Shane Jones claims to have granted citizenship to Bill Liu, apparently a member of the Falun Gong religious group on "humanitarian" grounds. Liu feared for his life in the unlikely event that he was deported to China, given that he already held permanent resident status as we blogged yesterday, and would have been able to contest any attempt at deportation.
So we can't help but wonder; where was Shane Jones' humanitarian concern when this case crossed his desk just four months prior to Bill Liu's; the North Shore Times reports (with our emphasis added):
A last-ditch attempt to stop the deportation of an Iranian Christian has been rejected by Associate Immigration Minister Shane Jones.Mr Jones will not overrule an Immigration New Zealand decision to deport 25-year-old Birkenhead resident Bahareh Moradi.His decision writes off the last chance Miss Moradi had to stay in New Zealand.Her three brothers live in New Zealand. All have refugee status.The Moradi family had applied for the deportation to be put on hold until after a High Court judicial review of Miss Moradi’s case in July.That request was turned down by the High Court in March.As the North Shore Times went to print, Miss Moradi was waiting to be sent to Iran by immigration officials.It is feared going back to Iran could be dangerous because she has become a Christian.Under Sharia law, converting from Islam to Christianity is a sin and can be punished by death.Her pastor at St Aiden’s Presbyterian Rinny Westra is shocked at the minister’s decision to uphold the deportation order.He says it is based on flawed reports from the Refugee Status Appeals Authority and Immigration New Zealand."I consider it a complete miscarriage of justice."I testified to her Christian commitment and I still testify to that."Northcote MP Jonathan Coleman says he has done all he can to help Miss Moradi.He presented a petition organised by Mr Westra to Parliament in March.It was referred to select committee."What do you do? We have to accept it.
And here comes the killer line:
"Shane Jones has acted on the advice of his officials and they’ve said there isn’t a case to keep her here."
Perhaps she will, but she's only been asked to look at the process, and not the decision itself, thanks to the extraordinarily narrow Terms of Reference that David Shearer has come up with. It's all a bit like Noel Ingram's inquiry into Philip Field.
11 comments:
"So Shane Jones followed the advice of his officials in the case of Bahareh Moradi, but ignored it in the case of Bill Liu, friend of the Labour Party. We can't help but wonder why"
Ministerial discretion, I expect. Ministers do that, KS, use their discretion on matters where there are conflicting opinions and pressures. Surely that's their purpose? Or do you think rather, that they should slavishly follow the instructions of their staff? Yes Minister much?
You are choosing the worst-case scenario at every opportunity in order to implicate Jones. With John Banks, I notice, you did the opposite - excused him at every turn. Why is that I wonder?
This isn't about John Banks Robert. I've blogged about his situation a number of times since the Dotcom allegations came to light.
But why did Shane Jones use "ministerial discretion" on Bill Liu (who wasn't even in danger of being deported because he already held residence) and not on Bahareh Moradi whose humanitarian circumstances were far more real and immediate than Liu's? That's the question posed in this post; please stick to the subject.
He used 'ministerial discretion' on both cases, I assume, but made different decisions. To try to guess why he decided this way or that way from this distance, is rather futile and entirely speculative, don't you think? We might just as well speculate on why John Banks did what he did. I know Banks isn't the subject of this thread, KS, but there are parallels and I'm sure you don't mean that mention of his name is banned, do you? BTW, when someone asks a question of you, do you answer it directly? It's something I always endeavour to do on my own blog. Try me out, if you have doubts :-)
Ministerial discretion is supposed to be based on a foundation of fact. This and your previous posts have raised lots of questions over the apparent absence of evidence for the Liu decision.
I have to pull you up there RG.
You seem to have a very different view of the world. I regularly ask you direct questions on your blog and, except on a rare occasion, you pretty much ignore them. To come here and try to hold IV2 to a different standard is a trifle disingenuous, don't you think?
Paranormal
He used 'ministerial discretion' on both cases, I assume, but made different decisions. To try to guess why he decided this way or that way from this distance, is rather futile and entirely speculative, don't you think?
I agree Robert; trying to understan why Shane Jones did something is indeed speculative, and probably even futile. But do you not agree that on the face of it it does seem odd that in April 2008 he sent an anonymous Christian girl back to possible death in Iran, then in August of the same year granted citizenship to a wealthy Labour Party friend whose life was not in any immediate danger citing humanitarian grounds, and overriding the decision of officials?
I know that it's very simplistic to put the two cases in those terms, but I think that even you would have to admit that it's a very bad look for Mr Jones.
So he should have either acted on advice in all circumstances or not in all circumstances? What an odd view of the world you have.
The two cases aren't equivalent, so trying to draw conclusions from the decisions in each one is erroneous, but this is about doing whatever you need to do right?
"Ministerial discretion is supposed to be based on a foundation of fact."
While that's false in law, it's probably a good way to operate. You don't know all the facts though do you?
Paranormal - I think you are wrong in your belief about getting your questions answered and urge you to try again. And no, not disingenuous at all, you are simply misreading the situation.
KS, it is indeed a simplistic approach to what is no doubt complex cases. It's easy to imply, as you are doing, that Jones has behaved badly, but that's just your prejudice showing. Given that you know very little of either case, you'd be wiser to reserve your judgement. I can see that you want Jones implicated in wrong-doing, but that's not a responsible position to be making statements from.
Ele - the lack of evidence for the Lui case can be sheeted here - KS lacks evidence. Thank goodness he's not a minister :-)
The two cases aren't completely equivalent Judge, but their timing (April 2008 v August 2008) and the fact that both involved people allegedly facing death if returned to their country of origin makes a comparison interesting to say the least.
What were the "humanitarian grounds" (Jones' words; not mine) that distinguished Bill Liu's case from Bahreh Moradi's? We're never likely to find out, because Shearer has only asked the A-G to look at the process in the Liu case, not the decision itself.
Why do you need to know? The cases were sufficiently different as to be useless for comparative purposes. "Converting" to christianity is a not uncommon way of attempting to get over the line in asylum cases and it's important that such cases are very carefully examined. This one would have been, by immigration officials and the appeal bodies, before it even got to the Minister. That's in sharp contrast to what would have happened in the Liu case because in related to citizenship, not asylum.
You've embarrassed yourself on this thing from start to finish. Time for you to accept you over-egged the slur and move on to the next one.
Just to restate the obvious- It's clear Liu's behaviour bears no resemblance to that of any practitioner of Falun Gong I've ever come across!
Jones' decision was deeply cynical and out of tune with local community values in both these cases!
Post a Comment