Страница:
The expanded family class will increase the age at which a dependent child can be
sponsored from under 19 to under 22 and allow spouses and children to apply for
permanent residence from within Canada. The Minister also expressed willingness
to pursue discussions with the provinces over additional ways to expand the family
class.
The new legislation will replace the current Immigration Act, which was first passed
in 1976 and which has been amended more than 30 times. Work on the new
legislation began in 1997 and has evolved through extensive consultations with the
provinces, the territories, the legal community, non-governmental organizations and
the general public.
- 30
For Information:
Derik Hodgson
Press Secretary
Minister's Office
(613) 954-1064
Renй Mercier
Media Relations
Communications Branch
(613) 941-7042
Backgrounder # 1
Changes from Bill C-31
In response to Bill C-31, the government received submissions from the Canadian
Bar Association, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the
Canadian Council for Refugees and many others. The Minister has listened and
responded.
Framework Legislation
What we heard:
The government should ensure that all key principles and core policies are
reflected in the Act and not in the regulations. The regulations should be
limited to matters related to the implementation of policy.
Our response:
1.The new bill places greater emphasis on key principles, including:
The principles of equality and freedom from discrimination.
The principle that minor children should be detained only as a last
resort.
The principle of equality of status for both official languages.
2.The new bill also includes the following provisions previously intended to be
prescribed by regulation:
The provision that parents are members of the family class.
The provision that sponsored spouses, partners and dependent
children of immigrants and refugees and their dependents will not be
refused admission to Canada on the grounds that they would create
an excessive demand on the medical system.
3.The new bill also reinforces the government's commitment to gender
equality and provisions for opposite- and same-sex couples.
Provisions Affecting Permanent Residents
What we heard:
Permanent residents should have a separate, defined status that clearly
specifies their rights and obligations, including the right to enter Canada.
Loss of status determinations should be made only through an oral appeal
to the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB).
Our response:
The new bill enhances the rights of permanent residents by:
Including a separate definition for permanent residents that highlights the
distinction between permanent residents and other foreign nationals.
Ensuring the right to an oral hearing before the IRB in the case of appeals
on the loss of permanent resident status.
Ensuring facilitated entry for permanent residents without a valid permanent
resident card if they have been outside Canada for less than one year.
Setting a higher threshold for examinations for permanent residents than for
other foreign nationals.
Requiring a warrant to arrest a permanent resident for any immigration
matter.
Access to the Refugee Determination System
What we heard:
Access to the refugee determination system is too restrictive and would
deny access to people convicted of politically trumped-up charges. Others
who are excluded from the IRB procedures may be denied access to a fair
risk assessment upon return to their country of origin.
Our response:
The possibility of politically trumped-up charges will be considered by the
IRB, except in cases where the Minister finds the person to be a danger to
the public.
The new bill clarifies that unsuccessful refugee claimants, refugees who
have withdrawn or abandoned their claims, and refugees excluded from the
IRB process will have access to a pre-removal risk assessment prior to
removal.
The risk review may provide for an oral hearing, depending on the complexity
of the case.
Repeat claimants will have access to the risk review after six months
instead of one year.
People refused resettlement overseas will have access to the IRB
determination system should they later apply from within Canada.
Other Amendments to Respond to Stakeholder Submissions
The time limit for filing leave for judicial review of overseas decisions is
prolonged from 15 to 60 days.
Convention refugees and protected people whose identities have been
established will be provided with a document indicating their status and
making them eligible to apply for refugee travel documents.
- 30
2001-03
Backgrounder # 2
Making the System Work Better
For Immigrants
Improving Client Service
What we are doing:
Piloting new approaches to overseas processing.
Introducing new technology: the Global Case Management System.
Why we are doing it:
To ensure faster processing, quality decisions and increased transparency.
Clearing up Backlogs and Managing the Inventory
What we are doing:
Designating new funds to clear up backlogs.
Improving the management of the inventory of applications for permanent
residence and for immigration visas abroad.
Introducing the Multi-year Planning Process.
Why we are doing it:
To serve Canadians, permanent residents and potential immigrants faster
and more effectively.
To enable the program to move toward immigration levels of one percent of
the population.
Expanding the Family Class
What we are doing:
Broadening the definition of "dependent child" by increasing the age from
under 19 to under 22.
Opening up adoption provisions in keeping with the principle of the best
interests of the child.
Modernizing the definition of "family" to include common-law and same-sex
partners.
Why we are doing it:
To reflect the high value Canadians place on the family.
To maintain and enhance the family class as an important component of the
overall program.
To reflect the changing nature of social relationships in Canada.
Facilitating Family Reunification
What we are doing:
Creating an in-Canada landing class for sponsored spouses and partners for
both immigrants and refugees.
Exempting sponsored spouses, partners and dependent children from the
admission bar with regard to excessive demand on health or social services.
Reducing the age at which Canadian citizens and permanent residents are
eligible to sponsor from 19 to 18.
Including "parent" in the definition of family class within the Act.
Reducing the length of the sponsorship requirement from 10 years to 3
years for spouses and common-law opposite- and same-sex partners.
Why we are doing it:
To make it easier for families to be reunited as soon as possible.
Incorporating the Best Interests of the Child
What we are doing:
Incorporating the principle of the best interests of the child in appropriate
provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Why we are doing it:
To uphold our international commitments as a signatory to three United
Nations conventions on the rights of the child.
To reflect the high value Canadians place on the well-being of children.
Modernizing the Selection System: Skilled Workers
What we are doing:
Moving away from an occupation-based model to one focused on flexible
and transferable skills.
Assigning more weight to education.
Increasing the relative weight of having knowledge of an official language but
ensuring that language is not a bar to admission.
Creating an "in-Canada landing class" for temporary workers (including
recent graduates from Canadian schools) who have a permanent job offer
and who have been working in Canada.
Why we are doing it:
To attract and keep the highly skilled, adaptable immigrants that Canada
needs to succeed and prosper in the future.
Expanding the Temporary Worker Program
What we are doing:
Facilitating the entry of temporary workers through a more serviceoriented
approach.
Pursuing agreements with individual sectors or firms to identify and meet
short-term labour market needs, while respecting the terms of applicable
federal-provincial agreements.
Why we are doing it:
To allow the immediate needs of employers to be met faster.
To expand our access to the global labour market.
To attract people who are skilled and on the move and to encourage them to
make Canada their destination of choice.
Strengthening Sponsorship Obligations
What we are doing:
People in default of court-ordered spousal or child support payments will not
be allowed to sponsor.
People convicted of a crime related to domestic abuse will not be able to
sponsor unless a pardon has been granted or rehabilitation has been
demonstrated.
New legislative provisions will improve the ability of the federal government to
recover the costs of social assistance in cases of sponsorship default.
People receiving social assistance, except for reasons of disability, will not
be able to sponsor.
Why we are doing it:
To strengthen the integrity of the sponsorship program.
Streamlining Appeals
What we are doing:
Introducing a new leave requirement for people appealing visa officer
decisions from overseas.
Developing an alternative dispute resolution mechanism for overseas
decisions.
Limiting inland humanitarian and compassionate applications to one per
year.
Why we are doing it:
To provide a screening mechanism for applications to the Federal Court for
review of overseas decisions. The leave provision currently exists for inland
applications only.
To provide an effective, alternative means of reviewing and solving disputes
regarding overseas decisions.
To ensure a fast and fair inland system for considering applications on
humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
Business Immigration
What we are doing:
Establishing objective criteria to assess business experience for both the
investor and entrepreneur programs.
Creating a new net worth requirement for entrepreneurs.
Why we are doing it:
To strengthen the integrity of the business immigration program.
Objective Criteria for Permanent Residence
What we are doing:
Introducing a clear physical residency requirement. To retain permanent
residence status, a person must be physically present in Canada for a
cumulative period of 2 years for every 5 working years. People who spend
time overseas for specific reasons (to accompany a Canadian citizen, to
work for a Canadian company, or for humanitarian reasons) will retain their
status.
