The European Court of Justice has ruled that refugee-status may be taken away from criminals, but even they may not be deported under certain circumstances.
The case also concerns the Czech Republic and the Geneva Convention on Refugees.
* Marian Kechlibar, the author, is on target when he suggests that one of the things the West will have to collectively do one day is to rethink such international commitments such as the Geneva Convention on Refugees.
“Our ancestors, after the war, or in all their idealism, were not gifted with absolute wisdom and foresight to determine the rules of the game – once and for all – for the multitudes of next generations to come in another time…They are just human rights constructions that have arisen under certain conditions. The conditions are now changing, so we have the right to rethink such international law.”
As he explains, these treaties were largely made after World War II, under the overwhelming impression that many states were willing to return innocent Jews back to Germany, basically to death, just because the visa had not been issued. Hence, also an idealistic principle called non-refoulement, a ban on returning refugees to countries where they could be harmed.
The V4 Report agrees: The Geneva Convention is not sacred and times have changed. It’s outdated principles have exposed Europe and must be challenged. Today, few are strong enough to speak out but, as reality sets in, slowly this is beginning to change.
** Translated from Czech: I haven’t read about today’s decision, which was made in Luxembourg (14 May 2019). The source is German Die Welt (article). But the case is very closely connected with our country.
The basis of today’s decision is the case of three men:
– A Chechen granted asylum by the Czech Republic. Even before granting asylum, he committed a crime for which he was convicted by a Czech court (!!!). After granting asylum he committed other serious crimes – according to Welt, it was repeated robbery and blackmail. For this, he received nine years hard time and the Czech Republic took away his asylum. However, the Supreme Administrative Court preferred to refer to the European Court of Justice for clarification of the legal situation.
– A man from Côte d’Ivoire who has applied for asylum in Belgium. He had committed several serious crimes during the asylum procedure (according to Welt, the rape was a minor among them) and the Belgian authorities denied him asylum.
– A Congo man who also applied for asylum in Belgium. After granting asylum, he killed someone. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison, and the Belgian authorities identified him as a generally dangerous individual; consequently, he was deprived of refugee status.
So today there is a binding judgment. Its essence is that, according to European rules, the refugee status of a refugee can be taken away, thereby limiting his rights, but he is also entitled to protection under the Geneva Convention on Refugees and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.
For example, if he is at risk of ill-treatment, degrading punishment, torture, etc., he cannot be deported.
Which, from what I know of Chechnya, will surely threaten our dear national guest, who has enriched us with robbery and blackmail … so he will stay with us unless he is attracted by some richer land west of the basin. Belgium may not be even able to deport a convicted killer to Congo, where other fellows are killing.
One of the things I think we will have to collectively do one day as a Western world will be to rethink such international commitments as the Geneva Convention on Refugees. These treaties were largely made after World War II, under the overwhelming impression that many states were willing to return innocent Jews back to Germany, basically to death, just because the visa had not been issued. Hence also an idealistic principle called non-refoulement, a ban on returning refugees to where they would be harmed.
I know people who are so orthodox in their liberal opinions, that these principles are sacred and inviolable. Even if we were to suffer from multitudes of criminals, they also have human rights. Which then implies that we simply have to endure all the damage and consequences, otherwise we will not be able to call ourselves “civilized people”. The discussion is out of the question, it is a moral imperative, as Angela Merkel would say.
I have been arguing this subject on several occasions – mostly with people who have not been given a well-targeted slap for the last twenty years and have absolutely theoretical ideas about real violence. I lost a few friends about it. It’s a very brisk theme, accompanied by emotional screams like “Do you want it to look like somewhere in Afghanistan?” (Just not here, but that’s the paradox that anyone refuses to even think about.)
For I claim that even post-war human rights agreements are no holy Qur’an, from above revealed, immutable and eternal, according to which we must live and die until the end of the universe. They are just human rights constructions that have arisen under some conditions. The conditions are now changing, so we have the right to rethink such international law, and the possibility of a stricter “reassessment”.
Our ancestors, after the war, or in all their idealism, were not gifted with absolute wisdom and foresight to determine the rules of the game once and for all for the multitudes of next generations to come and live in another world.
I think that the longer this revision – which should also take into account the rights of health and life of the people of the host nations – is delayed, the more likely it will not even happen…and one day the relevant treaties will simply cease to function because the future governments elected by a crowd of angry and stressed voters will quietly resign from their enforcement.
But I have the impression that a certain subtype of fanatic is unable to realize this at all.