The possibility of a death sentence will not interfere with Canada sending illegal immigrants back home, said Elinor Caplan, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, after a man was sentenced to die in  China after being handed over by her officials.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade,  however, has expressed concern about the execution order issued against Fang Yong, who had been living illegally in Canada for nearly a decade. The department intends to contact the Chinese government about it.
Fang, 36, claimed he fled China out of fear of persecution for his "political opinions" and his involvement in a demonstration shortly before the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, the National Post has learned.

Reynald Doiron, spokesman for the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, said the government first needs to clarify Fang's status with the Chinese government.
"We are going to tell them that we heard the story that this death sentence has been imposed and we are going to ask for confirmation -- and then see what kind of follow-up is going to occur," he said.

However, Ms. Caplan said Canada could not afford to become a magnet for illegal immigrants. "Canada will not harbour criminals, terrorists or others," she said.
Fang, 36, was convicted of embezzling about $290,000 from a bank in Ningbo, a city on the eastern coast of China, said the official Chinese news agency, Xinhua. He was given a death sentence Monday.
He fled to Canada in 1990 and applied for refugee status.
Fang made no mention that he was accused of a crime in China, nor did the Canadian government use a criminal charge as grounds to refuse his claim, according to documents obtained by the National Post.
Fang claimed he participated in a demonstration in the city of  Ningbo on May 15, 1989, that coincided with the growing pro-democracy protests in Beijing that led to the massacre of demonstrators on June 4, 1989.
Fang told Canadian officials that Chinese police were investigating those who participated in the protest.
"I became aware on Aug. 20, 1989, that public security officers were looking for me ... as a result, I went into hiding, first at the residence of relatives and then at the residence of friends," Fang swore in an affidavit.
"Ultimately, I left China and came to Canada."
His application for refugee status was refused by the Immigration and Refugee Board and his appeal to the Federal Court of Canada was denied in 1992.
At the time, the government said that because Fang's demonstration preceded the Tiananmen massacre, he was unlikely to be seriously persecuted in China for it.
Fang's case has enraged human rights activists who accuse Canada of having the death penalty by proxy. They say this erodes the country's credibility abroad.
"Here we are telling China to abolish the death penalty, and then we say to them, 'You want to kill this person? Here ya go, here he is,' "said David Matas, a Winnipeg immigration lawyer.

    WRITE MINISTER KAPLAN TO TELL HER TO
     STOP THE EXTRADITION OF FANG YONG !

                    You can write her directly at:

                            Elinor Caplan
                            Citizenship and Immigration Canada
                            Jean Edmonds Tower South
                            365 Laurier Avenue West
                            Ottawa, Ontario
                            K1A 1L1

                          Or email her at :  Caplan.E@parl.gc.ca
                                  And send a copy to us at :  info@ccadp.org

Regarding your recent stance to send an alleged embezzler back to China to potentially face a death sentence, I say SHAME.    Do you want to make Canada complicit in an execution?
We are against the death penalty here, even if you are not.
Aiding and abetting an unwarranted execution-What kind of criminal does that make you?
.......a worse one than the very man you may be sending to his death.
You are not acting on behave of Canadians or Canada by sending someone possibly to be killed for a theft.  We are a nation that cares about human rights.  You are in government to represent Canadians and Canada and our laws and beliefs.  If you send this person back you have failed at that representation.  Act accordingly.

Kelly Redmond
Ontario

I, as a Canadian, would like to express my deep anger and outrage with regards to your recent comments
concerning the Chines citizen to be sent back to China, even with the possibility of execution.

Madam,
These kind of statements are not appropriate to be heard from high official of a country in which capital
punishment is considered act of barbarism.

With all due respect, I hold you responsible for any possible execution (and even sever prosecution) of any
body who is deported from Canada to his/her home land. That is your responsibility to find better ways to deal
with your immigration problems, that is why you are the Minister of citizenship and immigration.

Sincerely,

Farsangi

Dear Ms Caplan

I am absolutely appalled by what I have recently heard.  As a resident of the United Kingdom, whilst also being fortunate enough to hold Canadian Citizenship, I used to be proud of the record of Human Rights in both these
countries.  I have however, recently changed my views upon what I am hearing.