Developing a fraud-resistant permanent resident card.
Ensuring an oral appeal to the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) for all
loss of status cases.
Ensuring that permanent residents without a valid card have the right to
enter if they have been outside Canada for less than one year.
Why we are doing it:
To implement a clear objective standard that is easier to administer.
To replace a document that is easy to forge with one that has
state-of-the-art security features.
And Refugees
Strengthening Refugee Protection: Overseas Resettlement
What we are doing:
Amending the criteria for "ability to establish in Canada" to include social as
well as economic factors.
Pursuing agreements with NGOs to locate, identify, refer and pre-screen
refugee applications in areas where refugees are most in need of protection.
Ensuring that people in urgent need of protection are brought to Canada
within days.
Why we are doing it:
To ensure that the need for protection is the overriding objective in
resettlement from abroad.
To focus existing resources on areas where refugees are most in need of
protection.
Facilitating Family Reunification of Refugees
What we are doing:
Processing overseas families as a unit, including extended family members
of refugees whenever possible.
Allowing dependants of refugees, selected inland or abroad, to be
processed as part of the same application for a period of one year after a
refugee has acquired permanent resident status.
Exempting refugees, their spouses, partners and dependants from the
admission bar with regard to excessive demand on health or social services.
Why we are doing it:
To facilitate the reunification of refugees with their family members as soon
as reasonably practicable.
Faster and Fair Refugee Processing Inland
What we are doing:
Referral to the IRB to be made within three working days.
Consolidating protection decisions at the IRB to examine all risk grounds at
a single hearing. Grounds will include the Geneva Convention, the
Convention against Torture, and the risk of cruel or unusual treatment or
punishment.
The use of single-member panels as the norm, supported by the
establishment of a paper appeal on merit.
Reducing the waiting period from 5 to 3 years for the landing in Canada of
undocumented refugees who are unable to obtain documents from their
listed country of origin because there is no central authority in that country
to issue documents.
Why we are doing it:
To allow genuine refugees to be processed faster so that their lives are not
put in limbo while they wait for decisions crucial to their future.
To provide a fair opportunity to correct errors in law or fact in the first
instance, and to increase the integrity of the decision-making process.
Front-end Security Screening
What it is:
A security check initiated when a person makes a refugee claim.
Why we are doing it:
To catch criminals and people who present security risks at the start of the
process and speed genuine refugees through the system. Currently, a
security screening is carried out only once a person is granted refugee
status by the IRB.
Admissibility Hearing
What it is:
A hearing before an independent adjudicator to decide whether a person is
admissible to Canada.
Why we are doing it:
To make fair but fast decisions on security cases.
Pre-removal Risk Assessment
What we are doing:
Legislating a procedure to fairly assess the risk of return prior to removal.
There will be flexibility for an oral hearing should the complexity of the case
require it.
Repeat claimants, failed refugee claimants, and refugees who have
withdrawn or abandoned their claims will be assessed on the grounds of the
Geneva Convention, the United Nations Convention against Torture, and the
risk of cruel or unusual treatment or punishment.
People found to be inadmissible to Canada for reasons of serious
criminality, security, organized crime or violations of human rights will be
assessed on the grounds of the United Nations Convention against Torture
and the risk of cruel or unusual treatment or punishment.
Why we are doing it:
To ensure that there is a fair and effective procedure for assessing the risk
of return for individuals being removed from Canada.
Strengthening Enforcement
Penalties
What we are doing:
Increasing penalties for existing offences.
Creating a new offence for human trafficking.
Extending Criminal Code counterfeiting provisions (which currently apply
only to passports) to cover any immigration document or travel document
(with an exemption for refugees).
Allowing for the seizure of assets in cases of migrant smuggling and
trafficking.
Providing new authority to seize citizenship documents to prevent fraud.
Creating a new offence for people who counsel a person to misrepresent
himself or herself or to commit an offence under the Act.
Creating a new offence for the possession and laundering of proceeds from
immigration offences.
Raising the penalty to life in prison for migrant smuggling and trafficking.
Why we are doing it:
To ensure that we have the tools we need to combat organized crime and
human trafficking.
Exclusion from the Refugee Determination System
What we are doing:
Barring access to serious criminals, people who present security risks,
organizers of criminal operations, or violators of human rights. A "serious
criminal" is defined as someone who was convicted of an offence punishable
by 10 years or more and who has received a sentence of 2 years or more in
Canada. People convicted of an offence punishable by 10 years or more
outside Canada will only be excluded if the Minister finds them to be a
danger to the public.
Why we are doing it:
To prevent abuse of the refugee protection system.
Eliminating Appeals
What we are doing:
Eliminating appeals to the Immigration Appeal Division for serious criminals,
people who present security risks, members of criminal organizations and
war criminals. There will remain recourse to judicial review with leave by the
Federal Court.
Why we are doing it:
To ensure that we can remove serious criminals and people who pose a
security threat to Canada without delay.
Suspension of a Refugee Claim
What it is:
The ability to suspend a person's application for protection before the IRB if
he or she has been charged with a crime. The claim would be suspended
until the courts have rendered a decision on the case.
Why we are doing it:
To prevent abuse of the system by people who come to Canada not
because they need protection but because they intend to engage in crime.
Repeat Claims
What we are doing:
Extending the period after which a new claim can be made from 90 days to
six months.
Why we are doing it:
To avoid "revolving door" situations where failed refugee claimants return to
Canada and make multiple claims.
Detention and Day Parole
What we are doing:
Excluding incarcerated foreign criminals under removal order from day
parole.
Why we are doing it:
It is inconsistent to integrate individuals into Canadian society who are to be
deported on completion of their sentence.
Streamlined Security Certificate Process
What we are doing:
Applying to permanent residents the security certificate process that
currently applies only to non-permanent residents. The process requires the
signatures of two ministers to the effect that the person is inadmissible on
grounds of security, and a review of the certificate by a Federal Court judge.
Why we are doing it:
To make it easier to remove permanent residents who pose a serious threat
to national security.
New Inadmissibility Classes
What they are:
Two new classes of people who will be inadmissible to Canada: (1) people
subject to travel sanctions imposed by Canada as a member of an
international organization such as the United Nations; (2) people who
committed fraud or misrepresentation on an immigration application will be
inadmissible for 2 years.
Why we are doing it:
To strengthen our ability to enforce international sanctions.
To prevent immigration to Canada through fraudulent means.
Backgrounder # 3
Milestones On the Road to New Legislation
Since 1996, the Government of Canada has been reviewing immigration and
refugee policy and legislation with a view to fundamental policy reform and the
introduction of new legislation.
The comprehensive review process that has been under way since has involved a
significant number of consultations with many different groups and interests as well
as with individual Canadians. Ministers have been discussing immigration reform
with Canadians for more than four years.
This process has included:
The appointment of a Legislative Review Advisory Group (LRAG) in 1996
commenced a major consultation process both by LRAG and by the
government on their report, Not Just Numbers, in 1998.
A Red Book commitment in 1997 and 2000 to streamline and update the
immigration/refugee system, which promised to implement changes to
make Canada's immigration system simpler, more effective, and more
easily understood.
The release of the White Paper, Building on a Strong Foundation for the
21st Century: New Directions for Immigration and Refugee Policy and
Legislation in January 1999;
Consultations on the White Paper with Canadians, provinces and territories,
non-government organizations, the legal community, special interest
groups, and the business sector throughout 1999;
Immigration commitments in the 1999 Throne Speech, Budget 2000 and
2001 Throne Speech; including the 2001 Throne Speech commitment to
re-introduce legislation to streamline and improve the immigration system.
Consultations leading up to the Standing Committee Report of March 22,
2000 entitled Refugee Protection and Border Security: Striking a Balance;
and
The introduction of the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Bill
C-31 Bill C- ) in 2000 and 2001.
