Getting It Right

"I find that there are no provisions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act with respect to whether the government is despotic, and no provision with respect to 'relative force'", an adjudicator observed in a 2006 ruling.

And that is because those seeking asylum in Canada may not have been involved in plots to remove a tyrant from their countries of origin, if they wish to enter Canada.  A bloody tyrant he might have been, but he is held to have been the government, and Canada holds in great suspicion of representing malign forces anyone who might have attempted to join a liberating movement to remove a dictator in attempts to free their country from oppression.

Even if something approaching a coup were to have been planned and plans to attempt it had been foiled, and the plotters were forced to flee, they would be held, for immigration or refugee purposes, as guilty and declared a potential security risk for Canada, and the fact that their plotting was for the purpose of achieving freedom from oppression simply has no rank whatever in the equation.  And so it is that a Nigerian coup-plotter, as an example, where nothing actually occurred, is being deported from Canada.

And that brings us to situations where Canada itself has involved its military in attempts to free a country from a raging tyrant who has visited misery upon his people, and who has earned the loathing of democratic countries around the world.  The very opposition members whose activities and personal sacrifices led to the deposing of autocratic oppressors, despite the support of Canada in terms of sympathy and even military activity, would be declared a national security risk and not permitted entry to Canada.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Section 34 (1), states clearly enough that "a permanent resident or foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for engaging in an act of espionage or an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada; engaging or instigating the subversion by force of any government; engaging in terrorism."

In the case of a country like Libya, where Moammar Gadhafi ruled by force and took active part in terrorist acts, those who opposed his continued rule would be denied entry to Canada.  In the case of Syria, where President Bashar al-Assad is sending helicopter gunships and attack warplanes against civilians and rebels in his attempts to dislodge the opposing Syrian Free Army from attacks against his regime, those militants would also be denied entry to Canada.

"You could have this ridiculous situation where, as Canada itself was dropping bombs on the Gadhafi government, a Libyan citizen who was a rebel could be arriving in Canada and be declared inadmissible.  And Syrians too.  It is ludicrous", says University of Ottawa refugee law professor, Peter Showler.  It does seem ludicrous, and perverse to logic.  On the other hand, looking a little deeper into the situation there are rebels from both conflicts that would indeed pose a threat to the national security of Canada.

And according to Esme Bailey, spokeswoman for the Canada Border Services Agency, there were 499 "inadmissibility reports" prepared between 2002 to 2012 under the security provisions.  And during that time frame, 26 people were removed from Canada.  "A top priority of the CBSA is to ensure foreign nationals who commit acts of violence, and who pose a danger to the Canadian public, do not enter or remain in Canada."

"Section 34(1) (b) of the IRPA is intended to ensure that Canada does not become a haven for foreign nationals or permanent residents who have demonstrated their willingness to commit violent acts against any government."

Of course, nothing in life is ever as simple as it appears at first glance.  First of all, the specific provisions in the Act excluding those engaged in violence speaks of democratically elected governments and Libya's, for example was not one of those; Gadhafi came to power as a result of a military coup.  Syria's al-Assad family rule may have conducted 'democratic'-inspired elections, but democratic they were not.

There should be some well specified manner in which exceptions can and should be made, even if they require ministerial approval.  Taking into account the type of government that was being contested, the means by which removal was effected, and the reasonable reactions of those who took action to free their country from oppression and misery.

Nelson Mandela was made an honoury citizen of Canada, a rare distinction that would most certainly have precluded the absurdity of his being restricted entry to the country, much less characterized as a security risk.