Mafalda en Absurdistan

2025/02/17 Leave a comment

Another example of incoherent positions:

…L’AGEM [l’Association générale des étudiantes et étudiants de Montmorency (AGEM)] adhère à la campagne BDS, un mouvement qui prône le boycottage, le désinvestissement et les sanctions envers l’État d’Israël comme moyens de pression pour le forcer à mettre fin à l’occupation des territoires palestiniens.

Qu’on soit pour ou contre cette campagne, ça se discute — et ce n’est pas l’objet de cette chronique. L’absurdité, dans cette histoire, c’est le refus de l’AGEM de financer un voyage d’élèves québécois aux Nations unies, sous prétexte que ce voyage contrevient à une campagne de boycottage visant l’État hébreu.

Comme on dit : c’est quoi, le rapport ?

Le rapport, tordu, c’est que le comité exécutif de l’AGEM « considère que le Conseil de sécurité est l’organe le plus puissant de l’ONU et que son inaction dans le génocide palestinien est condamnable », lit-on dans un courriel envoyé aux élèves, le 18 décembre.

Autrement dit, le comité exécutif de l’AGEM en veut à l’ONU, cette vile organisation qui supplie le monde d’en faire plus pour les Palestiniens, qui fournit de l’aide vitale aux Gazaouis par l’entremise de l’UNRWA et dont le secrétaire général, António Guterres, est persona non grata en Israël. Comprenne qui pourra….

Source: Mafalda en Absurdistan

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

U.N. Women’s Groups Accused of Boosting Hamas Massacre Deniers – The Daily Beast

2023/11/15 Leave a comment

Of note. Valid critique. Article highlights relevant comparisons and this policy and political failure:

…

Prominent human rights campaigners in Israel say the most important women’s organizations within the United Nations have failed to give proper recognition to the massacre and mass rape carried out by Hamas on Oct. 7.

The UN Women statement from Oct. 13, failed to mention any of the atrocities and the U.N.’s Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) talked amorphically about “the gendered dimensions of conflict” without laying out the brutality inflicted on women during the horrific attack.

“The silence of the international human rights and women’s rights community is deafening,” Professor Ruth Halperin-Kaddari, a former vice president of CEDAW, told The Daily Beast. “For those of us who believe in the power of international human rights institutions and in solidarity between women, it is a particularly devastating blow. The betrayal is not only to the victims of sexual abuse, but to the very integrity of the institutions.”

The reticence to comment on the specific atrocities in Israel and horrific gender-based violence in contrasts with UN Women and CEDAW’s history of speaking out in defense of women all over the rest of the world.

…

Source: U.N. Women’s Groups Accused of Boosting Hamas Massacre Deniers – The Daily Beast

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Why a debate over how to define anti-Semitism has reached the United Nations

2023/04/18 Leave a comment

Good overview:

An international debate over what should be considered anti-Semitism — centred around a controversial definition that critics say chills legitimate criticism of Israel — has reached the United Nations.

Last week, a group of 60 human rights and civil society organizations wrote to the leadership of the UN, urging it not to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism.

They say the IHRA framework “has often been used to wrongly label criticism of Israel as antisemitic, and thus chill and sometimes suppress, non-violent protest, activism and speech critical of Israel and/or Zionism.”

Among the letter’s signatories are three Canadian organizations: Independent Jewish Voices Canada, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East and United Jewish People’s Order of Canada.

The high-profile appeal is just the latest twist in a now-years-long debate around the definition.

Mainstream Jewish groups and governments have urged the UN to officially adopt the IHRA’s working definition. To this point, the international body has insisted it has no plans to do so.

It has been adopted, meanwhile, in other jurisdictions around the world, including several in Canada.

Here’s a look at how the issue has become such a heated topic of debate.

What is the IHRA and why is its definition of anti-Semitism important?

The IHRA is a Europe-based, intergovernmental organization founded in 1988 with the aim of uniting governments and experts to advance and promote Holocaust education, research and remembrance worldwide. Canada has been a member since 2006.

In 2016 organization issued a “working definition” of anti-Semitism, which describes it as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

The definition is accompanied by a set of 11 “contemporary examples” of anti-Semitism, seven of which refer to the state of Israel. These include “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination; e.g. by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” and “applying double standards by requiring of (Israel) a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”

The definition was adopted unanimously by IHRA’s 31 member states in 2016, and has since been adopted by some 865 entities around the world, The Jerusalem Post reported.

Why is the definition controversial?