Last year, Italy refused to extradite Kurdish rebel leader Abdullah Ocalan to Turkey on the grounds that he faced execution if convicted of terrorism.  They were never accused of 'harbouring criminals'.  So why should you be any different?

Please listen to what these people are saying.  It is not your country, it is there's. Why should you have the fundamental right to play God with somebody's life - which you are in turn doing?

Please think about this matter.

Kind regards

Lucy Blanchfield

The Honorable Elinor Caplan
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Dominion of Canada

Dear Minister Caplan,

With great respect, I am writing to urge that Canada, a nation which has laudibly abolished the barbarism of capital punishment, decline to extradite accused persons to countries where they are in danger of receiving this inhumane treatment, condemned along with torture by Amnesty International as a human rights violation in all cases.

Here I would emphasize especially that the rejection of extradition in the case of a person in danger of execution or torture should be distinguished from the more usual and much more complex issues which normally arise
concerning requests for asylum. Sometimes it may be difficult to draw the line between an immigrant fleeing persecution and one legitimately accused of crimes who seeks to escape punishment.

In the case of the outrageous human rights violations of the death penalty and torture, however, refusing extradition is not a matter of "harboring criminals," but rather of declining complicity in acts which are
themselves human rights violations which the international community should not condone.

Especially troubling is a report that a Chinese national may be extradited to face execution for the crime of _embezzlement_. During the 18th century in England, over 200 offenses including many crimes against property were punishable by the gallows. This bloody history, as part of the background from which Canada's more humane current jurisprudence has emerged (including the abolition of the death penalty in 1976), should warn us
against tolerating such a monstrous act of judicial homicide in any country, much less serving almost as an accessory before the fact.

Such a Chinese case illustrates the danger, present in many societies and eras of history, that the death penalty may be used for political purposes: for example, an embezzlement charge as a means of legally killing a participant in the Chinese Pro-Democracy movement of 1989 crushed so brutally in the massacre at Tienanmen Square.

However, quite without regard to such political elements which often enter into the decision of who lives and who dies by execution, the death penalty is a human rights violation _per se_. Refusal of extradition in
cases where such a killing might result is an honored practice among various nations which have recognized that the proper role of the state is to protect human life, not to take human life.

As a citizen of the United States, a country which sadly has not yet attained Canada's level of civilization on this question, I write with utmost respect, and with a yearning that Canada may yet more consistently
maintain and perfect its stand as to the inviolability of human life.

Most respectfully,
Margo Schulter

Sacramento, CA
mschulter@value.net

In reference to the possibility that a Chinese national may be returned to the People's Republic of China where for embezzlement, he may face a sentence of death, please reflect.  There is no law more important than for a relatively frivolous reason, Canada may risk some man's life.  Surely, Canada is more civilized than its neighbor to the south.  - from the US

Dear Ms. Kaplan,

In reference to the extradition of Fang Yong, convicted of embezzlement, you state that Canada does not need to become a country thought of as a "harbour for criminals and terrorists".   I understand that, as international perception goes, that would not be the wisest move for Canada.  I don't, on the other hand, understand why you add the word terrorist.  I am assuming that perhaps by escalating this case beyond its limits and projecting it onto the future you come to the fear that other, more dangerous criminals might consider Canada a haven from
execution.

I am concerned, though, about contradictions and phrasing and what both of these things actually say about your position in regards to the extradition of Fang Yong.  If your concern is how criminals and the lawful throughout the world envision Canada because of this decision, I'm afraid you've made serious missteps. My concerns are as follows:

As mentioned above, adding the word "terrorist" to your defense of the decision brings about some very harmful confusion.  Fang Yong is facing extradition because of embezzlement charges.  He did, however, as I am sure you are aware, attempt to claim refugee status when first entering Canada.  He based these claims upon his belief that Chinese public security officers were looking for him because of his participation in pro-democracy demonstrations in May of 1989.  Canada denied him refugee status and he stayed in the country illegally.  As an open critic of the Chinese government in the weeks leading to the slaughter in Tiananmen Square, a Chinese citizen would certainly have reason to fear.  Although no violent acts have been attributed to him as cause for his execution – only embezzlement – his beliefs, in addition to his fleeing the country, did align him as an enemy of the state.  He is now demanded back in China to be put to death.  I do not draw any conclusions on that
circumstance.  I do, though, believe that in reference to Fang Yong’s case an offhand and unintentional reference to terrorists in his position is thoroughly inappropriate.

