Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Feb. 26th, 2015

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

Thank you.

Welcome, and thank you for your testimony. This is a huge and ongoing issue.

Mr. Azoulay, you briefly touched on a few thousand years of history in a matter of moments, on an issue that still is very, very poignant today. As my colleague Mr. Sweet pointed out, two nights ago we had a take-note debate on the issue of anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, in my hometown there was an incident in the Côte-Saint-Luc area, NDG area, of anti-Semitic acts.

It's an issue that's steeped in history, and issues that are steeped in history, as we've seen throughout history, are very, very hard issues to tackle. In Iran there's a population, you said, of 8,000 Jews still in Iran.

First off, just for my own edification, have they chosen to stay in Iran because of the fact that they are Iranian or their history is Iranian, or are they being prevented from leaving? Is there a travel ban that's preventing them from leaving?

[David Matas]

They can't go to Israel because there are exit controls in Iran, and the Iranians wouldn't let them go. They could potentially go to another country, and then from another country go to Israel, but they'd have to disguise their intention.

The official position of Iran is that Israel does not exist. They don't even use the name “Israel”. They call it the Zionist entity, even at the UN. I was there once at a UN debate where they kept calling it the Zionist entity instead of Israel, and the chair said they had to call it by its proper name. So for them Israel doesn't exist, and anything that the state has to do that would officially encompass the recognition of Israel doesn't happen.

There are even a few Jews left in Afghanistan. Sometimes people are so tied up with their.... Of course, we saw this during the Holocaust, some Jews would stay, even with the advent of Nazism. Some Jews hope for the best. They have community ties, they're prepared to go along, but there is a price to be paid. This goes back to the hypocrisy of the regime. If you look at the Constitution of Iran, it protects Jewish religious rights, but as long as they're prepared—obviously the large majority of them weren't prepared to do so— to denounce Israel, reject Zionism, then they can lead their lives. I guess it's a choice made in a coercive environment. Most of them have chosen not to make that choice, but a small minority have remained behind.

They're in a difficult situation. I remember just a few years ago about a dozen of them were being prosecuted for being spies for Israel. They were trumped-up charges. They were really being prosecuted for being sympathetic to Israel. I tried to go to Iran to observe the trial, and I asked the Iranian government for a visa. I never got a response.

I think we're concerned about the Jews in Iran. I think we have to be concerned about Israel and the diaspora. We also have to be concerned about those 8,900 who are poorly put upon.

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

Thank you.

We've spoken about the sanctions and whether or not those sanctions are effective. On the diplomatic side, right now there are no diplomatic relations between Iran and Canada. Normally, when we have diplomatic relations with a country, we at least have access to that country and access to information about what's going on. As you said and as we've heard from previous testimony, what is being said and what is being done are two different things.

For example, historically we had the situation where there were no diplomatic ties between China and the U.S. during the Nixon era, yet there were backdoor discussions between Kissinger and various people during that period.

Could you comment on whether there would be any value in beginning or at least trying to open some sort of diplomatic contact with Iran, to at least be able to get truer information as to what's happening with all the religious minorities and the ethnic minorities in Iran?

[David Matas]

First of all, I apologize, Mr. Chair. I didn't really properly introduce myself at the beginning, but I'm an immigration lawyer in Winnipeg. I'm particularly sensitive to the fact that there's no embassy in Tehran, because that means there's no visa office in Tehran. Afghanistan refugees who were in Iran—and there are a lot of them—now have to deal with the the Canadian visa office in Ankara, Turkey. Also, the Afghani refugees in Iran can't get into Turkey, so that's a very practical problem.

When you're talking about diplomatic relations or sanctions, this is an issue that involves more than just Canada. If Canada alone were imposing sanctions, they wouldn't have much of an effect; and if Canada alone were dealing with Iran, it also wouldn't have much of an effect. Canada in isolation is not that important a player politically, economically, or militarily in Iran. I think what we have to do we have to do in concert.

There are sanctions against Iran globally right now, and that's why they're working; that's why they have an impact. It's not just that Canada's doing it. I don't think Canada should be breaking ranks. I think Canada should be joining in on that, and the same is true for diplomatic relations. Diplomatic relations are a bit touchy, because we broke off diplomatic relations when, under the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, we listed Iran as a terrorist state and the Iranian revolutionary guard as a terrorist entity.