General agreement on fundamentals
There is general agreement that Canada needs a new Act that is simpler, more
effective, and more easily understood. Canadians want to stop abuse of our
immigration and refugee system and protect Canada's borders.
They want a system that is fair, effective, and respectful of Canada's humanitarian
traditions and international commitments in a world of increasing migration
pressures.
They also agree that Canada needs immigrants to contribute to Canada's
economic growth and prosperity. The business community needs access to the
highly skilled global workforce. Canadians recognize that immigration is largely
responsible for Canada's rich and diverse culture, and is a key advantage in the
global economy.
Canadians want a system that reflects our traditions of family reunification and
family values, honours our history of compassion for refugees needing a safe
haven, and contains selection criteria for immigrants that will ensure that
newcomers contribute Canada's economic and social fabric.
Immigration has proved to be a successful economic, social and cultural strategy
for Canada in the past and will continue to be so in the future.
& 2001-03
Backgrounder # 4
Detention Provisions Clarified
Detention is one of the most serious measures a liberal society can impose on
individuals. It must be limited to cases where it is clearly warranted and does not
contravene Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
However, Canadians want to ensure that their safety and security is protected and
that that their borders remain safe.
Current grounds for detention remain unchanged
Under the current legislation, there are three main commonly used grounds for
detention:
1.Failure to establish identity;
2.Danger to the public; and
3.Unlikely to appear for future immigration proceedings or removal.
Detention process will be more effective and transparent
The criteria for detention decisions will be established in the new Regulations.
There will be a requirement to review detention decisions after 48 hours, with further
reviews scheduled after 7 days and each subsequent 30-day period.
Foreign criminals facing deportation orders will not be eligible for day parole, as
they are unlikely to respect conditions set out in temporary release programs.
Priority hearings for those in detention
To balance increased detention measures, the Immigration and Refugee Board
(IRB) will give priority to hearings for those being held in detention.
This streamlining should prevent refugee claimants from remaining in detention for
long periods of time. Every step in the process from the irregular arrival of a foreign
national in Canada to his or her removal following a negative decision will be fair
and faster.
Protection of unaccompanied minors
While the legislative package honours Canada's international commitments to
protect the best interests of the child, the security and safety of unprotected
minors arriving as part of a criminally organized smuggling or trafficking operation is
a major concern.
These children are vulnerable to exploitation and coercion by the traffickers; in
these cases, detention is truly a last resort and this is stipulated in the Act. The
Government of Canada will make every effort to make arrangements with provincial
social services to protect these children effectively, while seeking to ensure that
they are not deprived of education and other basic needs.
2001-03
Backgrounder # 5
A Fair, Faster, More Effective Refugee
Determination Process
Front-end security screening of all refugee claimants
In the current system, security and background checks are initiated only once an
individual has had a refugee claim accepted and has applied for permanent resident
status. In the new system, security screening will be initiated for all claimants at
the time the claim is submitted. Greater coordination between domestic and
international agencies will improve the timeliness of security information.
Faster referrals to the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB)
The legislation will speed up this process by clarifying grounds of eligibility and
automatically referring all eligible claims to the IRB within 3 working days.
Consolidated assessment of protection grounds at the IRB
Currently, assessment of the grounds for protection is handled in several stages,
one at the IRB and the others at Citizenship and Immigration (CIC). The new
system will consolidate these grounds in one risk assessment during a single
hearing process at the IRB. The grounds for assessment of risk are: Geneva
Convention on Refugees, risk of torture (Convention Against Torture), and risk to
life and/or cruel and unusual punishment. These grounds are not new; they are
merely being brought together from several current steps into one.
Use of single-member panels as the norm at the IRB
Currently, two-member panels hear refugee cases at the IRB, and in the majority of
cases the decisions are unanimous. The process will be made more efficient by
the use of single-member panels as the norm.
Greater use of Ministerial interventions
The Minister (by delegated authority to her officials) will have the right to intervene
at IRB hearings to present security information or other data pertinent to the case.
Greater coordination between domestic and international agencies will improve the
timeliness and accuracy of information.
Paper review on merit to be introduced
To ensure consistency in decision-making and fairness to all refugee claimants, a
paper review on merit may be conducted by a division of the IRB. This step is
intended to ensure fairness and reduce the number of protracted applications for
leave for judicial review by the Federal Court.
Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA)
In keeping with Canada's international commitment not to repatriate people who
would face risk upon return, the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) will be
provided on the same consolidated protection grounds, and coordinated with CIC
removal priorities. Pursuant to the Geneva Convention, serious criminals, security
risks, and members of organized crime groups will be excluded from consideration
of refugee protection grounds. Their PRRA will be limited to risk of torture and cruel
and unusual punishment.
Linking the PRRA and the removal process will allow for expeditious -yet fair -
treatment of all removal cases. This will ensure that no one will be sent to a
situation of risk to life or cruel and unusual punishment in their country of
nationality.
Six month bar on repeat claims
If a person returns to Canada after removal, they will not be allowed to reapply for
refugee status for six months following removal. Prior to the six months, previously
refused claimants would continue to have the option of seeking protection at any
Canadian mission abroad. Persons who return to Canada after six months may
apply for a pre-removal risk assessment but they are not able to re-access the
refugee protection system of the IRB.
Criminals will be barred from the Refugee Protection System
The new Legislation clarifies inadmissibility criteria to ensure that serious
criminals, terrorists, human rights violators and security risks will be barred from
access to the refugee determination system and promptly removed from Canada.
Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research
P.O. Box 234
Lawson, New South Wales 2783
Australia
Phone: +61 (0)2-4758-6822
URL: www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr
Although the above materials are highly recommended by CAFMR, we do not necessarily share all the views expressed by the authors.
Note about copyright: Any of the above information may be downloaded, copied, printed or otherwise distributed without seeking permission from CAFMR. However, printed acknowledgement is required when this is done.
Bradley R. Smith
Revisionism by: CODOH, POB 439016, San Diego, CA 92143
The Revisionist Campus Project
David Irving's Reply to
Jeffrey Shallit's "Lies of Our
Times"
London,
[ ]
Dear Professor Shallit,
I am not a subscriber to the Internet, but over the last few
months I have heard repeatedly about scurrilous materials
which you have been posting on that medium; at least you
have had the courage to put your name to them as author,
although this lays you open to the kind of lawsuit which I have
started conducting--and winning--here in the British courts.
I have so far seen versions of your Shallit's Report, and of your
"Lies of Our Times." You appear to be interested in the Truth,
and that being so I am making these comments to assist you
in the search for that elusive quantitй.
It appears that your primary source is a handout or handouts
of the Wiener Library (Dr David Cesarini) and of the Board of
Deputies of British Jews, who have furnished the League of
Human Rights of the B'nai Brith Canada with two lengthy
secret reports which are the subject of dispute between me
and the Board under both the Data Protection Act 1984 (the
Board at first denied having any data on me), and the
Defamation Act 1952 (the Board's solicitor is negotiating with
me for permission to withdraw the reports in toto, in return for
an undertaking by me not to pursue the matter in the courts).
First, your "article" Lies of Our Times (forgive the quotation
marks, but as you call me an "historian" it seems justified).
David Irving
David John Cawdell Irving is a British "historian", born in
1938.
* Correct.
According to David Cesarani of the Wiener Library in London,
England, he attended Imperial College at the University of
London, but never graduated. He holds no academic degree
and no academic position at any university or college.
* Correct. The same can be said for Winston S.
Churchill, Thomas Babington Macaulay (The
History of England), and the Gibbon who wrote
The Decline Fall of the Roman Empire, etc.
Would you denigrate them as "historians" too?
He calls himself a "moderate fascist",
* Incorrect. Please produce the source of this
spurious and libellous allegation.
and claims, among other things that the gas chambers at
Auschwitz (in which an estimated 2-3 million people died)
were "built by the Poles after the war as a tourist attraction."
