The Power of Citizen Journalism
Post News ($)»     Post Blog»     Upload Image»     Groups»     Events»     Alerts»     How do I ...»
Email Print Share

Email this article

Recipient email:
Your email:
optional
Message:
optional

article imageCanadian Building Firms Sued by Palestinians in West Bank

Posted Jul 12, 2008 by  Sykos Masters in World | 8 comments | 480 views
Next in World
Related News
Advertising
While violence and political maneuvering continue to escalate in the Palestinian West Bank, residents of a local village have sued two Canadian companies for building new homes on their land intended for Israels occupants.
Residents of the village of Bil'in, in the West Bank have petitioned the Quebec Superior Court to impose an injunction against further development on land that they consider to belong to Palestine. Although this land is now claimed by Israel—a result of the 1967 war—and has Israeli occupants, the residents claim a historical right to it.

As reported by the CBC, Mark Arnold (representing the villagers in Canada) had this to say:

"This case matters to the village of Bil'in. There is a long historical set of facts. This particular village, as I understand it, wishes to have Green Park out of their backyard. And they wish to have their land, which they claim a historical right to, returned to them."


The claim demands that further construction by the Quebec firms, Green Park International and Green Mount International, be halted and that an additional 30 buildings (250 apartments) be demolished. The lawsuit goes further to suggest that the building construction (past and present) contravene several international and national statutes: the Fourth Geneva Convention, Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, the Québec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and the Civil Code of Québec. Some of these agreements speak directly to the responsibilities and restrictions on "occupying authorities"

Article 4 defines who is a Protected person: Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals. – Fourth Geneva Convention summary


The Québec charter's supremacy under its Section 52 applies to the following categories of rights: fundamental rights and freedoms (the right to life, free speech, freedom of religion, the right to privacy, etc.) – Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms summary


One can safely assume that as the respondents in this case are Quebec firms, that this case intends to prove that they have contributed to quashing certain rights, as protected in Quebec.

On surface examination, this case appears to have little overall strength or impact on the ongoing crisis in the Palestinian West Bank—by extension the Gaza Strip. However, should the village of Bil'in be successful, it will set a precedent in Canada on two fronts.

• This case will hold Canadian firms accountable for their actions regardless of their physical location; protections against Canadian firms will no longer "stop at the border".
• The Israeli authority will be reminded of their obligations under international law through non-diplomatic channels. Future contracts with foreign companies may not be as easy to secure in the future.

A representative for B'nai Brith felt the case had little merit, stating, "I think the court will throw it out as being a frivolous matter people are trying to use for political gain." Alternately, René Provost, director of the McGill Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism, had this to say:

"This [successful litigation] might cause some embarrassment for the government of Canada, that one of the courts in Canada is declaring the illegality of the actions of another government on its own territory, or in this case, territory it is occupying."


Whether this lawsuit is ultimately successful, or not, it does refocus the ongoing struggle between Israel and Palestine to a new level. It is no longer a case of acts or terrorism, political wrangling, or U.S. involvement in mediating a lasting peace between the two nations. This case returns the argument to what it began as: i.e., a battle over land to claim as one's home.
article:257316:17::0
2 subscribers
Subscribe To This Thread[?] :
  • avatar Posted Jul 12, 2008 by  Chris V. (cgull)
    #1
    They can't sue Israel, only way the Palestine can get any results by going after the foreign companies. The UN should force both parties to sit and settle this once for all. But both sides want to destroy one another. I think the conflict there will last another thousand years.
  • G. Robert M. Miller Posted Jul 12, 2008 by  G. Robert M. Miller
    #2
    Isn't the simple solution to this serious problem for Green Park and Green Mount to issue a statement saying there will be no residential favoritism in the new buildings (or announce a plan to construct Palestinian only buildings as well), return any profits made from the contract back to the Israeli government (not all money received, only profits), and promise not to accept such 'unconventional' contracts in disputed areas in the future.

    A company accepting a contract to build houses shouldn't be held to the fire. What is happening to the Palestinian people, in my mind, is horrible. And if Green Park and Green Mount make no effort to amend their 'lamentable' decision then this cause ought to go to court. Some sort of acknowledgement and restitution for building residencies for Israeli's on ever shrinking Palestinian land is at worst a crime and at best deplorable.

    As to the precedent(s) set by this case, I'm not sure there will be one. I think the main thing learned for all Canadian companies is that - much like in Canada - contracts that take place in extremely controversial areas that piss people off will be scrutinized. If there is a case for illegality and the contract seemsin any way to be condemnable, it will be taken to court. Areas are essentially 'disputable' when two or more groups of people are pissed off about what should be done with the land. Taking a contract that clearly favours one of those groups will obviously piss off the other group(s); and that group will sue you if the can... And they did... And now Green Bank and Green Mount have to answer or go to court...Lesson learned?
  • avatar Posted Jul 12, 2008 by  Sykos Masters
    #3
    @GRMM

    *nodding* ... what caught my eye about this was that it was being argued in Quebec Superior Court. You may (or may not) know that the Quebec system follows French law, where the rest of Canada (provincially and federally) follow the British system. Contract law, specifically, is one of those areas where the two systems treat them differently.

    I also doubt that the lawsuit will get very far, but should the complainants be successful, it will serve as a warning for future international contracts with these circumstances.
  • G. Robert M. Miller Posted Jul 12, 2008 by  G. Robert M. Miller
    #4
    Definitely. And if not;

    ATTENTION new construction companies - start up in Quebec to ensure you can secure lucrative contracts from forgien governments in disputed lands...

    I knew the French vs British law rule in Quebec; I did not (and do not) know how it applies to contracts, I wouldn't mind knowing though... However, I am feeling kind of lazy...
  • avatar Posted Jul 12, 2008 by  Sykos Masters
    #5
    @GRMM

    Well I'll be having java with my upstairs land-lord ... my source of most things UK v. French (he's a transplanted Brit), so I'll be sure to pick his brains ... lol
  • G. Robert M. Miller Posted Jul 12, 2008 by  G. Robert M. Miller
    #6
    Right on, do get back to me... Nothing like a good mind to fuel an active pen hand eh? I'm fortunate enough to have a few such people to keep me thinking too...
    And a good cup of joe is never a bad thing...
  • avatar Posted Jul 18, 2008 by  Bocephalus
    #7
    All land seized as a result of war is not internationally recognized as is all land annexed and occupied by Israel. Any construction is as such a violation of international, plain and simple..
  • avatar Posted Jul 19, 2008 by  Sykos Masters
    #8
    @ G. Robert M. Miller
    Right on, do get back to me... Nothing like a good mind to fuel an active pen hand eh? I'm fortunate enough to have a few such people to keep me thinking too...
    And a good cup of joe is never a bad thing...


    Hi GRMM,

    Sorry it took so long to get back to you on these. I can't wrap my head about all the niggly details, but in a nutshell, the French system differs from the English in this arena because of perceived / proven "intent". It's much the same difference as libel / slander differences between the two legal systems.

Add a Comment

You have to Login or Register to comment


Email:
Password:
Remember meForgot password?