Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Dec. 11th, 2014

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Do the two segments get along here in this new country of Canada? Have some of the atrocities been forgotten? I know that you remember them every year, but have some of them been put aside so that as Rwandans you get along?

[Jean-Bosco Iyakaremye]

That is a very difficult question. Genocide is a crime that creates a vast gulf in the community where it is perpetrated. We are not going to see Hutus and Tutsis communicate openly overnight. It is difficult to be among the survivors of the genocide, but it is even harder to belong to the group that committed the genocide, because people do not want to accept that their ethnic group committed a genocide. This reflects on them and attaches to them.

So long as the Hutus do not accept that there was a genocide in Rwanda, it is difficult to reach out a hand and meet somewhere along the way. The first step should be made by the other community, which should say: “We know you have lost your dear ones and we sympathise with you.” That would be the first step, but they have not made it yet, and I think I can say that they never will.

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you.

I don't know how to phrase this, but I can remember growing up, when I was younger, and I looked at the little village where I lived. I felt I was less fortunate than some of my friends were, and for many years I wished I was someone else. Finally one day I said, why not be Gary Schellenberger? What's the matter with being Gary Schellenberger and being the best you can be? So I took that upon myself.

It's just a little bit of instruction that might go to some of these people, to the mothers, who gave up their children. It was not their fault. They are human beings, and they are who they are, and they should be proud of who they are.

It's just a suggestion, sir.

[Jean-Bosco Iyakaremye]

Fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

We now go to Mr. Benskin.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you for sharing your opinions with us and for providing us with some clarifications on proper genocide terminology.

I use the word “crisis”, but not at all in the sense of “genocide”. In my opinion, the situation of these young people and children born of rape is a crisis.

We are going to take the time to study this question and determine how Canada could be better prepared the next time human beings do something as terrible as the Tutsi genocide. We know that there are problems at this time in Syria and in Congo.

In your testimony you laid out quite clearly four points with regard to children born of rape: they're rejected by their mothers; they're rejected by their families; they're rejected by their communities; and they're rejected by the state. In order to not let the intent of this act come to fruition—the intent of this act was to destroy communities, to destroy the lines of families, and to destroy the country that the Tutsis were a part of—in order to not allow that to happen, I think there needs to be a means of reconciling the relationship between the mothers and the children and of reconciling the relationship between the children and their communities and the state. Part of that would be allowing these children access to the healing resources that are available to the survivors and the orphans of the genocide.

Would you care to comment on that?

[Jean-Bosco Iyakaremye]

Thank you very much. That is a good suggestion.

I am myself outraged by the fact that the government is rejecting these children and does not consider them to be survivors of the genocide. They were born after the genocide, of course, but their mothers are survivors. They should consequently be considered as survivors of the genocide and not be rejected by the state. They should benefit from the same advantages as those granted to the young survivors of the genocide, particularly where education is concerned.

You raise a very important question, which is what can be done so that this never happens again. Yes, recognizing these children would be a step in the right direction, but there should be much more than that.

I have just completed a doctoral thesis on the prevention of genocide. In fact, I finished drafting it and I am waiting for the opportunity to defend it. I worked on the topic for five years. My purpose was not at all to obtain a university diploma; I wanted to understand why my family and friends had been massacred without having committed any crime, and why they were executed without judgments; I wanted to see what could be done in the future to make sure this never happens again anywhere. That is why I sacrificed everything I could have done during those five years I worked on my thesis.

Overall, it discusses ways of preventing genocide. In fact, the title of my thesis is La prévention du génocide: un défi possible à relever, Preventing genocide: a challenge that can be met. First of all, why do genocides occur? The answer to that would be long and I don't want to go on at length on that topic, but I would to say that all of us who are here have a responsibility regarding what happens in other countries and in communities where there is violence; especially here, in the western world.

We have the good fortune of being listened to by our elected representatives but we do not use that power we have to make them act, and that is very unfortunate. We do not take into account the suffering of others who are far away from us because it does not concern us. And it is that individual indifference that is reflected in the individual states; and the corollary is of course indifference.

For 10 years now the citizens of Darfur have been living in camps. We sent soldiers over there to try to alleviate their distress, but what can be done to allow these people to go back home, to their villages? Are we not all responsible?

