DOCSLIB.ORG

Inadmissibility Certificates by David Matas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Inadmissibility Certificates by David Matas Inadmissibility Certificates by David Matas Of all the elements in the Canadian fight against terrorism the most controversial, bar none, has been the use of certificates under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The certificate procedure is directed only against non-citizens in order to remove them from Canada. The procedure has resulted in the prolonged detention of a number people on secret evidence. A certificate is issued by two Ministers jointly, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. A certificate is issued where the Ministers have formed the opinion that an individual is inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights serious criminality or organized criminality. The legislation requires the Ministers to refer any such certificate to the Federal Court for a ruling on whether the determination by the Ministers on admissibility is reasonable. I. The cases In recent years, there have been six certificates which have attracted widespread attention. One was against Ernst Zundel, detained under a certificate in May 2003 and deported to Germany in March 2005. Two certificates were issued prior to September 11, 2001. One of these was against Mohammad Mahjoub of Egypt, subject to a certificate in June 2000. The other was against Mahmoud Jaballah of Egypt issued in August 2001. The Federal Court ordered the release of Jaballah in April 2007 and Mahjoub in November 2009 subject to terms and conditions. Of the three issued since September 11, one, Adil Charkaoui of Morocco, was in detention from May 2003 to February 2005. Hassan Almrei of Syria was detained October 2001 and ordered released, subject to conditions, in January 2009. Mohammed Harkat of Algeria was detained in December 2002 and ordered release subject to conditions in May 2006. 2 The case of Ernst Zundel is different from the others, not just because of his religion. The five from Egypt, Syria, Morocco and Algeria all faced the risk of torture on their return. Their going back home to escape detention in Canada was a dangerous option. Ernst Zundel did not face the risk of persecution on return to Germany. He could have ended his Canadian detention at any time at no risk of persecution to himself simply by agreeing to return to Germany. The detention of Ernst Zundel was, like much of his other legal troubles in Canada, self inflicted in order to bring publicity to his neo-Nazi cause. His detention can be linked to his own design rather than circumstance. The other five, though, are the victims of both design and circumstance, what they did and what others, on return, would do to them, the combination of the certificate procedure, its accompanying detention regime, and the risk of torture or death on return. II. The 2002 changes Defenders of the certificate procedure have said that it is an old procedure, not part of the anti-terrorism package which was enacted as a result of September 11. The only person whose detention began under the post September 11 changes was Harkat. Nonetheless, the use of certificate procedure, once it is justified by September 11, requires a closer look as part of the review of the post September 11 measures. Moreover, even though there was an old procedure associated with certificates under the old Act, that old procedure is significantly different from the procedure enacted as part of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which came into effect June 28, 2002. Immediately after September 11, what became the 2002 legislation was still before Parliament in the form of Bill C-11. Then Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Elinor Caplan urged the enactment of Bill C-11 because of September 11, as a means of responding 3 to the post September 11 enhanced terrorist threat. III. Four laws Though the certificate is criticised as one law, or legal procedure, it is, in fact, three sets of laws, each with its own procedure. One is the law on secrecy. The second is the law on detention. The third is the law on return to torture. In addition, there is a fourth law in the wings, the criminal law. A certificate procedure is an alternative to prosecution. But whether it is a viable alternative deserves consideration. A. Secrecy (i) Two procedures Ministerial certificates are commonly called security certificates. However, the certificate law is not only about security. It is about both more and less. It is about more, in the sense that it encompasses violation of human or international rights, serious criminality, and organized criminality, as well as security 1 . Certificates can be issued on any of these grounds. It is about less in the sense that what the certificate procedures are truly about is secrecy. When certificates are informally called security certificates, they are misnamed. They are rather secrecy certificates. The Government of Canada does not need a certificate to remove a person from Canada who is inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality. In fact, many persons the Government considers to be inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality are removed without certificates. 