Also see:     
AOL/Microsoft-Hotmail Preventing Delivery of Truthout Communications    [

    Refugee-Status Seekers: A Federal Judge Says the United States Is Not a Safe Country
    By H l ne Buzzetti
    Le Devoir

    Saturday and Sunday 01 and 02 December 2007

The government could have to rewrite the harmonization agreement signed in the immediate aftermath of September 11.

    Refugee defense groups are claiming victory: a Thursday ruling demolished the harmonization agreement signed with the United States in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Unless the ruling is appealed, Canada will have to rewrite its law.

    Canada signed that agreement, the so-called "safe third country agreement," with the United States and with no other country on the planet. It makes provision such that a refugee may ask for refuge in only one or the other of these two countries. If a refugee has set foot in the United States first (as did 40 percent of cases before this agreement came into effect), then that person must submit the demand for refugee status there. Officially, the goal of this rule was to put an end to reception state "shopping." In application, it has arrested the flood of asylum requests in Canada.

    Refugee defense groups have always opposed this agreement, calling to mind that the United States has a far more restrictive asylum policy. During the 1980s, while the United States supported several South American dictatorships, it rejected refugee status for citizens of those countries, while Canada accepted them.

    Consequently, those groups addressed the federal court and won on Thursday. In his 124-page verdict, Judge Michael Phelan lays down a summary judgment: the United States should not be considered a safe country. Why? Because it doesn't respect the Convention against Torture, notably by returning people to their country of origin, even though they risk being mistreated there. Judge Phelan evokes the famous case of Maher Arar, whom Washington sent back to Syrian torture chambers.

    "Although the Maher Arar case is not at issue here," the judge wrote, "the Court takes note of the Arar Report's conclusions. Even if the United States did not participate in the acts, it indicated to the commission that it respected Article Three of the Convention against Torture. The facts surrounding the Arar case furnish us with cause to seriously doubt that assertion."

    Later in the ruling, the judge writes that the Canadian government was wrong to take it as a given that the United States honored its international obligations with respect to the struggle against torture. In conclusion, he writes, "the policies and the practices of the United States do not respond to established conditions allowing Canada to conclude an agreement [with it] on safe third countries."

    The United States retorted last night through the mouth of its [Canadian] embassy. The United States "has a proud record of accepting and protecting refugees, defending human rights and adhering to our treaty obligations. That's why the United States accepts more refugees than any other country in the world and remains a haven of peace and hope."

    No Immediate Change

    For the moment, this judgment has no impact: Judge Phelan granted the parties up to January 14 to make order recommendations. Will the law on safe third countries be abrogated? Will Ottawa appeal the case? "We are considering our options," indicated a spokesperson for the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration.

    "I am delighted to witness this intervention by the Federal Court," stated Janet Dench, director of the Canadian Council for Refugee Status, a plaintiff in this case.

    With the safe third country agreement, very few asylum-seekers arriving in Canada overland have been accepted. A person known to have spent time in the United States is immediately pushed back to the border. The United States imprisons asylum-seekers more often than Canada does. Family reunification has become more difficult.

    "This agreement was signed to attempt to reduce the number of refugees in Canada and that worked," deplores Joseph Allen, president of the Qu bec Immigration Lawyers Association.

    "A great many Haitians are simply rejected by the United States. Even if they have lived there several years, they are taken away from their children - who are placed in shelters - and sent back to Haiti," adds Mr. Allen. "Canada never returns anyone to Haiti because of the risks."

    This judgment has echoed within the House of Commons. "Since this agreement contravenes the Canadian Charter and international conventions Canada has signed, does the Minister expect to renegotiate its terms?" questioned Bloc Qu b cois Deputy Meili Faille. The government has limited itself to saying - as it always does in this sort of case - that it will have to analyze the ruling first.

    The new Democratic Party has already decided: the agreement must be annulled. "You know what the judge has done?" asked party leader Jack Layton. "He's done what Stephen Harper refuses to do, that is, to renounce the George W. Bush style when it comes to dealing with international questions and to assert Canadian independence and autonomy."

    The agreement, concluded in principle in December 2001, came into effect in December 2004. The number of asylum-seekers demanding refugee status has since gone from about 19,000 people to less than 15,000.

    Yesterday, the Liberals defended themselves against the charge of having adopted this measure as a security reflex. "We were sucked into this new era of security and cooperation," explained Deputy Omar Alghabra. "At the time, it made sense. Now that we've tested this new regime for several years, it would be normal to go back and learn from our mistakes, from the agreement's deficiencies, and review it."