by arthur Weinreb, associate Editor,
July 30, 2004
Judy Sgro, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has recently announced that she will attempt to get Canadian churches to abandon the centuries old practice of giving sanctuary to people, particularly those seeking to delay their lawful removal from Canada.
Despite all the problems that currently plague our immigration system, the newly re-elected Minister seems to have nothing better to do than spend money and resources going after the dozen or so people who are currently living inside some of the country’s churches. Why this is now an urgent priority to Sgro and the government is mind boggling.
The Minister’s rationale for her position--"…if we start using churches as the back door to enter Canada, we’re going to have huge problems." Thousands of illegal immigrants including failed refugee claimants, many with convictions for serious criminal offences, are running loose in the country and no one knows where they are. Yet the Minister seems to think that less than 20 people living in churches are a huge problem". and contrary to what the Immigration Minister has said, the people holed up in churches are not using it as a "back door to enter Canada". They are already here. They are people who have gone through the system, failed, and have gone to a church in a last ditch effort to avoid being removed from Canada. It is true that the longer they remain in Canada the greater the chance that they will be allowed to remain in this country legally. Sgro should put the blame for this on where it belongs--with her and her department. The fact that extending their stay in Canada may result in a favourable outcome is not the fault of the churches.
Sgro went even further and stated that "The protection of our country and of Canadians has to be the No. 1 concern. and people shouldn’t be allowed to hide anywhere." By thinking that eliminating sanctuary will somehow protect Canada shows just how out of touch Sgro and the Liberals are when it comes to this country’s security. Sanctuary in churches has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with keeping Canada safe. Unlike the 36,000 illegal immigrants that, according to the auditor-General’s report the government has lost track of, we know where those who have sought sanctuary are. They are in churches and we know what churches they are in. In order to continue obtaining the church’s protection, they have to say inside. They pose absolutely no threat to Canadian society.
although law enforcement should not be dependent upon what the public thinks, nevertheless there has been no hue and cry about the dozen or so people who are currently residing in the nation’s churches. Canadians are, however concerned about the drug dealers, rapists and terrorists who are running around the country after avoiding removal from Canada. To go after the churches is ludicrous, even for the godless Liberals.
If Sgro doesn’t want people to take sanctuary in churches she should send officers in to remove them. It’s not against the law and has been done before. But she won’t order that to be done. The federal government can never act before discussing the matter with its "stakeholders".
There is some merit in doing away with the concept of sanctuary. as Father Raymond J. DeSouza wrote in the National Post, the practice arose during the middle ages when people who were sought by the authorities could avoid protection from the harshness of civil law. By going to a church, they put themselves under the more lenient church law.
There have been many protections that arose in the middle ages that have now been done away with. For example, criminal indictments used to be quashed if the defendant’s name was spelled wrong. This procedure was adopted by liberal judges who held the view that if seven year old girls were going to be hanged for stealing a loaf of bread because they were hungry, the state had do cross every "t" and dot every "i" and at least spell their names right. These types of protections have gradually been eroded as penalties became much less severe and avoiding a conviction on a mere technicality was found not to be in the interests of justice. The same argument could be made for abolishing sanctuary.
Sgro’s going after the churches to prevent the very few from seeking sanctuary while seemingly ignoring the thousands of illegals who walk freely among us, is a typical case of Liberal arrogance.