1 Act section 77(1). 4 The standard procedure for removal, for all grounds of inadmissibility, is, first, the issuance a report from an immigration officer that the individual is, in the opinion of the officer, inadmissible. Next comes a determination by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or his delegate whether or not the report is well founded. If the Minister or his delegate forms the opinion that the report is well founded, the report is referred to the Immigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board. The Immigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board makes a determination on admissibility and, if the Division finds the person inadmissible, issues a removal order2. Any person whom the Government considers to be inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality can be removed through this procedure. Proceedings before the Immigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board are, as a general rule, to be conducted in public3. Those proceedings can be conducted in private if the Division is satisfied that there is risk to the person, to fairness or to security4. These proceedings can even be conducted in the absence of the individual5. One reason is the non-appearance of the person. If the individual does not show up, the proceeding can be concluded without the person6. Another, and for the purposes of this text more relevant reason, is that disclosure would be 2 Act sections 44(1) and (2), 45(d). 3 Act section 166(a). 4 Act section 166(b). 5 Act section 164. 6 Act section 168. 5 injurious either to national security or to the safety of any person7. The legislation provides that anything done by the Federal Court under the certificate procedure can also be done by the Immigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board following the normal inadmissibility procedure. Instead of two Ministers signing a certificate, the Minister's representative makes an application for non-disclosure to the Immigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board8. One difference between the Board procedure and the Federal Court certificate procedure is that the Board procedure may or may not involve non-disclosure to the other side. The Federal Court certificate procedure is predicated on non-disclosure to the other side. Unless the Ministers determine there is to be non-disclosure, there is no point in engaging the certificate procedure. If the Government, from the beginning, takes the view that non-disclosure to the other side is appropriate, the Act mandates the certificate procedure. The Board power to order non-disclosure arises, according to the wording of the legislation, "during an admissibility hearing, a detention review or an appeal before the Immigration Appeal Division,", that is to say after the hearing has commenced. The power appears designed as a safety valve, where the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration at the commencement of admissibility proceedings is not aware of any matter which requires non-disclosure, but where, during a Board hearing, an unanticipated need for non-disclosure arises. The Minister in such a situation has an option, either continuing with the hearing and seeking an order of non-disclosure or withdrawing the allegation and recommencing under the certificate procedure. 7 Act section 77(2). 8 Rule 41. 6 The true significance of the certificate procedure is evident from the title heading for the Division of the Act which sets out the procedure. That heading is "Protection of Information" and not "Security" or "Inadmissibility". The certificate procedure would be better named the protection of information procedure, or the confidential procedure or the ex parte procedure, or, as I suggested earlier, the secret procedure. Though in form what the two ministers - the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness - are doing when they sign a certificate is stating that the individual is inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality, in substance, what they are doing is determining that a person who is to be the subject of removal proceedings should not have disclosed to him or her some of the information relevant to removal. Unless there were this determination that there needs to be secrecy, the whole procedure would be unnecessary and the Government could seek a removal order in the normal way, as it does for all others the Government considers inadmissible. This difference between form and substance speaks to one change that needs to be made to the current procedure.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • David Matas Papers Mg 31, E
