RSS FeedIRB Under Review
Nicholas Keung of the Toronto Star says,
The issue of state protection has become more contentious following a string of recent federal court challenges – involving refugee claimants from Turkey, Kenya, Mexico, St. Vincent and, in Sterbyci’s case, Albania – that question assessments made by the Immigration and Refugee Board and enforcement officials…
TO PROVE ONE’S CASE, the refugee board suggests, claimants must demonstrate that the “state apparatus” of protection has collapsed, that people in similar situations are also not getting protection, or explain how they sought government help without success.
Refugee lawyers Luyt and Boulakia argue those guidelines and country-condition reports are selectively applied, and the recent federal court decisions would seem to support that.
… state protection cannot be automatically assumed in a democratic country.
Queen’s University immigration law professor Sharryn Aiken said it is only a partial victory for these refugee claimants, because their cases have only been referred back for redetermination; they still face removal from Canada.
However, it underlines the need in Canada for a refugee appeal division, a body with the authority to not only revisit evidence, but reverse wrong decisions, she said.
Judge Caught on Tape Requesting Sexual Bribe
Peter Small of the Toronto Star reports,
He was a former Toronto councillor turned immigration judge and she was a Korean refugee claimant.
They met at a coffee shop to discuss her case and, in a conversation she secretly recorded, he said he wanted to be her “good friend,” court was told Monday.
…
“You know if we do things on the side, that’s okay. Don’t worry, I’m not going to be demanding. I’m not going to ask you to move in with me or anything like that,” Lynda Trefler quoted Ellis as saying.
Union Rights for Agricultural Workers in Ontario
For the first time in Canadian legal history, arguments relating to the plight of Canada’s migrant workers will be heard at the Supreme Court of Canada on December 17th, 2009. The Intervention brought jointly by Justicia for Migrant Workers (J4MW) and the Industrial Accidents Victims Group of Ontario (IAVGO) will be heard as part of Fraser v Attorney General of Ontario, which relates to the right to organize and bargain collectively for Ontario’s 100,000 agricultural workers.
J4MW and IAVGO will highlight the particular experiences of migrant workers and how their rights are being violated under the following sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
Section 1 (The Right to Guaranteed Freedoms)
Section 2.d (The Right to Freedom of Association)
Section 15 (The Right to Equality under the Charter)
From their factum [para 9-11]:
The Respondents have identified the social, political and economic profile of agricultural workers in Ontario. Specifically, they are described as “a large foreign migrant work force that is legally restricted to working in agriculture;” many of whom are “non-white immigrants who have recently arrived in Canada;” and who perform the “fourth most dangerous job in Ontario.”
The Interveners further submit that this Court must recognize the intersecting enumerated and analogous grounds of race, gender, disability and citizenship that underlie the occupational status of many agricultural workers – a status that supports conditions for their continued marginalization in Canada, and restrains their enjoyment of essential freedoms. That is, “agricultural workers” are not solely identified as a group because they work in a particular sector in the Canadian economy; they are also identified by immutable characteristics, that is, by the persons they are.
The Interveners further submit that “agricultural worker,” itself, is an immutable characteristic because of its roots in, and proliferation of, indentured servitude. Such proliferation is seen in the structures of the federal Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program (SAWP) and other Temporary Foreign Worker Programs (TFWP) and, by extension, the agricultural industry. The essential dignity interests of migrant agricultural workers are undermined by the severe inequality and exploitation perpetuated by these structures. They are subject to stereotyping that limit the kind of work they are permitted to do in Canada.
Immigration and foreign credentials
The federal government announced a plan to help immigrants get their foreign credentials recognized. At the heart of this plan is a deal between Ottawa and the provinces to speed up professional licensing applications filed by foreign-trained immigrants. Of course, the new rules will not force private employers to recognize foreign education or work experience, and even provincial licensing bodies will be free to deny any recognition. All the deal seems to promise is reduce wait times for processing of foreign credentials.
Under the Canadian constitution, immigration is mostly Ottawa’s prerogative, and regulation of professions is up to the provinces. So if you want to move to Canada from India, you have to apply to Citizenship and Immigration Canada. But if, on arrival, you want to work as an architect in Toronto, you have to apply for a license to a provincially-appointed body—the Ontario Association of Architects. In Canada, provinces are sovereign and independent from the federal government within their constitutionally set area of control. That’s why Ottawa cannot order provinces to recognize foreign credentials. And provinces cannot order Ottawa what immigrants to accept. A lack of coordination between the federal and provincial governments can leave immigrant doctors, nurses, or engineers driving cabs in Canadian cities. The latest deal is supposed to address this problem.
