Submitted by crinadmin on
Summary: Is it normal that an airline jumps at the chance bring back a distressed kitty to its family thousands of kilometres away in first-class, obviously concerned that the cat arrives home safely, while a state authority has no qualms about detaining a distressed 5-year old for two months with complete strangers before deporting her to the unknown, seemingly not caring where she might end up?
On December 1, 2005 Continental Airlines transported Emily back to her home in Appleton, Wisconsin, USA . Emily travelled in first-class from Paris to New York/Newark, continuing on into the Midwest accompanied by a specialized steward. Emily is a cat that vanished from her home in Wisconsin in September 2005 and turned up in France. The Midwestern cat apparently wandered into a paper distribution centre and got distributed with some paper bales to Europe. Emily was found nearly a month later by some surprised workers at a laminating company in Nancy, France. The French workers found the owners through Emily's ID tags. “Continental Airlines is well-regarded for pet transport and our acclaimed PetSafe program, and we knew we could provide the very best air service to Emily, getting her back to her family quickly and comfortably,” a Continental spokesperson said. “We’re pleased to get Emily back to Appleton to enjoy the holiday season at home .” The story of happy Emily was shown on many TV channels; I personally followed it and saw Emily sitting in her nice warm box accompanied by an attendant to be brought back to the USA. On January 26, 2006 there will be a court case in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg against the Belgian authorities. Some human rights organizations are suing the Belgian authorities because of a shocking incident that occurred in 2002. In August of that year, a five-year-old girl called Tabitha Mubilanzila from Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) was crossing the Belgian borders with her uncle. Her uncle, who has a permanent resident’s permit in the Netherlands, brought Tabitha with him to send her later to join her mother, who has political refugee status in Canada. The uncle was allowed to enter Belgium since he has the right papers but Tabitha was refused entry and was arrested at the airport. A lawyer was nominated for her and the uncle applied for asylum in her name because this was the only possibility to avoid immediate forced return. Although the mother is recognized as a political refugee in Canada, the Belgian authorities did not recognise this in dealing with Tabitha. In their decision, the General Commissioner for Refugees (the independent Office that grants the status of political refugee in Belgium) recalled that the mother was in Canada; there was a demand for family reunification and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child had to be applied in this case. The lawyer and several social services proposed some alternative care for her, in a foster family or in a specialised care centre for children in need for the time required in order to organise a family reunification with the mother. Nevertheless, the Authorities did not allow her to enter the country and Tabitha was detained in a closed centre at the border with unknown adults and without suitable care, especially for someone as young as her. The UNHCR office in Brussels made an inquiry in the DRC and in Canada; in their conclusion they emphasised the fact that on the one hand, there appeared to be no adult capable of taking care of the child in the DRC and on the other hand, the Canadian authorities had accepted to analyse the request for a family reunification with the mother within the shortest possible time. Therefore, the UNHCR office officially asked the Belgian Government to allow the little child to stay in Belgium for the time needed for this family reunification. In court, her lawyer asked for her liberation. On October 16, the judge decided that she had to be released immediately. In the decision, the judge stressed clearly that “this situation is incompatible with articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child”. At this stage, she had already been detained for two months. Despite the decision of the Court, the very next day (October 17) the Belgian authorities deported her back to Kinshasa. The Belgian Government considered that they had respected the decision of the Court in sending her back to her country of origin because there she is free! On her forced journey back to Kinshasa, Tabitha, the five year old girl was not accompanied by her parents or any other primary caregivers. She was entrusted to one of the in-flight attendants. Upon her arrival at Kinshasa, there was NOBODY to receive the child and take care of her. Some human rights organisations, including the Belgian Section of Defence for Children International intervened and asked the Belgian authorities about the whereabouts of the child and what had become of her. The Belgian authorities failed to answer immediately. They simply did not know where the child was for about three days! Embarrassingly, they were not as efficient as DHL, which traces your parcels and letters all the way to their final destination. Fortunately and ironically, the child was found by the wife of a secret intelligence agent from the Democratic Republic of Congo, who was kind enough to take the child and give her shelter at her home. To make a long story short, after this incident hit the news, the girl was finally able to reach her mother in Canada. In effect, this actually happened much faster then the normal time required in order to organise a legal procedure of family reunification, thanks to a decision taken at the highest level of the Belgian and Canadian governments. Tabitha and her mother are challenging the Belgian Government because of their violation of several articles of the UN Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms