Once a refugee, always a refugee?

Interesting ruling today from the Supreme Court of Canada on the rights of refugees. At issue was the question of whether, once you've been officially declared to be a refugee, you can lose that status.

We all know (because the lamestream media tells us) that gypsies -- oops, sorry, "Roma" -- are the most persecuted people in the world. Why only recently France has decided to expel 1000s of them. Something to do with dirt, crime and abuse of welfare systems, some say.

But that's France. In Canada, gypsies are welcome, as long as they know enough English or French to holler "refugee" or "réfugié" when they get off the boat. Or out of the first-class section of the airplane.

Take the cases of Joszef and Joszefne Nemeth, who came to Canada in 2001 from Hungary, and Tiberiu Gavrila, who arrived in 2004 from Romania. [Does that mean "land of the Roma"? Must check. Ed.]

It's worth noting that by the time these "refugees" had arrived, they couldn't claim to be fleeing the godless Communists, because the Communist dictatorships of both countries had fallen in the wake of the breakup of the Soviet Union. So they said they were at risk of persecution because they were Roma. And of course the Canadians bought it. To deny their refugee claim would have made the Canadian government seem racist, eh.

Somewhat later, the Hungarian government sought extradition of Mr. and Mrs. Nemeth to face a charge of fraud. At about the same time, Romanian asked that Mr. Gavrila be sent back to serve time on a conviction for, errr, fraud.

Agent 3, who studied the subject, tells me that the general principle of international law is that refugees cannot be sent back to countries where they were persecuted. But there are exceptions, one such being cases of serious, non-political crime. Like, errr, fraud.

The Québec Superior Court thought both cases fell within the exception, and authorized the extradition of all three "refugees". The Canadian Minister of Justice, Rob Nicholson, ordered the removals, saying the people involved had not shown they were at risk of persecution if they were sent back.

But the Nemeths and Mr. Gavrila appealed, assisted no doubt by lawyers paid for by Canadian taxpayers. Their cases were heard together at the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa. Their grounds for appeal were that they couldn't be extradited unless their refugee status was formally revoked, which it wasn't.

The Supreme Court quashed the extraditions. Why? Because the Minister of Justice hadn't followed the right procedure and applied the correct test. The onus wasn't on the refugees to show that they were at risk, the court said. Rather the onus is on the government to show that they are not.

The court accepted that Minister Nicholson looked at the situation in Hungary and Romania at the time the extradition was sought. Both countries have joined the European Union and come under its human rights rules and conventions. So the minister thought there was little chance of persecution.

Speaking for the court, Mr. Justice Cromwell wrote “Change of circumstances in a refugee's country of origin may lead to cessation of refugee protection. In short, protection ceases to apply to persons who, by virtue of a change in circumstances, no longer need it.”

But, he added, the minister must be satisfied that the threat of persecution no longer exists. One wonders what the minister should have done to satisfy himself. Should he have dressed up like a gypsy and gone to Hungary and Romania to see what would happen to him? Should he have taken into account the pro-gypsy propaganda fed to Canadians through the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star?

Whatever it was Nicholson did, he didn't do enough of it or he didn't do it well enough. The cases of all three "refugees" now go back to him so that he can review his decision.

And what if Mr. Nicholson looks at the files again and stands by his original decision? Well, his decision can still be appealed...again...courtesy of the Trudeau Charter of Rights and the Canadian taxpayer.