http://nimg.sulekha.com/others/original700/sri-lanka-war-refugees-2009-12-9-11-11-4.jpg
A refugee is someone
who has fled their country of origin and resettled in another area in order to
escape dangerous or threatening situations. The Canadian immigration system is
designed so that those who claim refugee status are subjected to different
parameters in order to be granted asylum in Canada. Refugees must meet certain
criteria, most notably proof that they face a high probability of persecution
or risk of harm in their home country. To do so, refugees present their case
orally through provision of testimony and evidence to the Immigration and
Refugee Board, who assess the evidence and make the final decision on whether
an applicant should be granted formal asylum (Rousseau et al. 2002).
This system
has been criticized as restrictive in terms of the cases passed and the
requirements set out for applicants, highlighting a discriminatory undertone in
the existing refugee policies. The Conservative Party, who took over as leaders
of the federal government in 2006, have been criticized for implementing
policies that led to a decline in acceptance rates for refugees coming to
Canada. As Debra Black observed, in 2006 the acceptance rate was 47%, while the
current rate is around 28% - a drop of 19% over a six-year period (2012). The
Conservatives seem to have a bias against illegitimate refugees, which has led
to strict reforms in policies in order to protect Canada and it’s citizens
against these ‘bogus’ refugees as Immigration Minister Jason Kenney calls them
(Black 2012).
In late 2012, the
federal government passed Bill C-31. This bill classifies countries into two
categories – those that are ‘safe’ to live in and those that are ‘unsafe’ based
on criteria of “democratic governance, human rights records, respect for
freedoms and rule of law” (Keung 2012). Ultimately, however, the minister “has the
final say as to which country is safe” (Keung 2012). Those who seek asylum from
so-called ‘safe’ countries face much stricter restrictions and time limits in
making their case. Instead of having 1,000 days, claimants are only given 15
days to find a lawyer and prepare their statements, with their cases being
accepted or denied in a maximum of 45 days. This two-tiered system fails to
take into account the individual circumstances of each refugee, focusing
instead on a broad, black-and-white classification of countries as safe or
unsafe. It also does not acknowledge that there is often unrest, threats and
violence in ‘safe’ countries, especially for members of minority groups (Keung
2012). As Benjamin Oliphant argues, the denial of claimants based on their
country of origin can be seen as discriminatory under Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which
guarantees people equal protection and benefit despite their ethnic or national
origin (2013). By imposing stricter criteria upon some, simply because of where
they originate from, the Canadian government is violating individual rights and
freedoms. Thus, Bill C-31 essentially codifies and entrenches discrimination
within Canadian legislation.
The government
pushed this bill largely out of fear for individuals who seek to abuse the
system, especially those whom Immigration Minister Kenney claims were coached
in how to take advantage of the existing system (Chase 2013).
Personally, I
feel that Canada’s refugee policies are coupled with discriminatory and biased attitudes,
held especially by the federal Conservative leaders. There can be no denying
that reforms in refugee policies have led claimants to face partiality based on
the home nation, subjecting some individuals to much higher standards of proof
in order to be accepted. In the fair, democratic and equal society that Canada
claims to be, this prejudice cannot and should not be tolerated. Changes need
to be made to the refugee process, for if they are not, the federal government
will continue to risk the safety and security of those who seek asylum in
Canada.
No comments:
Post a Comment