EXCELLENT EDITORIAL IN THE MONTREAL GAZETTE

Too much compassion can erode the rule of law

The Gazette


Sunday, July 13, 2008


The way Canadians and their government deal with refugee claimants is still, as it has long been, an incoherent muddle of exceptions, special pleading, unverifiable claims, activism, confusion and foolishness.

Politically unpalatable though it might be, somebody needs to drain this swamp, and that somebody will have to be the federal government.

Several recent cases illustrate the problem:

U.S. Army Private Joshua Key deserted, came to Canada, and claimed refugee status, saying that in Iraq he had witnessed looting and violations of human rights. His refugee claim was rejected, but a judge allowed him to stay in Canada anyway.

An un-named Colombian denied refugee status in the U.S. said the "r" word here. Despite the fact that Canada and the U.S. have a "safe haven" agreement governing such cases, a Canadian court said he could stay. Last week a higher court overruled this validation of "asylum shopping," but activist groups are complaining; the case may not be over.

Even when a bogus claimant loses his appeals, he can find a way to stay.

In British Columbia, Laibar Singh, an Indian who entered Canada with false papers, remains holed up in a Sikh temple. After the laborious hearing and appeals process, he was ordered deported from Canada, but ignored the order. In Canada he became ill and is now paralyzed. Immigration officials have been unable to summon the courage to arrest and deport him, even though he moves frequently from one refuge to another.

In Montreal, another failed refugee claimant, Algerian Abdelkader Belaouni, remains holed up in St. Gabriel's Catholic Church despite an expulsion order, having slipped into Canada after his U.S. visa expired. Here again, immigration officials defer to the medieval superstition that a place of worship should provide immunity from the law.

At least those two say where they are. An alarming 41,000 people ordered deported from this country - many of them criminals - have just vanished.

There are far too many cases such as those mentioned above, and each time a judge, a pastor, or anyone else puts knee-jerk "compassion" above the rule of law, Canada loses something.

Canadians like to think of ourselves as generous and compassionate people, but where can we draw the line between being welcoming and being suckers? If our refugee-determinations come to be based on simply accepting everyone who gets here and wants to stay, what will the consequences be? Do we want to accept deserters into Canada? From the U.S. alone, or from everywhere? If we do that, how can we think of imposing any penalty on deserters from the Canadian Forces?

Do we really want to allow the unpopularity of the Iraq war in Canada to lead us to treat the U.S. armed forces as somehow illegitimate? Even if we did, shouldn't this be articulated and regulated by Parliament, rather than by anyone with room in his church basement?

Immigration, including refugee policy, must be based on rules, not on individuals. If it's not based on rules, then it's not law.

It's past time for Canadian refugee law to be clarified, improved, and then enforced with determination and vigour.