Frontier Justice summary

So how did the view of human rights versus citizens’ rights evolve over the course of the twentieth century?

A prime illustration was the response to the 1980s Haitian refugee crisis, during which 25,000 Haitian refugees arrived by boat in Florida in an attempt to flee the violent dictatorship of presidents Doc Duvalier and his son Baby Doc Duvalier, both of whom would leave the corpses of their critics hanging in public areas.

In the 1990s, Mohammad Al Ghazzi and his family faced persecution under Saddam Hussein’s regime due to Al Ghazzi’s brother’s involvement with the Islamic Dawa Party, which opposed Hussein.

After two years of imprisonment following his arrest, Al Ghazzi decided to flee Iraq in hopes of finding asylum in Australia. His story demonstrates the reliance that many refugees have on smugglers, and the dangers it poses.

Post-World War II Europe saw one of the greatest refugee crises of our time. But have things changed for the better in terms of refugee rights? When looking at so-called “Fortress Europe,” it seems that not much has changed at all.

European immigration laws have become increasingly restrictive in recent years. For example, from 1992 to 2005, the British government passed six asylum laws, each making it more difficult to meet the requirements necessary to prove the persecution that refugees face.

In 1989, Canada altered its refugee policy after refugees from Rwanda and India filed appeals against the government’s decisions on their cases. The case, Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, eventually made it to the Supreme Court, which sided with the appellants. The court’s decision was monumental: it gave refugees a constitutional right to a face-to-face hearing.

Canada’s policy still isn’t perfect, but it nonetheless represents a breakthrough in refugee rights. For example, the policy doesn’t state which country the hearing will take place in, nor does it guarantee rights to appeal or legal aid, but the fact that it gives refugees any rights at all is indeed extraordinary.

Canada’s approach to asylum is one borne out of both liberal and democratic conceptions of human rights. A modified version of their approach, which we can call the portable-procedural approach, is highly compatible for worldwide use.

The portable-procedural policy essentially honors the concerns of Hannah Arendt, while adhering to a commitment to honoring human rights.