File spoon-archives/marxism-general.archive/marxism-general_1996/96-11-25.072, message 37


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 ---


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005