Fri, February 11, 2005
Cruel law splits families
By VALERIE GIBSON -- For the Toronto Sun
We live in a wonderful country that's tolerant, fair and compassionate. Right?
Wrong! Not when it comes to our attitudes towards the disbaled. Especially government attitudes to immigration and the disabled.
Did you know, for instance, that it's against the law to bring a disabled child or adult to live in this country? Even a member of your family?
No? Well, you're not alone.
Few Canadians are aware of this cruel law that stems from the ignorant old days.
But, despite rare court challenges over the years by stunned parents and families, the draconian law persists.
It's a stand that a wealthy South African entrepreneur has been battling for the past four years, a costly fight that has finally arrived in the Supreme Court of Canada for a decision -- expected within the next two months.
David Hilewitz desperately wants to bring his 21-year-old son Gavin with him to live in Canada. Although his own application has been granted, his son has consistently been refused entry -- because he's mentally challenged.
Despite the fact Canada frequently states it's anxious to attract quality immigrants, especially successful business entrepreneurs such as the multi-millionaire Hilewitz, they're shown the door if they attempt to bring their disabled family members with them.
This rejection is based on a clause in the Immigration Act which bars children or adults who would place "excessive demands" on health and social services. This is enforced without exception, even if the family, like the Hilewitzes, can well afford to pay for private education and any necessary assistance or services.
This is not about someone trying to "buy" his way into the country. This is a story about a father courageously fighting an archaic and unfair law that should not exist.
In fact, when I mention this law to people, their reaction is invariably disbelief, then shock and surprise -- and finally, disgust.
Surely, they say, that's discrimination? They cannot believe a country that's so welcoming to everyone, no matter what their race, religion, country or even (often) dubious history, would bar others on the basis of their handicaps.
Although fair-minded people would agree this is true, the law is upheld rigorously.
Perhaps more surprising is that such a severe law isn't challenged far more often, not only by hopeful, would-be immigrant families who've had their dreams crushed but by fair-minded average Canadians.
But for most potential immigrants, a lengthy and costly legal suit against the very government from which they're seeking permission to stay, is out of the question.
The last court challenge to the law was in 1991 by Angela Chesters, the wife of a Canadian citizen. Her husband was promoted from England back to Canada -- but they were told she would be barred entry because she uses a wheelchair.
Despite the fact both would have been gainfully employed, they were told her disability was the only consideration in barring her. After a couple of failed court challenges, the couple eventually gave up the struggle and resettled in Germany.
Chesters said at the time that the law "doesn't fit with the picture of Canada as being a free country, so generous and so accepting of minorities." How right she is!
I personally understand her bitterness and frustration.
I'm a hard-working Canadian citizen, yet my daughter Sarah is not welcome here -- because she's challenged.
In fact, in order to obtain precious immigrant status years ago, I had to sign an affidavit stating I'd never attempt to bring her here to live, under any circumstances -- or risk arrest. It was a heartbreaking decision to make.
There is plenty of Canadian anger vented when criminals are allowed entry and continue their activities once they arrive, but no one says a word it seems when a challenged or disabled person is denied a future with their family here.
Yet the unbelievable financial cost and societal damage caused by such criminals, including incarceration and ensuring their "rights" are upheld, is surely far beyond anything a new Canadian's disabled family member could ever incur.
What's more, given a choice, I'm certain I know who Canadians would prefer to allow into the country.
I also know that a father having to bitterly fight through the courts to have his son by his side is not about money, it's about bad laws. And this one stinks.