I am further concerned by the seemingly fluctuating nature of Canada’s position on extradition for execution.  In a treaty between Canada and the United States, Canada reserved the right to refuse to extradite prisoners to the United States if US prosecutors do not assure that the death penalty won’t be sought.  When Canadian Nguyen Thi Hiep was executed in Vietnam earlier this year, Canada recalled its ambassador to Vietnam.  Are these examples of human rights considerations or of considerations reserved for Canadian citizens?

I don’t speak to your intentions; I simply want to call attention to how this position will be viewed.  The man is going to be killed for a charge of embezzlement.  Canada will deliver him to the government against which he protested and eventually fled, a goverment widely known as one of the world’s largest abusers of human rights, to be executed for stealing.

I ask you to please reconsider.

Sincerely,
Amy Ward

Here, in European Union, we have seen Canada as a respectful country with Human Rights. Don´t let that
impression go away. Don´t send Fang Yong back to China, where he will be surely killed. I don´t think that
economical relationships be more important than Human Rights.
 
Thank you very much.
Please think how important this will be to stop death penalty.
 
 
Xulio Ferreiro Baamonde.
Galiza-
European Union. 

I am writing to express my disgust at your recent comments that your office will send a Chinese national back to China; to face possible execution on embezzlement charges.  It is my understanding that your concern was that standing up for this man's life may have the effect of making Canada a "haven for criminals".

I am particularly distressed by your remarks in the wake of the 58 people found dead in Dover, in the UK.  Your comments are insensitive and do not take into account the many reasons why people seek asylum.
They also suggest that the Canadian government is willing to ignore its stated commitment to the protection of human rights for reasons of political expediency.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Regards
--
Jason Büültjens

Dear Minister

I am writing as a member of Amnesty International UK, to request that you review your decision to send back a Chinese national accused of embezzlement.  To return to China would mean certain death.  If we accept
punishments and legislation, globally, which are unjust and inhumane, the international community will be unable to negotiate or strive for an universally fair system for all.  Circumstances may, at times, dictate actions, no one is excusing criminal acts but a just legal system would lead to a respect for the legislature.

Elinor Caplan
Ministre de la citoyenneté et de l'immigration
Ministère de la citoyenneté et de l'immigration
Tour Jean Edmonds sud
365 avenue Laurier ouest
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 1L1
 

Madame la Ministre,

Je vous écris au sujet d'un demandeur chinois de statut de réfugié, M. Fang Yong, qui a été renvoyé dans son pays par le Canada,et qui par la suite a été condamné à mort par les autorités chinoises.  J'ai été choqué par vos
propos rapportés par le National Post, le 14 juin dernier.  La peine de mort est une violation de l'article 3 de la Déclaration Universelle des Droits de l'Homme (droit à la vie) ainsi qu'une forme extrême de torture.

En tant que citoyen canadien, je trouve inacceptable qu'on renvoie dans son pays une personne qui risque d'être condamnée à mort.  Le Canada doit demander des garanties aux pays tels que la Chine ou les États-Unis qui
continuent à imposer cette sentence dépassée.  Dans le cas de M. Fang, ces garanties auraient été d'autant plus importantes qu'il est accusé d'un crime non-violent.

Je vous exhorte à examiner attentivement les cas de tous les demandeurs de statut de réfugié, en particulier ceux provenant de Chine, pour qu'une telle situation ne se reproduise plus.  J'espère que vous allez faire tout ce qui
est en votre pouvoir pour convaincre les autorités chinoises qu'elles devraient commuer la peine de M. Fang et ne pas procéder à son exécution.

Veuillez agréer, madame la Ministre, l'expression de mes sentiments distingués.

Gilles Sabourin
 

                The CCADP offers free webpages to over 500 Death Row Prisoners
                                              Contact us for more information.
                                                info@ccadp.org
            
                                                        "The Eyes Of The World Are Watching Now"