In Praise of Louise Arbour

It never ceases to amaze me how some people can lose all sense of objectivity when dealing with the Middle-East mess. In Today’s National Post, one Jonathan Kay tries to take Louise Arbour to the cleaner for stating the following:

"In [the case of Hezbollah] you could have, for instance, a very objectionable intent -- the intent to harm civilians, which is very bad -- but effectively not a lot of harm is actually achieved," she said. "[But] how can you compare that with [Israel,] where you may not have an intent but you have recklessness [in which] civilian casualties are foreseeable? The culpability or the intent may not sound as severe, but the actual harm is catastrophic."

The self-proclaimed learned columnist then goes on:

"Like terrorist armies in Iraq and Afghanistan, Hezbollah soldiers deliberately take cover in villages and cities, exploiting their enemy's reluctance to recklessly endanger unarmed civilians. The laws of war are quite clear about what happens when these tactics result in civilian casualties: It is the terrorists, not their enemies, who are guilty of the war crime."

So Jonathan Kay takes it upon himself to teach Louise Arbour a thing or two about the Laws of War?

Well, Mr. Kay, I don’t know your credentials. But if you really think that Madame Louise Arbour needs a lecture from you on Humanitarian Law and the Laws of War, you are sadly mistaking, or worse. The woman knows her stuff. I'm a retired lawyer, and I could not hold a candle to her. Can you?

Whatever your position on the Middle-East situation may be, I’m quite sure that Madame Justice Arbour, a world-renowned jurist, a pillar of Canada’s legal community, knows a lot more about the Laws of War than Mr. Kay. Zip it up, Mr. Post columnist.

Tails up for Louise Arbour,

Dudley.