Law Times

Law times • SEPTEMBER 22, 2008 Hillier a bright light M ost political activ- ists get into politics to advance what are amusingly called "progressive" causes, which in reality invari- ably translates into expanding the intrusion of government power into people's lives. Randy Hillier, the new- comer Progressive Conserva- tive MPP from Lanark-Fron- tenac-Lennox and Addington, is an exception. What motivated him to be- come political was a feeling that the underlying root cause to a lot of the problems faced in his east- ern Ontario homeland was a lack of respect for property rights by government and its minions. He can rhyme off the inci- dents: deer that destroyed crops but couldn't be killed, sawmills ha- rassed by environmentalists, farm- er's markets shut down by health bureaucrats, and dozens more. As it turned out, an activist Hillier turned out to have a flair for publicity. He first came to prominence with the Lanark Landowner's As- sociation, whose members had the nerve to put signs on their lands such as: "This land is our land. Back off, government." When he sought and won the Tory nomination in his then Lib- eral-held riding, things got rough. The Liberals, led by their pet pit bull MPP George Smither- man, spent endless time before the 2007 election smearing Hill- ier's name in the legislature in the hopes of tarring PC Leader John Tory as beholden to "extremists." To his credit, Tory didn't fold. One senses the distaste Hill- ier generates in Liberal circles is more than political. The Grits really do seem to view him as simply a hillbilly from the sticks, the kind of person decent Liber- als feel uncomfortable around. (In my experience, any such discomfort usually arises because such people remind the down- town city slickers of some eternal truths about life and politics.) Fortunately, Hillier has a sense of humour about it all. His response to being deni- grated as a "rural yahoo" — the phrase actually originated with a Toronto chattering class aca- demic — was to hold a fund- raiser at the academic's universi- ty entitled "Queen's Park meets the Trailer Park." He offered to debate the academic (who natu- rally declined). Graham Murray, publisher of the Inside Queen's Park newslet- ter and a 30-plus years observer of the place, said the fundraiser, with stars from the TV series Trailer Park Boys, was the funni- est Park event he could recall. Murray is among those im- pressed by Hillier as among the bright new members, one who shows clarity of thinking and a command of what Queen's Park is or should be all about. Hillier, for example, isn't afraid to tackle sacrosanct issues. He closely questioned the Liberal appointees to the com- mittee that recommends on Inside Queen's Park By Derek Nelson what should be put under the Endangered Species Act. Hillier: "We do have a diverse set of species in this province, and of course there are many things that affect those species. People and development are one, but also climate and a whole host of other factors that are beyond our own control. We also live and work here, and we need to have a prosperous community." Home-spun truths you would think, but the Liberal appoin- tees to the committee seemed to have trouble grasping that their focus had to be broader than a plant or animal itself, for as Hillier pointed out, "I actu- ally know people directly who have lost their properties over an identified species on it." Or, for instance, after closely questioning the Liberal appoin- tees to the Human Rights Com- mission, Hillier (and Tory seat- mate Lisa Priest) voted against confirming them. Hillier ex- plained why this way: "One of the fundamentals of democracy is to have differ- ences of opinion. Diversity of opinions is just as great, if not of greater importance, than diver- sity of population." Yet what Ontario has seen is the "human rights system mov- ing into limiting, or trying to infringe on individuals' freedom of speech and freedom of expres- sion. These are not things that we should take lightly; these are things that are of the essence." Unfortunately, Hillier ar- gued, from the Liberals on the appointments committee "there was no scrutiny; there were no questions. It was a rubber stamp. We need to have a fuller discussion, a fuller debate, if we are going to provide value to the people who have elected us, to the people who expect us to rep- resent their interests." Although he is too practi- cal a man to express it this way, Hillier comes across to me as a Whig in a social democratic world, a believer in those rights of property and civil liberty that are fundamental to what is good in our society. These are rights which have been under continual assault and erosion for much of the last half-century, and to which Hill- ier is rightly reacting. As he said at one point in the committee hearings, quoting the English jurist Blackstone: "The public good is the protection of every individual's private rights." Would that there were more like him at Queen's Park. LT Derek Nelson is a freelance writer who spent 19 years at Queen's Park. His e-mail is jugurtha@ rogers.com. COMMENT a colleague we have failed Louise Arbour: BY WILLIAM M. TRUDELL For Law Times T his profession — and all of us in it — have failed to protect, honour, and defend one of our most ac- complished and distinguished members. We have let Louise Arbour down by our si- lence when she needed and deserved voices of support. On July 1, Arbour stepped down as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, an enormously prestigious and important international position. The gratitude and praise which greeted her at the end of her term was shamefully muted. Arbour was a courageous cham- pion of human rights, and a bold critic of the erosion of those ba- sic tenets in our world. She was never timid. She was never chained to a desk, was involved, hands on, out- spoken, and challenging. She breathed life into the enor- mous portfolio that she was asked to take on. Apparently she made mis- takes. She warned Israel that it was not immune from hu- man rights violations, and she criticized the U.S. blunt- ly and directly for its Guan- tanamo shame and detainee torture. She