How Louise Arbor is fighting to reform the military

Louise Arbour, a former Supreme Court Justice and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, has spent her career taking on the world’s most notorious human rights violators. And yet one of her most formidable challenges is domestic. In May, Arbor released the results of its year-long investigation into the Canadian Armed Forces, sparked by a series of allegations of sexual misconduct, some involving the organization’s top brass. The report was unequivocally damning: military culture is flawed; their outdated schools. “I was told that nearly every female cadet has experienced one or more incidents of sexual misconduct ‘or worse,’” she wrote. Now, the federal government is tasked with implementing Arbor’s 48 recommendations, which include turning sexual misconduct cases over to civil courts. Progress is slow and Arbor is patient, up to a point.

His is the second investigation into the military’s handling of sexual misconduct cases in seven years. How is this report different?

Judge Marie Deschamps’ report was quite shocking in exposing how ingrained sexual misconduct was in military culture. But looking at the remedy that would come from a criminal justice response was outside her mandate. When I arrived, there was a lot of concern that the change had not been implemented, even coming from the auditor general. My report looks at two issues: the continued prevalence of sexual misconduct and allegations against high-ranking members of the Armed Forces. I was trying to see how people with these character flaws manage to progress through the ranks.

His most talked about recommendation is that the military turn sexual misconduct complaints over to civilian courts, where conviction rates in such cases are famously low. What reasonable expectation of justice can victims have even if that change is made?

I’m not suggesting for a minute that the civilian system is perfect, but the military system has features that are even more problematic. The main one is the duty to inform. It’s hard enough for any victim of criminal sexual assault to come forward, but having to tell him up his chain of command in an environment where nothing but a slap on the wrist is going to happen? There is also informal retaliation, such as being ostracized by colleagues. Many corrective measures have been implemented over the years in the civil system, including the establishment of specialized courts for sexual offenses and attempts to displace myths and stereotypes. In the civil sphere, people report crimes because the system will react positively. In the army the opposite happens.

When he's not facing egregious human rights offenses, Arbor likes to relax in his cabin with his dog, Snoro.

When he’s not facing egregious human rights offenses, Arbor likes to relax in his cabin with his dog, Snoro.

You said that one impediment to progress is the assumption that misogyny is at the root of the problems in the military. But isn’t misogyny the key issue?

Oh, there is no doubt. Women always served in military support positions, such as nursing, but were only fully integrated into combat when the courts so ordered. It is not enough to think that, over time, this culture will begin to dissipate. The military has to accept that they cannot fix everything by themselves. He has uniformity in his DNA. So if you keep thinking you can change things with PowerPoints and internal anti-misconduct initiatives, it’s not going to happen.

How do you rehabilitate an organization whose members inflict and allow abuse within their own ranks? It is a snake that eats its own tail.

The military could use outside partners like the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It could also bring in experts from the civilian corporate sector or send cadets to civilian universities, where diversity is years ahead of what we’ll see at military universities. If you just recruit white guys who like guns but don’t like women or anyone who doesn’t look like them, you’ll perpetuate that culture.

He has spent a lot of time on conflicts that the international community initially showed little urgency to address, such as Darfur and Rwanda. How do you deal with human rights abuses that are confronted with politics and clichés?

When I charged Slobodan Milošević with war crimes, I thought: This is the beginning of a new era. When I was the high commissioner for human rights, there was also a lot of momentum. But I began to understand that “impulse” was a Western-driven concept and tone deaf. The Western position – that our values ​​were good – fell apart when we were asked to do something that was difficult for us, like dealing with the rights of migrants. I realized that what I thought would be steady, linear progress on these big ideas was, in fact, cyclical. I think we are now at a low part of the cycle.

You said that the Canadian military favors the appearance of implementation over the substance. It could be argued that the federal government has similar limitations.

That’s true. I don’t think there is anything in my report that is ideologically unacceptable to the government, but it is not a priority. There is no price to pay for doing nothing, until seven years later, when you appoint another judge.

Well, the price of inaction is not paid by the military or the government. The victims pay for it.

Exactly, and they have been very brave to come forward. But until there is widespread public and political mobilization, it is hard to expect rapid implementation. I always hated the expression “being the voice of the victims”. They have voices; what they need is a megaphone.

Mary Fisk, one of his former top advisers, said people in his inner circle occasionally felt frustrated that he wasn’t more open about certain topics.

Mary is a good friend; I’m sure she was struggling to say anything negative. (I’m kidding). Others were frustrated because I am very results oriented. The culture of naming and shaming that is prevalent in NGOs, that is their weapon. I don’t know if this is how I can be more efficient. I might look good banging my fist on the table, but what is that going to accomplish?

I just don’t think any person with a heart could see the kinds of horrors that happen and not want to be more forceful to make things better.

I’m sure, because of that, they would want to be very strategic and think: well, okay, after I hit my fist, how can I outwit these people? How can I force them to do something I know they don’t want to do?

I am sure that courteous diplomacy can only go so far with despots. Eventually, you have to show your teeth.

It depends on the tools you have. I didn’t always have the ability to do something concrete. Issuing an accusation is a good way to go, especially after being written off as “this little woman.” You wait and you wait, and when you’re ready: boom.

What makes you immune to the paralysis that can come from witnessing so much tragedy?

Well, what is the alternative? Quit completely. I’m going to Africa now because I’m on the board of the Mastercard Foundation. On the way back, I stop in Geneva, where I am a member of the Global Commission on Drug Policy. I don’t cry for the fate of the world when I’m packing my bags. I am often moved, but I am always looking for solutions. I think hopefully the phone won’t ring and I’ll be sitting on my dock with my 110 pound dog, Snoro. Then something else comes up, and there I go again.


This article appears in print in the August 2022 issue of Maclean’s magazine. Subscribe to the monthly print magazine hereor buy the number online here.

Looking for more?

Overcome maclean‘s sent directly to your inbox. Sign up to receive news, comments and analysis.


Leave a Comment