Critics of the IHRA do not necessarily take issue with the IHRA’s working definition. Rather concerns stem from the 11 “contemporary examples,” which some say can be used to label any criticism of the state of Israel as anti-Semitic, creating a chilling effect in civil society and in academic settings.

Supporters of the definition say it is a key measure in the face of rising antisemitism. Following the release of the joint letter addressed to Guterres, other human rights groups, including the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), reaffirmed their support for the IHRA.

Amid a recent surge in anti-Semitism in Canada and elsewhere, “it is despicable that self-proclaimed human rights organizations are expending resources on a campaign to harm efforts to address this hatred,” said CIJA president and CEO Shimon Koffler Fogel in a written statement provided to the Star.

“Like any other minority, the Jewish people have the right to define what hate looks like against them and the IHRA definition is the most widely accepted definition of anti-Jewish hatred. Rejecting IHRA damages the fight” against anti-Semitism, the statement continued.

However, the IHRA definition’s detractors have said its inclusion of could have a negative impact on human rights.

“If IHRA was adopted by the UN, it would put a chill on the ability of Amnesty, UN experts and other groups to accurately report their findings, and prevent UN bodies from discussing them,” Michael Bueckert, vice-president of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME), told the Star.

Aaron Lakoff, the spokesperson for Independent Jewish Voices Canada, said his organization has “documented dozens of cases around the world in the last few years, including here in Canada, where the IHRA definition has been used to silence or threaten human rights advocates and Palestinians speaking out against Israeli apartheid.”

How wide is support for the definition?

Fogel, the president of CIJA, said the IHRA definition has broad support around the world.

“The Government of Canada, more than 20 provinces and municipalities, as well as the UN’s own former Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief and countless others around the world have supported the definition, recognizing its vital educational role in identifying and addressing the various mutations of this ancient hatred,” he said in a statement.

“What could be more legitimate than a definition developed through a nearly 20-year consensus driven process that brought together the world’s foremost scholars on antisemitism, government officials, and activists?”

Still, critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union, counter that presenting the IHRA definition as a “consensus” is inaccurate. In a January letter urging the American Bar Association not to adopt the definition, those critics said it has been challenged by anti-Semitism “experts, rabbis, and scholars of Jewish studies, Jewish history, and the Holocaust, by Palestinians who have borne the brunt of its application, as well as by experts on fighting racism and free speech.”

In 2018, Jewish Voice for Peace — a U.S. organization dedicated to foreign policy based on peace, human rights, and respect for international law — released a joint statement signed by 40 Jewish groups opposing the adoption of the IHRA definition.

In 2020, Independent Jewish Voices shared an open letter from over 650 Canadian academics voicing their opposition.

What does the man who wrote the definition say?

Kenneth Stern — an anti-Semitism expert at the American Jewish Committee and the very person who drafted the IHRA’s working definition — has been one of its biggest critics.

“It’s not the definition that’s the problem,” he told The Times of Israel in 2020. “It’s the abuse of it.”

“It sets up a system in which administrators have a reason to either condemn or try to suppress pro-Palestinian speech because their job is to keep the university from being sued,” Stern said.

Where does the UN currently stand?

The UN is currently developing its own plan to respond to rising anti-Semitism, which is expected to be released in June. At this time, the international body has no plans to officially use the IHRA’s definition.

However, last winter, Secretary-General António Guterres recited part of the IHRA’s definition during a Holocaust memorial speech, prompting Israel’s ambassador to the UN to declare that Guterres had “effectively recognized” the definition.

In November, a report released by Prof. E. Tendayi Achiume, the UN special rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, said that although the IHRA definition is legally non-binding, “its de facto influence on the policy and practice of governments and private actors has contributed to violations of the human rights of freedom of expression, assembly and political participation, among others.”

What is the joint letter asking for?

In its letter, the coalition of organizations expresses strong support for the United Nations’ commitment to combating anti-Semitism, but urges the international body to ensure that its efforts “do not inadvertently embolden or endorse policies and laws that undermine fundamental human rights, including the right to speak and organize in support of Palestinian rights and to criticize Israeli government policies.”

The letter points to two alternative definitions of antisemitism, which “while acknowledging that criticism of Israel can be antisemitic … set out more clearly what constitutes antisemitism and provide guidance surrounding the contours of legitimate speech and action around Israel and Palestine.”

One of those alternative definitions is the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, developed in 2020 under the auspices of the Van Leer institute in Jerusalem, and released in 2021. The declaration, which makes explicit that the movement to boycott Israel is not in and of itself anti-Semitic, was developed in response to the controversial aspects of the IHRA definition.