But this deal has limitations. Apparently, it covers only admission to regulated professions: architecture, nursing, engineering, etc. It does not guarantee admission to foreign-trained workers. Its purpose is to speed up processing of foreign credentials to see if they meet Canadian standards. Another limitation is that foreign doctors will not qualify for this program for up to three more years. And even if their credentials are recognized, foreign-trained doctors will still need to find internships, which are in short supply. The program doesn’t cover foreign-trained lawyers at all, although they can qualify for a separate arduous accreditation mechanism at least in Ontario.
Any news of fewer professional roadblocks is good news for immigrants. And the public interest certainly requires protection of Canadian standards of professional practice. But the announced program is a narrow step aimed at relatively few new arrivals. It will hardly help hundreds of thousands whose resumes end up in the shredder because of no “Canadian experience” or because their names don’t sound right. That kind of help requires not a government decree but a culture shift.
Live-in caregivers
Nanny wins landmark suit after Star investigation
A foreign caregiver brought to Canada with a job offer from a “ghost employer” has been awarded $10,000 in damages in what is believed to be the first court victory against a nanny recruiter.
Uttering threats
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer (I am a law student). The text below contains only my understanding of the applicable law. It has nothing whatsoever to do with your particular situation. Do not assume you can make any decisions based on this text. I do not intend this text to apply to anyone’s situation. This text is not legal advice. I am not qualified to give legal advice anyway. The purpose of this text is to encourage debate and create awareness of certain criminal offences. Please consult a lawyer if you need legal advice or help with your particular situation.
Watch your mouth. Your mom or buddy told you this in high school when you blurted out something stupid or offensive. But it’s also what the law tells you now with all its authority and with all its might. Freedom of speech is not absolute, and for some speech, the law will put you in jail. It is a crime, for example, to make death threats or to promise to injure someone or to burn someone’s house. In 2009, at least two high-profile stories of prosecution for uttering threats hit the papers. The father of baby Kaylee was charged with threatening death and causing damage in September, and the sister of Toronto’s deputy mayor was charged with threatening death in April. The potential punishment is up to five years in prison. And if you are not a Canadian citizen, they can kick you out of the country. The law may come crushing down on you if you “utter threats,” so how does it work, exactly?
Section 264.1 of the Criminal Code defines the crime and the punishment for uttering threats. If you threaten anyone with death or “bodily harm,” you can get up to five years in prison. If you threaten to harm anyone’s property or animal, you can get up to two years in prison. The courts have said that you don’t need to be violent, to slap anybody on the face, to step on a dog’s tail, or to punch anybody’s car to commit this crime. Words are enough. Of course, if you jokingly yell “I’ll kill you!” and chase after your best friend who kicked you during a ball game, the law is not interested. You must intend to intimidate when you make your threats. You must want the other person to take your words seriously. But the victim does not need to understand or even know about the threat. All the Crown must prove when they haul you to court is that you “uttered the threat.” Even if you threatened not a specific person but a member of a race or a religion or some other group of people, you can be convicted.
A special warning to those who are not Canadian citizens. The government can deport you for certain crimes, and the law may ignore how long you lived in this country. They can kick you out even if you are a permanent resident and you lived here for 50 years. Uttering threats is one such crime. Under section 36(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the government can tell you to leave Canada, if you are a permanent resident and you were sentenced for any crime to more than six months of imprisonment. Uttering threats fits the bill because you can go to prison for up to five years. If you are not a permanent resident but just a visitor, a foreign student or worker, etc., it’s even easier for the government to expel you. Even if you don’t go to jail for uttering threats, the conviction alone is enough for deportation. Words can cost you dearly.
Most people are not criminals, and you can even say that it’s not that easy to commit most crimes. But some crimes are crimes of mere words with severe punishment in prison. There is no freedom of speech for these words. If you tell someone that you’ll kill them, or that you’ll cut their balls off, or that you’ll burn their house, or that you’ll kill their parrot, or that you’ll stab their tires, you can go to prison. If you are not a Canadian citizen, they can also throw you out of Canada. So know the law and watch your mouth.