* Not quite correct. I stated (on April 21, 1990 and
other occasions): "The gas chamber which is
shown to the tourists in Auschwitz is a dummy
(Atrappe) built after the war by the Polish
communists as a tourist attraction." In 1990, Dr
Franciszek Piper, the then director of the Auschwitz
State Museum Archives, confirmed that this is
true. As recently as 1995 the present directors
confirmed in an interview with Eric Conan, of the
well-known liberal French weekly L'Express, that
the gas chamber shown to the tourists was
constructed on the orders of the Polish communist
government in 1948. "Tout y est faux," reported
Conan, and the deputy chief of the site stated:
"Pour l'instant, on la laisse en l'йtat et on ne
prйcise rien au visiteur. C'est trop compliquй. On
verra plus tard" (L'Express, January 26, 1995).
(For this remark, he was fined DM 10,000 by a Munich court in
May 1992.
* Correct. On January 13, 1993 the fine was
increased to DM30,000 in view of my refusal to
retract the statement. (Why should I? It was true). In
addition, on July 1, 1993 I was permanently
banned from setting foot in the German Federal
Archives, which had benefited over the years from
my donations of half a ton of archival material
including the diaries of Canaris, Himmler,
Rommel, etc., which I had located, and which they
have now had to relinquish to me; and on
November 13, 1993 I was permanently banned
from Germany. How's that for freedom of speech!
The judge was quoted as saying that the gas chambers of
Auschwitz were "an historically certain fact.")
* Correct. The word used is offenkundig, and is
used in German law to deny defence lawyers the
introduction of any defence exhibits or witnesses,
e.g. the aforementioned Dr Franciszek Piper whom
we were prepared to call. There has been an
outcry in the German legal profession against
these methods, and Germany is to face a rebuke
from the United Nations for her repression of
freedom of opinion by such means. Of course, if
you believe they are correct to adopt such tactics,
such is your right.
Irving denies being a "Holocaust denier" or "Hitler apologist",
and seems willing to resort to legal action if necessary.
* Correct. Last year one of Britain's biggest Sunday
newspapers was forced to pay me substantial
damages after they printed such a libel. I issued a
Libel Writ in the High Court. (For legal reasons,
namely the settlement agreed, I am not permitted
to identify the newspaper or the amount, except off
the record). I am currently pursuing Libel action in
the British courts against The Observer, Deborah
Lipstadt, (whose odious little tract has been
foolishly published here, i.e. within the jurisdiction,
by Penguin UK Ltd) and Svenska Dagbladet. You
have been warned!
In a recent fax printed in the K-W Record, he is reported as
saying, "I have warned 22 British newspapers that I shall not
hesitate to commence libel action if they use smear phrases
such like 'Hitler apologist' or 'Holocaust denier' to embellish
their writings." But Bernard Levin, writing in The Times of
London in May of this year, quoted Irving as saying, "I hope
the court will fight a battle for the German people and put an
end to the blood lie of the Holocaust which has been told
against this country for 50 years."
Irving first entered the headlines in 1970.
* Incorrect. Ever since 1963 my books have been
the subject of wide comment and much praise in
the British media.
In July of that year, he was forced to apologize in the High
Court of London for "making a wholly untrue and highly
damaging statement about a woman writer."--not an
auspicious start for someone who claims to be in pursuit of the
truth.
* Correct. A Sunday Express journalist, Jill -----,
stated that Rolf Hochhuth, the German playwright
and one of my closest friends had granted her an
exclusive interview. Hochhuth assured me he had
not even spoken to her. I mentioned this in a letter
to the newspaper's editor. She sued. As I was
fighting the hideously costly PQ.17 Libel Action at
the time, I had no alternative but to settle out of
court-- "shortening the front," is what military
commanders call such action. Make of that what
you will. Nothing has been heard of that
"journalist" since.
Later that year, Irving was back in the headlines, concerning
publication of his book, "The Destruction of Convoy PQ17".
Ostensibly an expose of an ill-fated 1942 Arctic convoy
headed for the Soviet Union during World War II, it eventually
resulted in Irving being fined 40,000 British pounds for libel.
* Incorrect. In actions for Libel--a tort--the defendant
is not fined, but can be required to pay damages.
The book was published by Simon Schuster and
other leading pubishers around the world. Not bad
for an "historian", eh?
Irving's book faulted Captain John Broome, commander of the
convoy at the time, saying he was guilty of "downright
disobedience" and "downright desertion of the convoy."
* Incorrect. No such allegations or quotations are
contained within the book.
Broome brought suit against Irving for false statements, and
won a judgment in August of 1970. Irving's lawyers appealed,
and lost in March, 1971.
* Correct. We then appealed to the House of Lords,
twice, and lost 4-to-3,which is a pretty close call.
Needless to say the insurers of Cassell Co Ltd,
the British publishers, would not have authorised
such defence actions had their counsel not studied
all the documents available and concluded that we
had a powerful defence, based on the Admiralty
records; this they in fact did, and wrote Opinions to
that effect. Libel actions in Britain are tried by jury.
Make of that what you will.
The case is revealing because of what it says about Irving's
abilities as a historian and his motives as an author.
According to The Times of London, Irving showed a copy of
the manuscript to Broome before publication.
* Correct. I showed the late Captain Broome the
mansucript in 1966, and he agreed to read it and
make comment (as did a score of other officers
involved); breaking his undertaking, he alone
decided not to co-operate, but to wait for
publication and then sue for profit. So be it.
Broome objected to the accuracy of some thirty passages in
the book, and threatened to sue for libel if Irving did not make
changes.
* Incorrect. He objected in reality to six words
("Captain Broome was a broken man"), and after
these words were expunged, years later, his
lawyers permitted the book's republication by
William Kimber Ltd.
At that point, William Kimbers Ltd., Irving's publisher, notified
him that they would not publish the book as it was then
written.
* Incorrect. I was in dispute with William Kimber
after they paid me only J67 instead of the agreed
fee of J200 for translating the book, The Memoirs
or Field-Marshal Wilhelm Keitel. This being so, I
removed the PQ17 manuscript physically from
their offices; Kimber's secretary came running
down the street after me, pleading for me to return
it. I keep a very detailed diary of events. In court,
Kimber, already probably suffering from the
Parkinsonism from which he later died, gave a
totally different version, namely yours; he later
apologised to me, which did not assist me much of
course. Unfortunately, our counsel elected to call
no witnesses in the case but to rest securely on the
Admiralty documents.
Later, Irving published the book with another publisher.
The court found that Irving "was warned from most
responsible quarters that his book contained libels on Captain
Broome ... To make [the book] a success he was ready to risk
libel actions ... Documentary evidence .... showed that [Irving]
had deliberately set out to attack Captain Broome and in spite
of the most explicit warnings persisted in his attack because it
would help sell the book." The court labeled Irving's conduct
as "outrageous and shocking."
Irving's misrepresentations did not end with the publication of
his book. According to Cesarani, in 1979 a German publisher
had to pay compensation to the father of Anne Frank after
printing the German edition of Irving's book, Hitler's War. Irving
had claimed that Anne Frank's diary was a forgery.
* Correct as written. Without consulting me, the
Ullstein Verlag publishing firm, part of the
pro-Israeli Axel Springer Group) made some
unspecified payment to Otto Frank at his demand. I
had already halted production and publication of
the book for other reasons (tampering by Ullstein
with my text). The German Bundeskriminalamt
found that parts of the diary had been written in
(post-war) ballpoint ink-paste, which made its
authenticity problematic. My opinion on it now is
ambivalent: it is unimportant, not a historical
document of any value.
Irving claims that according to his "research", the Holocaust is
greatly exaggerated.