Part of the rhetoric of Iran involves perverse mirror imaging. We accuse them of human rights violations; they accuse us of human rights violations. Obviously, there's nothing comparable, but in their distorted rhetoric, that's the way they deal with it. The government, as I understood it, was concerned. If we set up legislation that says they can be sued in Canada, they're just going to seize our assets in Iran on the same kind of perverse reciprocal basis.

So, I can see a logic in doing it. I know that military and security establishments sometimes have private back-channel communications with people with whom there are no official communications. As an outsider and a member of an NGO, I can't say a whole lot about it. But I would say that the official government policy, which involves sanctions and no diplomatic relations, in context even though it causes a lot of difficulty, including for people in my practice, all the same makes sense.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Wayne Marston]

Thank you, Mr. Matas.

Ms. Grewal.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for their testimony before the subcommittee this afternoon, and for their commitment in the struggle against injustice, human rights abuses, and anti-Semitism.

In a region of the world with a troubling record on civil liberties and human rights—especially for women, girls, and minorities—Iran stands as particularly egregious. A recent report by Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, the UN special rapporteur, stated that there are at least 895 prisoners of conscience and political prisoners incarcerated in Iran. This includes political activists, religious minorities, civil activists, students, journalists, and other civil society leaders. Political prisoners face widespread physical and mental abuse. According to some human rights groups, Iranian authorities execute, on average, more than two people a day. Clearly, Canada must continue to speak out against these abuses.

You stated, Mr. Matas, that Hassan Rouhani has had no positive impact and is no better than Ahmadinejad. Iran's impact on human rights extends beyond its borders. ISIL, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas are some of the most dangerous terrorist groups, and they all depend on the support of countries like Iran.

I understand there have been disagreements between Iran and Hamas and a corresponding decline in support. That being said, did Iran provide support to Hamas in its recent war with Israel, and if so, in what manner?

[David Matas]

Iran has been using Hamas for its anti-Israel agenda. Iran is Shia and Hamas is Sunni, so there is this divide between them.

Hamas suffered as a result of the last war. A lot of the infrastructure was destroyed. Iran has been arming them and egging them on. Occasionally Israel intercepts arms shipments from Iran to Hamas.

Hamas has backed off recently because it doesn't want to restart what it just went through, and Iran disagrees with that. Iran wants Hamas to keep on attacking Israel, so there is a bit of a drift that way.

This kind of drift obviously doesn't give me any sense of satisfaction with Iran, quite the opposite. It says something about Iran. If you read the Hamas charter you can't imagine anything more anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli but it's not good enough for Iran. They want more. So I think that gives you an idea of the extent of the problem we're facing with Iran.

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

I see.

Would any of you like to comment?

[Yehuda Azoulay]

You mentioned approximately two people a day die in Iran. If you do the calculation properly 730 people die annually.

I have a friend in Toronto who has seen one of these deaths. It is important that we take these steps.

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

In Iran, official government discrimination against Jews has been pervasive and fostered a threatening atmosphere for the approximately 20,000 to 25,000 members of the Jewish community there. Over the years top political and religious leaders made public remarks denying the Holocaust and calling for the elimination of the state of Israel. Has there been any increase in anti-Semitism, and why are Jews being targeted?

[David Matas]

The numbers have slowly decreased over the years. In 1948 there were a variety of estimates; we don't have an official census, but probably the best figure is from the Jewish Agency, which had an office in Tehran at the time, and they said between 100,000 and 120,000. At one point it went down to 25,000, which is the figure you mention.

There was a census in 2011 and I think it was 8,956, a very specific number. That may be under-reporting because some people may not want to identify as Jewish, but it's probably the best figure we've got right now and that's four years ago, so it's probably even less now.

There is anti-Semitism but it melds with anti-Zionism. If you are prepared to denounce Israel and Zionism maybe you are going to be left alone or you'll be under a cloud of suspicion, but that's all.