The new underclass
Who haven’t heard of immigration queue jumpers? The current federal government used this term when it shut down visa-free travel from the Czech Republic and Mexico. Federal officials blamed queue jumping refugee claimants. But if someone jumps the queue, it’s not refugees as much as it is temporary guest workers. And their biggest aider and abettor is Ottawa itself. Estimated 65,000 refugee claims were pending in 2008, but almost 192,519 foreigners came to Canada as temporary workers last year. A Toronto Star investigation revealed that many of them are vulnerable, abused, and prone to go underground, especially during a recession. The Canadian government wants to be in the labour supply business, but it’s not doing a good job.
The temp worker program lets employers select employees abroad if the federal labour officials certify a worker shortage in the employer’s industry. Today, most foreign workers go to farms, oil fields and into other low-skilled jobs, and many eventually end up in the underground economy. The current government in particular has let an unprecedented number of low-skilled migrants in Canada. Ottawa essentially acts as a giant recruitment agency that sizes up clients’ labour needs and fills them with people from foreign countries on condition that they go back home after two years. Foreign workers can’t switch jobs without the government’s permission. In Ontario and Alberta seasonal agricultural workers can’t join unions. And low-skilled workers can’t easily apply for permanent residence in Canada. After all, the idea is to bring in cyclical labour.
And cyclical labour they bring. Farms needs crop gatherers. Fast food joints need burger flippers. Energy companies need oil-sand workers. There are so many people in the world willing to work for much less than Canadians. Cheap labour, like any other cheap resource, can translate into lower costs across the production chain and lead to lower prices, economic growth, and general happiness. And the conventional wisdom goes that Canadians don’t want to do those jobs anyway. Temporary workers are also not supposed to strain our health care because they don’t grow old here. We have a constant supply of fresh, young, cheap labour thanks to the federal super recruiters in Ottawa. Right?
Wrong. The Toronto Star investigation revealed a widespread abuse of temporary foreign workers. Some employers take advantage of their weak bargaining power. Some employers refuse to pay their wages. Some pay much less than promised. Some fire workers without regard to their labour rights. Foreign workers often come from poor countries after borrowing thousands of dollars for the trip and middlemen’s fees. They feed their families who stayed behind. The law doesn’t let them switch employers easily. It’s not exactly a position of power in negotiating your job conditions. The Toronto Star report shows how many workers end up underground. They are the real queue jumpers, but who dare blame these abused people? Where they jump is not permanent residence in Canada but permanent limbo. They jump to a life of fear of authorities and working underground. Debts, hungry families overseas, and false hopes stop them from leaving.
They form a massive underclass—desperate and without rights—pushing many of them into crime. We have traditionally had two classes of people who lived in Canada: citizens and permanent residents. Their rights are similar but permanent residents lack some important rights that all citizens enjoy. Today we are adding a third class and even a fourth class way down the social ladder: the temporary workers with few rights and the temporary workers gone illegal—with almost no rights. Economic cycles come and go, but marginalized migrants will stay.
The government should get out of the labour supply business. If a job is low-paid, it doesn’t mean that Canadians don’t want to do it. It means the job must be better paid. And the market will take care of it without Ottawa’s bureaucrats crunching numbers in their spreadsheets. By importing massive cheap labour the federal government discourages higher productivity and wages. Unless a job involves killing people, there is hardly a qualified Canadian who wouldn’t take it for a fair wage. And if there are no takers, the job doesn’t belong in Canada.
The immigration policy should target the real issue instead of tampering with the labour market. And the real issue is the population growth. We desperately need more people in Canada, and the only realistic source is immigration. But we need immigrants with full rights, who are proud and secure and who understand and value the Canadian society. About 900,000 of potential permanent residents and future citizens are languishing in the huge backlog. In the meantime, Ottawa tempts hundreds of thousands of the world’s vulnerable to jump the queue and end up as marginalized migrants in Canada’s cities.
Immigration exploitation
Lack of oversight by the federal government has allowed foreign workers to be abused by their employers, Auditor General Sheila Fraser says in a scathing report on Canada’s immigration program.
Fraser said federal authorities do not follow up on job offers for foreign workers to see if the jobs offered are real, if the employer can afford promised wages and if there is a real need for the worker.
