Last May 29, five board members of the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, a Montreal-based organization usually known as Rights and Democracy, wrote to the Privy Council Office in Ottawa. Formed by an act of Parliament in 1988, Rights and Democracy receives $11 million a year from the federal government, which appoints its 10 Canadian board members (who then elect three international members). Rights and Democracy led the world, and far outpaced Canada’s government, last year in criticizing Afghanistan’s odious Shia family law, which would permit husbands to force their wives to have sex.
The May letter came from five of the seven board members who attended the March 26 board meeting. Its purpose was to complain about the other two: Aurel Braun, a University of Toronto political scientist who had been named board chairman only two weeks before the meeting, and Jacques Gauthier, the vice-chair.
At the meeting the board went in camera to discuss the performance of its president, Rémy Beauregard. That discussion ended with an endorsement of Beauregard. But Braun instructed the secretary not to record that result. Soon after, Braun, Gauthier and a third board member, Elliot Tepper, sent a confidential evaluation of Beauregard to the Privy Council Office. Beauregard was not permitted to see it.
Faced with this “manifest lack of transparency and violation of procedure,” the five board members asked the government to force Braun to show Beauregard the report. That didn’t happen.
In October, the five board members wrote a second letter, to Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon. The board had been scheduled to meet days earlier, they wrote. But Braun, “in consultation with only four of 11 members of the board (there were then two vacancies), decided to cancel the meeting.” The five board members said the board was now “dysfunctional.” Given this “crisis,” they asked Cannon to replace Braun with a new chairman.
By January, the Harper government had filled the two board vacancies. One new appointee was David Matas, the legal counsel for B’nai Brith Canada. The other was Michael Van Pelt, who heads a Christian think tank called Cardus. At the Cardus founding conference last autumn, Van Pelt said, “Canada’s new debate and that of the world will be one of faith and belief. It will be one of a religious character.”
Thus reinforced, Braun and his faction squared off against the rest of the board at an unbelievably tense board meeting in the first week of January. Two still newer board members joined: Brad Farquhar, who used to work for the Saskatchewan Party and who ran against Ralph Goodale for the federal Conservatives in 2006; and Marco Navarro-Génie, a political scientist from St. Mary’s University College in Calgary. His thesis adviser at the University of Calgary was former Harper strategist Tom Flanagan.
Navarro-Génie was able to take his place on the board after a one-vote majority decided against extending the term of Guido Riveros Franck, a former Bolivian member of Parliament. Riveros Franck was one of the five who wrote to Ottawa protesting against Braun’s management. Two more quit immediately in disgust. Payam Akhavan is a tireless advocate for Iranian democracy who teaches at McGill University. Sima Samar is an Afghan human-rights advocate. In 2003 she left the Karzai government after receiving death threats for her criticism of sharia law.
Pages: 1 2
Print
Comment
Lets all BUY the magazine It is definately excellent journalism.
Quote: "Later that night Rémy Beauregard died in his bed of a heart attack. When Aurel Braun signed his name to a notice of condolence on the organization’s website, Beauregard’s widow, Suzanne Trépanier, wrote him a furious letter. 'You don’t treat a person like you did with Rémy and then praise his qualities after he is dead. This is, to me, hypocrisy.'”
This reminds me of scenes in Mafia fiction (Mario Puzo's "The Godfather") and non-fiction (Gay Talese's ("Honor Thy Father") in which a Mafia don attends the funeral of a rival in order to pay his respects. Didn't realize till now that academics could match that benchmark for callous hypocrisy. It's impressive, in a way. For some the fabled Ivory Tower of academe is evidently more of a fortress.
Why do we as taxpayers continue to allow our money to be wasted on useless, featherbedding purposeless outfits like this? Did all of these people donate huge sums of money to federal politicians in order to get these ridiculous positions? Get rid of the whole can of rubbish and make these people get real jobs.
Hear! Hear!