“In this critical moment, as Israel’s far-right government moves forward to annex the occupied Palestinian territories and consolidate its repressive, apartheid rule over the Palestinian people, it is essential that we give our full support to human rights defenders, and reject attempts to silence their voices,” Bueckert of the CJPME told the Star.

Source: Why a debate over how to define anti-Semitism has reached the United Nations

Filed under Antisemitism Tagged with , , , , , ,

UN seek to join legal challenge against India’s citizenship law

2020/03/06 Leave a comment

Of note:

The U.N. rights chief sought to join efforts challenging the anti-Muslim citizenship law in India’s highest court, after mounting international criticism for failing to protect minority Muslims. Responding to the U.N. move, the Ministry of External Affairs in India, issued a statement, calling the issue of citizenship amendment law “an internal matter.”

“The High Commissioner seeks to intervene as amicus curiae (third party) in this case, by virtue of her mandate to inter alia protect and promote all human rights and to conduct necessary advocacy in that regard, established pursuant to the United Nations General Assembly resolution 48/141,” the application said.

Last week, the U.N. High Commissioner had voiced “great concern” over India’s amended citizenship law and reports of “police inaction” in the face of communal attacks in Delhi, urging political leaders to prevent violence.

In December, the U.N. human rights office condemned the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) for being “fundamentally discriminatory in nature.”

The Indian capital, New Delhi witnessed the killing of Muslims and the arson of mosques by Hindu mobs during days of violent riots last week. The sectarian violence came as a result of the government’s ongoing anti-Muslim policies. As more than 30 people were killed in New Delhi’s streets, there is fear and anger among Muslims as to why they were punished while prudent Hindus are astonished as they are aware that the sectarian escalation may lead to unwanted results.

Revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, the anti-Muslim citizenship law and the building of detention camps for Bengalis in Assam are the first steps of the current Indian government to create a purified India based on Hindu identity.

Source: UN seek to join legal challenge against India’s citizenship law

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , ,

UN Rights Official Urges India to Scrap New Citizenship Law

2019/12/17 Leave a comment

Of note:

The Office of the U.N.’s top human rights official is urging India to scrap its new Citizenship (Amendment) Act, which it says discriminates against Muslims.

Violent protests erupted in the Indian states of Assam and Tripura in the wake of last week’s passage of India’s new citizenship law, killing three people and Injuring many others, including police officers.

The U.N. human rights office says it deplores the government’s brutal crackdown on those protesting the enactment of the law, which it calls fundamentally discriminatory.  The amended legislation grants citizenship rights to six religious minorities fleeing persecution in Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan.

But human rights spokesman, Jeremy Laurence, says the law does not extend the same protection to Muslims.

“The amended law would appear to undermine the commitment to equality before the law enshrined in India’s constitution and India’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention for the elimination of Racial Discrimination, to which India is a state party,” he said.

Laurence says India’s Citizenship Act could violate these international covenants, which prohibit racial, ethnic or religious discrimination.

“Although India’s broader naturalization laws remain in place, these amendments will have a discriminatory effect on people’s access to nationality.  All migrants, regardless of their migration status, are entitled to respect, protection and fulfillment of their human rights,”  he said.

A Muslim political party along with lawyers and rights groups have challenged the law in India’s Supreme Court, arguing that it violates the country’s secular constitution. The U.N. human rights office says it hopes the justices will consider whether the law is compatible with India’s international human rights obligations.

Source: UN Rights Official Urges India to Scrap New Citizenship Law

Meanwhile, riots and demonstrations continue in parts of India:

Furious protests against a new citizenship bill continued to erupt across India on Monday, provoking a harsh security response and presenting the most widespread challenge to Prime Minister Narendra Modi since he came to power five years ago.

On Sunday, police officers stormed a predominantly Muslim university in New Delhi, the capital, beating up dozens of students and firing tear gas into a library where young people had sought refuge.

The protests have gripped many major Indian cities and are a reaction to the Indian Parliament’s decision last week to pass a contentious measure that would give special treatment to Hindu and other non-Muslim migrants in India. Critics have called the measure blatantly discriminatory and a blow to India’s foundation as a secular democracy.

The legislation is a core piece of a Hindu-centric agenda pursued by Mr. Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party, and many analysts predicted trouble. India’s large Muslim minority, around 200 million people, has become increasingly fearful, certain that many of Mr. Modi’s recent initiatives are intended to marginalize them.