The Ocean Lady: Rethinking “Illegal” Migration in Canada
The recent arrival by boat in Vancouver of 76 Sri Lankan Tamil men has triggered heated debate about Canada’s refugee system. On October 28, the Liu Institute for Global Issues at the University of British Columbia held a forum on the topic, entitled “The “Ocean Lady”: A New Challenge of Illegal Migration on Canada’s West Coast?” One of the panellists, Daniel McLeod, who is duty counsel for the migrants, called these men “classic refugees,” because of the persecution they face in Sri Lanka. “It’s young Tamil men in Sri Lanka who are most at risk,” he said. He also observed that though “the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam at their peak had probably 1500 to 2500 soldiers,” there are currently a quarter of a million Tamils awaiting security clearance by the Sri Lankan government in internment camps in the northern parts of the island.
McLeod, who is also an instructor in Refugee Law at UBC, noted that Canada is a signatory to the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees, which states that refugees cannot be penalised for entering the country through illegal means. Canada’s acceptance of the Convention was triggered by its refusal in 1939 to admit the St Louis, a boat containing 907 Jewish refugees, who were forced to return to Germany, where a third of them were killed in concentration camps. However, host and fellow-panellist, Benjamin Perrin, Assistant Professor at UBC Law and Faculty Associate at the Liu Institute, said that because the 1951 Convention only addresses the criminalisation of the entry, “it does not preclude countries from exercising detention where the identities of the individuals are uncertain or there are undetermined security risks.”
McLeod cautioned against assuming the men were Tamil Tigers. “It is common for people who have been forced to work as labourers for the Tigers, to be rounded up, arrested by the army, police, or the special task force – which is a police commando force – and simply disappear,” he said. When describing the men, nearly all of whom are currently confined in a Lower Mainland jail, McLeod said, “Some of them are students, some are farmers, some of them are clerks, office workers. They are all very scared.”
In Canada the acceptance rate for refugees is approximately 47%. In comparison, according to Andreas Schloenhardt, Associate Professor from University of Queensland, in Australia, that number is 80%. (However, Australia has a very different immigration system, which involves using whole islands far from the mainland as detention centres, so these numbers may not be analogous.) Yet the 2007 acceptance rate specifically for Sri Lankans in Canada was 97%.
In 1986, local fishermen came to the rescue of 154 Sri Lankans found floating off in lifeboats off the coast of Newfoundland. Those people were not subjected to what McLeod called “the political frenzy that’s occurring today,” suggesting that in the intervening two decades Canada’s policing of its borders has become progressively more exclusionary and reactionary. This fear was solidified on November 2, when Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, after accepting the fewest refugees in 10 years, dramatically cut the 2010 target number of refugees to be accepted by more than half. Opposition MPs assert that “by steeply dropping the targets, refusing to appoint Refugee Board members for 2 years, cutting $4 million in the department and allowing for board appointments not based on merit, Harper’s Conservative government is deliberately creating a crisis in the refugee system. The crisis is then used as an excuse to bring in draconian measures to close the door to the most needy and vulnerable.”
At the lecture, Perrin claimed that the focus on the “human interest story” of the 76 men, while legitimate, shifts attention away from an analysis of the means by which refugees move illegally between countries. He argued that “Canada must take action to discourage illegal migration and disrupt migrant smuggling operations where they do exist.” Further, Canada is a party to the 2004 UN Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, which, he said, “calls for [migrants] not to be criminalised, but to be treated humanely. But at the same time, it does not give them the right to temporary or permanent residence in Canada simply because they are smuggled.”
When one student then questioned him about the language used to describe the men, specifically the term “illegal migrant” (which was featured in the panel title), because of the way it implicitly criminalises the men, Perrin responded that “the title of the presentation has a question mark at the end of it, which was very deliberate.” Another audience member had a query about how that kind of vocabulary negatively affects media coverage. Perrin responded, “I think it’s important that before there’s been an impartial determination of the legal status of these individuals, that our language reflect that. So I’m not calling them refugees right now because I don’t know if they are.”
Perrin maintained that “there are advantages to cooperating with other countries, not just the source countries, but also other countries along the migrant smuggling chain,” because this would assist Canada in “creating proactive responses to protracted refugee situations.” One reporter asked, “How are we to trust the Sri Lankan government if they say these people are members of a terrorist organisation? [...] How do you trust a government which is treating a minority as harshly as them?” McLeod answered, “I hope we’re not going to trust the Si Lankan government to make that determination for us. There are a number of ways that Canada Border Services Agency can obtain information in normal ways.” These include taking fingerprints to run through international police records and analysing accents to determine where in Sri Lanka the men are from. However, the RCMP has already begun collaborating with the Sri Lankan government to identify the men.