* Correct. I think the figures have been magnified
by an Order of Magnitude. Events in Auschwitz
alone suggest that I am right:: here the figure has
been effortlessly brought down from 4 million to 1
sponsored from under 19 to under 22 and allow spouses and children to apply for
permanent residence from within Canada. The Minister also expressed willingness
to pursue discussions with the provinces over additional ways to expand the family
class.
The new legislation will replace the current Immigration Act, which was first passed
in 1976 and which has been amended more than 30 times. Work on the new
legislation began in 1997 and has evolved through extensive consultations with the
provinces, the territories, the legal community, non-governmental organizations and
the general public.
- 30
For Information:
Derik Hodgson
Press Secretary
Minister's Office
(613) 954-1064
Renй Mercier
Media Relations
Communications Branch
(613) 941-7042
Backgrounder # 1
Changes from Bill C-31
In response to Bill C-31, the government received submissions from the Canadian
Bar Association, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the
Canadian Council for Refugees and many others. The Minister has listened and
responded.
Framework Legislation
What we heard:
The government should ensure that all key principles and core policies are
reflected in the Act and not in the regulations. The regulations should be
limited to matters related to the implementation of policy.
Our response:
1.The new bill places greater emphasis on key principles, including:
The principles of equality and freedom from discrimination.
The principle that minor children should be detained only as a last
resort.
The principle of equality of status for both official languages.
2.The new bill also includes the following provisions previously intended to be
prescribed by regulation:
The provision that parents are members of the family class.
The provision that sponsored spouses, partners and dependent
children of immigrants and refugees and their dependents will not be
refused admission to Canada on the grounds that they would create
an excessive demand on the medical system.
3.The new bill also reinforces the government's commitment to gender
equality and provisions for opposite- and same-sex couples.
Provisions Affecting Permanent Residents
What we heard:
Permanent residents should have a separate, defined status that clearly
specifies their rights and obligations, including the right to enter Canada.
Loss of status determinations should be made only through an oral appeal
to the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB).
Our response:
The new bill enhances the rights of permanent residents by:
Including a separate definition for permanent residents that highlights the
distinction between permanent residents and other foreign nationals.
Ensuring the right to an oral hearing before the IRB in the case of appeals
on the loss of permanent resident status.
Ensuring facilitated entry for permanent residents without a valid permanent
resident card if they have been outside Canada for less than one year.
Setting a higher threshold for examinations for permanent residents than for
other foreign nationals.
Requiring a warrant to arrest a permanent resident for any immigration
matter.
Access to the Refugee Determination System
What we heard:
Access to the refugee determination system is too restrictive and would
deny access to people convicted of politically trumped-up charges. Others
who are excluded from the IRB procedures may be denied access to a fair
risk assessment upon return to their country of origin.
Our response:
The possibility of politically trumped-up charges will be considered by the
IRB, except in cases where the Minister finds the person to be a danger to
the public.
The new bill clarifies that unsuccessful refugee claimants, refugees who
have withdrawn or abandoned their claims, and refugees excluded from the
IRB process will have access to a pre-removal risk assessment prior to
removal.
The risk review may provide for an oral hearing, depending on the complexity
of the case.
Repeat claimants will have access to the risk review after six months
instead of one year.
People refused resettlement overseas will have access to the IRB
determination system should they later apply from within Canada.
Other Amendments to Respond to Stakeholder Submissions
The time limit for filing leave for judicial review of overseas decisions is
prolonged from 15 to 60 days.
Convention refugees and protected people whose identities have been
established will be provided with a document indicating their status and
making them eligible to apply for refugee travel documents.
- 30
2001-03
Backgrounder # 2
Making the System Work Better
For Immigrants
Improving Client Service
What we are doing:
Piloting new approaches to overseas processing.
Introducing new technology: the Global Case Management System.
Why we are doing it:
To ensure faster processing, quality decisions and increased transparency.
Clearing up Backlogs and Managing the Inventory
What we are doing:
Designating new funds to clear up backlogs.
Improving the management of the inventory of applications for permanent
residence and for immigration visas abroad.
Introducing the Multi-year Planning Process.
Why we are doing it:
To serve Canadians, permanent residents and potential immigrants faster
and more effectively.
To enable the program to move toward immigration levels of one percent of
the population.
Expanding the Family Class
What we are doing:
Broadening the definition of "dependent child" by increasing the age from
under 19 to under 22.
Opening up adoption provisions in keeping with the principle of the best
interests of the child.
Modernizing the definition of "family" to include common-law and same-sex
partners.
Why we are doing it:
To reflect the high value Canadians place on the family.
To maintain and enhance the family class as an important component of the
overall program.
To reflect the changing nature of social relationships in Canada.
Facilitating Family Reunification
What we are doing:
Creating an in-Canada landing class for sponsored spouses and partners for
both immigrants and refugees.
Exempting sponsored spouses, partners and dependent children from the
admission bar with regard to excessive demand on health or social services.
Reducing the age at which Canadian citizens and permanent residents are
eligible to sponsor from 19 to 18.
Including "parent" in the definition of family class within the Act.
Reducing the length of the sponsorship requirement from 10 years to 3
years for spouses and common-law opposite- and same-sex partners.
Why we are doing it:
To make it easier for families to be reunited as soon as possible.
Incorporating the Best Interests of the Child
What we are doing:
Incorporating the principle of the best interests of the child in appropriate
provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Why we are doing it:
To uphold our international commitments as a signatory to three United
Nations conventions on the rights of the child.
To reflect the high value Canadians place on the well-being of children.
Modernizing the Selection System: Skilled Workers
What we are doing:
Moving away from an occupation-based model to one focused on flexible
and transferable skills.
Assigning more weight to education.
Increasing the relative weight of having knowledge of an official language but
ensuring that language is not a bar to admission.
Creating an "in-Canada landing class" for temporary workers (including
recent graduates from Canadian schools) who have a permanent job offer
and who have been working in Canada.
Why we are doing it:
To attract and keep the highly skilled, adaptable immigrants that Canada
needs to succeed and prosper in the future.
Expanding the Temporary Worker Program
What we are doing:
Facilitating the entry of temporary workers through a more serviceoriented
approach.
Pursuing agreements with individual sectors or firms to identify and meet
short-term labour market needs, while respecting the terms of applicable
federal-provincial agreements.
Why we are doing it:
To allow the immediate needs of employers to be met faster.
To expand our access to the global labour market.
To attract people who are skilled and on the move and to encourage them to
make Canada their destination of choice.
Strengthening Sponsorship Obligations
What we are doing:
People in default of court-ordered spousal or child support payments will not
be allowed to sponsor.
People convicted of a crime related to domestic abuse will not be able to
sponsor unless a pardon has been granted or rehabilitation has been
demonstrated.
New legislative provisions will improve the ability of the federal government to
recover the costs of social assistance in cases of sponsorship default.
People receiving social assistance, except for reasons of disability, will not
be able to sponsor.
Why we are doing it:
To strengthen the integrity of the sponsorship program.
Streamlining Appeals
What we are doing:
Introducing a new leave requirement for people appealing visa officer
decisions from overseas.
Developing an alternative dispute resolution mechanism for overseas
decisions.
Limiting inland humanitarian and compassionate applications to one per
year.
Why we are doing it:
To provide a screening mechanism for applications to the Federal Court for
review of overseas decisions. The leave provision currently exists for inland
applications only.
To provide an effective, alternative means of reviewing and solving disputes
regarding overseas decisions.
To ensure a fast and fair inland system for considering applications on
humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
Business Immigration
What we are doing:
Establishing objective criteria to assess business experience for both the
investor and entrepreneur programs.
Creating a new net worth requirement for entrepreneurs.
Why we are doing it:
To strengthen the integrity of the business immigration program.
Objective Criteria for Permanent Residence
What we are doing:
Introducing a clear physical residency requirement. To retain permanent
residence status, a person must be physically present in Canada for a
cumulative period of 2 years for every 5 working years. People who spend
time overseas for specific reasons (to accompany a Canadian citizen, to
work for a Canadian company, or for humanitarian reasons) will retain their
status.
