Security insanity
Canada's humanitarian policies towards refugees are under increasing pressure from the US, writes Aziza Sami from Montreal
The age-old tradition of hallowed ground being regarded as a sanctuary was violated this week when Canadian police stormed a church in Quebec and arrested Mohamed Cherfi, an Algerian activist who sought refuge there. Cherfi, who came to Canada via the US in 1998, had fought against the deportation of hundreds of his compatriots since a moratorium on repatriation to Algeria was lifted in 2002. This act by the authorities, the first in Canadian history, has exacerbated growing concerns about the increasingly restrictive policies being adopted by the Canadian immigration authorities.
Weeks before, two Palestinian brothers, one of whom was accompanied by his wife, sought refuge in Montreal's Church of Notre Dame de Grace. Like Cherfi, Khalil and Nabih Ayoub had come to Canada through the US. They were in their early teens when Israel was created in 1948 and fled to Lebanon where they lived with their parents in refugee camps for the next 50 years. Eventually, after saving enough money, they travelled to the US and in April 2001 crossed the border into Canada. There they sought refugee status without success, and a deportation order was issued on the premise that they could still make a living if they went back to Lebanon.
The Ayoubs have now barricaded themselves into the church, saying they would "rather die" than return to a humiliating life which only refugees expelled from their homeland can understand. Their case, like Cherfi's, has become the focus of public concern -- from the pastor of the church speaking out strongly in favour of giving the Ayoubs a home in Canada to parliamentarians and political commentators who say that the overly-zealous bureaucratic trend to toughen immigration laws is fast undermining Canada's long-standing commitment to those in need of refuge.
These cases are not the first. Prior to this, an Ethiopian woman, Menen Ayele, was slated for deportation despite claiming she had been the victim of torture in her native country. For similar reasons Colombian professor Alvaro Vega sought refuge in a church with his family.
Another case that attracted particular attention was that of Song Dae Ri, a North Korean dissident who had his request for asylum rejected by Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). The IRB, which conceded that he would "in all likelihood be executed" should he return to North Korea, allowed his six-year-old son to remain. The child's mother was executed when she returned from Canada in 2002 to visit her parents. The rationale of the IRB in issuing this sentence was that since Ri had served as a petty trade official with the human rights abusing North Korean government he was, by implication, guilty of crimes against humanity. The IRB issued its finding despite the fact that Canada's War Crimes Unit submitted a report that indicated that there was no evidence to substantiate the claim that Ri was a "war criminal". There is a growing perception in Canada that all these cases have been compounded by changes to immigration laws introduced after the 11 September 2001 attacks in the US. In December of that year, both Canada and the US passed an anti-terrorism act criminalising fundraising for, and support of, alleged terrorist groups. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that replaced the old immigration law followed this in 2002. The aim, as a recent report published by the Library of Congress put it, was to change refugee policies from a "humanitarian and developmental orientation" to one which was "more security- minded".
The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act expanded the powers of detention on the basis of identity, tightened borders between the two countries and increased the Canadian government's jurisdiction to investigate "terror-related activities". The new act made immigration more difficult by allowing one judge rather than two to review each case and by restricting the grounds of appeal. In addition, appeals would no longer be under the jurisdiction of the immigration minister, but a new official -- the minister of public safety.
In June 2002 Canada and the US started brokering a controversial "Safe Third Country" deal on the treatment of refugee claimants. This states that anyone who comes to North America claiming asylum must do so in the first country in which they arrive. Thus those seeking protection in Canada having entered via the US border, would be turned back to the US and have to ask for asylum there. Their reception would probably not be hospitable, since the detention of refugees -- including children -- is common; a point which has been raised by Canadian civil rights and refugee advocacy groups.
US pressure on Canada to "toughen" its immigration laws continues. On 26 February, the US State Department blamed Canada's "lax immigration laws" and generous welfare system for the proliferation of "organised crime groups", saying that it has become a major destination for human trafficking. This was preceded a couple of weeks earlier by a 234-page report published by the US Library of Congress in conjunction with the CIA's Crime and Narcotics Center entitled "Nations Hospitable to Organised Crime and Terrorism". Canada was a particular focus in the report which purports to determine the degree to which countries ranging from Britain to Russia and Algeria could pose "threats to global security", thus weakening the US "war against terror".
While the report commended the efforts undertaken by Canada to tighten its immigration and anti-terrorism laws, it still branded it a "haven for terrorists" because of its generous welfare system, lax immigration laws and long porous border with the US. It said that Canada has "played a significant role as a base for both transnational criminal activity and terrorist activity". The report did not restrict its criticism to basic issues such as "infrequent prosecutions and light sentences" but extends it to intangibles including what it judges to be a false sense of security entertained by Canadians who believe "that their country is immune from terrorism".
Significantly, the report also argues that Canada's "liberal democratic identity" is a potential impediment to its adoption of sterner measures against immigrants. Indeed, the very name of the immigration law -- "Immigration and Refugee Protection Act" -- comes under attack for its misplaced emphasis on civil liberties to the detriment of "security".
Canadian parliamentarians and advocacy groups have lobbied the Immigration Minister Judy Sgro to appeal the cases of Ri and the Ayoubs, as well as those of other refugees. However, she can do little since the precise details of the appeal process are still not fully known. Meanwhile, concerns are growing that Canada, which for 50 years has been a genuine haven for refugees and the persecuted, for which it was awarded the prestigious Nansen Medal, may no longer be able to live up to its name.
