Dear Readers,
I have been contacted by reporters already who have asked me for my reaction to the Huntley ruling on November 24, 2010. Having gone through the entire refugee claim myself and through the entire judicial review proceeding (the “appeal”) with co-counsel Mr. Galati, here is my reaction.
Mr. Huntley had two objectives when he brought his refugee claim:
1) That he finds protection in Canada and
2) That he informs the world what a sickly place South Africa is for many white South Africans.
Â
As far as his first objective is concerned, Mr. Huntley is still in Canada. He has an opportunity for a new hearing and also some other remedies that can ensure his safety in Canada.
As far as his second objective is concerned, in my view, he has succeeded. This case has contributed towards placing the plight of many white South Africans in South Africa on the world stage. Further, the court clearly and expressly stated that while the evidentiary foundation might have been lacking in Mr. Huntley’s case, in another case, a white South African could qualify for refugee protection. You need to go no further than paragraph 234 of the decision to realize this. For convenience, paragraph 234 is reproduced below:
[234]    In addition, and as I have indicated, I have serious reservations about why this particular white South African came to Canada and, after a considerable delay, opted to claim refugee status. Once again, however, just because the Respondent’s circumstances may not qualify as persecution under section 96 of the Act does not mean that I am saying that other white South Africans could not so qualify.
As far as I am concerned, this statement has opened the door for other white South Africans to come to Canada or any other country that has signed the refugee Convention, to make a refugee claim and to be awarded protection if their particular facts and an evidentiary foundation qualify them for protection.
Russell Kaplan