Developing a fraud-resistant permanent resident card.
Ensuring an oral appeal to the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) for all
loss of status cases.
Ensuring that permanent residents without a valid card have the right to
enter if they have been outside Canada for less than one year.
Why we are doing it:
To implement a clear objective standard that is easier to administer.
To replace a document that is easy to forge with one that has
state-of-the-art security features.
And Refugees
Strengthening Refugee Protection: Overseas Resettlement
What we are doing:
Amending the criteria for "ability to establish in Canada" to include social as
well as economic factors.
Pursuing agreements with NGOs to locate, identify, refer and pre-screen
refugee applications in areas where refugees are most in need of protection.
Ensuring that people in urgent need of protection are brought to Canada
within days.
Why we are doing it:
To ensure that the need for protection is the overriding objective in
resettlement from abroad.
To focus existing resources on areas where refugees are most in need of
protection.
Facilitating Family Reunification of Refugees
What we are doing:
Processing overseas families as a unit, including extended family members
of refugees whenever possible.
Allowing dependants of refugees, selected inland or abroad, to be
processed as part of the same application for a period of one year after a
refugee has acquired permanent resident status.
Exempting refugees, their spouses, partners and dependants from the
admission bar with regard to excessive demand on health or social services.
Why we are doing it:
To facilitate the reunification of refugees with their family members as soon
as reasonably practicable.
Faster and Fair Refugee Processing Inland
What we are doing:
Referral to the IRB to be made within three working days.
Consolidating protection decisions at the IRB to examine all risk grounds at
a single hearing. Grounds will include the Geneva Convention, the
Convention against Torture, and the risk of cruel or unusual treatment or
punishment.
The use of single-member panels as the norm, supported by the
establishment of a paper appeal on merit.
Reducing the waiting period from 5 to 3 years for the landing in Canada of
undocumented refugees who are unable to obtain documents from their
listed country of origin because there is no central authority in that country
to issue documents.
Why we are doing it:
To allow genuine refugees to be processed faster so that their lives are not
put in limbo while they wait for decisions crucial to their future.
To provide a fair opportunity to correct errors in law or fact in the first
instance, and to increase the integrity of the decision-making process.
Front-end Security Screening
What it is:
A security check initiated when a person makes a refugee claim.
Why we are doing it:
To catch criminals and people who present security risks at the start of the
process and speed genuine refugees through the system. Currently, a
security screening is carried out only once a person is granted refugee
status by the IRB.
Admissibility Hearing
What it is:
A hearing before an independent adjudicator to decide whether a person is
admissible to Canada.
Why we are doing it:
To make fair but fast decisions on security cases.
Pre-removal Risk Assessment
What we are doing:
Legislating a procedure to fairly assess the risk of return prior to removal.
There will be flexibility for an oral hearing should the complexity of the case
require it.
Repeat claimants, failed refugee claimants, and refugees who have
withdrawn or abandoned their claims will be assessed on the grounds of the
Geneva Convention, the United Nations Convention against Torture, and the
risk of cruel or unusual treatment or punishment.
People found to be inadmissible to Canada for reasons of serious
criminality, security, organized crime or violations of human rights will be
assessed on the grounds of the United Nations Convention against Torture
and the risk of cruel or unusual treatment or punishment.
Why we are doing it:
To ensure that there is a fair and effective procedure for assessing the risk
of return for individuals being removed from Canada.
Strengthening Enforcement
Penalties
What we are doing:
Increasing penalties for existing offences.
Creating a new offence for human trafficking.
Extending Criminal Code counterfeiting provisions (which currently apply
only to passports) to cover any immigration document or travel document
(with an exemption for refugees).
Allowing for the seizure of assets in cases of migrant smuggling and
trafficking.
Providing new authority to seize citizenship documents to prevent fraud.
Creating a new offence for people who counsel a person to misrepresent
himself or herself or to commit an offence under the Act.
Creating a new offence for the possession and laundering of proceeds from
immigration offences.
Raising the penalty to life in prison for migrant smuggling and trafficking.
Why we are doing it:
To ensure that we have the tools we need to combat organized crime and
human trafficking.
Exclusion from the Refugee Determination System
What we are doing:
Barring access to serious criminals, people who present security risks,
organizers of criminal operations, or violators of human rights. A "serious
criminal" is defined as someone who was convicted of an offence punishable
by 10 years or more and who has received a sentence of 2 years or more in
Canada. People convicted of an offence punishable by 10 years or more
outside Canada will only be excluded if the Minister finds them to be a
danger to the public.
Why we are doing it:
To prevent abuse of the refugee protection system.
Eliminating Appeals
What we are doing:
Eliminating appeals to the Immigration Appeal Division for serious criminals,
people who present security risks, members of criminal organizations and
war criminals. There will remain recourse to judicial review with leave by the
Federal Court.
Why we are doing it:
To ensure that we can remove serious criminals and people who pose a
security threat to Canada without delay.
Suspension of a Refugee Claim
What it is:
The ability to suspend a person's application for protection before the IRB if
he or she has been charged with a crime. The claim would be suspended
until the courts have rendered a decision on the case.
Why we are doing it:
To prevent abuse of the system by people who come to Canada not
because they need protection but because they intend to engage in crime.
Repeat Claims
What we are doing:
Extending the period after which a new claim can be made from 90 days to
six months.
Why we are doing it:
To avoid "revolving door" situations where failed refugee claimants return to
Canada and make multiple claims.
Detention and Day Parole
What we are doing:
Excluding incarcerated foreign criminals under removal order from day
parole.
Why we are doing it:
It is inconsistent to integrate individuals into Canadian society who are to be
deported on completion of their sentence.
Streamlined Security Certificate Process
What we are doing:
Applying to permanent residents the security certificate process that
currently applies only to non-permanent residents. The process requires the
signatures of two ministers to the effect that the person is inadmissible on
grounds of security, and a review of the certificate by a Federal Court judge.
Why we are doing it:
To make it easier to remove permanent residents who pose a serious threat
to national security.
New Inadmissibility Classes
What they are:
Two new classes of people who will be inadmissible to Canada: (1) people
subject to travel sanctions imposed by Canada as a member of an
international organization such as the United Nations; (2) people who
committed fraud or misrepresentation on an immigration application will be
inadmissible for 2 years.
Why we are doing it:
To strengthen our ability to enforce international sanctions.
To prevent immigration to Canada through fraudulent means.
Backgrounder # 3
Milestones On the Road to New Legislation
Since 1996, the Government of Canada has been reviewing immigration and
refugee policy and legislation with a view to fundamental policy reform and the
introduction of new legislation.
The comprehensive review process that has been under way since has involved a
significant number of consultations with many different groups and interests as well
as with individual Canadians. Ministers have been discussing immigration reform
with Canadians for more than four years.
This process has included:
The appointment of a Legislative Review Advisory Group (LRAG) in 1996
commenced a major consultation process both by LRAG and by the
government on their report, Not Just Numbers, in 1998.
A Red Book commitment in 1997 and 2000 to streamline and update the
immigration/refugee system, which promised to implement changes to
make Canada's immigration system simpler, more effective, and more
easily understood.
The release of the White Paper, Building on a Strong Foundation for the
21st Century: New Directions for Immigration and Refugee Policy and
Legislation in January 1999;
Consultations on the White Paper with Canadians, provinces and territories,
non-government organizations, the legal community, special interest
groups, and the business sector throughout 1999;
Immigration commitments in the 1999 Throne Speech, Budget 2000 and
2001 Throne Speech; including the 2001 Throne Speech commitment to
re-introduce legislation to streamline and improve the immigration system.
Consultations leading up to the Standing Committee Report of March 22,
2000 entitled Refugee Protection and Border Security: Striking a Balance;
and
The introduction of the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Bill
C-31 Bill C- ) in 2000 and 2001.
