A Detained Canadian Child in Texas Pleads for Help

"Kevin", the 9 year old Canadian boy in US detention with his Iranian parents has sent this letter to PM Harper to ask for his help:


Heatbreaking.

The Globe and Mail has Peter MacKay's reaction to the situation:

WASHINGTON — A young Canadian boy and his parents held at a Texas detention centre won't be deported to Iran while officials consider their status, says Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay.

Mr. MacKay said Canada is offering consular assistance to the nine-year-old boy named Kevin and his Iranian parents.
[...]
Mr. MacKay said Friday he has been told that they will remain at the centre in Austin until Canadian officials have looked at all the options.

I'd like to think that Mackay is finally paying attention to this case based on the pleas many of us in the blogosphere have made since this case came to light. Regardless, at least MacKay is stepping up to the plate and has received assurances that the family will not be sent back to Iran. Let's hope the US government keeps its word.

Annamarie of Verbena19 blog (who has been working feverishly on this case) also sent me a link to this Maclean's magazine article about the situation which outlines some of the legalities involved.

"Under the terms of the [Safe Third Country] agreement, there is room for exceptions to be made for reasons of public policy," she said. "The agreement doesn't articulate what the criteria are for an exception… [but] you could argue that an exception should be made when they have a child who's a Canadian citizen."

The public policy claim, in other words, would be that the Safe Third Country agreement is effectively thwarting a nine-year-old boy's right to live in the country where he gained citizenship by virtue of birthplace. And whatever the future might hold for the family, that might at least free the boy from what he and his father describe as fairly grim conditions.

The fact that this family ended up in the United States as the result of odd circumstances ought to be a major consideration when it comes to making an exception to that agreement as should the conditions at the Hutto facility:

Macklin argues that such facilities might themselves represent a flaw in the Safe Third Country agreement. "The premise underlying the…agreement is that the two countries provide more or less equivalent protection to refugees and more or less abide by their international legal obligations," she said. "Obviously if there were wild disparities between the two, it wouldn't be fair to refugee claimants to force them into one system or the other.

"The widespread use of the detention of children is a significant difference between Canada and the United States, and that detention of children is itself considered by many to be a violation of international human rights norms."

That's definitely an avenue that needs to be explored but, considering the fact that the Bush administration has no qualms about violating the human rights of protected persons under international conventions and even US laws, pursuing that angle may well be fruitless at this point.

Please see this action alert for more background and to find out how you can help.