    Manuscript Division des Division manuscrits DAVID MATAS PAPERS MG 31, E 109 Finding Aid No. 2053 / Instrument de recherche no 2053 Prepared by Emily Butler under the supervision of Préparé par Emily Butler sous la supervision de Lawrence Tapper, Social and Cultural Archives Section Lawrence Tapper, section des Archives socialles et in 1995. culturelles en 1995. -ii- TABLE OF CONTENTS INVENTORY ENTRY ........................................................ iii CASE FILES ................................................................ 1 REFUGEE AND IMMIGRATION ISSUES ........................................ 24 HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES .................................................... 33 LEGAL ISSUES ............................................................. 48 WAR CRIMES .............................................................. 50 LIBERAL PARTY ........................................................... 57 JEWISH ORGANIZATIONS ................................................... 59 PERSONAL ................................................................ 61 -iii- INTRODUCTION MATAS, David MG 31, E 109 Vol. File Subject Date CASE FILES 1 1 Aggarwal, Veena Kumari part 1 1978-1979 1 2 Aggarwal, Veena Kumari part 2 1978-1979 1 3 Akbari, Assadullah part 1 1992-1993 1 4 Akbari, Assadullah part 2 1992-1993 1 5 Akbari, Assadullah part 3 1992-1993 1 6 Akbari, Assadullah part 4 1992-1993 1 7 Alcantara, Hercules 1980 1 8 Alvero-Rautert, Dianena part 1 1985-1988 1 9 Alvero-Rautert, Dianena part 2 1985-1988 1 10 Alvero-Rautert, Dianena part 3
    [Show full text]
  • IMMIGRATION LAW REPORTER Third Series/Troisi`Eme S´Erie Recueil De Jurisprudence En Droit De L’Immigration VOLUME 99 (Cited 99 Imm
    IMMIGRATION LAW REPORTER Third Series/Troisi`eme s´erie Recueil de jurisprudence en droit de l’immigration VOLUME 99 (Cited 99 Imm. L.R. (3d)) EDITORS-IN-CHIEF/REDACTEURS´ EN CHEF Cecil L. Rotenberg, Q.C. Mario D. Bellissimo, LL.B. Barrister & Solicitor Ormston, Bellissimo, Rotenberg Don Mills, Ontario Toronto, Ontario Certified Specialist Certified Specialist ASSOCIATE EDITOR/REDACTEUR´ ADJOINT Randolph Hahn, D.PHIL.(OXON), LL.B. Guberman, Garson Toronto, Ontario Certified Specialist CARSWELL EDITORIAL STAFF/REDACTION´ DE CARSWELL Cheryl L. McPherson, B.A.(HON.) Director, Primary Content Operations Directrice des activit´es li´ees au contenu principal Graham B. Peddie, LL.B. Product Development Manager Sharon Yale, LL.B., M.A. Jennifer Weinberger, B.A.(HON.), Supervisor, Legal Writing J.D. Supervisor, Legal Writing Peter Bondy, B.A.(HON.), LL.B. Heather Stone, B.A., LL.B. Lead Legal Writer Lead Legal Writer Rachel Bernstein, B.A.(HON.), J.D. Peggy Gibbons, B.A.(HON.), LL.B. Legal Writer Senior Legal Writer Stephanie Hanna, B.A., M.A., LL.B. Mark Koskie, B.A.(HON.), M.A., LL.B. Senior Legal Writer Legal Writer Nicole Ross, B.A., LL.B. Amanda Stewart, B.A.(HON.), LL.B. Legal Writer Senior Legal Writer Martin-Fran¸cois Parent, LL.B., LL.M., DEA (PARIS II) Bilingual Legal Writer Erin McIntosh, B.A.(HON.) Content Editor IMMIGRATION LAW REPORTER, a national series of topical law reports, Recueil de jurisprudence en droit de l’immigration, une s´erie nationale de is published twelve times per year. Subscription rate $361 per bound volume recueils de jurisprudence sp´ecialis´ee, est publi´e 12 fois par anne´e.
    [Show full text]
  • Inquiry Into Human Organ Trafficking and Organ Transplant Tourism
    Committee Secretary Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade PO Box 6021 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 By email: [email protected] 3 October 2018 Dear Committee Secretary, Submission to the Inquiry into Human Organ Trafficking and Organ Transplant Tourism Please find attached a submission to the Inquiry into Human Organ Trafficking and Organ Transplant Tourism. I thank you for the grant of an extension of time in which to lodge this submission. If you would like to discuss any aspect of this submission, please contact me by email at [email protected]. Yours faithfully, Dr David Matas International Human Rights Lawyer Winnipeg, Canada Dr David Matas, Submission to the Inquiry into Human Organ Trafficking and Organ Transplant Tourism 1 Submission to the Inquiry into Human Organ Trafficking and Organ Transplant Tourism Contents 1. About Dr David Matas 2. Australian deterrence of international organ trafficking 3. Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and organ transplant abuse in China 4. Bodies exhibits 5. Reporting 6. Conclusion Dr David Matas, Submission to the Inquiry into Human Organ Trafficking and Organ Transplant Tourism 2 1. About Dr David Matas Dr David Matas is an international human rights lawyer, author and researcher based in Winnipeg and currently acts as Senior Honorary Counsel for B’nai Brith Canada. He has served the government of Canada in numerous positions including as member of the Canadian delegation to the United Nations Conference on an International Criminal Court; the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research; and the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe Conferences on Antisemitism and Intolerance.