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , ,

Muslim nations are defending China as it cracks down on Muslims, shattering any myths of Islamic solidarity

2019/07/25 Leave a comment

All too true. Will be even harder to take their representations on anti-Muslim hate and Islamophobia seriously:

Last week, 22 mostly Western countries launched the world’s first major collective challenge to China’s crackdown on Uyghur Muslims and other minorities.

In a joint statement to the High Commissioner of the United Nations’ Human Rights Council, the nations criticized Beijing for what they described as “disturbing reports of large-scale arbitrary detentions” and “widespread surveillance and restrictions.”
A day later, 37 other countries jumped to Beijing’s defense, with their own letter praising China’s human rights record, and dismissing the reported detention of up to two million Muslims in western China’s Xinjiang region. Nearly half of the signatories were Muslim-majority nations, including Pakistan, Qatar, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia, according to the Chinese government.
“Faced with the grave challenge of terrorism and extremism, China has undertaken a series of counter-terrorism and deradicalization measures in Xinjiang, including setting up vocational education and training centers,” the letter said, according to Reuters, which saw a copy of the letter. The letter went on to say that there had been no terrorist attacks in the past three years in the region, and that the people there were happy, fulfilled and secure.
The language in the letter echoed previous claims made by China, which has denied allegations of torture or forced political indoctrination in Xinjiang and said that the camps were “vocational training centers” designed to fight terrorism and combat Islamic extremism.
But reports of China’s abuse of Muslims in the Xinjiang region are rampant. Many Uyghurs and other Muslim ethnic minorities are believed to have been hauled into conditions that activists call re-education camps. Accounts given to CNN by former detainees describe being forced into the camps under the threat of violence. Detainees who have since fled China say they were forced to renounce Islam while pledging loyalty to China’s ruling Communist party, according to a report by the Council of Foreign Relations.
So why are some Muslim-majority countries coming to Beijing’s defense?
“I was surprised that (Muslim countries) would put it in writing and put their names on it and sign a document to actually praise China,” Azeem Ibrahim, a director at the DC-based Center for Global Policy, told CNN. “It’s one thing to keep quiet and abstain. It’s another thing to overtly support (the policies) when there was no need for them to do so.”
“I think that’s indicative of the influence and power that China has,” he said.

…

Source: Muslim nations are defending China as it cracks down on Muslims, shattering any myths of Islamic solidarity

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , , , ,

UN human rights observers warn Quebec about secularism bill

2019/05/24 Leave a comment

While I agree with the concerns, not sure how credible it will appear given the significant UN members who do not respect religious freedoms and have rigid dress codes that apply to women in particular:

High-ranking human rights monitors with the United Nations are concerned the Quebec government will violate fundamental freedoms if it moves ahead with legislation to limit where religious symbols can be worn.

Three UN legal experts, known as rapporteurs, signed and sent a letter written in French last week to the Canadian mission in Geneva. They asked the diplomats to share the letter with Quebec’s Legislature.

The letter says the province’s so-called secularism bill, which the Coalition Avenir Québec government is rushing to pass by next month, threatens freedoms protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

“We are particularly concerned … about consequences for those people susceptible to being disadvantaged or excluded from a job or public position because of the potential effects of the proposed law,” the letter reads.

Tabled in March, Bill 21 will bar public teachers, government lawyers and police officers from wearing religious symbols at work. It will also require government services to be received without religious garments covering the face.)

The bill has already attracted widespread criticism from minority groups and anti-racism advocates in Quebec, who fear it will, among other things, significantly limit work opportunities for Muslim women.

The Quebec government maintains the legislation is moderate and represents the desires of a majority in the province.

But according to the UN observers, if passed, the bill could violate rights to freedom of conscience and religion, as well as a number of equality guarantees contained in the covenant.

‘Extremely inappropriate’

The letter also notes the bill doesn’t define what a religious symbol is, adding that it would be “extremely inappropriate” for a government to decide whether a symbol is religious or not.

Critics of the bill, including several teachers unions, highlighted this point repeatedly during the six days of legislative hearings that wrapped up last week.

It is unclear, for instance, whether the Star of David is a religious or political symbol.)

The letter goes on to take issue with the requirement that government services be received with an uncovered face, a measure that singles out Muslim women who wear the niqab.

“The bill constitutes a restriction, or limitation, of the freedom to express religion or belief,” the letter reads.

