More from Michael Harris available More fromavailable here

Stéphane Dion might just owe Professor Michael Lynk of Western University an apology — even if he does end up making it on Twitter.

He certainly owes the accomplished labour arbitrator and human rights advocate something he hasn’t given him so far: a fair hearing.

On March 25, Canada’s foreign minister waded into an internal United Nations matter after news emerged of Lynk’s appointment by the UN Human Rights Council as Special Rapporteur for the Palestinian Territories. Here’s what Dion said:

“We call on @UNHRC to review this appointment & ensure Special Rapporteur has the track record that can advance peace in the region.”

Such a request, coming from one of the most powerful ministers in the Trudeau government, isn’t exactly what the Canadian recipient of such a prestigious appointment would expect to hear. Nor would that person expect the minister to broadcast his misgivings via social media.

At the very least, one would have expected Dion to reach out to Lynk directly before publicly throwing the weight of the federal government behind his apparent doubts about Lynk’s credentials — a tactic grimly familiar to anyone who remembers how Stephen Harper and his ministers routinely used their power platforms to trash public servants from a safe distance.

“The minister did not contact me before he tweeted,” Lynk told iPolitics. “Nor did I hear from any of his officials. I would have expected that they would have done due diligence.”

Instead, Dion apparently let a pro-Israeli lobby group, UN Watch, do his research for him. That group mined and then distributed a highly-compressed version of Lynk’s scholarly writing over the years, producing what he calls “gotcha” quotes making a number of inflammatory accusations.

For example, the UN Watch report claimed that Lynk cited Nazi war crimes in his call for “legal strategies” to prosecute Israelis. Had Dion talked to the academic himself, he would have heard the response Lynk gave iPolitics.

“Some people seem to be going to great lengths to misunderstand me. The essay that I was invited to write addressed the wall opinion from the International Court of Justice in 2004, its relationship to the Israeli settlements. I was not asked to address any of the topics that UN Watch mentions, so that gun fails to fire.

“I did not use, and I never have used, the Nazi analogy to describe Israel and its occupation on Palestinian Territories. That comparison is odious.”

Similarly, UN Watch noted that on November 29, 2001, Lynk gave the keynote address at the International Day of Solidarity with Palestinians, where he spoke of “popular resistance.” The inference in the report is that he was fomenting violence against Israel. Here’s the reality Dion missed by not doing his own homework:

“I was introduced as the speaker at the event by the Honourable Flora Macdonald. My speech focused on international law regarding Jerusalem, the occupation, the Israeli settlements and the refugee issue. I did not speak on popular resistance, although if I had, I would have spoken about peaceful protests and civil disobedience.”

It is worth noting a portion of the last paragraph of Lynk’s speech back in 2001, which was not mentioned in the UN Watch report:

“The way out of the unendurable Middle East conflict has to focus on a guarantee of the national and human rights for both Israelis and Palestinians. Both are entitled to live in security and liberty. Both have the right to a viable state …”

UN Watch also accused Lynk of seeking “victory” at the International Criminal Court (ICC) by isolating Israel and re-establishing through the courts “the importance of universal values.” Actually, that was the stated opinion of the UN itself, which Lynk was merely repeating.

“In the article,” Lynk said, “I was commenting on the release in 2013 by the United Nations Human Rights Council of a report on the Israeli settlements, their adverse human rights consequences and their illegality under international law. I noted that the UN report called for the international community to enforce its own body of international law and refer the issue of the Israeli settlements to the International Criminal Court.”

It’s all more than a little ironic: Dion is publicly questioning Professor Lynk’s ability to advance peace in the region — after having himself offered a lame justification for selling $15 billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia. It’s all more than a little ironic: Dion is publicly questioning Professor Lynk’s ability to advance peace in the region — after having himself offered a lame justification for selling $15 billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia.

As for UN Watch’s general allegation that Lynk exclusively focuses on Israel and its alleged violations of human rights under the law, it overlooks something rather obvious. The stated mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur for the Palestinian Territories is to do just that — to report on the human rights violations of the occupiers. Michael Lynk did not write that mandate; he may yet tell the UN that he would like to see it changed.

Meanwhile, there is evidence to suggest that he is personally appalled by all acts of political or religious violence in the Middle East, regardless of the perpetrators. Joanna Quinn, director of the Centre for Transitional Justice and Post-Conflict at Western, tells iPolitics that Michael Lynk has a solid scholarly reputation.

“I would like to emphasize that Professor Lynk’s scholarship and public outreach … have consistently held that there must be war crimes accountability for individuals involved both with Israel and with Palestine. His analysis has been fair-minded.”

