Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 20:27:56 +0100 (MET) From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens) Subject: M-G: Sison case (this replaces version sent earlier) >From: "ndf" <ndf-AT-antenna.nl> >To: <tabe-AT-ozgurluk.xs4all.nl>, > "Ruby PAREDES" <Ruby.Paredes-AT-ccmail.adp.wisc.edu>, > "Rolf Martens" <rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se>, > "pins" <pins-AT-slip.net>, <jot-AT-luna.nl>, "AICI" <aici-AT-mozcom.com>, > <jfermon-AT-arcadis.be>, <navidad-AT-earthlink.com>, <reporter-AT-web.net> >Cc: "DHKC Informationbureau Amsterdam" <dhkc-AT-ozgurluk.xs4all.nl>, > "E. San Juan" <sanjuan-AT-bgnet.bgsu.edu>, > "Donna Strawson" <psgto-AT-web.net>, > "Editions Democrite \"Dossiers du BIP\"" <democrite-AT-starnet.fr>," > "nccpeace" <nccpeace-AT-phil.gn.apc.org>, <peace-AT-xs4all.nl>, > <b.cronin-AT-auckland.ac.nz>, <guro.skere-AT-ils.uio.no> >Subject: this replaces version sent earlier >Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 12:31:17 +0100 >X-Msmail-Priority: Normal > >REPLY TO THE LETTER OF E.M.J. MOEKSIS, >OFFICIAL OF THE DUTCH JUSTICE MINISTRY > >By the Dutch Committee for the Asylum of the Sison Family Now >and the International Campaign for the Asylum of the Sison Family > > >Organizations and individuals, who have sent letters to the Dutch justice >ministry in order to petition or demand the grant of asylum to the Sison >family, have received a form letter of reply from E.M.J. Moeksis, head of >the Staff Department of Internal and External Relations, in the name of the >Dutch state secretary of justice and the Immigration and Naturalization >Service and bearing different dates since I October 1996. > >We, the Dutch Committee for the Asylum of the Sison Family Now and the >International Campaign for the Asylum of the Sison Family, wish to make a >point-by-point reply to the aforesaid letter of E.M.J. Moeksis, pertaining >to the asylum case of Prof. Jose Maria Sison. > >1. Against the first and second negative decisions of the Dutch justice >ministry on 13 July 1990 and 26 March 1993 respectively, the Dutch Council >of State made the judgment on 17 December 1992 and again on 21 February >1995 that Prof. Sison is a political refugee with a well-grounded fear of >persecution in accordance with the Refugee Treaty of Geneva and nullified >the contrary arguments of the Dutch Justice Ministry. > >In its latest negative decision dated 4 June 1996, the Dutch justice >ministry does not offer neither any new claim of fact nor any new argument >but repeats the arguments already nullified by the Council of State. >Therefore, the Council of State decision that he is a political refugee >stands. > >2. The letter of E.M.J. Moeksis is mendacious and malicious in making it >appear by insinuation that both the Raad van State and the Amnesty >International agree with the claims and arguments of the Dutch justice >ministry to the effect that Prof. Sison is not a political refugee because >he is supposedly responsible for the actions of the New People's Army. > >In fact, Prof. Sison is a client of Amnesty International (AI) in his >asylum case. Both the Amnesty International and the UN High Commissioner >for Refugees (UNHCR) have supported his asylum case. In making the judgment >that he is a political refugee, the Dutch council of state has pointedly >ruled that he is a political refugee and has used and cited the AI and >UNHCR reports in his favor. > >3. The Dutch justice ministry should not repeat the old argument that Prof. >Sison cannot be granted asylum so as not to infringe upon the integrity and >credibility of the Netherlands as a sovereign state. > >The Dutch Council of State previously nullified this argument. Were it >really interested in upholding the integrity and credibility of the Dutch >state, the Dutch justice ministry must grant asylum to him because it must >respect the decisions of the Dutch council of state, the rule of law, the >Dutch Aliens Law and the obligations of the Dutch state under the Refugee >Treaty of Geneva and the European Convention for the Protection of Human >Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. > >4. The Dutch justice ministry concedes that Prof. Sison cannot be sent back >to the Philippines in accordance with the favorable decision of the Council >of State under Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of >Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. But gratuitously E.M.J. Moeksis, in >the name of the Dutch justice ministry, states that this does not mean to >say automatically that Prof. Sison may stay in the Netherlands. > >The Dutch justice ministry puts itself in an absurd position. It >whimsically accepts only one portion of the decision of the Dutch Council >of State (that he cannot be sent to the Philippines) and then disregards >the portion that it does not like (that he is a political refugee). It also >wishes Prof. Sison to look for another country to stay in, despite all the >malicious propaganda of the same ministry that he is somehow related to >"terrorism". It wants to kick him out of the Netherlands, warns other >countries against him and in effect forces him to go back to the >Philippines. > >5. The Dutch justice ministry is obviously lying and trying to mislead >people when it says that Dutch economic relations with the US and Manila >governments have had nothing to do with the Sison asylum case. > >Most of the false information in the secret dossiers of the Dutch >intelligence agency come from the intelligence agencies of the US and >Manila governments. In open court hearing before the Dutch Council of State >in 1992, the representative of the Dutch justice ministry declared that a >government friendly to both the Dutch and Philippine governments would take >offense if Prof. Sison had been granted asylum in the Netherlands. > >As early as 1992, the Dutch council of state in its judgment then scolded >the Dutch justice ministry for failing to act in favor of Prof. Sison's >application for asylum for so long, since 1988. But the Dutch justice >ministry has continued to abuse administrative proceedings and has failed >to grant asylum to Prof. Sison despite the judgment of the Dutch council of >state in 1995. The justice ministry made its third and latest negative >decision on 4 June 1996 only after it was ordered by the Aliens' Chamber on >29 April 1996 to make a new decision. > >The stubbornness of the Dutch justice ministry in refusing to grant asylum >to Prof. Sison is condemnable. In effect, it has made the Dutch state look >worse and more silly than the Manila government by continuing to use >against him false claims previously made by the latter government, which >has already ceased to make any formal charge against him. > >The public campaign to support and demand the grant of asylum to the Sison >family is more than ever necessary because the Dutch justice ministry is >relentless in making the Sison asylum case a political case rather than a >juridical one and in refusing to respect the right of the Sison family to >asylum in the Netherlands in accordance with the Refugee Treaty of Geneva. > >We urge all organizations and individuals that have participated in the >campaign to demand the grant of asylum to the Sison family in the >Netherlands to persevere in the campaign, to gather further support and >increase participants in the campaign. > >22 November 1996 > > > >2 > > > > > > --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005