    [Show full text]
  • Words Matter: Peer Review As a Failing Safeguard by Tom Quiggin
    PERSPECTIVES ON TERRORISM Volume 7, Issue 2 Words Matter: Peer Review as a Failing Safeguard by Tom Quiggin Abstract [1] Peer review is intended to support the quality and standards of academic work. The peer review process has been questioned recently in a number of different arenas. Source reliability and information credibility can be a problem when an academic scholar or an academic product steps into the public realm through a court case. In these circumstances, it is not just the credibility of the academic community that is being tested: lives and liberty can be at stake. Peer-reviewed article must provide a basic standard of trustworthiness. At a minimum, the peer review process, though a fact checking process, should be able to assure the reader that the sources of the information are reliable and the information provided is credible. Testing Reliability Some years ago, information from a peer-reviewed journal paper was rejected by the Federal Court of Canada in a terrorism-related court case. The judgement of the court identified that a component of the paper depended on sources of questionable reliability.[2] Additionally, the judge raised concerns about other information entered into court in the same case which had a patina of academic credibility.[3] The case is significant, in that the judge also determined that the accused in question had spent six and a half years in detention on a national security certificate without ever actually being a threat.[4] Consider the following sentences from an article used in this court case that was earlier published in a peer-reviewed journal.[5] “The terrorists who attacked the London transport system in July 2005 [6] were subsequently found to have been in possession of a large cache of illicit identity documents.
    [Show full text]
  • Solidarity and the Silencing of Palestinian Narratives I I
    1'"' Outside the Mi.ilticultural: Solidarity and the Silencing of Palestinian Narratives I I RAFEEF ZIADAH ·I A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO : THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL°FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY GRADUATE PROGRAM IN POLITICAL SCIENCE YORK UNIVERSITY TORONTO, ONTARIO October, 2013 © Rafeef Ziadah, 2013 Abstract This dissertation examines a series of efforts by the Canadian state to silence and censor the Palestine Solidarity Movement (PSM), particularly activism engaged in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign, in the years following the second Palestinian uprising (Intifada) of 2000. Following a delineation of the broad contours of Canada's official multicultural policy, the dissertation seeks to interrogate multicultural policy's inability to·accommodate Palestinian narratives relating to the struggle for Palestinian self-det~rmination. The analysis explores the central contradiction between the multicultural st*e's self-construction as accommodating and even celebrating cultural difference, and Canada's adoption and deployment of the discourse of clash of civilizations and the War on Terror. Rooted in a critique of liberal theories of the state and an understanding of Canada as a racial state embedded in neoliberal global hierarchies as a second tier imperialist state, this study reveals the ways in which notions of "tolerance" may be used to establish boundaries and markers of belonging. Moments of erasure and silencing are analyzed as racializing moments, whereby the state reveals its class and racial character in both domestic and international spheres. Specifically, the manifestations of anti-Arab, anti­ Muslim racism in Canada are interrogated. The silencing campaign against the Palestine Solidarity Movement demonstrates the role official multicultural policy has played in obfuscating this racism.
    [Show full text]
  • Security, Asylum, and the Rule of Law After the Certificate Trilogy Graham Hudson
    Osgoode Hall Law School of York University Osgoode Digital Commons Research Papers, Working Papers, Conference Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper Series Papers 2016 As Good as It Gets? Security, Asylum, and the Rule of Law after the Certificate Trilogy Graham Hudson Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/olsrps Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Human Rights Law Commons Recommended Citation Hudson, Graham, "As Good as It Gets? Security, Asylum, and the Rule of Law after the Certificate Trilogy" (2016). Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper Series. 121. http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/olsrps/121 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Research Papers, Working Papers, Conference Papers at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper Series by an authorized administrator of Osgoode Digital Commons. 1 As Good as it Gets? Security, Asylum, and the Rule of Law after the Certificate Trilogy Introduction Few elements of Canada’s national security apparatus have received as much legal, popular, or scholarly attention as security certificates.1 Although in existence since 1978, they have become a symbol of the heavy human rights costs associated with contemporary counter- terrorism law, policy and practices. The reasons are easy to understand. Certificates are based largely on secret evidence, allow for the indefinite detention of non-citizens who are alleged to pose a threat to the security of Canada, pave the way for the removal of persons to face the substantial risk of persecution, torture, or similar abuses, and are arguably discriminatory on the basis of citizenship.2 The certificate regime also rests on a broader assemblage of security-based policies and practices associated with several high profile human rights abuses, including those perpetrated against Maher Arar, Abdullah Almalki, and Ahmad El Maati.
