Judge rules against Canada's "safe third country" policy.

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Judge rules against Canada's "safe third country" policy.

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Fuck yes. Some of the best news I've heard lately.

https://globalnews.ca/news/7205230/fede ... itutional/
The Federal Court has ruled that the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA), which allows Canada to send certain refugee claimants back to the United States, is unconstitutional.

Released Wednesday, the decision from Justice Ann McDonald explicitly states that the U.S. is no longer a safe country for refugees sent back from Canada due to the risk of imprisonment.

“For the reasons outlined below, I have concluded that the actions of Canadian authorities in enforcing the STCA result in ineligible (refugee) claimants being imprisoned by US authorities,” McDonald wrote.

“I have concluded that imprisonment and the attendant consequences are inconsistent with the spirit and objective of the STCA and are a violation of the rights guaranteed by section 7 of the (Charter of Rights and Freedoms).”

The court challenge to the STCA was launched by several refugee advocacy groups, including the Canadian Council for Refugees, Amnesty International and the Canadian Council of Churches, as well as several would-be refugees who were deemed ineligible to make asylum claims in Canada due to provisions contained in the STCA.

One of the applicants, a woman from Ethiopia, was detained by Canadian border officials before being sent back to the U.S., where she was held in solitary confinement for a week and then detained for three more weeks before being released on bond.

According to McDonald’s ruling, the imprisonment of refugees returned to the U.S. is a “foreseeable” consequence of Canada’s actions when enforcing the STCA and therefore a violation of the Charter because it deprives claimants of their liberty for no reason other than making a refugee claim. She also ruled that Canada is not a “passive participant” in these actions.

“It is my conclusion, based upon the evidence, that ineligible STCA claimants are returned to the US by Canadian officials where they are immediately and automatically imprisoned by US authorities,” McDonald said.

Although McDonald’s ruling clearly states the STCA is unconstitutional, the decision does not take effect for six months, during which time the law remains in force. The government can also use this time to decide whether it will appeal the decision or suspend the STCA, which it can unilaterally do under terms of the agreement.

“We are aware of the Federal Court’s decision and are currently reviewing it. Although the Federal Court has made its ruling, that decision does not come in effect until January 22nd 2021. The Safe Third Country Agreement remains in effect,” said Mary-Liz Power, spokesperson for Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Minister Bill Blair.

Government urged not to appeal
Janet Dench, executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees, said Wednesday’s decision is a victory for asylum seekers, especially those sent back to the U.S. who then face imprisonment.

She’s asking the government to look carefully at the court’s ruling and to not appeal the decision.

“We are certainly urging the government to take time and to take into account what the court has found, which is that people’s fundamental rights are being violated, and to withdraw from the agreement, to stop sending people back to the U.S.,” she said.

Under the terms of the STCA, Canada and the U.S. have the right to return certain asylum seekers who attempt to enter each country through an official port of entry along the Canada-U.S. border.

The underlying principle supporting the agreement is that Canada and the U.S. consider each other “safe” for asylum seekers and countries where would-be refugees will be subject to a fair determination process for their claims.

The STCA does, however, include several exemptions, including unaccompanied minors who do not have a parent living in the U.S., plus any asylum seeker with a family member currently living in Canada.

In the spring of 2017, asylum seekers began entering Canada at unofficial points of entry between border crossings, such as at Roxham Road in Quebec. Referred to as irregular border crossers, these would-be refugees were able to get around the STCA because it only applies to official ports of entry.

According to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, roughly 58,000 irregular border crossers have made asylum claims in Canada since February 2017.

Of these, roughly 14,500 have been accepted and 12,000 have been rejected. There are roughly 29,600 claims still awaiting a decision.
This is long overdue. Enforcing regarding the US as a "safe third country" for refugees under the Trump Regime is a sick lie, and sending them back is basically the same as what Canada did in the 30s, when it sent boatloads of Jewish refugees back to Germany.

This is really good news.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.
User avatar
B5B7
Jedi Knight
Posts: 782
Joined: 2005-10-22 02:02am
Location: Perth Western Australia
Contact:

Re: Judge rules against Canada's "safe third country" policy.

Post by B5B7 »

OP ARTICLE wrote:Although McDonald’s ruling clearly states the STCA is unconstitutional, the decision does not take effect for six months, during which time the law remains in force. The government can also use this time to decide whether it will appeal the decision or suspend the STCA, which it can unilaterally do under terms of the agreement.
This part bolded is bizarre, yet I realize it is also standard with these sorts of decision. What is really needed is to have a rule where a decision such as this can be enforced immediately where it is protecting people and only delayed (as here) if it is infringing on their possible rights.
TVWP: "Janeway says archly, "Sometimes it's the female of the species that initiates mating." Is the female of the species trying to initiate mating now? Janeway accepts Paris's apology and tells him she's putting him in for a commendation. The salamander sex was that good."
"Not bad - for a human"-Bishop to Ripley
GALACTIC DOMINATION Empire Board Game visit link below:
GALACTIC DOMINATION
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Judge rules against Canada's "safe third country" policy.

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Yeah, I know. Its always weird when the courts say "We have decided you are violating peoples' fundamental rights. Now you get x number of months to keep doing it."
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.
User avatar
Solauren
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10200
Joined: 2003-05-11 09:41pm

Re: Judge rules against Canada's "safe third country" policy.

Post by Solauren »

You have to give time for the government to launch an appeal or challenge, as well as prepare any needed infrastructure changes.
I've been asked why I still follow a few of the people I know on Facebook with 'interesting political habits and view points'.

It's so when they comment on or approve of something, I know what pages to block/what not to vote for.
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Judge rules against Canada's "safe third country" policy.

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Considering that peoples' basic rights are at stake here, and that once deported and imprisoned in the US it will be very hard for them to ever return, putting a temporary stay on deportations until such a matter is sorted out hardly seems an undue burden on the government, or an impractical thing to implement.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.
bilateralrope
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5959
Joined: 2005-06-25 06:50pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Judge rules against Canada's "safe third country" policy.

Post by bilateralrope »

Sure. But you've still got to get someone to argue that the standard stay isn't appropriate in this case.
User avatar
Solauren
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10200
Joined: 2003-05-11 09:41pm

Re: Judge rules against Canada's "safe third country" policy.

Post by Solauren »

The Romulan Republic wrote: 2020-07-23 09:45pm Considering that peoples' basic rights are at stake here, and that once deported and imprisoned in the US it will be very hard for them to ever return, putting a temporary stay on deportations until such a matter is sorted out hardly seems an undue burden on the government, or an impractical thing to implement.

I don't believe that was requested by anyone involved in the challenge. Also, isn't there a stay on right now during the challenge?
I've been asked why I still follow a few of the people I know on Facebook with 'interesting political habits and view points'.

It's so when they comment on or approve of something, I know what pages to block/what not to vote for.
Post Reply