Toronto lawyer and former University of Ottawa law prof William Kaplan seconds that opinion. “I have known and been a professional colleague of Michael Lynk for over thirty years,” he told iPolitics. “He is principled and honourable. This guy is even-handed and fair-minded … Instead of attacking him, and quoting him unfairly out of context, I wish everyone would take a deep breath, take a reflective look at his scholarship, and give him the chance to do his job and then judge him on the job he does.”

Lynk, of course, can speak for himself. In an op-ed piece which ran in the Toronto Star on August 11, 2014, he clearly states that both sides in the Israel-Hamas conflict of that year should have been worried about facing international law:

“First, the most recent violence in Gaza could result in charges against the leaders of both Hamas and Israel. Hamas’s firing of missiles at Israeli civilians is undoubtedly a war crime, as are suicide bombers. But crimes by one side do not justify crimes by its opponents. The Israeli bombardment of densely populated neighbourhoods and United Nations schools in Gaza, resulting in enormous civilian deaths and injury tolls, suggests that the strict obligations under international law to protect civilians were frequently breached. War crimes included the reckless and negligent firing of munitions that do not strictly distinguish between military and civilian targets.”

Craig Scott, a professor at Osgoode Hall Law School and former Rhodes Scholar, has known Michael Lynk since the 1980s and has reviewed his scholarly work. In a March 26 letter to Dion, he called the work of UN Watch, as re-circulated by other groups, “a piece of character assassination.” He described Lynk’s work as “careful, measured … and mainstream.”

In making that last claim, he noted that Lynk’s conclusions were “shared by the large majority of independent legal scholars who work in the relevant fields of law, not to mention by the large majority of states’ (foreign affairs) legal departments, with a few exceptions such as those of Israel, (to some extent) the U.S. and elements within the Harper-era bureaucracy.”

Scott reminded Dion that Lynk was asked to write a chapter on the Arab-Israeli conflict and international law by the prestigious Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law — the gold standard resource for international law around the globe.

Nor was Scott the only person who expressed displeasure over Dion’s public questioning of Lynk’s qualifications for the UN job. Two other Canadian special UN rapporteurs have also written letters to Dion questioning the fairness and accuracy of his comments about Lynk.

It’s all more than a little ironic: Dion is publicly questioning Lynk’s ability to advance peace in the region after having himself offered a lame justification for selling $15 billion worth of weapons to the repressive dictatorship of Saudi Arabia — which, in addition to multiple human rights violations against dissidents and women, is waging a brutal war against neighbouring Yemen.

Nor is it clear how Dion’s demand that officials in Geneva revisit Lynk’s appointment will help Canada in the business of restoring the relationship with the UN that was shredded by the Harper regime (which includes getting a seat on the Security Council a few years down the road). After all, what is there to revisit? The vote on Lynk’s appointment was 47-0, a number that represents nearly a quarter of the entire UN membership. The choice of a special rapporteur is entirely up to the UN, with no input required from Canada. Dion is questioning not just Lynk’s competence, but also that of the institution that chose him.

Dion should know better than most people that, of all the 45-odd appointments similar to Lynk’s made by the UN, the Special Rapporteur for the Palestinian Territories is clearly the toughest call. The position, which has been around since 1993, is voluntary and unpaid and must produce biennial reports on human rights violations in the Territories. And it is very, very unpopular with the Israeli government and its supporting lobbying groups.

In fact, Lynk was not the UN’s first choice. That honour fell to Professor Penny Green. But objections raised over her candidacy by the same group that attacked Lynk knocked her out of the running.

Looking back at his predecessors, Michael Lynk can see the rocky road ahead. The last Special Rapporteur from Indonesia resigned after just 15 months because of a lack of cooperation from the Israeli government. But Lynk is keen to do the job. He has visited the region and worked for six months in Jerusalem in 1989. Despite Dion’s slight, he would like to get the chance to talk to the man who wondered very publicly if he had the skills for the job.

“I would welcome the opportunity to meet with Minister Dion or his advisors to explain my mandate and qualifications. What’s important to express to them is my commitment to human rights and international law. As Franklin Roosevelt once said, ‘Even a neutral has the right to take account of the facts.'”

Over to you, Mr. Dion.

Michael Harris is a writer, journalist, and documentary filmmaker. He was awarded a Doctor of Laws for his “unceasing pursuit of justice for the less fortunate among us.” His nine books include Justice Denied, Unholy Orders, Rare ambition, Lament for an Ocean, and Con Game. His work has sparked four commissions of inquiry, and three of his books have been made into movies. His new book on the Harper majority government, Party of One, is a number one best-seller and has been shortlisted for the Governor-General’s Literary Award for English-language non-fiction.

Readers can reach the author at [email protected]. Click here to view other columns by Michael Harris.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.