“There are 16 million refugees worldwide as of June 2009. There’s another 26 million internally displaced persons, who don’t count as refugees,” said McLeod. “Hundreds, if not thousands, of irregular migrants are reported dead or missing every year,” said Perrin.
—–
A previous version of this article first appeared in Canadian Lawyer. This article was last modified on Nov 5.
Criminalising Refugees
The arrival in Vancouver by boat two weeks ago of 76 refugees from Sri Lanka has triggered a predictable wave of paranoia and xenophobia, not the least of which has come from our own Ministry of Immigration. Alykhan Velshi, director of communications and parliamentary affairs, felt compelled to reassure the public that:
We won’t allow Canada to become a place of refuge for terrorists, thugs, snakeheads and other violent foreign criminals. Nor will we support those who want to create a two-tier immigration system: one tier for law-abiding immigrants who wait patiently in the queue, and a second, for-profit tier for criminals and terrorists who pay human smugglers to help them jump the queue.
Minister Jason Kenney, somewhat less flamboyantly, has said, “We don’t want to develop a reputation of having a two-tier immigration system – one tier for legal, law-abiding immigrants who patiently wait to come to the country, and a second tier who seek to come through the back door, typically through the asylum system.”
On the face of it, the preemptive criminalisation of the 76 men as terrorists and snakeheads aside, it seems like a fair thing to ask: that whatever system Canada have in place for immigration be respected.
The fact is, however, that Kenney is being willfully misleading. As Shauna Lubman, of UBC Law, notes:
[Kenney’s] statement belies the fact that Canada has a two-pronged system already – the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) that legislates the entrance of both immigrants and refugees. There is no “back door.” There is an immigration door and an asylum door. While there is a clear legal process for entering Canada as an immigrant, it is specifically acknowledged in the 1951 Refugee Convention, whose signatories include Canada, that asylum seekers cannot be penalized for illegal entry. [emphasis mine]
Moreover, she continues,
Minister Kenney’s two-tier concern is misleading and completely misses the point that the Sri Lankan men might be genuine refugees. There are legitimate concerns with the arrival of migrants by boat, be they false or genuine refugee claimants. Human smuggling is a corrupt and exploitative criminal enterprise that should not only be discouraged but prosecuted. However, it is the smugglers who are the criminals, not the vulnerable migrants who in desperation pay their way into the smugglers’ hands.
Sanctuary for war resister: Rodney Watson takes refuge in Vancouver church
By Krystalline Kraus, reproduced with permission
The battle to keep U.S. Iraq war resisters in Canada has been ongoing since January 2004 when Jeremy Hinzman first arrived in Canada and filed a refugee claim as a conscientious objector.
Hinzman was the first U.S. Iraq resister to seek sanctuary in Canada as he and others face punishment under a charge of being Absent Without Official Leave (“going AWOL”) or for desertion under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for refusing to participate in the Iraq war for moral reasons.
As of July 2009, there are at least 28 public cases of US Iraq War resisters in Canada, some of whom have either brought their families or started new ones in Canada. They live legally as refugee claimants awaiting legal decisions from Immigration Canada from, for example, Humanitarian and Compassionate Grounds (H + C) applications. An unknown number — the War Resister Support Campaign (WRSC) estimate the number to be around 200– have also come to Canada but have remained underground.
They have been embraced kindly by the Canadian public and the current opposition parties in Parliament, who have united twice on motions voting to support resisters, on both June 3, 2008 and March 30, 2009.
These motions were supported by the Canadian public, as proven through an Angus Reid Strategies poll taken on June 6 and 7, 2008 which showed that 64 per cent of Canadians agreed with the premise of the motion, which would allow soldiers of conscience objecting to any non-United Nation sanctioned war to seek refugee status here in Canada and to stop all pending deportation cases. While both motions passed, their recommendations were non-binding and never implemented by the minority Conservative government under the leadership of Stephen Harper.
Commenting on the resister’s immigration situation in Canada, on January 7, 2009, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Jason Kenney, referred to Iraq war resisters as, “bogus refugee claimants” and later commented that “war resistance is futile.”
Opposition to allowing U.S. war resisters to seek sanctuary in Canada has also come from the United States. For example, in 2004, the BBC analysis of the situation reported that U.S. political pundit commentators such as Bill O’Reilly of the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News TV network, “… seized on the case [of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey], even calling for a boycott of Canadian goods if the pair [were] not extradited quickly.”