In Congo, the war has been going on for more than 10 years, and thousands, if not millions of people have been killed. But what are we doing to put an end to it? Nothing, nothing is being done. Unfortunately, that indifference encourages genocide. In fact, if we stood up and said “Stop! This is over!”, it would end. The Tutsi genocide did not fall from the sky; it was not a spontaneous eruption. For 35 years, the Tutsis were ostracized in Rwanda; they lived as second class citizens but no one acknowledged it.

At a time when everyone was condemning apartheid in South Africa, the same phenomenon was affecting Rwanda, but no one was calling it by that name. No one spoke about it. However if it had been stopped, this would have spared the one million victims that were murdered in the genocide.

I apologize, but when I talk about this topic, I do get a bit worked up. Perhaps it is also a relief for me.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you.

We go now to Ms. Grewal.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Iyakaremye, thank you very much for agreeing to appear before our committee today and for sharing your insights into the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide.

I understand that rape was a reward the leaders gave to those who killed, and that estimates of the number of children born of rape are anywhere from 5,000 to almost 20,000. Rape likely occurs in all wars, but apparently it was more widespread in Rwanda. In your opinion, why was this the case?

[Jean-Bosco Iyakaremye]

I did not quite understand the question. Was it about the numbers?

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

No; why was it the case that it was so widespread in Rwanda?

[Jean-Bosco Iyakaremye]

I see. That is a good question.

In my presentation I talked a little about the fact that the rapes committed during the Tutsi genocide were crimes of envy. Let me explain what I mean by that.

Hutus and Tutsis had lived in the same villages forever in Rwanda, but there had not really been any intermarriages, as one might have thought, among these populations that lived side by side. The Tutsis were considered to be of a higher class, while the Hutus were considered to be lower class.

The Tutsi women were beautiful, according to the canons of beauty in Africa or elsewhere. The Hutu women were not as beautiful as the Tutsi women. The Hutus would have like to have Tutsi women because they were beautiful, but they were unattainable to them because they were from the lower class.

During the genocide, the Hutu men got their revenge. They raped Tutsi women who were unattainable to them previously. They felt they then had to rape these women who would not accept marriage to Hutu men. The Hutu women were in agreement with that because they considered that these women had been disdainful and needed to be dragged through the mud.

At the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, in Arusha, one woman who was Minister of Family Affairs was accused of having incited militiamen and even her own son to rape Tutsi women. As I was saying, it was a crime of envy.

During the first trial that took place at the Arusha tribunal, it was recognized that Burgomaster Akayesu—a burgomaster is the mayor of a commune—the first person to have been convicted of genocide, had urged Hutus in his commune to rape Tutsi women by saying “You will not have to ask me what a Tutsi woman tastes like anymore.” That is why I said that these were not crimes to help win the war. This was entirely different.

Currently, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, rape is used as a weapon of war. The militiamen who are fighting amongst themselves want to humiliate the men they are fighting with. When they have won they do not kill them, but they go and rape their women as a way of saying:“There, we are superior.” That is rape used as a weapon of war. It is different from what happened in Rwanda, where the men raped the women after having killed their husbands.

I don't know if I answered your question correctly, but if you need a clarification I can provide one if you did not understand me.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Unlike genocide orphans, children of rape in Rwanda do not qualify—

Yes, Mr. Chair? Am I finished?

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

You're out of time. I'm sorry.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

That's okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

My apologies for that.

Professor Cotler, you're next.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, I want to congratulate you for your testimony today and congratulate you on your doctorate on the prevention of genocide.

As you know, Parliament unanimously adopted a motion to establish a National Day of Reflexion on the Prevention of Genocide, which was inspired by the genocide in Rwanda.

On the matter you spoke about—your concern and proper clarifications in order that we don't give fodder to those who deny the genocide in Rwanda, on the matter of rape as an act of war—you were correct in discussions about that issue, but I just want to also offer a comment on that. In fact, the international criminal tribunals regarding Rwanda and even our own Supreme Court did find that there have been instances when rape was not only a consequence of the genocide but, in fact, was used as an instrument, in certain circumstances, to commit acts of genocide. I don't want to give fodder to those who would say there was no rape as part of genocidal acts.

