Today across Canada at least 10 places of worship, mostly Christian churches, are providing sanctuary for people ordered deported.
These folks have sought divine shelter after availing themselves of a generous refugee determination process, which has ruled that they jumped the queue to enter Canada.
All have compelling and tragic stories which tug at our heartstrings.
None, however, deserve to stay if we play by the rules.
Steeped in controversial history that has no place in modern multicultural times, the concept of sanctuary relies on a long standing practice derived from Roman law that decreed churches could provide a safe haven from arrest and terror.
In Canada, since 1983 when a Guatemalan was given a stay of deportation after hiding out in a Montreal church, sanctuary in places of worship have mainly been used by refugees who have been denied landed status.
The precedent-emboldened champions of the sanctuary movement to open their doors to increasing numbers of illegal immigrants to circumvent the rules with the help of ecumenical justice.
The sanctuary providers claim that their temples of prayer are places of last resort for the poor and downtrodden failed by the Canadian immigration system.
They hope for the miracle of ministerial discretion while providing shelter for fugitives.
Canadian authorities have allowed this trend to grow because they are reluctant to breach an age old practice.
Not so in France, Britain or the United States where the long arm of the law routinely reaches into church sanctity to nab fugitives.The latest cases to hog the headlines are those of Laibar Singh, a poor paralysed man who has been ordered deported to India and Felicia Abimbola of Nigeria.
Singh is at an Abbotsford Sikh temple while Abimbola is hiding out with her daughter at an Anglican church in Mississauga.
Canada’s refugee-claim process has determined both don’t qualify under the rules.
While both cases are tragic, allowing them to stay in Canada violates the fundamental rules of fair play. As much as we agree that our immigration system is far from perfect, allowing places of worship to force the hand of the law will have serious and lamentable fallout.
And as much as we want to open our doors to Singh and Abimbola, the consequences of such actions will only pave the way for religious communities of all creeds to demand similar privileges.
What are we going to do if Osama bin Laden enters Canada unnoticed and seeks refuge in a mosque?
What can we say when the Tamil Tiger terrorist finds safe haven in a Hindu temple?
Are we going to recognize the rights of Wiccans and atheists to provide sanctuary for those they believe are being persecuted?
The concept of providing sanctuary for those ordered deported is archaic and needs to be addressed with strident uniformity, even if it means distressing the Church and others involved in the refugee system.
It will be a painful process, especially for desperate souls like Singh and Abimbola.
Canada is recognized as one of the most generous countries when it comes to refugees.
Maybe there is a way to help Singh and Abimbola, who have already availed themselves of Canada’s judicial largesse.
If this is to be, it should be attained within the framework of a fair and speedy secular system.
Not by a system influenced by sanctimonious sanctuary.