17 March 2007

 

Robin Philpot's Inconvenient Denial

Calling what happened in Rwanda genocide is not an exaggeration,

a racist fantasy or a colonial plot as PQ candidate's book would

have us believe.

 

By Pearl Eliadis

 

Robin Philpot, the Parti Québécois candidate for St. Henri-Ste. Anne, has

found himself—and his party—in the glare of unwanted media attention

after reports he denied the 1994 Rwanda genocide. PQ leader André Boisclair

was appalled, but has now apparently recovered, reassured by Philpot who

now denies denying the genocide.

 

We should not be so quickly assuaged.

 

Philpot's book, It Didn't Happen Like That in Kigali, was published in 2003.

Its title is a riff on Gil Courtemanche's wrenching novel A Sunday at the Pool

in Kigali.  Although a work of fiction, A Sunday publicized the plight of

Tutsi women who were raped and beaten at the hands of a decidedly non-fictional

genocidal Hutu regime in 1994.

 

Philpot's book attacks Courtemanche for pandering to sexual colonialism,

and then takes swipes at Romeo Dallaire, human rights experts Bill Schabas

and Alison Des Forges, and journalists Philip Gourevitch and Linda Melvern,

who had spotlighted the 1994 events for the world.  Philpot accuses them

of overusing the term "genocide" and of being in colonial complicity with

English-speakers and Americans "who make a point of being unilingual."

 

Leaving aside these bizarre statements and personal attacks, it is difficult

to read Philpot's book and come away still believing that genocide occurred

if you don't know much about the country or what happened.

 

Philpot derides the international acknowledgement of the Rwandan genocide

as little more than a form of gag (baillon), designed to muzzle opponents

of American interests and their lackeys. The word "genocidaire" is repeatedly

set out in quotes to denote skepticism. Philpot decries the condemnation of

a convicted rapist at the International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda in Arusha

as a fantastical farce.  He disputes Roméo Dallaire's testimony about an

informant who told the UN about the genocide plans as lies from "A to Z,"

belittling the informant as a low-level employee trying to get attention

or a visa.  Philpot agrees many people died, but he takes the position that

there was a war: Bad things happen in wars. That does not make it "genocide"

and even if it does, there's no point calling it by its name. It just makes

everyone mad and reconciliation impossible.

 

This is the sort of logic Léon Mugesera and his lawyer deployed in their

unsuccessful bid to prevent Mugesera's deportation from Canada in 2003.

Many of the same strands that litter Philpot's book can be picked up in the

Federal Court of Appeal's decision that held for Mugesera. The Court of Appeal

also impugned the work of Schabas and Des Forges and questioned accounts of the

genocide, including the plan to dump thousands of mutilated bodies in a river

as some sort of government repatriation scheme.

 

While a unanimous Supreme Court of Canada rejected the Federal Court of

Appeal's decision, it is unfortunate that this type of thinking, of which

Philpot is a leader in Quebec, should have gotten so far.  His lawyer,

Guy Bertrand, also accused the Supreme Court of some equally bizarre plot,

and had his knuckles firmly rapped by the court.

 

What happened in Rwanda was genocide. Calling it by its name is not

an exaggeration, racist fantasy or colonial plot as Philpot's book would

have us believe. Canadian groups such as PAGE-Rwanda have worked hard, with

very few resources, to ensure an accurate account is clearly understood.

This sort of nonsense should not stand.

 

Genocide is the planned murder of a racial or ethnic group. Firsthand

accounts of what happened in Rwanda are meticulously documented in

Africa Watch's definitive report, Death, Despair and Defiance. They

recount mass murders in churches, mass rapes, terror and intimidation of

Tutsi victims. The vast majority of victims were branded Tutsi "inyenzi,"

or cockroaches, to be exterminated.

 

When I was working on the reconciliation efforts in Rwanda, many of those

imprisoned for these crimes confessed. Some said everyone else was doing it,

so they did it, too. Others felt they had been brainwashed. Others said they

would be killed if they did not kill.  There is no doubt about what happened.

Philpot's views, however carefully couched now, should be exposed for what

they are, and they are a national embarrassment.

 

The book speaks for itself. Has Philpot seen the light? If so, he should

openly repudiate the book and clearly state publicly that genocide against

the Tutsi was perpetrated in 1994. Otherwise, he should be asked to withdraw

as a political candidate.

 

 

Copyright 2007

The Gazette (Montreal)