The anti-Zionism has gotten worse because of the advent of the state of Israel. There were some anti-Semitic problems in Iran before the advent of the state of Israel just because of the pervasive influence of the Nazi ideology, which spread everywhere, including the Middle East. It just assumed particular vehemence once the advent of the state of Israel occurred. It went through stages. There was a problem in 1948, and there was the Mossadegh government, which was anti-Semitic. He was replaced by the Shah of Iran whose regime was not anti-Semitic. The exodus more or less stopped. Between 1948 and the time when the Shah came to power about 70,000 people had left before he came to power and then the exodus stopped because he was not anti-Zionist, he was not anti-Israel, he was treating the Jewish population properly and people stayed, which I think in itself was also an indication of what was going on there.

Then in 1979 he was gone. During his period about 80,000 people were there. After 1979 it went from 80,000 to about 9,000 now because this regime—even the regime of Mossadegh was bad but certainly not as bad as the current regime. The anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism aren't just a facet of the regime, I view them as central to its core ideology. This is why the regime is there. That's what it's about. It's obviously got other facets—

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Wayne Marston]

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to jump in here or other people are going to lose their chance for a question. You're two minutes over again. I'm sorry, but if you'd like, you could pick it up with the next question.

Mr. Cotler, I understand you have a motion that you'd like us to deal with. Could you be very brief?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Yes. Before I put my questions, I'd like to deal with the motion now if I can. I have an S.O. 31 statement, and I may not even be able to listen to the answers after I put the questions, because I've been told I have to be in the House.

You have the motion regarding imprisoned Saudi blogger Raif Badawi. I've spoken to the representatives of the parties. I believe all are in agreement.

I agree with what Mr. Sweet recommended to me, which is that in the last paragraph we make an amendment where it says “call on the Government of Canada to use all available means” and we change that to “continue to use all available means”. I'm fine with that.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Wayne Marston]

Is everyone okay with that?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Do we have consensus on the actual motion?

(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Go ahead with your questions.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I appreciate that because of the urgency of the situation of Mr. Badawi.

Now I'll go to my questions. I apologize if I have to run before the answers, because I must speak in the House.

My colleague David Sweet, I might begin, just referred to the four-hour debate we held in the House on anti-Semitism. I want to commend my colleagues from all parties who participated in that debate and will just mention that the House yesterday unanimously adopted a resolution condemning the alarming rise in anti-Semitism and calling on the government to continue to make the combatting of anti-Semitism a domestic and international priority. I think that resolution is the first that I know of, in any parliament anywhere, that has been so expressive and specific in that regard. The fact that it was unanimous is something that I think bears appreciation.

To my question now, Mr. Matas, you spoke about the language in the UN General Assembly and said that it should be enhanced referencing the Iranian incitement. As you know, the 21st century began with Supreme Leader Khomeini saying that there can be no solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict without the annihilation of the Jewish state. More recently, that language has continued with references to the excising of Israel as being a “cancerous tumour” in the Middle East. We don't have Ahmadinejad around anymore, but that language has not necessarily receded.

My first question to you—and then I'll put the second one to you and you can answer them both—is whether there are legal remedies we can use to sanction the Iranian leadership for this state-sanctioned incitement to hate and to genocide, which is arguably a violation of the prohibition against incitement in the genocide convention. That's the first question.

The second question has to do with the fact that tomorrow is the global day of action for the Education is Not a Crime campaign to dramatize the painful reality that education is a crime for the Baha'i community, whose members are effectively treated as non-citizens in Iran and are today the largest but most persecuted minority in Iran. I know that this has been another area of your concern. I thought I would invite you to comment on that, if you want to, as another symbol of the Iranian domestic repression of human rights and religious freedom.

[David Matas]

In terms of legal remedies, obviously there is no legal remedy in Iran. In terms of international remedies through the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court, there might be a remedy through the International Court of Justice through the genocide convention if one state wants to bring Iran to the International Court of Justice under the genocide convention.

Iran is not a state party to the International Criminal Court.

In terms of Canada, there is potential universal jurisdiction but we'd have to have legislation that grants that universal jurisdiction. Right now we have universal jurisdiction legislation, as I mentioned before, under the Justice for Prevention of Terrorism Act, which relates only to terrorism. It could potentially include incitement to terrorism, which is one of the offences, and it is a civil remedy.

