Bilingualism of Supreme Court Justices

The debate about possible limits of Canada's bilingualism laws has re-emerged in the debate over its Supreme Court justices. Lysianne Gagnon published an article in the Globe and Mail about the potential problems with the proposed legislation that would compel SCC judges to be bilingual, or limit appointments to bilingual candidates.

The SCC judges are currently appointed and hold the post until the age of 75.

Law School

On Monday, April 19, I was offered admission to the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law's English Common Law Program, to commence studies in Fall 2010.

This is a prestigious programme with incredible opportunities to grow, including the opportunity to pursue a joint Juris Doctorate program in the United States.

I am extremely excited about embarking on this new phase in my career.

Democracy in Africa and its effect on Refugees

 

Photo of Darfur Refugee Camp in Chad, taken by Mark Knobil, 2005 via Wikimedia Commons

I attended a talk recently by Professor James Milner at Carleton University which examined how responses to refugees varied before and after the end of the Cold War. The lecture is part of  a series hosted by the Political Science department which examines how the world has changed since the end of the Cold War.

The aspect I found most profound in his talk was the effect of democratic transition in African countries  on protracted refugee situations within countries, such as Tanzania. Protracted refugee situations have been used as leverage in political campaigns. As quickly as one leader can promise expulsion to garner a majority of votes, thus scapegoating refugees - many of whom only know life in a camp - another leader uses the opposite rhetoric and hands out citizenship in mass ceremonies, clearly admitting that refugee populations have significant and meaningful contributions and ties to a particular region. I came away curious about the arbitrary choices between expulsion and naturalization that some of these countries demonstrate. If it's so easy to naturalize citizens, why isn't it a widespread practice? What does naturalization actually mean for the refugees who have spent one or two generations in a camp? How are they, in fact, received by host populations? What are the economic calculations, if any, to naturalize, deport, or resettle refugees? I believe these are the questions we need to be seriously considering as we reconsider  the future of the refugee regime and the inadequacy of present responses in light of changing characteristics of forced migration.

One sinister theme that emerged from Professor Milner's presentation was the growing restrictions, including freedom of mobility within the receiving country,  guaranteed by the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Less developed countries follow the example of developed countries and impose stringent and illegal restrictions on Convention refugees. The disturbing pre-emptive measures (such as carrier restrictions, interception, and extraterritoriality meaning that you have to be cleared by an embassy in your home country and not crossing an international border which is central to the 1951 Convention definition of a 'refugee') taken by such countries as Canada, the UK, the US and the EU to restrict flows of refugees has been extrapolated in such places as Thailand and Tanzania so that refugees are under lock-down situations in contravention of international law.

 

This photograph is of a United States Coast Guard cutter, that intercepted and transported the Haitian refugees who fled the turmoil in their country, in the port at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in 1992. More than 14,000 refugees attempted to reach the United States by boat and were picked up by the Coast Guard in international waters and transported to the base at Guantanamo Bay. Courtesy of Wikimedia images - this image was taken by a US Official during  duty and is therefore in the public domain.

SCC Decision on Omar Khadr

Today, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned what could have led to the repatriation of Omar Khadr from the Guantanamo Bay detention centre where he has been held for more than 6 years. (CBC News).

While deeply dismayed at the continuing injustice, what the SCC called Khadr's "[continued violation] of rights to life, liberty and security of person", the SCC reflected an hesitation to overstep its jurisdiction. It concluded that the precedent of forcing the government to overstep its boundaries in international relations outweighed Khadr's Article 1 Charter rights. The SCC outlined the severity and urgency of the situation, as well as the initial violation of Khadr's rights at the initial stages of interrogation including the exchange of information to American authorities that resulted in his imprisonment in Guantanamo Bay. There is late-blooming public outcry to release Khadr from US custody and have him tried in Canada. It is hoped that the government, in light of the evidence, will make the decision to return Khadr to Canada.

There are disturbing implications for the SCC decision. First, in light of questionable interrogation tactics, charges of torture, extraordinary rendition and the persistence of the death penalty, it is shocking that Canada would have handed over Khadr to American authorities, let alone allow him to remain in their custody. The arguments articulated in opposition to the Safe Third Country Agreement are absent in this case it would seem. It is hypocritical that Canada maintains its reputation as a refuge from US extradition for Americans facing the death penalty or the draft, while simultaneously refusing to help one of its own citizens - regardless of his actions.

Secondly, there has been little or no action taken on the basis that Khadr was charged as a minor and should, therefore, be entitled to be treated as such, including protection under laws governing the rehabilitation and prosecution of child soldiers, in accordance with the principles set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Third, the government's inaction, similar to the inaction on the Kazemi and Arar cases, is a further reminder that no Canadian anywhere or at anytime can be assured of their protection by Canadian authorities overseas. Furthermore, the indication that the Khadr case will continue to be a political football flies in the face of our civic values and demonstrates the shameless self-promotion of Canada's political parties.

One wonders at the ability of the SCC to, on the one hand, strike down the use of security certificates but draw the line at Khadr.

The Supreme Court decision indicates that balance of power is alive and well in Canada, and that healthy debate about the future of human rights and civic values is still to come. This is coming at a very high cost to the action taken on human rights law. Similar to the Arar case, it seems like the Court is only delaying the inevitable reparations the Canadian government will have to make for the wrongful betrayal and imprisonment of one of its own by not sending a stronger message to the government to repatriate Omar Khadr.

New Horizons

It was a busy fall. With proroguement nigh, I am looking forward to getting back to working on resubmitting my Master's thesis for journal publication.

I submitted my law applications to seven schools in North America, so I should hear back in the Spring. I am hoping to specialize in Public International Law and/or Human Rights. With the applications under my belt, I am working on scholarship applications to offset the cost of law school.