Well's blogs, the Jerusalem Post article, and especially Harper's injection of neocons and zionists into the Rights the Democracy group, and the entire Byzantine episode shows the determination of the very powerful political group known as the Israel Lobby to silence debate over and criticism of Israel. Much more threatening to Canadians however, are the secret meetings on Parliament Hill between members of the Israel Lobby and Harper's neocons, who are preparing legislation to silence Canadian criticism of Israel. If this dark agenda succeed we will lose our democratic rights and freedoms, and we have the Israel Lobby to thank. This kind of meddling in Canadian politics by ethnic groups with aggressive political arms have already put Canadians at risk because of our foolish participation in Bush;s war on terror, and the meddling must be stopped. The tail has been waging the Canadian dog for too long, and thanks to Paul Wells we get a very good picture of just how they're doing it.
You are absolutely right on this, and I know for certain I do not want to be governed by Israel's leaders, and yet that is where we are headed. Already, like in the war on Lebanon and the massacre in Gaza, anyone in Canada who criticizes the Israel war machine, is quickly silenced or labelled a "terrorist" or antisemitic. We have to sit in shame, worried about our job prospects, if we dare to speak out. Canada used to be seen as fairminded and I used to be proud of this country, but it's been a while since I've felt any pride.
You two have got to be kidding me! With all that has been going on with censorship in Canada you are trying to portry this as the tip of a Zionist plot to silence criticism of Israel. Get your blinders off and look into the issue. Any attempt to rein in the R and D bunch has to do with inappropriate use of Canadian money to support groups. It also has to do with problems of accountability for funds used by the group.
If i had a dime for every anti Israel fanatic babbling about plots and jewish conspiracies on the web i might be able to afford to hang with the Rights and Democracy staff (again, research the story) or maybe i could be charitable and donate the money to have you peoples blinders removed.
Another example of how the Liberals refuse to accept the fact that they are not in power. So when their appointees are replaced they rally their left wing media friends like Wells to help create outrage through misinformation. Get over it Liberals, you lost.
I'm not convinced that this is good journalism. I read elsewhere that the real reasons for the war is that the newer members challenged the non-accountability of Beauregard and the rest of the Board, their support of questionable allocation of monies to a suspect terrorist supporter and lavish expenditures on meals etc. The newer board members wanted to inject accountability into the process and the older Board members objected to the new scrutiny.
Implying that Conservative appointees are motivated by a desire for accountability and transparency is absurd in light of Harper's litany of lies in Parliament and his legendary disdain for journalists who try to get to the bottom of his actions. Harper's last campaign was all about accountability and transparency but his secret meetings with special interest groups like the Israel Lobby, and forcing his own members jnto silence shows that the man has no understanding of, or desire for, accountability. So where would his appointees get the idea? After all; monkey see, monkey do.
More importantly, democratically elected political groups like Hamas are no more terrorist than the Likud Party, or Conservative Party in Canada. Neocons and Zionists are clearly the real terrorists with global reach, and working together they are responsible for the destruction of two innocent nations, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Perhaps someof those people who commend this article as 'good journalism' could explain to me how this verdict was determined. Is it because Mr Wells said a lot of things you liked to hear? Is it because it was thorough, balanced coverage? If the former, well no comment from me is needed. If it is the latter then perhaps you would also like to tell me why you would feel qualified to judge?
Mr Wells is determined to spin this story into an anti government, behind the scenes government conspriacy story. In fact, it has more to do with scandalous use of Canadian tax payer money to support three palestinian support groups, one of which has been designated as a terrrorist group by our actual government. You will not find this information in either of Mr Wells stories on R and D. I suggest those of you who feel this was an example of good journalism try doing a little research on their own. I certainly think it would be a good idea in the case of McCleans (to which i do subscribe).
I am disappointed at Mr Wells attempt to spin this story for his own ends. It shakes my faith in the magazine somewhat.