Granting citizenship to Raif Badawi does not reflect the reality of refugees’ struggles
The Government of Canada is no stranger to offering selective refuge to people in need of asylum.
Last week, the House of Commons unanimously passed a motion demanding that Canadian citizenship be granted to jailed Saudi writer and activist Raif Badawi whose wife escaped to Canada in their ordeal. Last year, Canada granted asylum protection to another Saudi teen who was on her way to Australia but had never set foot in Canada.
Looking at these high-profile cases, one may think that Canada embraces refugees with open arms. However, the reality is the complete opposite.
Based on UNHCR statistics in 2016, Canada has accepted less than one per cent of the world’s asylum seekers. Immigration Refugee and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) proactively screens applicants denying them visas if an officer has the slightest doubt that the person may seek refugee protection in Canada.
This is most apparent in Canada’s treatment of the Rohingya refugees escaping genocidal violence in Myanmar which recently experienced a military coup. In one particular case, IRCC cancelled visitor visas of a Rohingya family after three of their children made refugee claims from Canada. In a similar case, IRCC cancelled a visitor visa for the husband of a refugee claimant in Canada when he sought to see his newborn child.
It is virtually impossible to make refugee claims without physically setting foot in Canada unless you are a UN-recognized refugee. Even with claimants on Canadian soil, however, status may still not be extended to them or their families. This highlights the double standard prevalent in the two Saudi cases which bypassed the entire system.
Asylum seekers that make it to Canada and lodge a claim face intense scrutiny by the Canada Border Service Agency (CBSA), which decides whether they should be heard by the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB).
As the gatekeeper, CBSA is not easy to deal with. The agency is vigilant and is given a wide range of powers to render asylum seekers ineligible and inadmissible as a default, often with baseless allegations influenced by individual officer biases and prejudice.
In recent years the CBSA has targeted particular groups. The CBSA routinely links the main opposition party in Bangladesh, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) (which governed the country until 2006), to terrorism. Though members of BNP and its ally Jamaat e Islami have been severely persecuted in Bangladesh, Canada continues to deny them refugee protection.
CBSA in Vancouver has raised allegations of terrorism against members of the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) which was elected to power in Egypt after the country’s first free election in 2012 until it was overthrown by a military coup. These allegations extend to the Muslim Brotherhood despite its long-standing commitment to democracy and denouncement of violence. It has made no difference to the CBSA that none of these organizations are viewed as terrorist organizations by the Government of Canada, like most other western countries. Despite this, CBSA uses its powers under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to control immigration flow and deny refugee protection to whoever they deem undesirable.
Claimants are dragged along for years through hearings requiring unrealistic evidence to prove their claims while they face intense scrutiny because of the cynical approach used to assess their credibility. Though the law requires that a refugee be given the benefit of doubt, in reality, the refugee board often starts a hearing with the presumption that the claimant is untruthful.
Like every other legal system, Canada’s refugee protection process is not without its flaws. The credibility of our country’s refugee system is compromised when our government uses it to fuel a diplomatic feud while ignoring hundreds of refugees on our soil who are left in limbo.
Canadians expect better. We expect our country to show compassion to those standing at our doorstep for protection instead of sensationalist political tactics. Our House of Commons should look to the real trials and tribulations of families escaping persecution who, instead of finding protection in Canada, face further injustice. If they allow it to continue, it is our collective shame.