I joined Amnesty International's RefNet in September and was pleased to assist with research on my first case over the holidays.

Mapping the Recession

This link was shared with me and I think it does such a great job at looking at how unemployment is spreading across the US that I wanted to share it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9jBNyysbho&feature=player_embedded

James Milner Speaks on Burundian Refugees in Tanzania

African Studies Brownbag Seminar Series talk, co-sponsored by the Ottawa Migration and Refugee Research Network (OMRRN):
"Understanding solutions for African refugees: The case of Burundians in Tanzania"
with
James Milner
Carleton University (Political Science/Institute of African Studies)
Wednesday, January 20 at 1:00- 2:30 pm
433 Paterson Hall, Carleton University
This is part of the African Studies Brownbag Seminar Series
(http://www.carleton.ca/africanstudies/)

Urgent Action

UA 10/10                                                                                              
AI Index: ASA 26/001/2010 of 13 January 2010

LAOS:  REFUGEES FORCIBLY RETURNED FROM THAILAND
The Thai authorities forcibly returned around 4,500 Lao Hmong, including 158 recognized refugees, to Laos at the end of 2009. The Lao government is refusing to permit UN and other monitors access to them.

On 28 and 29 December, the Thai military forcibly returned to Laos around 4,500 Lao Hmong, in breach of international law. Most had been in a camp in Phetchabun province. Some 158 recognized refugees arbitrarily detained in Nong Khai Immigration Detention Centre, near the Lao border, were also forcibly returned, despite offers from four other countries to accept them for resettlement.
The Thai and Lao governments had given assurances that the 158 would be resettled in third countries once they had transited through Laos. However on 10 January, a Lao government spokesperson told journalists that "all of the Hmong decided to live in their homeland forever," and no longer wanted to resettle abroad. At the same time the government is refusing all requests to give UN monitors unfettered access to the refugees, to assess their wellbeing and ensure that their wishes to resettle in third countries are considered.
The UN Refugee Agency UNHCR had verified that the 158 have a well-founded fear of persecution in Laos, and granted them refugee status. As the Thai government refused UNHCR access to the Phetchabun camp, it is not known how many people there had fled persecution and should therefore have been recognized as refugees.
Since 2005, forcible returns of Lao Hmong from Thailand have led to enforced disappearances, torture and arbitrary detention. The Lao government have consistently denied this, but have not provided any comprehensive information to support their claims or allowed independent monitors to investigate these reports.
Around 20 of the 158 refugees have been seen at a designated resettlement village, Phalak, around 70km north of the capital, Vientiane. The whereabouts of the others is not known. However, hundreds of returnees have been seen in what has been described as an army camp north of Paksan town, around 20km east of Vientiane. The returnees, mostly women and children, were not free to come and go from the facility, which was fenced in with razor wire.

PLEASE WRITE IMMEDIATELY in your own words, using English, Lao, French or your own language. Call on the authorities
* to allow UN monitors unfettered access to the returnees from Thailand immediately, whether or not they have refugee status;
* to honour their agreement to allow any refugees to settle in third countries;
* to expedite and help with any preparations required for third country resettlement;
* to allow those who choose to remain in Laos, rather than be resettled, to participate in decisions about their place of residence and livelihood;
* to ensure that none of the around 4,500 returnees are arbitrarily detained, tortured or subjected to enforced disappearance.

PLEASE SEND APPEALS TO:
Minister of Foreign Affairs:
Thongloun Sisoulit
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
That Luang Road, Vientiane, Laos
Fax:   011 856 21 414 009
Email:   cabinet@mofa.gov.la
Salutation:  Dear Minister
Minister of Justice:
Dr Chaleuan Yapaoher
Ministry of Justice
Lane Xang Avenue
Vientiane, Laos
Fax:   011 856 21 414 009 (This is c/o Ministry of Foreign Affairs)
Salutation:  Dear Minister
WITH A COPY TO
His Excellency Phiane Philakone
Ambassador for the Lao People's Democratic Republic
2222 S Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20008, USA
Fax:   (202) 332-4923
Email:   laoemb@verizon.net

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Around 5,000 Lao Hmong people, including an unknown number of asylum-seekers, had been living in a camp in Phetchabun, Thailand, since 2004. The vast majority did not have the opportunity to seek asylum. The Thai military returned them under an agreement between the Thai and Lao governments. Many of those who had been returned before this last group were sent to villages designated for people returned from abroad after going through "re-education". The Lao authorities have arranged several visits to Phalak resettlement site for diplomats and local journalists, but have refused to allow anyone to approach the returnees unaccompanied.
The group of 158 refugees forcibly returned to Laos, more than half of them children, had been arbitrarily detained at Nong Khai Immigration Detention Center for more than three years. The governments of Australia, Canada, the Netherlands and the USA had offered to accept them for resettlement, but the Lao authorities intervened with the Thai authorities to prevent this happening.
Most Hmong refugees and asylum-seekers in Thailand claim to have some connection to groups living in isolated pockets in the Lao jungles since the Viet Nam war ended in 1975.
Laos ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) on 25 September 2009. This means they are obliged to guarantee all people in Laos the right to be free from torture,  to liberty of movement and freedom to choose their residence, and the rights to freedom of expression and assembly. They must also provide safeguards for the treatment of detainees.
The Lao Hmong asylum-seekers were previously the subject of UA 324/06 (ASA 39/017/2006), 29 November 2006, and follow-ups.

Urgent Action Office   Amnesty International Canada  
1992 Yonge St, 3rd floor   Toronto, Ontario M4S 1Z7
(416) 363 9933 ext 325   /   Fax (416) 363 3103   /   www.amnesty.ca/urgentaction