Cindor Reeves and the Globe and Mail


The Globe has published an editorial calling on Immigration Minister Jason Kenney to allow Cindor Reeves to stay in Canada.

The Globe’s editorial is based entirely on my articles and blog posts, although they don’t acknowledge as much. I admit I find this bothersome, but am pleased other media are now following the story.

The CBC’s interview with Reeves and with Alan White, former chief of investigations for the Special Court, meanwhile, is now available online.


Cindor Reeves and the Globe and Mail

  1. I'm very glad you kept after this….it's vital.

    Thank you.

  2. Good on you MP.

    Though why the GM would be so chintzy to not give where credit is due is odd. Did you cancel your subscription or dare to disagree with our national opinionator?

  3. Says the Globe: Asylum shopping should be discouraged…

    … but for this guy we are to encourage asylum shopping.

    Don't deport the man to Africa. That's not where he came from. Can ANYONE explain rationally why Canada would be failing in its obligations by shipping this guy back to Germany?

    • Maybe we should ask the Germans? Maybe they feel they have enough on their plate these days asylum wise? Maybe because it would be just passing the buck and maybe because the guy has at least earned a fair and honest hearing?not just stony beauracratic indifference.

      • I am also unsure whether the "certain death if he returns to his birth country" thing is a factual finding of the Immigration dept. or an assertion of the author. if the latter alone, there's nothing inconsistent with returning him there.

        • It's evidently the view of a lot more indviduals then merely the author – including CR's many enemies.

      • Passing the buck? Hello? The man has had his however-many-days to prove his case in Canada and he has failed. Please explain to us how expelling this failed refugee applicant out of the country is passing the buck.

  4. Something I got from the CBC interview on the Current this morning was that in addition to being unable to work at all in Germany, Reeves didn't feel his family was safe there once Taylor was facing trial in the Netherlands next door.

    UK and US and Canada (and other countries in the so-called developed world) have all been involved in the prosecution of Taylor, know what Reeves position is, and haven't done anything but leave him in limbo in Germany. I don't understand why anyone would call this asylum shopping since we're all collectively responsible for upholding the process for war crimes and for refugees.

    The Special Court and Germany should have done better, but so should the UK, the US and Canada. Let's fix it now instead of churning out more oblique and high handed rulings that blame someone who could have just lived comfortably under the wing of a despot, but at great risk to himself began informing on Taylor on his own initiative at the age of 16.

    • I don't understand why anyone would call this asylum shopping…

      Try "because he left Germany when he wasn't supposed to, because he didn't like not having a job." He went looking for a more optimal asylum. That sounds a lot like… shopping, actually.

      • Returning Reeves to Germany is not an option as he never had permanent legal status there. In 2002, Reeves was living in Ghana with his family when the Special Court for Sierra Leone, with whom he was already cooperating, learned from a source close to Charles Taylor that Taylor had sent a team to kill him. The Court spirited Reeves to Sierra Leone, where he was debriefed for six weeks, but didn't have a long-term plan for where he might stay. They made arrangements to place him and his family under witness protection, first in Holland and then in Germany. These arrangements, however, were temporary and didn't work well. Reeves felt abandoned by the Special Court, an assessment that is echoed by Alan White, chief of investigations for the Court from 2002 to 2005, who helped place Reeves in Germany. I detailed all of this here: http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/22/the-man-who-br

        • OK, thanks, Michael. "[N]ever had permanent legal status" in Germany sounds odd, though, for someone who was actually there and who had witness-protection arrangements. It still puzzles me that Germany is not an option.

          And doesn't Canada have some sort of policy of sending rejected applicants back to the "previous safe country of provenance" (or whatever the term is called)? Was that only a policy proposal that was never implemented, or am I just dreaming and no such policy ever existed even in the planning stages?

          And I will repeat a rhetorical question that I threw out there as a comment to your July 2009 piece (my my but our refugee rejection process is a swift beast, eh?): "Maybe the rich western countries who have helped mess up that part of Africa owe a greater duty of care to this family than does Canada?"

      • Let me guess, you didn't listen to the audio link. It wasn't just that he couldn't work, it was also that he wasn't given the necessities of life for himself and his family on a regular basis. By the sounds of it, Germany was actively trying to get out of the arrangement with the Special Court. The question that should be asked, of course, is why–did Cindor Reeves do something, or did Germany just wake up one morning and wonder why they were holding the bag? And how, come to that, did Cindor Reeves and his family manage to get from there to here when they had nothing? Instead of food, did they receive a plane ticket or three to Canada?

  5. Jenn noted:
    "It wasn't just that he couldn't work, it was also that he wasn't given the necessities of life for himself and his family on a regular basis"

    Ah, yes. There lies the rub.

    Germany – no welfare
    Canada – welfare for all.

    Of course he would want to come here. He's probably been paying attention to how well other line jumpers have it.

    Tamil? No problem…here's a cheque. Oh…and a publicly funded lawyer.

    The public of course….is the rest of us who work and pay taxes.

    No wonder Canada is seen as a patsy.

    We are one.

    • "other line jumpers have it"
      there is no line, if you can get yourself to Canada, you have the right to request asylum.

      • McC wrote:
        "there is no line, if you can get yourself to Canada, you have the right to request asylum."

        We'll forego for a moment that you are completely and utterly misinformed, and simply ask;

        And you are ok with this? In effect, the worlds detrius can be lie, cheat, or finagle their way into Canada and taxpayers have the responsibility to pay all expenses and provide a living to these people who have done NOTHING for Canada other than take advantage of our lax laws?

        Welcome to Canada……(play on American words here)

        -Give us your deadbeats
        -Give us your religiuos intolerance
        -Give us your sexist, 7th Century Ideology
        -Give us the right to pay welfare to you and your multiple wives (granted, this is mostly a British phenomena)
        -Give us the right to pay for as many leeches…er, lawyers as you require to flout our laws
        -Give us your terrorists.

        One last question CC.

        If Bin Laden were to show up on our doorstep…..please define what rights you believe he SHOULD have.

  6. the "line" to which I refer McC, is for legitimate immigrants. You are assuming anyone who comes here is coming here for fear of their life. In fact, what we have been seeing for quite some time now are people from other lands coming to canada for economic reasons, not safety reasons. We spend millions of dollars each year having to deal with this problem.

    If you were referring strictly to legitimate refugees, then yes, there is no such thing as a line-up, however, I think it has been made abundantely clear that many of our refugee claimants are not in fear of their lives, they are simply trying to get to Canada to get a free "livelihood".

    So again, I ask my question.

    And you are ok with that? (anyone getting on Canadian soil having access to free welfare, legal fees, etc..etc..)

    Now…what about Osama?

    Pray tell me whatever should we do with him if he shows up?

Sign in to comment.