Home
	About
	Programs
	Events
	Reports
	Articles
	Links

Annual Spring Breakfast 2005

The Sacred Sanctuary as a Place of Refuge:
Is there a Future for it in Canadian Houses of Worship?

Joan Poulin

The Annual spring Breakfast of the Council of Christians and Jews- Alberta Region was held on Wednesday, May 18, 2005 at the Calgary Jewish Centre in Calgary, Canada, from 8:30 – 10:15. The title of the session “The Sacred Sanctuary as a Place of Refuge: Is there a Future for it in Canadian Houses of Worship?” refers to a topic that has captured the attention of the media from time to time in recent years. The ancient right of ‘claiming sanctuary’ in houses of worship has been eroded in various countries over the years. In France, for example, it is legal to violate sanctuary. The Canadian government is also backtracking by examining the legality of this practice. Given the possibility of losing this right, the Council felt that spring 2005 was an opportune time to explore the different aspects of this issue. Rabbi Howard Voss-Altman from Temple B’nai Tikvah, spiritual leader of the Reform synagogue in Calgary, explored the topic from a Biblical and Jewish point of view, Reverent Bill Phipps, pastor of Scarboro United Church and former moderator of the United Church of Canada, spoke of the United Church’s experience in providing sanctuary for refugees, and Michael Greene, an immigration lawyer with Sherritt Greene Barristers & Solicitors explored the legal ramification of this question.

The Biblical basis for providing refuge for homicides differentiates between intentional and unintentional manslaughter. Intentional murderers were punished in accordance with their crime. However, provision was made to save someone who had accidentally caused the death of another person from an act of revenge by a blood avenger. ‘Cities of refuge’ were set up to which such a person could flee in case of danger. Passages in Numbers 35 and Deuteronomy 19 speak of six cities, three on the east and three on the west side of the Jordan, to which suspected murderers could flee until their case was adjudicated by the assembly. Falsely accused persons could also take hold of ‘the horns of the altar’, projections on the four corners of altars, some of which have been discovered in archaeological excavations in Israel. There are several cases mentioned in Scripture where the system worked, but not always. For example, in 2 Samuel, Joab murdered Abner although he was in Hebron, the city of refuge in the south of Judea.

Rev. Bill Phipps reviewed cases of refugee claimants that his church had been involved with over the years in Canada, including a case in a Calgary United Church where the claimant eventually received Canadian citizenship and is now a productive member of the community. Problems arising from trying to organise protection for refugees in churches has led the United Church to publish guidelines for its members. Included in the guidelines is a warning that the congregation considering harbouring a refugee claimant must weigh carefully all the risks involved. The decision to house a refugee must be taken by the entire community after careful deliberation to willingly accept the consequences of such an act of civil disobedience (financial, legal and moral). There must be an adequate physical space (e.g. plumbing) to house the refugee and his/her family in the church, as well as a willingness on the part of the congregation to provide for the basic needs of the refugees, perhaps for a long period of time. Finally, Rev. Phipps, quoting the United Church document again, mentioned that the congregation should have a high tolerance level for persistent media attention.

Attorney Michael Greene spoke repeatedly about the need for such activism in society. An appreciation of the value of sanctuary was necessary in order to recognise that a higher law exists than the laws of the land and to provide a period of respite so that refugee claimants could explore further contacts with the authorities.

The right of sanctuary has been recognised from earliest times. Rabbi Voss-Altman spoke about its significance in the Bible. Attorney Greene explained that English law formally recognised the right of sanctuary from the 14th to the 17th century, but it has since fallen into disuse. The sanctuary movement in the United States began in Arizona in the early 80’s as an attempt to circumvent the U.S. government’s policy of returning refugees from repressive regimes (supported by the same U.S. government) to El Salvador and Guatemala, their countries of origin, at the risk of their lives. Churches, synagogues and other organisations decided to provide protection for these refugees until the authorities would agree to examine their claims. Eventually the U.S. government brought charges against and convicted 16 organisers of the movement.

Both churches and the government in Canada became involved with this issue when groups of Guatemalans began crossing the border seeking protection. In 1983, the first modern case of a refugee seeking protection took place in a Montreal church. Since then there have been 40 or 50 similar cases in Canada, about 70% of them successful. Authorities in Canada have not always respected the right of sanctuary. Sanctuary was violated when police broke into a Quebec City church and arrested an Algerian who had been an activist for human rights in his native country. His continued activism in Canada may have been an embarrassment to the government. As a result of the public outcry over this incident, Minister of Immigration Sgro, suggested that churches stop using sanctuary and, in return, the authorities would listen to refugee claimants with more care. This has not happened. In 2002, a new Immigration and Refugee Board was named which consists of only one member. This is not effective as there is no further appeal on merits after this person has made his decision. In addition, since 9/11, a trend by government agencies to vilify refugee claimants has been discerned in the last few years.

It is necessary to maintain the concept and practice of providing sanctuary in this country and throughout the world, according to Michael Greene. If it had been practiced during WW II, terrible tragedies such as that of the ship “St. Louis” could have been prevented. The ship crossed the Atlantic, packed with Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution, only to be refused entry into Cuba, into the United States (which had already begun placing obstacles to Jewish immigration since 1924 after an influx from 1898 onwards) and into Canada. These refugees were obliged to return across the ocean. They perished in the Holocaust.

Prof. Doug Shantz moderated the discussion with the panel. Rabbi Moshe Saks, having returned from a trip to former concentration camps in Poland and Germany, reiterated the need for countries to provide sanctuary for people fleeing from persecution and thanked the speakers.

Annual Spring Breakfast

The Sacred Sanctuary as a Place of Refuge
Is there a Future for it in Canadian Houses of Worship?