Who's Online

We have 681 guests online

Popular

3346 readings
A potential consequence of Harper government`s distinction between refugees from ``safe`` and ``unsafe`` States PDF Print E-mail
Justice News
Posted by Joan Russow
Sunday, 15 December 2013 09:31
 By Joan Russow Global Compliance Research Project 
 
A photo of Jason Kenney wearing a Sikh head scarf was apparently taken when he visited the Golden Shrine temple in Amritsar, India in January.

 

Hon Jason Kenny, former Canadian Minister of Immigration; he was responsible for Bill C-31

 

In the Canadian Bill C-31, a distinction was made between refugees on the bases of their country of origin.

 

 

Could a potential consequence of this distinction  be that Canada  will  accept more refugees who agree with Conservative policy?

 

 

DESIGNATION OF SAFE OR ON SAFE COUNTRIES VIOLATES INTERNATIONAL LAW

 

 

The distinction, by the Harper government, of refugees according to country of Origin  is in contravention of the Article 3 of the Convention.

 

 

Under Article 3 of the legally binding 1951 Convention on Refugees is the following obligation

Article 3

 

non-discrimination

 

"The Contracting States shall apply the provisions of this Convention to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin"

 

Also the depriving of Health care for those refugees would violate Chapter IV; Welfare. Recently in Canada the Harper government announced that only refugees from unsafe countries would be entitled to medical care.

 

Article 24

"....social security   the Contracting States shall accord to refugees lawfully in their territory the same treatment as is accorded to nationals.``

 

 

Almost all human rights instruments, including  the legally binding International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights state there should not be discrimination on the basis of country of origin.

 

  In Article 2`.1  all states agreed to the following

 

``Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.  (ICCPR, 1996)``

 

 

POSSIBLE IMPLICATION IN CANADA

 

An intended or unintended consequence of the Harper government distinction between safe and unsafe countries, is to not attract refugees that have been persecuted for opposing  policies similar to Conservative policies in Canada.

 

 

 

For Example,

 

anti-whaling activists  persecuted  in Japan

 

Anti-Israeli policy towards the Palestinians.

 

Mexicans persecuted for criticizing the Mexican governments privatization opening State owned Pemex to foreign oil companies

 

American whistle blowers 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX

 

The following Countries have been designated as safe 2012/2013

 

Australia

 

Austria

 

Belgium

 

Chile

 

Croatia

 

Cyprus

 

Czech Republic

 

Denmark

 

Estonia

 

Finland

 

France

 

Germany

 

Greece

 

Hungary

 

Iceland

 

Ireland

 

Israel (excludes Gaza and the West Bank)

 

Italy

 

Japan

 

Latvia

 

Lithuania

 

Luxembourg

 

Malta

 

Mexico

 

Netherlands

 

New Zealand

 

Norway

 

Poland

 

Portugal

 

Slovak Republic

 

Slovenia

 

South Korea

 

Spain

 

Sweden

 

Switzerland

 

 

 

United Kingdom

 

United States of America

Last Updated on Monday, 16 December 2013 19:17
 

Latest News