It also reported on the types of comments resisters were receiving from their fellow Americans. “‘I’m coming for you,’ reads one threatening e-mail, laced with racism and obscenities. ‘Desserters [sic] should get shot in the back especially at war time,’ reads another.”
The case of Rodney Watson
The latest flashpoint in the battle has been the case of Rodney Watson who on Monday October 19, 2009, decided to seek sanctuary in a B.C. church rather than face deportation to the United States to face desertion charges. Watson, who is originally from Kansas City, Kansas, enlisted in the US Army in 2004 for a three-year contract with the intentions of becoming a cook since he wanted to serve the troops in a non-combat capacity.
In 2005, he was deployed to Iraq just north of Mosul, where he was put in charge of searching vehicles and Iraqi civilians for explosives, contraband and weapons before they entered the base. He was also expected to “keep the peace” by monitoring Iraqi civilians who worked on the base and fire his weapon at Iraqi children who approached the perimeter.
After his first tour was over, Watson was informed that he was instead being Stop-Lossed as the Army intended to have his serve beyond the date of his contractual obligation with the military. On two-week leave, he decided not to return to his base at Fort Hood, Texas, and instead fled to Vancouver, B.C. in 2006, where he lives with his Canadian born partner and their infant son.
In a September 2009 press conference, Watson — who is African-American — described his experience in Iraq, “I witnessed racism and the physical abuse from soldiers towards the civilians. On one occasion, a soldier was beating an Iraqi civilian, calling him a sand-nigger and threw his Qur’an on the ground and spit on it. The man was unarmed and he was just looking for work on the base. He posed no type of threat. He was beaten because soldiers brought their personal racist hatred to Iraq.”
It was experiences like these — plus coming to understand that the motivation behind going to war was based on lies — that led to his decision to come to Canada. He has been living in refuge at the First United Church in Vancouver, B.C., since September 18, 2009. He was welcomed with open arms and publicly declared sanctuary on Monday. Sarah Bjorknas from the Vancouver arm of the WRSC notes that Watson was issued his deportation order before his H + C case could be resolved through the courts.
Watson wishes to remain in Canada because of his objection to the Iraq War but his passion for his infant son remains the strongest pull — two heartbeats desperate to remain as one.
At the press conference, Watson’s voice trembled, “I don’t want to be torn away from him. I want to be there for him during his first steps, every waking moment, I want to be there. And I know if I’m deported, it is to prison and I will not be able to see any of those moments for who knows how long, for God knows how long.” If convicted of desertion as a felony charge he will not be able to cross the border to visit his son.
While Watson made the decision to seek sanctuary on his own, he has been receiving support from across the country. Bjorknas defended his choice. “Rodney was Stop-Lossed, he had served his time, he fulfilled his contractual obligation, and the fact that he is being sent back to the United States to stand trial is outrageous.”
‘Stop Loss’
In the U.S. military, the Stop Loss policy allows for the involuntary extension of a service member’s active duty service under their enlistment contract in order to retain them beyond their initial end of term of service date.
The policy remains in effect despite numerous court challenges from military service members challenging their extension and affects 12, 000 personnel, though in March 2009, U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates ordered deep reductions in its enactment against service personnel by fifty per cent by June 2010.
In 2005 during the presidential election, Democrat John Kerry accused President Bush of creating a “backdoor draft” through the use of Stop Loss.
Commenting on Watson’s case of seeking sanctuary in Canada to resist a Stop Loss order, Michelle Robidoux from Toronto’s WRSC said, “Rodney’s case is a clear example of how the notion that the U.S. military is an all volunteer army is actually false. Rodney completed his contractual obligations and was facing redeployment to Iraq despite this and his objections to the war.”
Now Watson sits and waits in a B.C. Church, hoping the government will intervene or enact Parliament’s motion to stop him from being deported and separated from his partner and newborn son.
Permanent residence granted after 4 years in church sanctuary
Sanctuary gives way to freedom
Andrew Chung writes:
The federal government decided to grant Belaouni permanent residency status, made official on Oct. 22, despite ordering him deported in late 2005, when his application to stay on humanitarian and compassionate grounds was rejected. His application for refugee status had been turned down the year prior.
Podcast Feeds
Awards
Partners
- Advertise Here
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The Whiners - The Elusive Fish Creative Services
- Mesothelioma Lawyer
- no win no fee solicitors
- Compensation Claims
- personal injury lawyer toronto
- no win no fee
- Pardons Canada Accident Claim Medical Negligence Whiplash Claim
- No win No fee Claims
- Venue
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
