Iraqi refugees in New Zealand have accused Amer Mahdi al-Khashali, Saddam's former Minister of Agriculture and Winston's latest whipping boy, of participating in atrocities:
Auckland Refugee Council president Dr Munjid Umara, a refugee from Iraq, was horrified to learn al-Khashali is in New Zealand."When the Baath Party came into power in 1963 he was one of the active ones. He was one of the leaders of the militia which killed all those Iraqis between February 1963 and November 1963."
Dr Umara said Saddam made al-Khashali a minister in the 1970s in return for many years of service to the Baath Party. "He is a very old man of the party, since the 1950s."
If true, this is probably grounds for eviction (I say "probably" because it depends on how the government has treated similar cases. Have we allowed anyone from Pinochet's Chile or Suharto's Indonesia to live or visit here?) - and it is definitely grounds for denial of refugee status. At the same time, we must follow a fair procedure which respects natural justice and gives Mr al-Khashali the opportunity to tell his side of the story. Instead, we have one man leaping to judgement on primarily political considerations. That's not the rule of law; it's the arbitrary despotism of kings.
3 comments:
Icehawk: I'm pushing the hypocrisy angle in the hope that the government will adopt a consistent position, and start taking a harder line on those complicit in crimes against humanity from "friendly" regimes. I agree that Winston has performed a useful function in showing (once again) what a bunch of screwups Immigration are - but I dislike intensely the way he has done it. And his witch-hunt tactics aren't likely to make things any easier for ordinary Iraqi refugees (or Arabs in general) living in New Zealand.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 5/04/2005 05:24:00 PM
Sock Thief: I have grave concerns about torture in the new Iraq, though I've seen no reports of it being applied to former Baathist officials. So far, from what I've seen, the process they are working through for trying members of the former regime for their crimes seems robust and fair. The only sticking point is the death penalty - but if an assurance was given on that front, then I've no problem with extraditing people there if they are charged with crimes against humanity.
As for your reference to the Zaoui case, as a signatory to the Refugee Convention (which has been incorporated into NZ law, according to the Court of Appeal), and having found Zaoui to be a genuine refugee fleeing oppression in Algeria (something the government is not challenging in court), we cannot deport him back there, EOFS (and its arguable whether we can even deport him somewhere where he is likely to be deported...)
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 5/04/2005 05:25:00 PM
> I say "probably" because it depends on how the government has treated similar cases.
I think how others were treated is irrelevant - you should deliberate on how a case should be delt with and when you have the right answer correct the system. this is far better than looking for some quirk of history to set your precident.
> If either of these people were directly invloved with Saddam's crimes
personally I doubt it - your average run of the mill diplomat wasn't making chemical weapons, he may have been aware of what was going on though. Furthermore proving that he knew or was involved is probably next to impossible. he could be the most evil guy in the world and you probably wouldn't find out.
I am somewhat inclined to let him stay until I have more evidence he is not a good prospective resident of NZ - unless he is in breach of a law of some sort.
Posted by Genius : 5/04/2005 06:44:00 PM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).