After this case, the Belgian Minister of Interior had to answer many questions from Members of Parliament, who were considerably upset about the whole affair. The Minister merely answered that “the normal procedure has been followed”. At the same time, the Home Office, who took all the polemical decisions, said that they did not understand why people had reacted so badly this time since this kind of situation had regularly happened in the past, even with a three-year old child. Obviously, up until now, the Belgian authorities are still convinced that they did the right thing! On another note, on October 27, 2005, a three-hour blaze in a detention centre at Amsterdam's Schiphol airport killed 11 illegal immigrants and injured 16. The 350 prisoners at the centre, out of 26,000 asylum seekers who are in the process of being deported from the Netherlands, said guards were slow to respond to their cries for help. These people were awaiting their deportation since they were illegally staying in the Netherlands. One detainee at the centre told a Dutch radio station that guards had initially ignored their warnings of a fire and their banging on the cell doors. "We remained locked inside. We were shouting at the top of our voices until we were hoarse," a detainee said. Another detainee spoke on Dutch television, describing the growing panic. "First they said there was no problem, and they just kept us locked up," he said. "Our throats started hurting. We kicked, we screamed, we rang the bell of course. And then panic broke out." The 43 detainees in the affected part of the centre were housed in 24 two-person cells. Personnel had to open each individual cell manually. The authorities later commented that it was not possible to open all the cells simultaneously by electronic means. Ironically, the same centre was hit by fire on a previous occasion in November 2002, shortly after construction work had finished. It was not yet in use at that time and there were no casualties. On the same day, BBC news quoted Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende as saying: "It's terrible if you hear about a fire of such size, 11 people dead. Our thoughts are with the families of the victims and the wounded." At the same airport there is another centre but of a different kind, which is The KLM Cargo Animal Hotel. Quoting from the KLM homepage, this hotel is the world’s largest and most modern, specially designed for the temporary accommodation and care of animals carried by KLM. The Animal Hotel is also the only one in the world that is run by an airline. All animals are allowed to eat, drink and relax before a flight. Specially trained animal handlers care for the animals in comfortable surroundings. The animal hotel, which operates 24 hours a day, more than complies with all strict quality and hygiene regulations. It is most important for the animals to remain healthy. Before an animal may be transported, the handlers must be in possession of the correct travel certificates. The text on the homepage continues; “World-wide, KLM carries more than 4,000 dogs and cats each year, some going on holiday with their owners, and others moving to another country. The dogs and cats are transported in a special “sky kennel”. These “sky kennels” are made of plastic, and have metal doors. Dogs and cats are placed in a separate part of the aircraft. The temperature in this area is also constantly controlled to ensure that the animals are neither too hot nor too cold. It is important that these sky kennels are large enough to allow pets to stand, sit, turn and lie down with ease. This ensures a comfortable flight. One tip for pet owners is to allow the dog or cat to get used to the sky kennel by letting it sleep, eat or drink inside. This will ensure that the animal is more comfortable during the trip, because it is already accustomed to the sky kennel”. Is this normal? Is this right? What kind of a world is this? Is this the world we want to live in? Is it normal that an airline jumps at the chance bring back a distressed kitty to its family thousands of kilometres away in first-class, obviously concerned that the cat arrives home safely, while a state authority has no qualms about detaining a distressed 5-year old for two months with complete strangers before deporting her to the unknown, seemingly not caring where she might end up? Is this the kind of normality we are looking for? Is it right that Emily, who did not have a visa to enter France, gets first class treatment and attracts the attention of the world’s media while Tabitha, who also did not possess a visa, is first detained and then gets sent back alone? Is it normal that in some situations it seems animals are entitled to more rights than people? Is it right that a lot of animal rights’ organisations get much more funding than organisations working on defending human rights? Does this mean that people feel more sympathetic to the plight of animals, rather than to the plight of humans? Is it normal that people are detained in places like Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghreib, having to put up with ill treatment and poor living conditions, while some animals enjoy living in five-star hotels, even if the Animal Hotel is a business venture? Maybe the Belgians and other state authorities could take an example from the PetSafe programme of Continental Airlines and the Animal Hotel at Schiphol Airport. Don’t get me wrong here. I am not against animal rights; on the contrary, I am an advocate for the rights of every living creature. I find the fact that animals are treated by some groups of people with such humanity commendable. What I find deplorable, however, is that another group of people can deny the same level of humanity to fellow human beings. What I am asking is for human beings and animals to at least enjoy equal rights. It seems like a farce, that this claim should even have to be made.