On August 1, 2013, Foreign Minister John Baird denounced legislation passed in Russia which targets homosexuals stating:
"This mean-spirited and hateful law will affect all Russians 365 days of the year, every year. It is an incitement to intolerance, which breeds hate. And intolerance and hate breed violence."
The cornerstone law, which caused such consternation with Minister Baird, was a law which outlawed propaganda of nontraditional sexual orientation. The law stated that:
Propaganda is the act of distributing information among minors that 1) is aimed at the creating nontraditional sexual attitudes, 2) makes nontraditional sexual relations attractive, 3) equates the social value of traditional and nontraditional sexual relations, or 4) creates an interest in nontraditional sexual relations.
Interestingly, earlier this year, in March 2014, our firm worked on a case where the government actively deported a gay man from Canada to India, a country which outlaws same sex sexual relations.
Recently our firm represented a client from a Caribbean country which also outlaws same sex sexual relations at a refugee hearing. Our client was successful in his claim, however in his reasons for accepting the claim, the Board was quick to state that the claim was not accepted because they believed the claimant would be at risk of prosecution as a result of this law, but rather because of potentially cumulative persecutory acts from Jamaicans. The distinction is important for the reasons outlined below.
It seems clear that laws which completely prohibit sexual relations between gay men are even more draconian, archaic and atavistic than the Russian legislation which caused the Minister pontificate so eloquently. Should not the Minister be equally vitriolic in condemning the Indian legislation or the multitude of Caribbean countries which explicitly criminalize sexual relations between gay men?
Further, the clear implication from Minister Baird is that the Russian law is persecutory and incites hatred and violence. If this is the case, then the legislation from the other countries is equally persecutory, if not more so.
In terms of refugee protection, given the standards set by the government in condemning the Russian legislation, should they not be issuing Guidelines for protection to the Board and to PRRA Officers explicitly stating that where a gay claimant is being forced to return to a country with such same sex relations are prohibited, that they are unequivocally entitled to protection? This would appear to be the position of the UNHCR, which provided the linked guidelines on assessing claims of this type:
If the Minister really believes that the government should pursue "principled" policy then the government should table legislation or issue guidelines to decision makers, immediately, to deal with this issue. Instead of giving self-inflated statements to achieve political ends, a principled policy would result in consistent application of the values we espouse both overseas and in Canada. Anything less ensures that our rhetoric to Russia and other countries is viewed as self-serving and another example of government hot air.
"This mean-spirited and hateful law will affect all Russians 365 days of the year, every year. It is an incitement to intolerance, which breeds hate. And intolerance and hate breed violence."
The cornerstone law, which caused such consternation with Minister Baird, was a law which outlawed propaganda of nontraditional sexual orientation. The law stated that:
Propaganda is the act of distributing information among minors that 1) is aimed at the creating nontraditional sexual attitudes, 2) makes nontraditional sexual relations attractive, 3) equates the social value of traditional and nontraditional sexual relations, or 4) creates an interest in nontraditional sexual relations.
Interestingly, earlier this year, in March 2014, our firm worked on a case where the government actively deported a gay man from Canada to India, a country which outlaws same sex sexual relations.
Recently our firm represented a client from a Caribbean country which also outlaws same sex sexual relations at a refugee hearing. Our client was successful in his claim, however in his reasons for accepting the claim, the Board was quick to state that the claim was not accepted because they believed the claimant would be at risk of prosecution as a result of this law, but rather because of potentially cumulative persecutory acts from Jamaicans. The distinction is important for the reasons outlined below.
It seems clear that laws which completely prohibit sexual relations between gay men are even more draconian, archaic and atavistic than the Russian legislation which caused the Minister pontificate so eloquently. Should not the Minister be equally vitriolic in condemning the Indian legislation or the multitude of Caribbean countries which explicitly criminalize sexual relations between gay men?
Further, the clear implication from Minister Baird is that the Russian law is persecutory and incites hatred and violence. If this is the case, then the legislation from the other countries is equally persecutory, if not more so.
In terms of refugee protection, given the standards set by the government in condemning the Russian legislation, should they not be issuing Guidelines for protection to the Board and to PRRA Officers explicitly stating that where a gay claimant is being forced to return to a country with such same sex relations are prohibited, that they are unequivocally entitled to protection? This would appear to be the position of the UNHCR, which provided the linked guidelines on assessing claims of this type:
If the Minister really believes that the government should pursue "principled" policy then the government should table legislation or issue guidelines to decision makers, immediately, to deal with this issue. Instead of giving self-inflated statements to achieve political ends, a principled policy would result in consistent application of the values we espouse both overseas and in Canada. Anything less ensures that our rhetoric to Russia and other countries is viewed as self-serving and another example of government hot air.
Comments