My question has to do with the important points of your testimony and our subject matter regarding the children of rape, and, in particular, the matter of denial of benefits to children of rape victims. To me, if the state denies legitimacy to the children of rape victims by withholding assistance, that also tends to undermine the capacity for acceptance by the mothers, by the families, and by the community.

I have two particular questions in that regard. Number one, as part of the national process of reconciliation in Rwanda, has the importance of providing benefits and assistance to children of rape come up?

Number two, how can we, as parliamentarians, assist in getting the Rwandan government to provide assistance? As I say that, I realize the problems we have, because Canada withdrew its own assistance from Rwanda in 2012, I think because it felt Rwanda had a 6% growth rate, while in fact 40% of Rwandans are living in poverty. I think we have to correct what we did and renew assistance to Rwanda to better make the case for why the Rwandan government should give assistance.

Could you comment on the issue of assistance? Is it brought up in the reconciliation process, and what can we do in that regard?

[Jean-Bosco Iyakaremye]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Cotler.

I agree with what you said about rape being used as an act of war. I just answered madam's question on that. I stressed the fact that rape could sometimes be used as an act of war, as is the case today and as was previously the case in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. During the Tutsi genocide, women were not raped to win the war, but for other reasons, as I mentioned.

Deniers claim that rape did not occur and that the crime was added at the last minute to the charges Akayesu was tried for in Arusha, because Hillary Clinton wanted to hijack the trial to put the focus on the plight of women and the suffering they endured during the Tutsi genocide. Ms. Clinton didn't need to raise the issue; the facts were known. As I pointed out earlier, almost every surviving Tutsi woman had been raped. The same is true of those who did not survive. In fact, most were killed after being raped, en masse, for that matter. All Tutsi women were raped during the genocide. That is a fact everyone is aware of.

As far as the children of rape are concerned, what can Canada do to compel the Rwandan government to accept those children and provide for them so they can live and go to school?

I think Canada can do a lot for Rwanda through the reconciliation process. That is true not just with respect to the children of rape, so I would like to stay on that topic. As you, yourself, said, it is hard for Canada to do anything given the lack of compulsive measures. Only when a country provides assistance to another country can it make that country do something. The assisting country can require the receiving country to respect its people's rights or risk losing the support. It is very difficult for Canada to influence Rwandan policies given that it withdrew its assistance.

Unfortunately, I can't think of any other solution.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you, Professor Cotler.

We're turning now to Mr. Sweet.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for your testimony and as well for sharing the concerns around the language we use in regard to the nature of the genocide.

I thought it was interesting that one of the questions you answered was in regard to the communication between Hutus and Tutsis even here in Canada. The reconciliation continues.

This may be difficult, but with your communications back home, is the reconciliation process similar in the diaspora as well as back home? Is there more progress back in Rwanda or more progress here?

[Jean-Bosco Iyakaremye]

That is an excellent question.

The reconciliation between Hutus and Tutsis would appear to be going well in Rwanda, according to the publications put out by various institutions. We see pictures of a widow strolling hand-in-hand with the man who killed her husband along with statements to the effect that the reconciliation is going strong.

Those claims are false, in my opinion. They make no sense. How can you overlook the fact that someone killed a loved one, especially when they weren't punished for it. They go to jail for 5 or 10 years and come back to you and say, "we can be friends now".

The genocide happened because the government recruited people and drove them to do horrible things that a normal person would never do.

The same kind of brainwashing is going on today. Survivors are being forced to go along with reconciliation and show that they are doing so. But do they really mean it? I doubt it.

Thank you.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Let's pursue that a bit more. You mentioned the communication here in Canada. You believe it's because of proximity that there's a forced living together, so to speak, but yet it's not a genuine reconciliation?

[Jean-Bosco Iyakaremye]

Here, in Canada, no one is forcing us to live with people who don't have empathy for what we and others went through. In Rwanda, however, the government is pressuring survivors to forgive those who murdered their loved ones.

Forgiveness can't be ordered. It comes from a personal place. People can't now be ordered to forgive others. It's impossible. Unsolicited forgiveness has to start with a heartfelt confession from the wrongdoer seeking forgiveness. Only then can the victim forgive. Without a confession or request for forgiveness, how can survivors forgive? Do you understand what I mean?

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Is Humura exclusively a Tutsi organization?

[Jean-Bosco Iyakaremye]

Yes, entirely.