Federal Court asked to rule on Kenney's refugee claims
Last June, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney publicly questioned the legitimacy of refugee claims made by Roma coming from the Czech Republic, saying they faced no real risk of state persecution.
Only a few weeks earlier, Mr. Kenney had described asylum claims by US war deserters as "bogus," and accused Mexican refugee claimants of systematically abusing the Canadian refugee system.
...
... now a Toronto-based lawyer has asked a Federal Court to rule on whether the minister, by making the statements, has interfered in the Immigration and Refugee Board's independence.
The lawyer in question crunched the numbers and determined that prior to Kenney's public comments, the acceptance rate for refugee claims from the Czech Republic was 81%. In the first full quarter following Kenney's remarks that had dropped to 30%. It's true that correlation is not causation but what else has changed?
The Harper government has made a habit out of undermining agencies that are supposed to operate at arm's length and without direct ministerial interference. And at this point, Kenney could be the poster boy for the propensity of members of this government to allow their partisanship and their ideology to influence the way they do their jobs in ways that aren't appropriate. But it seems that cabinet ministers no longer resign no matter how inappropriate — or incompetent — their behaviour. Harper himself has shown no interest at all in holding his ministers to account so it should be no surprise that people are increasingly looking to the courts to do it.
I'll leave you with a quote from one Peter Showler who is a "former [Immigration and Refugee Board] chairman and director of the refugee forum at the Human Rights Research and Education Centre at the University of Ottawa."
"The minister's conduct has been outrageous," Mr. Showler said. "He has made statements that no immigration minister, either Conservative or Liberal, has made in the last 15 years."
H/t to The Jurist.
Note: If you're wondering why there appears to be a change in the commenting policy, please see The spammers made me do it.
The master control freak in charge of Mr. Kenney has got to stop worrying about his Jr. ministers and give this dude a slap-up-side-the-head.
If thee and me talk and muse it is an exercise in free speech. If a Minister of the Crown holds forth on some matter he is reflecting government policy.
Unless Mr. Kenney's blabbing is an orchestrated effort to prepare people for a change in policy without bothering with that pesky Parliament (a tactic not unheard of) it is only a matter of time before he get them in deep water from a personal position that is definitely NOT supported by the CPC.
This seems pretty consistent with both Conservative ideas about policy and Conservative ideas of how to get things done. It's only a problem for them if the media notices in such a manner that they actually lose in the polls. Legality . . . whatever. If this guy wins, they have to let in one refugee, but the climate for the rest is still the same. People who vote Conservative generally don't care much about the law in the sense of respecting its institutions that guarantee fair play, and they approve of bullying foreigners. So what limited press there will be about the issue probably won't cost them in the polls.
Really, given their fundamental position of contempt for laws and institutions except as means to their ends, Kenney's crap is a winner for them. As a specific case, anyway.
The problem I see for them down the road (and even to some extent right now on the Afghanistan issue and prorogation) is that of habit and overreaching. The more they do this kind of thing, the more they get in the habit of viewing this kind of thing as a standard method of governing and doing politics. The more they get away with, the more they will think they can get away with next time. It's a psychological effect much like the one that helps push bubbles in the economy. And it's one of the things that tends to get successful career criminals caught. Basically, if they do this kind of thing often enough, sooner or later they will miscalculate and break the rules in a way that everyone really will care about. I suspect some of their support is already softer than it was . . . people are I think getting a bit uneasy.
Now if only the visible alternative weren't Iggy.
Excellent analysis PLG. This nonsense plays well to the cons base and as you so elequently stated they will become even bolder in what they feel safe in pubicly uttering, thus inevitably overstepping as they did in the prorogation affair.
However until the liberals get their act together and offer a real alternative to the cons, no matter how outlanish their utterences and actions nothing will change.
I haven't voted Lib since John Turner campaigned against the FTA, but would do so in order to defeat this monstrocity of a government except that would mean voting for Iggy. I mean that literally since unlike Iggy I reside in the riding of Etobicoke/Lakeshore
I have long been a subscriber to the concept of "none of the above" on the ballot. At the very least, it might give pause to politicians claiming that the represent x percent of the electorate, when in fact they were just the lesser of the evils.
Until that option appears (okay, never) I sincerely believe in turfing the rascals out when they aren't performing. Even if that just means bringing in a different gang of scoundrels.
And when the new gang under-performs - or, worse, starts performing outright evil - out they go, too.
As an employer, you would not put up with this kind of nonsense from your employees, would you? And are not politicians just that - our employees?
I, too, am no big fan of Iggy or Jack. But Harper MUST go.
"This seems pretty consistent with both Conservative ideas about policy and Conservative ideas of how to get things done. Legality . . . whatever. ... People who vote Conservative generally don't care much about the law in the sense of respecting its institutions that guarantee fair play,..."
That's true! The Executive has NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER "suggesting" to the judicial branch how they should decide specific cases. The use of hot-button phrases like "bogus claim" is utterly undemocratic and unfair to someone who has not yet had the proverbial "day in court".
Even over this way:
"three independent United Nations human rights experts today called for the immediate release of a Venezuelan judge arrested after ordering the conditional release of a prisoner held for almost three years without trial. ..."We are particularly troubled about allegations that President Hugo Chávez attacked both Mr. Cedeño and Judge Afiuni, calling them ‘bandidos’ [bandits] and accusing Judge Afiuni of corruption,” the UN experts said in a statement issued in Geneva, where they report to the UN Council on Human Rights.
.....
In an appearance before Government officials, broadcast on national television and radio, Mr. Chávez demanded that Judge Afiuni be sentenced to a 30-year prison term, even if new legislation was required to achieve that result, and he instructed the Attorney General and the President of the Supreme Court to punish her as severely as possible to prevent similar actions by other judges."
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=33273&Cr=judges&Cr1
The case is distinguishable from the Canadian case in that Justice Afiuni--appointed by Chavez--remains in jail, though no proof of any wrongdoing has been offered.