    [Show full text]
  • Prosecution in Canada for Crimes Against Humanity
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE NYLS Journal of International and Comparative Law Volume 11 Number 3 SYMPOSIA: 1990 Article 5 1990 PROSECUTION IN CANADA FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY David Matas Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/ journal_of_international_and_comparative_law Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Matas, David (1990) "PROSECUTION IN CANADA FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY," NYLS Journal of International and Comparative Law: Vol. 11 : No. 3 , Article 5. Available at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/journal_of_international_and_comparative_law/vol11/iss3/ 5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in NYLS Journal of International and Comparative Law by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@NYLS. PROSECUTION IN CANADA FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY DAVID MATAS * I have been asked to address five questions. Why did I push for prosecution of Nazi war crimes and crimes against humanity? Why did Canada decide in favor of prosecuting of Nazi war criminals and criminals against humanity found in Canada? Why is it important to prosecute these crimes in the way we have in Canada? What are the justifications of punishment? How has it worked out? I will attempt to answer, briefly, each of the questions in turn. But first I will discuss what Canada has done to date. I. CANADIAN ACTION TO DATE There is a whole body of international criminal offenses that is punishable by the Canadian
    [Show full text]
  • Falun Gong in China
    Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal Volume 12 Issue 1 Article 6 6-2018 Cold Genocide: Falun Gong in China Maria Cheung University of Manitoba Torsten Trey Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting David Matas University of Manitoba Richard An EME Professional Corp Legal Services Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gsp Recommended Citation Cheung, Maria; Trey, Torsten; Matas, David; and An, Richard (2018) "Cold Genocide: Falun Gong in China," Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal: Vol. 12: Iss. 1: 38-62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5038/1911-9933.12.1.1513 Available at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gsp/vol12/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Access Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Cold Genocide: Falun Gong in China Acknowledgements This article is dedicated to the Chinese citizens who were innocently killed for their spiritual beliefs. This article is available in Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gsp/vol12/iss1/6 Cold Genocide: Falun Gong in China Maria Cheung University of Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Torsten Trey Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting Washington, D.C., USA David Matas University of Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Richard An York University Toronto, Ontario, Canada Introduction The classical school of genocide studies which traces back to Raphael Lemkin focuses on eradication of a group through the mass murder of its members in a short period.
    [Show full text]
  • ORGAN HARVESTING SPEECH by David Matas Is China Harvesting
    ORGAN HARVESTING SPEECH by David Matas Is China harvesting organs of Falun Gong practitioners, killing them in the process? A Japanese television news agency reporter and the ex-wife of a surgeon in March 2006 claimed that this was happening in Sujiatun, China. Are those claims true? The Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of the Falun Gong in China, an organization headquartered in Washington D.C., in May asked former Minister of State for Asia and the Pacific David Kilgour and me to investigate these claims. We released a report in July 2006 and a revised report in January 2007 which came to the conclusion, to our regret and horror, that the claims were indeed true. The repressive and secretive nature of Chinese governance made it difficult for us to assess the claims. We were not allowed entry to China, though we tried. Organ harvesting is not done in public. If the claims are true, the participants are either victims who are killed and their bodies cremated or perpetrators who are guilty of crimes against humanity and unlikely to confess. We examined every avenue of proof and disproof available to us, thirty three in all. They were: a) General considerations 1) China is a systematic human rights violator. The overall pattern of violations makes it harder to dismiss than any one claimed violation. 2) The Government of China has reduced substantially financing of the health system. Organ transplants are a major source of funds for this system, replacing the lost government funding. 1 3) The Government of China has given the military the green light to raise money for arms privately.