We do have international criminal universal jurisdiction remedies, which include genocide and incitement to genocide. They require the consent of the attorney general and they require presence. Somebody would actually have to be here, or a Canadian victim. I would say that there are Canadian victims of this incitement to terrorism, so we could potentially ask the attorney general to prosecute for incitement to terrorism with consent.

I think one thing that would be useful is simply getting.... There are these international arrest warrants already through Interpol for a number of people in the Iranian regime because of the AMIA bombing. I think we should be urging that these people be turned over for prosecution, not to Canada, but to Argentina. I think that would be helpful in seeing international legal remedies work.

In terms of your second question about the Baha'i, you have to ask why the regime is anti-Semitic, why it is anti-Zionist. To a certain extent the answer is the same as why it's anti-Baha'i. It's using this hatred as a vehicle for putting itself in power, and keeping itself in power. Whipping up hatred against others is a way of whipping up support for itself.

I would say that this is a standard totalitarian tactic. These people couldn't get elected but they have to justify their power in some way so this is the way they justify it, by saying, we're the enemy of the Jews, we're the enemy of Baha'i , we're the guardians of the faith of Islam or Shiism. I see that ideological connection here.

I think it's always worthwhile, when you're looking at these violators, to look at the ideological foundations of their hatred. What we see with Iran is an ideological foundation that ties together their anti-Baha'i attitudes and their anti-Semitic attitudes.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Matas.

I'll ask the committee to check my notes, and I must rush.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Wayne Marston]

Thank you, Mr. Cotler.

Mr. Hillyer.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Before I get into some questions, Mr. Sweet and I thought it might be good to call some attention to what it takes to qualify as a political prisoner. There are a lot of political prisoners and those are just words out there. It doesn't take much to qualify to become a political prisoner, does it? Who is being thrown in jail as a political prisoner?

[David Matas]

I know that Amnesty International has a definition of a “prisoner of conscience”, who is a person being detained only for his conscientiously held beliefs and not for any acts of violence. I think that's pretty straightforward.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

You're talking about the UN definition. What does it take to get the regime mad enough at you to say, we're going to throw you in jail, and not just for your thoughts or your conscience?

[David Matas]

Again, this is a concept you find in the refugee convention.

A political prisoner is not somebody who has a political opinion. A political prisoner may have no opinion, or may actually support the regime. But as long as the regime thinks or perceives you're the enemy and they throw you in jail because of that, it doesn't matter what you are personally, you become a political prisoner.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

Also, I wonder if you could help distinguish some terminology. First of all, to anti-Zionists, “Zionism” or being a “Zionist” is used as an insult or as a derogatory term. How is Zionism distinct from just being Jewish, or how is anti-Zionist distinct from being anti-Semitic, and is there a difference between being a Zionist and being pro-Israel?

[David Matas]

Why don't we let somebody else start this?

[Michael Mostyn]

It's an interesting phenomenon.

Anti-Semitism in the classical sense has shifted over the years. When you're talking about the time of Nazi Germany, people could go through the streets and say, “we hate Jews”. In the modern sense, we simply don't see this anymore.

Across this country, on Canadian university campuses, many of which have become very uncomfortable for Jewish students, you don't typically hear the rhetoric, “I hate Jews”; you hear, “I hate Israel”. All of the classical attributes of anti-Semitism rather than being applied to the individual, as was done in the past—and at the time of Holocaust, there was no state of Israel—are being placed onto the state of Israel today. So they'll say, “I hate Zionists”. The feeling is that even if it is only a political expression, it is still obviously discrimination. The vast majority, everybody within mainstream Judaism, views themselves as Zionists. There's a historical connection. There's a religious connection. This is something that Jews pray for—Zion and Jerusalem—every day. It's an essential part. That's how things have sort of shifted over time. There have been Zionism resolutions at the United Nations. But that's essentially what has happened— that flip—so it's an attack on Israel. They'll say, “well, we have problems with Israel's policy”, but the lie to that is essentially that when they say, “well you're a Jew, so clearly you must be a supporter of Israel, so clearly I'm going to be discriminating against you because I'm inferring those views upon you”, that essentially speaks for itself and that's why it is essentially the same thing. It's anti-Semitism and it's Jew hatred. It's just a more polite expression of it in civil society today.