White Refugee in Canada.....

Between 30 and 40 newspaper clippings were presented as evidence of life in South Africa. “One article exhibited was published in [the Daily Sun in 2004] by Africa Ka Mahamba. [It was] entitled ‘Taking from whites is not a crime’,” Kaplan said. The article quotes the leader of the “Uhuru cultural club” as telling youngsters who attended a Human Rights Day celebration to steal from whites because “it is the right thing to do”. IRB Ruling: MA8-04910: Brandon Huntley

IDASA's minds have never spent much time listening to African criminals, speaking frankly, I guess; nor the corruption and bribery, that explains how and why security forces and police are unable or unwilling to provide protection to those unwilling to pay for such protection.

Their minds would certainly be unboggled.

They would very quickly understand how it is quite possible for anyone who has been robbed, beaten and stabbed, to -- when all else fails in his attempts not to return to such a nightmare -- to cognitively, subjectively and experientially objectively have a well-founded fear of persecution, including the knowledge of the inability/unwillingness of government to provide protection.

White Refugee in Canada.....

Posted on September 3, 2009 by idasa

Brandon Huntley, a white 31 year old South African applied to the Canadian Refugee Board for asylum on the basis that as a white male, he was at risk and unsafe in South Africa. In his application, he claims that he had been attacked seven times by black South Africans (criminals), had been stabbed four times during these attacks and that he had been called a dog and a settler. He also argued that he was unable to find employment because of affirmative action. In general, Huntley made his claim for asylum on the basis that he was being discriminated against and being persecuted for being white and that the South African government was doing nothing to protect him.


The basis of applying for and being granted asylum

Huntley applied for asylum in terms of the United Nations Convention Relating to Refugee Protection that came into force in 1954. In terms of this Convention, a person may apply for asylum (protection) from another government or country, if he or she has a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and if his or her own government is ‘unable or unwilling’ to protect him or her.

In granting Huntley refugee status, the Canadian Refugee Board thus believed the case being put forward by Huntley that (a) he was being persecuted or at risk of being persecuted because he is a white male (well-founded fear of persecution); and, (b) that the South African government is unable or unwilling to protect him In terms of the UN Convention, which both Canada and South Africa have ratified, every person has the right to apply for asylum and if the claim is found to be valid, to be granted such asylum. It was thus well within his rights for Huntley to apply for asylum and for the Canadian Refugee Board to grant him status as a refugee.

Note that technically, it is not the Canadian government that granted him asylum – the Refugee Board was created as an independent statutory institution to make these decisions ‘on behalf of’ the Canadian government. The purpose of creating such an independent body was precisely to avoid political interference in decision-making abouth whether to grant asylum or not. The controversy is thus not about the legality or validity of the process, but rather about whether Huntley’s case meets the requirements of the Convention. So even if Huntley does have a well-founded fear of persecution (which many commentators are disputing), is it also correct that the South African government is unable or unwilling to protect him? Note that both requirements need to be met for a claim to be successful.


What evidence was presented in Huntley’s case?

It is not entirely clear on what evidence the decision was based, other than Huntley’s own accounts of him having been attacked and called racist names – though by his own admission, none of the attacks were ever reported to the authorities and we thus only have his word that the attacks happened. Sources also suggest that in presenting evidence on his behalf, Huntley’s lawyers in Canada made use of press statements by opposition party leaders, newspaper reports and so on, in which claims are made about whites being targeted by criminals and in which the (ANC) government is depicted as being racist against whites. Whatever the evidence was that was presented, it appears to have been sufficiently compelling for the Refugee Board to accept the merits of the case presented by Huntley.


The significance of the decision

The importance of the decision of the Canadian Refugee Board (which is an independent Board) should not be under-estimated. While the decision about whether or not to grant refugee status is meant to be made on a case by case basis, taking into account the merits of the evidence presented by the applicant, the decision to grant asylum affirms not only that the individual is at risk, but in some ways more importantly, it also affirms that his or her own government is unable or unwilling to protect him or her and this is of course an indictment of the government in question.

If applied more broadly, the decision of the Refugee Board thus concurs with the view expressed by Huntley; namely, that white South Africans are at risk of being persecuted and that the South African government is unable or unwilling to do anything about it. In what appears to be a rather bizarre unspoken message, the SA government is implicated in the persecution of whites, directly or indirectly. It is thus no surprise that the South African government has reacted angrily to this decision.


Abuse of the asylum process

It is well-documented internationally, including in South Africa, that people who wish to emigrate to another country will attempt to make use of (abuse) the asylum system to do so. In the case of South Africa. for example, many would-be immmigrants know that their chances of using the normal migration channels to work and live in South Africa are rather slim. As an alternative, they enter the country as asylum seekers, knowing that it would take at least a year, more likely two to three years for their application to be fully processed, during which time they are allowed to legally live and work in the country.

This is by no means to suggest that all or even the majority of asylum seekers fall into this category, but we do know that it does happen. In the case of Huntley, there does appear to be an element of abusing the asylum process.

Newspaper reports suggest that Huntley had tried to emigrate to Canada and that it was only after his second work permit expired and after he had been in the country illegally that he applied for asylum- a pattern which is typical of people who do not meet the requirements to obtain a normal immigration permit.


Setting a precedent

Huntley is probably not the first white South African who has thought of or actually applied for asylum on the basis that as white South Africans they are being discriminated against/persecuted , though he is the first to succeed in his application. This is of huge significance in setting a precedent because by definition, any other South African, black and white, can now apply for asylum on the basis of being at risk and that the government is unable or unwilling to protect them.

Undoubtedly, the Canadian Refugee Board considered this and, therefore, would not have made this decision lightly. This would suggest that the evidence presented by Huntley was sufffciently compelling (in his case) to warrant a decision and a ruling that would not apply in other cases. We have no idea what this might be, but even so, it does not prevent other South Africans from trying their luck and applying for asylum, and by law, their applications would have to be considered on a case by case basis and by the rules of jurisprudence, the onus would be on the Refugee Board to demonstrate why Huntley succeeded in his application and others may not.

The mind boggles at what appears to be a rather bizarre decision of the Refugee Board and though the Board should be commended for exercising its mandate ‘without fear or favour’, unless they can produce conclusive evidence that the Huntley case meets the two fundamental requirements of granting refugee status (a well-founded fear of persecution and the inability/unwillingness of government to provide protection), the mind will continue to boggle.


To conclude

A few years ago I was participating in a live radio call-in programme. One of the people who called in was an elderly white woman from Sea Point, who said that she was at risk of being a victim of crime and that she generally felt unsafe and unprotected. Her question was whether, if she applied for asylum in another country, she would be granted refugee status. My answer was an emphatic NO- on the basis that she would have to prove a well-founded fear of persecution AND that government was unable or unwilling to protect her. Now, following the decision in the Huntley case, perhaps my answer to the same question would be less emphatic. In fact, as a tongue-in-cheek response, I would probably say that if anyone felt really strongly about being persecuted and being unsafe because of the high levels of crime and the inability or unwillingness of government to protect them, they should try and make their way to Canada and submit an application for asylum. Who knows, they might just be successful!

Source: IDASA

Share