In June 2008, the Canadian government denied the asylum request of an Eritrean, Shewainesh Tsegai, because she had an affiliation with the Eritrean Liberation Front.  This is what awate.com had to say on the subject: 

Using an anachronistic definition for “terrorism”, the Canadian government has denied the asylum request of an Eritrean woman who had an affiliation with the Eritrean Liberation Front (ELF.) This is a result of flawed reasoning—one that results in lumping Nelson Mandela and Ayman AlZawahri in the same category. 

Awate.com Editorial, The Pencil, “To Canada With Love” June 10, 2008

It was a view shared by many Eritreans who were outraged by Canada’s decision.  The government of Eritrea and its supporters who view members of the ELF as enemies--instead of Eritrean citizens who are entitled to the protection of law—were not outraged and did not protest the decision of Canada.  

Now the other shoe has dropped. The same rationale that has led the Canadian government to be suspicious of people with affiliation to ELF has carried on to the EPLF and last month it denied an entry visa to Osman Saleh, the foreign minister of the Eritrean regime. This time, the Eritrean regime is protesting—and rightly so.  Canada is equating the just struggle for self-determination with unjust acts of terror. It was wrong when Canada used this flawed reasoning against an ordinary Eritrean, Shewainesh Tsegai. It is equally wrong when used against Osman Saleh.  

CANADA’S LAW

The law which, in a tribute to George Orwell, is called the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, is found here: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01e.pdf

The Canadian government has various categories for denying admissibility. These are (a) security; (b) violation of human rights/international law; (c) “serious criminality”; (d) criminality; (e) health; (f) misrepresentation; (g) compliance; (h) relationship to inadmissible person. The denial of admission is targeted towards foreign nationals and permanent residents.   

Of the various categories for inadmissibility, the one that the Canadian government is using is the security argument, (A34)(1), which has 6 classifications: 

• engaging in an act of espionage or an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada A34(1)(a)
• engaging in or instigating the subversion by force of any government A34(1)(b)
• engaging in terrorism A34(1)(c)
• being a danger to the security of Canada A34(1)(d)
• engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada A34(1)(e)
• being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in acts referred to in paragraph (a),(b) or (c).  A34(1)(f)

INTERPRETATION

This being the law, the most important question is: how is it interpreted?  What is espionage? What is subversion? What is a terrorism? Who determines and how is it determined that somebody is a security threat to Canada? What are “reasonable grounds”?

It is here that the Canadian government has gone off the deep end, and is pursuing a policy that cannot be consistently enforced.  Its jurisprudence and case law says that “subversion” does not have to be violent to be subversion. A government need not be democratic—it only need to be any government—for acts against it to trigger a security watch or retribution. "Reasonable grounds" are more than suspicion, but less than reasonable doubt. How little more than suspicion, and how much less than reasonable doubt is entirely up to the discretion of the government. And the definition of terrorism? Terrorism "must receive an unrestrictive interpretation in order to prevent the arrival of persons considered to be a danger to Canadian society.”

Using this definition, here is a partial list of all the people that would not be admitted by Canada:

George Washington and the entire “founding fathers” of the USA. Every leader, participant and supporter of every anti-colonial liberation movement in Africa, Asia and South America. Every anti-communist movement in Eastern Europe. Everyone who ever participated in any protest against his or her government.

Well, this covers most of the people now alive. So the Canadian government has limited the impact of this law on foreign nationals and permanent residents living in Canada.

Let’s say you and your twin brother are an Eritrean or Ethiopian who was a member of, or sympathetic to, one of the many organizations who were trying to rid the Horn of Africa of Mengistu Hailemariam, a man who, by all objective measures, has been appearing on the list of the all-time worst, blood-thirsty dictators of the world. According to Canada’s law, you may be a threat to Canada and your twin brother may not be. It is all vague and arbitrary.

Good Decision, Bad Reasoning

If the Canadian government wants to deny admission to representatives of totalitarian regimes like the one in Eritrea—and we strongly wish that Canada, the US and Europe would—then they should be using a different rationale. A rationale that is proportionate—a rationale that punishes people for what they actually did, not for what they theoretically might have.

In this case, if Canada wants to deny a representative of the Eritrean regime admissions to Canada, it could easily cite other portions of its immigration law, such as A35(1) (a) (b): 

…being a prescribed senior official in the service of a government that, in the opinion of the Minister, engages or has engaged in terrorism, systematic or gross human rights violations,

Would this have sufficed to deny admission to Foreign Minister Osman Saleh whose name, so far, has not been associated with any of the horror stories of the People’s Front for Democracy & Justice?  Canada’s jurisprudence says so:   

The Federal Court held in the case of Adam (F.C.T.D., IMM-3380-96, August 29, 1997; upheld on appeal by F.C.A., A-19-98, January 11, 2001) that there is no rebuttable presumption for those who held one of the government positions listed [in the Regulations],meaning that if a person is found to have occupied the position mentioned, that fact in itself will result in inadmissibility even if there is nothing to show that the person actually exercised influence on the regime in question.

Canada made the right decision in denying admission to a representative of the Eritrean regime—but for entirely wrong and impossible to defend reasons. Instead of making an implausible claim that an Eritrean government official or a middle-aged woman with distant relation to the ELF poses a threat to Canadian security (a flimsy rationale), it should state that Canada does not welcome individuals who serve a government with terrible human rights record--a record that is easily demonstrable. After all, there is much evidence documented about the PFDJ's record of torture, religious rights denial, extra-judicial arrest and killing.

PETER WORTHINGTON

Many of our correspondents continue to be outraged by Peter Worthington and continue to send us his press clippings--since 2000! Listen, every dictator, especially a left-wing dictator like Isaias Afwerki, has always had a hard-core apologist in the West. Stalin had George Bernard Shaw; Mao had Edgar Snow; North Korea had Bruce Cumings; Castro had Norman Mailer. And so on and so on--even the Khmer Rouge had its apologist.  

It is not surprising, then, that Isaias Afwerki would, too. Unluckily for Canada's reputation, that defender is the Toronto Sun's  Peter Worthington. In a just world, one with instant karma buttons, we would push one to transport Peter Worthington to Eritrea, where he would appear as an Eritrean farmer with four teenage children at Sawa. We can't do that, so we hope he will be a real journalist and actually interview real Eritreans--not the members of Eritrea's equivalent of Hitler Youth who have been feeding him his embarassments for years now.

This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it