General agreement on fundamentals
There is general agreement that Canada needs a new Act that is simpler, more
effective, and more easily understood. Canadians want to stop abuse of our
immigration and refugee system and protect Canada's borders.
They want a system that is fair, effective, and respectful of Canada's humanitarian
traditions and international commitments in a world of increasing migration
pressures.
They also agree that Canada needs immigrants to contribute to Canada's
economic growth and prosperity. The business community needs access to the
highly skilled global workforce. Canadians recognize that immigration is largely
responsible for Canada's rich and diverse culture, and is a key advantage in the
global economy.
Canadians want a system that reflects our traditions of family reunification and
family values, honours our history of compassion for refugees needing a safe
haven, and contains selection criteria for immigrants that will ensure that
newcomers contribute Canada's economic and social fabric.
Immigration has proved to be a successful economic, social and cultural strategy
for Canada in the past and will continue to be so in the future.
& 2001-03
Backgrounder # 4
Detention Provisions Clarified
Detention is one of the most serious measures a liberal society can impose on
individuals. It must be limited to cases where it is clearly warranted and does not
contravene Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
However, Canadians want to ensure that their safety and security is protected and
that that their borders remain safe.
Current grounds for detention remain unchanged
Under the current legislation, there are three main commonly used grounds for
detention:
1.Failure to establish identity;
2.Danger to the public; and
3.Unlikely to appear for future immigration proceedings or removal.
Detention process will be more effective and transparent
The criteria for detention decisions will be established in the new Regulations.
There will be a requirement to review detention decisions after 48 hours, with further
reviews scheduled after 7 days and each subsequent 30-day period.
Foreign criminals facing deportation orders will not be eligible for day parole, as
they are unlikely to respect conditions set out in temporary release programs.
Priority hearings for those in detention
To balance increased detention measures, the Immigration and Refugee Board
(IRB) will give priority to hearings for those being held in detention.
This streamlining should prevent refugee claimants from remaining in detention for
long periods of time. Every step in the process from the irregular arrival of a foreign
national in Canada to his or her removal following a negative decision will be fair
and faster.
Protection of unaccompanied minors
While the legislative package honours Canada's international commitments to
protect the best interests of the child, the security and safety of unprotected
minors arriving as part of a criminally organized smuggling or trafficking operation is
a major concern.
These children are vulnerable to exploitation and coercion by the traffickers; in
these cases, detention is truly a last resort and this is stipulated in the Act. The
Government of Canada will make every effort to make arrangements with provincial
social services to protect these children effectively, while seeking to ensure that
they are not deprived of education and other basic needs.
2001-03
Backgrounder # 5
A Fair, Faster, More Effective Refugee
Determination Process
Front-end security screening of all refugee claimants
In the current system, security and background checks are initiated only once an
individual has had a refugee claim accepted and has applied for permanent resident
status. In the new system, security screening will be initiated for all claimants at
the time the claim is submitted. Greater coordination between domestic and
international agencies will improve the timeliness of security information.
Faster referrals to the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB)
The legislation will speed up this process by clarifying grounds of eligibility and
automatically referring all eligible claims to the IRB within 3 working days.
Consolidated assessment of protection grounds at the IRB
Currently, assessment of the grounds for protection is handled in several stages,
one at the IRB and the others at Citizenship and Immigration (CIC). The new
system will consolidate these grounds in one risk assessment during a single
hearing process at the IRB. The grounds for assessment of risk are: Geneva
Convention on Refugees, risk of torture (Convention Against Torture), and risk to
life and/or cruel and unusual punishment. These grounds are not new; they are
merely being brought together from several current steps into one.
Use of single-member panels as the norm at the IRB
Currently, two-member panels hear refugee cases at the IRB, and in the majority of
cases the decisions are unanimous. The process will be made more efficient by
the use of single-member panels as the norm.
Greater use of Ministerial interventions
The Minister (by delegated authority to her officials) will have the right to intervene
at IRB hearings to present security information or other data pertinent to the case.
Greater coordination between domestic and international agencies will improve the
timeliness and accuracy of information.
Paper review on merit to be introduced
To ensure consistency in decision-making and fairness to all refugee claimants, a
paper review on merit may be conducted by a division of the IRB. This step is
intended to ensure fairness and reduce the number of protracted applications for
leave for judicial review by the Federal Court.
Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA)
In keeping with Canada's international commitment not to repatriate people who
would face risk upon return, the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) will be
provided on the same consolidated protection grounds, and coordinated with CIC
removal priorities. Pursuant to the Geneva Convention, serious criminals, security
risks, and members of organized crime groups will be excluded from consideration
of refugee protection grounds. Their PRRA will be limited to risk of torture and cruel
and unusual punishment.
Linking the PRRA and the removal process will allow for expeditious -yet fair -
treatment of all removal cases. This will ensure that no one will be sent to a
situation of risk to life or cruel and unusual punishment in their country of
nationality.
Six month bar on repeat claims
If a person returns to Canada after removal, they will not be allowed to reapply for
refugee status for six months following removal. Prior to the six months, previously
refused claimants would continue to have the option of seeking protection at any
Canadian mission abroad. Persons who return to Canada after six months may
apply for a pre-removal risk assessment but they are not able to re-access the
refugee protection system of the IRB.
Criminals will be barred from the Refugee Protection System
The new Legislation clarifies inadmissibility criteria to ensure that serious
criminals, terrorists, human rights violators and security risks will be barred from
access to the refugee determination system and promptly removed from Canada.
Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research
P.O. Box 234
Lawson, New South Wales 2783
Australia
Phone: +61 (0)2-4758-6822
URL: www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr
Although the above materials are highly recommended by CAFMR, we do not necessarily share all the views expressed by the authors.
Note about copyright: Any of the above information may be downloaded, copied, printed or otherwise distributed without seeking permission from CAFMR. However, printed acknowledgement is required when this is done.
Bradley R. Smith
Revisionism by: CODOH, POB 439016, San Diego, CA 92143
The Revisionist Campus Project
David Irving's Reply to
Jeffrey Shallit's "Lies of Our
Times"
London,
[ ]
Dear Professor Shallit,
I am not a subscriber to the Internet, but over the last few
months I have heard repeatedly about scurrilous materials
which you have been posting on that medium; at least you
have had the courage to put your name to them as author,
although this lays you open to the kind of lawsuit which I have
started conducting--and winning--here in the British courts.
I have so far seen versions of your Shallit's Report, and of your
"Lies of Our Times." You appear to be interested in the Truth,
and that being so I am making these comments to assist you
in the search for that elusive quantitй.
It appears that your primary source is a handout or handouts
of the Wiener Library (Dr David Cesarini) and of the Board of
Deputies of British Jews, who have furnished the League of
Human Rights of the B'nai Brith Canada with two lengthy
secret reports which are the subject of dispute between me
and the Board under both the Data Protection Act 1984 (the
Board at first denied having any data on me), and the
Defamation Act 1952 (the Board's solicitor is negotiating with
me for permission to withdraw the reports in toto, in return for
an undertaking by me not to pursue the matter in the courts).
First, your "article" Lies of Our Times (forgive the quotation
marks, but as you call me an "historian" it seems justified).
David Irving
David John Cawdell Irving is a British "historian", born in
1938.
* Correct.
According to David Cesarani of the Wiener Library in London,
England, he attended Imperial College at the University of
London, but never graduated. He holds no academic degree
and no academic position at any university or college.
* Correct. The same can be said for Winston S.
Churchill, Thomas Babington Macaulay (The
History of England), and the Gibbon who wrote
The Decline Fall of the Roman Empire, etc.
Would you denigrate them as "historians" too?
He calls himself a "moderate fascist",
* Incorrect. Please produce the source of this
spurious and libellous allegation.
and claims, among other things that the gas chambers at
Auschwitz (in which an estimated 2-3 million people died)
were "built by the Poles after the war as a tourist attraction."