At multiple points, the letter reminds the Canadian government that it is bound by various human rights instruments, including the covenant on civil and political rights, which it signed in 1976. Quebec is also bound by these agreements.

The letter is signed by the rapporteur for minority relations, Fernand de Varennes; the rapporteur for racism, E. Tendayi Achiume; and the rapporteur for religious freedom, Ahmed Shaheed.

It closes with a series of questions about how minority rights will be protected once the legislation is passed. The rapporteur also wants to know how minority groups will be consulted in the legislative process.

Of the 36 groups and individuals who were invited by the Quebec government to take part in the legislative hearings for the bill, only two represented religious communities in the province.

Rules broken, lawyer says

Pearl Eliadis, a Montreal human rights lawyer with extensive experience working with the UN, said it is noteworthy the letter was written in French.

“The United Nations is signalling … that majority will is constrained or bound by or limited by rules about how you treat minorities,” she told CBC News after consulting the letter.

“And those rules have been broken in this case. They have manifestly been broken in this case.”)

Quebec Immigration Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette, the bill’s sponsor, has received the letter and is “analyzing it in detail,” a spokesperson for the minister said in a brief written statement Tuesday.

“The government of Quebec is proud of Bill 21,” the statement said. “It is pragmatic, applicable and moderate. It reflects the consensus of the majority of Quebecers.”

But Hélène David, the provincial Liberal critic for secularism issues, says the UN letter “underscores once again the attack on fundamental rights and the lack of justification for such a measure.”

In an emailed statement, a spokesperson for Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism Minister Pablo Rodriguez did not comment on the UN letter but said the federal government’s position is clear: “It’s not up to politicians to tell people what to wear or what not to wear. Canada is a secular and neutral state, and that is reflected in our institutions.”

“The Quebec government’s bill has raised numerous questions. We will continue to follow it very closely.”

While Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has criticized the bill (as have the federal NDP and Conservatives), he hasn’t indicated whether the federal government will intervene if it is passed.

The letter itself carries no legal weight. But it could provide ammunition to groups who will seek to challenge the law before the UN’s Human Rights Committee, Eliadis said.

Such challenges can take several years before the committee offers a decision (known as a “view”). When they are delivered, though, the federal government comes under considerable pressure to comply.

But beyond its possible legal ramifications, the UN letter indicates that what is at stake with Bill 21 is Quebec’s reputation as a tolerant society, Eliadis said.

“I think the average person should care,” she added.

“I think many people in Quebec do care because they understand that what the Quebec government is setting aside are our most fundamental values as a nation.”

Source: UN human rights observers warn Quebec about secularism bill

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

Millions denied citizenship due to ideas of national, ethnic or racial ‘purity’: UN rights expert

2018/07/07 Leave a comment

Good statement, even if the HRC is fundamentally dysfunctional:

E. Tendayi Achiume, Special Rapporteur on racism, focused on the issue of ethno-nationalism in her first report to the Human Rights Council in Geneva, whose current session ends on Friday.

In it, she highlighted the plight of millions of stateless people worldwide—often members of minority groups—who are victims of long-standing discrimination which sees them as “foreign”, even though they have been resident in a country for generations or even centuries.

Meanwhile, several countries continue to enforce “patriarchal laws” which make it impossible for women to pass down citizenship status to their children or foreign-born spouse.

In some cases, women are even stripped of their nationality upon marrying a foreigner and cannot regain it if the marriage ends.

“This is gender-based discrimination often deployed by States to preserve notions of national, ethnic and racial ‘purity,’” she said.

Ms. Achiume believes prejudice rooted in ethno-nationalism is behind racial discrimination, whether in citizenship or immigration laws.

She recalled that in the past, European colonial powers used the ideology to exclude local populations within colonies from gaining citizenship, while Jews and Roma were targeted on the same grounds, in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Today, she said, migrants are the target of political hate speech and intolerance, again often under the pretext of ethnic purity and religious, cultural or linguistic preservation.

“Countries that have long celebrated immigration as central to their national identity have taken steps to vilify and undermine immigration, with a disproportionate effect on certain racial, religious and national groups,” Ms. Achiume pointed out.

“Islamophobic or anti-Semitic ethno-nationalism undermines the rights of Muslims and Jews irrespective of citizenship status…the case of the Rohingya Muslims offers a chilling example.”

The Rohingya are a mostly Muslim minority in Myanmar, which is a predominantly Buddhist nation.

Though resident there for centuries, Ms. Achiume said many Rohingya have been rendered stateless following a 1982 nationality law that discriminates on the basis of ethnicity.

