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