Article content continued

As horrible as it is, abuse itself does not permit one to claim refugee status

There are a number of problems with Mohammed’s tale, and they signal a flouting of legal procedure, seemingly brought about by Mohammed’s savvy use of social media to elicit sympathy. The spirit of the law, as well as its letter, were undermined in this case.

First, Mohammed was not in immediate danger. Thailand had granted her asylum and protection. A generally agreed upon legal principle is that a refugee should settle in their first “safe country,” which in Mohammed’s case was Thailand. If she wished to come to Canada, then she should have gone through the normal channels. No migrant has the right to choose whatever country they like, especially when so many are denied such opportunity.

One woman who continues to be denied asylum is Asia Bibi, who is languishing in Pakistan, afraid for her and her family’s life. Bibi, a Christian who allegedly blasphemed against the Prophet Mohammed, was recently acquitted of all charges, but Pakistan’s government refuses to let her leave the country. Currently in hiding, Bibi cannot travel freely within Pakistan, as religious extremists hunt her from “house to house.” At least, prima facie, Bibi has a better case than Mohammed’s, yet it would appear that Trudeau is happy to remain on Pakistan’s good side.

Indeed, Bibi’s story can be further distinguished from Mohammed’s: we cannot verify the latter’s tale. The Saudi teen claims family mistreatment, but it is difficult to corroborate her claim. Canada might be able to exert reasonable pressure on Kuwait to investigate Mohammed’s allegations, but until facts are ascertained, we do not know anything about this teenage girl. Granted, she has already taken the irreversible step of leaving Saudi Arabia, which is laudable in itself — but the fact remains that her story has not been, and probably cannot be, verified.