John Philpot

First Nations were relegated to reserves living in apartheid-style regions of Canada

Children were separated from their families and put in residential schools. This form of apartheid was born of the British colonial tradition still very present in Canada.

John Philpot is a highly experienced Montreal based criminal lawyer. A member of the Barreau du Québec since 1984, he has specialized in Criminal Law since 1984 and International Criminal Law since 1998. He is a pioneer in trials in International Criminal Law. He acted at the International Criminal Court in The Hague (ICC) in the Kenya file and at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in three cases. He is a judge at the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal. In an exclusive interview with, Mr. Philpot answers questions on Canada´s treatment of minorities, human right issues and ties with the Zionist regime:

Canada hasn’t come clean on its black record when talking about “human rights” especially when it comes to the natives and minorities. However, the Canadian administration prepared the draft of the resolution condemning Iran for human rights violation. What’s your take on that?

Canada has a long history of using human rights as an instrument of foreign policy. Canada attempts to place itself on the moral high road to justify military and political intervention by the West. It is linked to Canadian support for Zionism and its alliance with the United States. Canada also tried to demonize Islam and tries to fog the public mind making no distinction between Saudi policy and Iranian policy and their respective approaches to Islam. The draft resolution A/C.3/71/L.25 was mainly supported by the pro-Zionist countries[1]. The United Nations has become largely dominated by the United States since 1990.

Do you approve the idea that Canadian government already violates the rights of the natives and minorities? Can you give us examples?

Canadian history with respect to the first nations is defined by the reserve policy created early in the 1967 Confederation by the first Prime Minister John A MacDonald. First Nation peoples were relegated to reserves living in apartheid-style regions of Canada. Children were separated from their families and put in residential schools. This form of apartheid was born of the British colonial tradition still very present in Canada. Living conditions on reservations are deteriorating and the first nations persons cannot live by hunting and fishing as in the past. First Nations peoples have a high incidence of diabetes and heart disease. Little has been done for economic development of the first nation’s communities except in northern Quebec.

There is an important conflict about resource extraction and transportation of petroleum to the detriment of the First Nations. First Nations are in conflict with Canada over the creation of pipelines through their territory threatening the environment in the case of an oil spill. Recently Prime Minister Trudeau approved the Kinder Morgan Pipeline in British Columbia over the objection of native peoples and environment groups.[2] A serious conflict will ensue.

The Canadian justice system is racist providing unequal treatment to First Nation peoples and racial minorities. The police arrest racial minorities arbitrarily.[3]

Canada has a very undemocratic policy with respect to the Quebec Nation in Canada and has reserved the right to void any Quebec referendum if it disapproves the question voted on for Quebec independence.[4] Human rights include the right to self-determination of the Quebec Nation.

How has Justin Trudeau been dealing with the issues of natives and minorities since taking the office?

Little has changed since the Harper Government left. Maybe a gentler tone but not a correction of the fundamental injustices suffered historically by native people and minorities.

After a national campaign, the Trudeau Government has created a National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

Justin Trudeau speaks about native languages but not about collective rights of the colonized peoples to self-determination.

If Canada had a seat in UNSC, what would its stance on the resolution condemning Israeli settlements be? What are the differences between current administration and Harper’s administration in dealing with the Zionist regime and atrocities they commit against Palestinians? 

Canada has continued in the footsteps of the Harper Government allying itself with the Zionist occupation of Palestine. On 23 February 2016, Parliament has voted by a wide margin to condemn the growing international Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign being waged against Israel for the Zionist state’s failure to accord equal rights to Arabs in the occupied Palestinian territories. Former Canadian Foreign Minister Stephane Dion condemned UNESCO resolution voted on 13 October 2016 criticizing Israel as an occupying power for its destruction of Holy Sites in Jerusalem, the blockade of Gaza, the illegal roads assigned to Palestinians, the illegal wall surrounding Palestinian lands and other important issues.[5]

Canada voting in the United Nations is consistently with Israel and the United States isolating Canada from most of the world. These resolutions included:

  1. Questioning the legality of the security barrier in the West Bank
  2. Condemning  Israel for its illegal actions in Jerusalem
  3. General Assembly resolution calling s on Israel to return the Golan Heights back to Syria,
  4. On May 24, 2016 Canada joined Israel, U.S., Australia, Paraguay, Guatemala, Micronesia and Papua New Guinea to vote against a UN resolution at the annual assembly of the World Health Organization criticizing Israel for the violation  the mental, physical and environmental health of Palestinians.


Hillel Neuer, Canadian-born executive director of UN Watch, a Geneva-based independent non-governmental watchdog organization, saluted Canada for its principled stand and added that “Canada’s voting record is entirely unchanged from last year.”

I consider it would be a bad idea to return Canada to the Security Council. Nothing has changed.




[1]              Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Palau, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and
United States of America




[4] An Act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference

S.C. 2000, c. 26