Contradictions cover a multitude of sins
BY ROISIN DE ROSA
Last Thursday, 10 February, the Irish Minister for Justice,
Equality and Law Reform, John O'Donoghue, announced to a distinguished
gathering of NGOs and their representatives, over smoked salmon and
drinks, that it was the policy of his government ``that all classes of
immigrants, whether illegal or otherwise, will be treated fairly,
humanely and in accordance with principles which respect their human
dignity''. He omitted to mention, however, that they will be treated
as second-class human beings.
The previous day, the minister
published a second list of amendments to the Illegal Immigrants
(Trafficking) Bill, 1999, currently before the Dail, which aim to
tighten up the High Court appeal procedures for asylum seekers whose
applications for refugee status have been rejected.
At present, refugees have three months to appeal the refusal of
status to the High Court. The minister proposed to amend the
Trafficking Bill so that refugees who wish to appeal the Refugee
Appeals Tribunal decisions (described as ``a travesty of justice'' by
Senior Counsel Peter Findlay in his resignation last month from the
chairmanship of the tribunal) will have just 14 days to lodge their
application.
``It amounts to denying refugees the right to appeal, or to seek a
judicial review at all,'' says Pat Guerin of National Federation of
Campaigns Against Racism. ``A refugee, whose entitlement to legal aid
is strictly limited, who may have difficulty with language and extreme
difficulty with procedures, has to assess the basis of refusal and
prepare an appeal and complete all this within the time limit that is
near impossible. The proposed amendment is an unwarranted restriction
on the rights of a person to defend their personal liberty.''
It is only through resort to the High Court that applicants for
refugee status can get their case heard in a court of law, as opposed
to the tribunal system, which as Peter Finlay pointed out, had
unacceptable legal standards and ``trammelled'' over the rights of
asylum-seekers.
The minister's amendments to the Trafficking Bill go on to say that
the decision of the High Court on leave to apply for judicial review
is final and there will be no appeal to the Supreme Court allowed,
unless the High Court allows, on the grounds that the decision
involves a ``point of law of exceptional public importance, and it is
in the public interest that an appeal should be made to the Supreme
Court''.
A spokesperson for the minister is reported as saying that the
amendments would avoid situations where the courts were used to make
applications which were `vexatious' or served to delay.
Amazingly, in the only publicly published response to Peter
Findlay's resignation and the criticisms he raised of the tribunal
appeal system, the minister proposes a further amendment, that ``a
person shall not be appointed to be the chairperson unless the Civil
Service Commissioners... have selected him or her for appointment to
the position.''
In place of a public response to serious criticism by a senior
appointee, the ministerial retort takes the form of an amendment to
legislation which alters the methods of selection for that
appointment. ``This is indeed dangerous stuff,'' Pat Guerin comments.
``We await the Department of Justice's response to Peter Findlay's
criticisms. Is it simply to be a change in the law which amounts to
saying that he should not have been appointed in the first place?''
``So much for treating refugees, illegal or otherwise, fairly,
etc., etc. ``And what, anyway, is an `illegal' asylum seeker?'' Pat
asks. ``Was it the Turks that Mr. Haider, in Austria was talking about
last week, or just the foreigners that the German Chancellor, Gerhard
Schroder, says he's had enough of, or just the hundreds of refugees
who have died on the way to Fortress Europe, or in detention or from
racist attacks once they arrived here?''
![[An Phoblacht]](http://republican-news.org/graphics/title_gifs/aprn.gif)