who had murdered an Israeli in 1968 in Athens but did not serve his term due to another hijacking was able to live freely in Canada for 25 years.

One of the world’s worst purveyors of antisemitic hate literature (Ernst Zundel) was allowed to continue his odious activities in Canada for many years, despite the fact that he was not even a citizen. He was finally deported to Germany in 2005.

Although Canadian governments speak in lofty tones about values that Canadians cherish, the examples cited above indicate that they too often fail to adhere to those values when it is politically convenient. There are specific laws in Canada against committing and abetting war crimes and terrorism and against producing hate propaganda. To achieve a functioning moral society, it is crucial that existing laws are applied as Parliament intended: effectively and without discrimination. There is a vital lesson for Canadians in Moses’ admonitions in Deutronomy to learn the decrees and ordinances and be careful to perform them in full.

Jason Reiskind,  Member, Law Society of Ontario, Foreign Service Officer and Justice Canada Counsel (retired)

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)