Waves of violence and discrimination have driven scores of Rohingya to neighbouring Bangladesh. More than 700,000 have arrived in the past year alone in the wake of a violent military crackdown that began in late August.

Source: Millions denied citizenship due to ideas of national, ethnic or racial ‘purity’: UN rights expert

Filed under Citizenship, Racism Tagged with , , ,

ICYMI – UN calls out Ottawa over lengthy immigration detention stays

2017/09/07 Leave a comment

No major surprises:

A United Nations committee has urged Ottawa to limit the use of immigration detention and drop a bilateral pact that turns asylum-seekers back at the U.S. land border.

The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination makes the recommendations in its recent review of how Canada’s government policies and programs are affecting minority groups.

“The Committee recommends . . . immigration detention is only undertaken as a last resort after fully considering alternative non-custodial measures. Establish a legal time limit on the detention of migrants,” said the report released in Geneva this week.

Canada should also “rescind or at least suspend the Safe Third Country Agreement with the United States of America to ensure that all individuals who attempt to enter the State party through a land border are provided with equal access to asylum proceedings,” the report said.

Ottawa has been under intense criticism for its handling of migrants in detention and the surge of asylum seekers attempting to cross into Canada at unmarked points along the U.S. border.

A Star investigation, Caged by Canada, this year into immigration detention in Canada found a system that indefinitely warehouses non-citizens away from public scrutiny in high-security criminal detention facilities.

Some of the detainees are former permanent residents who were convicted for crimes and await deportation. Others are failed refugees waiting for removal or people deemed inadmissible to Canada, flight risks or dangers to the public. More than 100 of the detainees had spent at least three months in jail, and one-third of them have been held for more than a year.

“We raised the issue of indefinite detention of non-status immigrants and their children, and the committee has listened,” said Shalini Konanur, director of the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario.

The Safe Third Country agreement, introduced in 2004, prevents refugees from making asylum claims in both the U.S. and Canada, which clogs the system. Claimants are barred from entering the other country for asylum unless they belong to one of four exemption groups.

However, the ban does not apply to those who sneak through unmarked points along the border, pushing some asylum-seekers to trek through no man’s land, mostly commonly in Quebec, B.C. and in Manitoba, where hundreds walked in the dead of winter this year, sometimes overnight, to Emerson.

“Given the current xenophobic political climate in the U.S.A., it is no surprise that the committee has called on Canada to rescind or at least temporarily suspend the Safe Third Country Agreement. Canada cannot turn a blind eye to what is happening down south,” said Debbie Douglas of the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants.

A Harvard University Law School review in February also warned about the negative effect of President Donald Trump’s administration on refugees and urged Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to consider pulling out from the bilateral deal.

Hursh Jaswal, a spokesperson for Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen, said Canada has a robust asylum system and the Safe Third Country Agreement is an important tool for the orderly handling of refugee claims on both sides of the border.

“While the executive order affected the U.S. system for resettling refugees from abroad, it did not impact the U.S. system for handling domestic asylum claims,” Jaswal said. “Our government is monitoring the situation closely and will carefully evaluate any new developments for potential changes to the domestic asylum system in the U.S.”

On immigration detention, a spokesperson for Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said the government is committed to improving the system.

“We need to minimize the use of provincial jails and try to avoid, as much as humanly possible, the holding of children in detention,” said Scott Bardsley, adding that Ottawa is investing $138 million to expand alternatives to detention, improving detention conditions, providing better mental health services and reducing reliance on provincial jails for immigration holding.

“Under the new government, the number of immigration detentions has decreased, despite an increase in visitors to Canada,” Bardsley said.

The UN committee also raised alarm over the treatment of migrant workers in Canada.

“Although the temporary foreign worker program conducts inspections, temporary migrant workers are reportedly susceptible to exploitation and abuses, and are sometimes denied basic health services, and employment and pension benefits to which they may make contributions,” it warned.

The report called on Ottawa to collect race-based economic and social data to improve monitoring and evaluation of its programs that aim at eliminating racial discrimination and disparities.

On a positive note, the committee praised Ontario for establishing the anti-racism directorate; Quebec, for passing a bill on combating hate speech and incitement to violence; and Ottawa for its condemnation of Islamophobia, as well as progress made in addressing discrimination against Indigenous peoples, resettling 46,000 Syrian refugees and restoring health care funding for refugees.

Source: UN calls out Ottawa over lengthy immigration detention stays | Toronto Star

Filed under Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,