infuriated both nations, and was symbolical- ly burned at the stake by crit- ics who cruelly branded her anti-Semitic, and of course, anti-American. The venomous attacks on her were over-the-top. They displayed an insecurity and cruelness by some unques- tioning supporters of Israel and U.S. policy, who do not permit criticism. Her two main sins that un- leashed the pro-Israel bloggers, journalists, and some media outlets themselves, were these: During the height of the Is- rael-Lebanon war in the sum- mer of 2006, Arbour issued a statement calling for the pro- tection of civilians: "International law demands accountability . . . the scale of the killings in the region could engage the personal criminal responsibility of those involved, particularly those in a position of command and control." Immediately criticized as an anti-Semite in some quarters, she was condemned for imply- ing that Israel targeted civil- ians. That's not what she said. Nevertheless, the unfair and irreparable anti-Semitic label had been affixed. Moreover, this year it was reported that Arbour sup- ported a new Arab Charter of Human Rights introduced at the UN. One of its articles called for the condemnation and elimi- nation of all "forms of racism, Zionism and foreign occu- pation and domination . . ." therein, apparently, equating Zionism with racism and call- www.lawtimesnews.com ing for its elimination. She was criticized and it was suggested that she supported the elimi- nation of Israel. This of course is a prepos- terous suggestion. There were many aspects of human rights in the charter that her office would support, and other Speaker's aspects she took issue with. Moreover, her office issued clarifications: "Throughout the develop- ment of the Arab Charter, my office shared concerns with the drafters about the incompatibili- ty of some of the provisions with international norms and stan- dards. These concerns included the approach to the death pen- alty for children and the rights of women and non-citizens. Moreover, to the extent that it equates Zionism with rac- ism, we reiterated that the Arab Charter is not in conformity with General Assembly Resolu- tion 48/86, which rejects that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination." But the dye had been cast again, unfairly. And then, she dared to take on the U.S. She criticized the Bush administration's abusive Guantanamo experiment, and questioned the use of torture and secret renditions. Arbour, without armour, stepped into these dark corners with a light long before it be- came fashionable to do so. She paid a heavy price. I remember watching a CBC television interview with her in the months leading up to the end of her term. It was sad witnessing what I thought was a brief moment of disappointment at the lack of gratitude that she was experi- encing for the job she did . . . from her own country. I sensed that she was not looking to be praised, just for some acknowledgement for the task she undertook and perhaps the courage she displayed. At the close of her tenure she finally did get a nod. The praise was faint. This is what was said officially from then minister of foreign affairs Maxime Bernier, on March 7: "On behalf of the govern- ment of Canada, I thank Lou- ise Arbour for her four years of service to the international community as high commis- sioner for Human Rights of the United Nations. "Madame Arbour's career in Canada and abroad has been devoted to expanding the con- cepts of human rights and fun- damental justice. As high com- missioner, she championed causes that had languished at the margins of human rights work of the United Nations. She was steadfast in the pursuit of her vision of an indepen- dent high commissioner who acts in new and energetic ways to increase the presence of her office around the world. "Her appointment reflected Corner the proud tradition of Cana- dian support for the United Nations and its work, a tradition that our govern- ment intends to strength- en in the future." But these comments were rendered meaningless by the president of the trea- sury board and former min- ister of justice Vic Toews, who on June 17, in Parliament, described Louise Arbour as a disgrace. When asked to retract, he reiterated that her remarks, "with respect to the state of Is- rael and the people of Israel are in fact a disgrace and I stand by those words." It was shocking to hear a member of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government display this unseemly attack on this remarkably distinguished Canadian woman, academic, justice of the Court of Appeal, chief prosecutor for the Inter- national Criminal Tribunals, justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, and a member of the Order of Canada. But politics seems to trump courage, decency, and principled honesty. Surely, you can criticize Arbour without trashing her rep- utation, unless of course it is more important not to risk offending the American government and some insecure pro-Israel voters. Nevertheless, there is a ques- tion that must be asked. Where are Louise Arbour's friends? Her colleagues on the benches of our courts (other than for- mer Supreme Court justice Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, who defended her), the academics, the politicians, and especially members of this profession have been silent. Are we too afraid to offend the powerful? Too cautious to step up and state that her treat- ment is absolutely unacceptable? In a world of ethnic cleansing, kidnapped chil- dren in uniform, desecration of women and the young, torture of prisoners, and millions in refugee camps, Louise Arbour stood up and pointed fingers where she be- lieved it was necessary. She openly criticized, yet also quietly engaged in diplomat- ic discussions. She reminded the world that humanity is fragile, and the rule of law and respect for the dignity of every human being must trump political niceties. She is truly a remarkable woman, indeed a Canadian icon . . . a member of this pro- fession, who we seem to have shamefully abandoned. LT William Trudell is a Toronto lawyer and chairman of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers. PAGE 7

• Cover