    [Show full text]
  • Canlii - 2005 FC 355 (Canlii) 11/04/2007 05:01 PM
    CanLII - 2005 FC 355 (CanLII) 11/04/2007 05:01 PM Home > Federal > Federal Court of Canada > 2005 FC 355 (CanLII) Français English Almrei v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 355 (CanLII) Date: 2005-03-11 Docket: IMM-8537-03 Parallel citations: (2005), 262 F.T.R. 7 URL: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2005/2005fc355/2005fc355.html Reflex Record (noteup and cited decisions) Date: 20050311 Docket: IMM-8537-03 Citation: 2005 FC 355 BETWEEN: HASSAN ALMREI Applicant - and - THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION and THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA Respondents REASONS FOR ORDER Blanchard J. INTRODUCTION [1] Mr. Hassan Almrei, (the "Applicant"), applies for judicial review of the decision of Debra Normolye, the Minister's Delegate (the "Delegate"), dated October 23, 2003. She determined that the Applicant is not at risk if returned or refouled to Syria so as to preclude his removal pursuant to subsection 115(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 ("IRPA") and, alternatively, determined that the Applicant poses such a danger to the security of Canada that he may, pursuant to paragraph 115(2)(b), be returned to Syria. [2] The Applicant asks this Court to quash the decision of the Delegate and remit his case to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for reconsideration by another Ministerial Delegate. BACKGROUND FACTS http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2005/2005fc355/2005fc355.html Page 1 of 47 CanLII - 2005 FC 355 (CanLII) 11/04/2007 05:01 PM [3] The Applicant, a Syrian national, arrived in Canada on January 2, 1999, using a false United Arab Emirates passport.
    [Show full text]
  • David Matas: 'Transplant Tourism from the Middle East'
    David Matas: ‘Transplant Tourism from the Middle East’ Remarks prepared for delivery to the Middle East Society for Organ Transplantation, Istanbul, Turkey, 10 September, 2014 By David Matas | September 13, 2014 | Last Updated: September 13, 2014 4:29 pm There needs to be more of an effort in the Middle East to combat transplant tourism from the Middle East. National professional associations should require compliance with international standards. My focus is, in particular, transplant tourism from the Middle East into China. Why I have this focus will, in the course of this presentation, become apparent. International Standards These professional international standards worth noting: • The Transplantation Society Ethics Committee Policy Statement ‑ Chinese Transplantation Program November 2006 and Mission Statement (TTS). • The Declaration of Istanbul on Organ Trafficking and Transplant Tourism May 2008 (Istanbul) • World Health Organization Guiding Principles on Human Cell, Tissue and Organ Transplantation, May 2008 (WHO) • World Medical Association Statement on Organ and Tissue Donation October 2012 (WMA) These standards provide: Policies Every national and regional professional association and society should develop a written ethics policy on the clinical practice of transplantation, including the subject of executed prisoners. (TTS) Sources of organs There should be no recovery and no complicity in the recovery of organs or tissues from executed prisoners. (TTS and WMA) Transplant tourism Organ trafficking and transplant tourism violate the principles of equity, justice, and respect for human dignity. (Istanbul) Advertising and brokerage There should be no advertising (including electronic and print media), soliciting, or brokering for the purpose of transplant commercialism, organ trafficking, or transplant tourism.
    [Show full text]
  • Combatting Organ Transplant Abuse in China by David Matas (A Submission to the Irish Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs, July 6, 2017)
    Combatting organ transplant abuse in China by David Matas (A submission to the Irish Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs, July 6, 2017) A comprehensive strategy against organ transplant abuse in China has two prongs. One is efforts to combat the abuse directly in China. A second is to combat complicity abroad in the abuse in China. Efforts to combat abuse in China Foreign policy combatting organ transplant abuse in China should incorporate, at least, these features: 1) Organ transplant abuse in China should be condemned. 2) International instances should be asked to conduct an investigation into organ transplant abuse in China. The request should be made to the Council of Europe, the European Union, the United Nations Human Rights Council and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. 3) China should be asked to provide historical and present death penalty statistics. 4) China should be asked to make publicly accessible its aggregate data from its four transplant registries - for heart, liver, lung and kidney. 5) China should be asked to allow independent outside investigators access to hospital patient and organ donor files. 6) China should be asked to allow independent outside investigators access to hospital financial records and in particular, the amounts received from patients for organ transplants and the amounts spent on all pharmaceuticals related to transplantation. 7) China should be asked to allow independent outside investigators to make unannounced visits to transplant hospitals and organ donation centres. 8) China should be asked to allow access to its prisons by the International Committee of the Red Cross.
    [Show full text]