* Not quite correct. I stated (on April 21, 1990 and
other occasions): "The gas chamber which is
shown to the tourists in Auschwitz is a dummy
(Atrappe) built after the war by the Polish
communists as a tourist attraction." In 1990, Dr
Franciszek Piper, the then director of the Auschwitz
State Museum Archives, confirmed that this is
true. As recently as 1995 the present directors
confirmed in an interview with Eric Conan, of the
well-known liberal French weekly L'Express, that
the gas chamber shown to the tourists was
constructed on the orders of the Polish communist
government in 1948. "Tout y est faux," reported
Conan, and the deputy chief of the site stated:
"Pour l'instant, on la laisse en l'йtat et on ne
prйcise rien au visiteur. C'est trop compliquй. On
verra plus tard" (L'Express, January 26, 1995).
(For this remark, he was fined DM 10,000 by a Munich court in
May 1992.
* Correct. On January 13, 1993 the fine was
increased to DM30,000 in view of my refusal to
retract the statement. (Why should I? It was true). In
addition, on July 1, 1993 I was permanently
banned from setting foot in the German Federal
Archives, which had benefited over the years from
my donations of half a ton of archival material
including the diaries of Canaris, Himmler,
Rommel, etc., which I had located, and which they
have now had to relinquish to me; and on
November 13, 1993 I was permanently banned
from Germany. How's that for freedom of speech!
The judge was quoted as saying that the gas chambers of
Auschwitz were "an historically certain fact.")
* Correct. The word used is offenkundig, and is
used in German law to deny defence lawyers the
introduction of any defence exhibits or witnesses,
e.g. the aforementioned Dr Franciszek Piper whom
we were prepared to call. There has been an
outcry in the German legal profession against
these methods, and Germany is to face a rebuke
from the United Nations for her repression of
freedom of opinion by such means. Of course, if
you believe they are correct to adopt such tactics,
such is your right.
Irving denies being a "Holocaust denier" or "Hitler apologist",
and seems willing to resort to legal action if necessary.
* Correct. Last year one of Britain's biggest Sunday
newspapers was forced to pay me substantial
damages after they printed such a libel. I issued a
Libel Writ in the High Court. (For legal reasons,
namely the settlement agreed, I am not permitted
to identify the newspaper or the amount, except off
the record). I am currently pursuing Libel action in
the British courts against The Observer, Deborah
Lipstadt, (whose odious little tract has been
foolishly published here, i.e. within the jurisdiction,
by Penguin UK Ltd) and Svenska Dagbladet. You
have been warned!
In a recent fax printed in the K-W Record, he is reported as
saying, "I have warned 22 British newspapers that I shall not
hesitate to commence libel action if they use smear phrases
such like 'Hitler apologist' or 'Holocaust denier' to embellish
their writings." But Bernard Levin, writing in The Times of
London in May of this year, quoted Irving as saying, "I hope
the court will fight a battle for the German people and put an
end to the blood lie of the Holocaust which has been told
against this country for 50 years."
Irving first entered the headlines in 1970.
* Incorrect. Ever since 1963 my books have been
the subject of wide comment and much praise in
the British media.
In July of that year, he was forced to apologize in the High
Court of London for "making a wholly untrue and highly
damaging statement about a woman writer."--not an
auspicious start for someone who claims to be in pursuit of the
truth.
* Correct. A Sunday Express journalist, Jill -----,
stated that Rolf Hochhuth, the German playwright
and one of my closest friends had granted her an
exclusive interview. Hochhuth assured me he had
not even spoken to her. I mentioned this in a letter
to the newspaper's editor. She sued. As I was
fighting the hideously costly PQ.17 Libel Action at
the time, I had no alternative but to settle out of
court-- "shortening the front," is what military
commanders call such action. Make of that what
you will. Nothing has been heard of that
"journalist" since.
Later that year, Irving was back in the headlines, concerning
publication of his book, "The Destruction of Convoy PQ17".
Ostensibly an expose of an ill-fated 1942 Arctic convoy
headed for the Soviet Union during World War II, it eventually
resulted in Irving being fined 40,000 British pounds for libel.
* Incorrect. In actions for Libel--a tort--the defendant
is not fined, but can be required to pay damages.
The book was published by Simon Schuster and
other leading pubishers around the world. Not bad
for an "historian", eh?
Irving's book faulted Captain John Broome, commander of the
convoy at the time, saying he was guilty of "downright
disobedience" and "downright desertion of the convoy."
* Incorrect. No such allegations or quotations are
contained within the book.
Broome brought suit against Irving for false statements, and
won a judgment in August of 1970. Irving's lawyers appealed,
and lost in March, 1971.
* Correct. We then appealed to the House of Lords,
twice, and lost 4-to-3,which is a pretty close call.
Needless to say the insurers of Cassell Co Ltd,
the British publishers, would not have authorised
such defence actions had their counsel not studied
all the documents available and concluded that we
had a powerful defence, based on the Admiralty
records; this they in fact did, and wrote Opinions to
that effect. Libel actions in Britain are tried by jury.
Make of that what you will.
The case is revealing because of what it says about Irving's
abilities as a historian and his motives as an author.
According to The Times of London, Irving showed a copy of
the manuscript to Broome before publication.
* Correct. I showed the late Captain Broome the
mansucript in 1966, and he agreed to read it and
make comment (as did a score of other officers
involved); breaking his undertaking, he alone
decided not to co-operate, but to wait for
publication and then sue for profit. So be it.
Broome objected to the accuracy of some thirty passages in
the book, and threatened to sue for libel if Irving did not make
changes.
* Incorrect. He objected in reality to six words
("Captain Broome was a broken man"), and after
these words were expunged, years later, his
lawyers permitted the book's republication by
William Kimber Ltd.
At that point, William Kimbers Ltd., Irving's publisher, notified
him that they would not publish the book as it was then
written.
* Incorrect. I was in dispute with William Kimber
after they paid me only J67 instead of the agreed
fee of J200 for translating the book, The Memoirs
or Field-Marshal Wilhelm Keitel. This being so, I
removed the PQ17 manuscript physically from
their offices; Kimber's secretary came running
down the street after me, pleading for me to return
it. I keep a very detailed diary of events. In court,
Kimber, already probably suffering from the
Parkinsonism from which he later died, gave a
totally different version, namely yours; he later
apologised to me, which did not assist me much of
course. Unfortunately, our counsel elected to call
no witnesses in the case but to rest securely on the
Admiralty documents.
Later, Irving published the book with another publisher.
The court found that Irving "was warned from most
responsible quarters that his book contained libels on Captain
Broome ... To make [the book] a success he was ready to risk
libel actions ... Documentary evidence .... showed that [Irving]
had deliberately set out to attack Captain Broome and in spite
of the most explicit warnings persisted in his attack because it
would help sell the book." The court labeled Irving's conduct
as "outrageous and shocking."
Irving's misrepresentations did not end with the publication of
his book. According to Cesarani, in 1979 a German publisher
had to pay compensation to the father of Anne Frank after
printing the German edition of Irving's book, Hitler's War. Irving
had claimed that Anne Frank's diary was a forgery.
* Correct as written. Without consulting me, the
Ullstein Verlag publishing firm, part of the
pro-Israeli Axel Springer Group) made some
unspecified payment to Otto Frank at his demand. I
had already halted production and publication of
the book for other reasons (tampering by Ullstein
with my text). The German Bundeskriminalamt
found that parts of the diary had been written in
(post-war) ballpoint ink-paste, which made its
authenticity problematic. My opinion on it now is
ambivalent: it is unimportant, not a historical
document of any value.
Irving claims that according to his "research", the Holocaust is
greatly exaggerated.
* Correct. I think the figures have been magnified
by an Order of Magnitude. Events in Auschwitz
alone suggest that I am right:: here the figure has
been effortlessly brought down from 4 million to 1