Comments on: Quebec Courts Open a New Chapter on Corporate Civil Liability: Paying for War Crimes? http://www.legalfrontiers.ca/2009/10/quebec-courts-open-a-new-chapter-on-corporate-civil-liability-paying-for-war-crimes/ McGill's Blog on International Law Mon, 06 Feb 2012 18:16:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: gerald goldstein http://www.legalfrontiers.ca/2009/10/quebec-courts-open-a-new-chapter-on-corporate-civil-liability-paying-for-war-crimes/comment-page-1/#comment-1964 gerald goldstein Tue, 19 Oct 2010 03:48:59 +0000 http://www.legalfrontiers.ca/?p=53#comment-1964 You seem in your very able able article to think that in the commented case, there was some progress in terms of civil liability when dealing with war crimes through art. 1457 as the judge seems to say. It should however be noted that your citation should be completed by the next sentence that you omitted: the judge said: «176] In theory, a person would therefore commit a civil fault pursuant to art. 1457 C.C.Q. by knowingly participating in a foreign country in the unlawful transfer by an occupying power of a portion of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, in violation of an international instrument which the occupying power has ratified. Such a person would thus be knowingly assisting the occupying power in the violation of the latter's obligations and would also become a party to a war crime, thereby violating an elementary norm of prudence». Maybe so but the judge was talking about an instrument ratified by the occupying power. Since Israel has not ratified art. 49th of the 4th Geneva Convention, then such reasoning could not apply in the Bi’lin case» Besides, why should Quebec law apply when the conflict of law rule (3126 C.c.Q.) leads to the Israeli law? The only way was through public policy to oust the foreign law. The Council tried but failed public policy argument. Because the Israeli law was not so different from Quebec law on the matter. Like Canada, Israel considers it appropriate to integrate into her own law rules that do not belong to international customary law. You seem in your very able able article to think that in the commented case, there was some progress in terms of civil liability when dealing with war crimes through art. 1457 as the judge seems to say.
It should however be noted that your citation should be completed by the next sentence that you omitted: the judge said: «176] In theory, a person would therefore commit a civil fault pursuant to art. 1457 C.C.Q. by knowingly participating in a foreign country in the unlawful transfer by an occupying power of a portion of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, in violation of an international instrument which the occupying power has ratified. Such a person would thus be knowingly assisting the occupying power in the violation of the latter’s obligations and would also become a party to a war crime, thereby violating an elementary norm of prudence». Maybe so but the judge was talking about an instrument ratified by the occupying power. Since Israel has not ratified art. 49th of the 4th Geneva Convention, then such reasoning could not apply in the Bi’lin case»

Besides, why should Quebec law apply when the conflict of law rule (3126 C.c.Q.) leads to the Israeli law? The only way was through public policy to oust the foreign law. The Council tried but failed public policy argument. Because the Israeli law was not so different from Quebec law on the matter. Like Canada, Israel considers it appropriate to integrate into her own law rules that do not belong to international customary law.

]]> By: Daniel J. Lavigne http://www.legalfrontiers.ca/2009/10/quebec-courts-open-a-new-chapter-on-corporate-civil-liability-paying-for-war-crimes/comment-page-1/#comment-80 Daniel J. Lavigne Sun, 07 Mar 2010 09:56:26 +0000 http://www.legalfrontiers.ca/?p=53#comment-80 The Ontario Court Of Justice had a previous opportunity to lawfully recognize, uphold and defend the right and duty of all to refuse to support societies that participate in plans and preparations that are predicated on a will and capacity to commit mass murder. Alas!! Bowing to the needs of its political masters, that Court failed in its duty to so inform Canada's citizens. While such madness condemns the majority to continue doing as they are told by their political masters, the minority, relying on such as Linus Pauling ("No More War!"), and John Campsey ("Objection to Murder - The Conscience of a Unilateralist") and many more such individuals, are determined to do their utmost to have all Courts recognize that they, also, are subject to The Rule Of Law and that they must confront the corruption that has caused them to do their utmost to avoid having to deal with the reality that "ALL" have a right and an unavoidable duty to refuse to aid, abet, fund, support or otherwise assist a society that participates in plans and preparations that are predicated on a will and capacity to commit Mass Murder. Perhaps it would be helpful if Israel's citizens and the Montreal based developers were made aware of such right and duty. Thank you. To a safer, saner and more caring world. To Duty. Daniel J. Lavigne, Founder International Humanity House http://www.taxrefusal.com The Ontario Court Of Justice had a previous opportunity to lawfully recognize, uphold and defend the right and duty of all to refuse to support societies that participate in plans and preparations that are predicated on a will and capacity to commit mass murder.

Alas!!

Bowing to the needs of its political masters, that Court failed in its duty to so inform Canada’s citizens.

While such madness condemns the majority to continue doing as they are told by their political masters, the minority, relying on such as Linus Pauling (“No More War!”), and John Campsey (“Objection to Murder – The Conscience of a Unilateralist”) and many more such individuals, are determined to do their utmost to have all Courts recognize that they, also, are subject to The Rule Of Law and that they must confront the corruption that has caused them to do their utmost to avoid having to deal with the reality that “ALL” have a right and an unavoidable duty to refuse to aid, abet, fund, support or otherwise assist a society that participates in plans and preparations that are predicated on a will and capacity to commit Mass Murder.

Perhaps it would be helpful if Israel’s citizens and the Montreal based developers were made aware of such right and duty.

Thank you.

To a safer, saner and more caring world.

To Duty.

Daniel J. Lavigne, Founder
International Humanity House
http://www.taxrefusal.com

]]>