Why do people turn to sanctuary?

"We have come to the conclusion that the refugee determination process is unfair. Churches who open their doors to provide sanctuary are defying this unjust policy. We believe that refugees have a right to life and liberty, that human life is sacred and must be preserved at all costs. Moral institutions cannot obey laws that are unjust and religious leaders are prepared to accept the penalty for this civil initiative that is the sanctuary movement." Darryl Gray, Union United Church, Montreal

An agonizing choice

The principle of sanctuary dates back to antiquity and is based on the knowledge that houses of worship are sacred places and that violating the sanctity of such a place to enter and remove someone by force is a sacrilege. While the notion is age-old, in more recent history it has been manifested in people risking their lives to harbor slaves fleeing the United States, Jews fleeing Nazi Germany and Central Americans fleeing the risk of torture and death.

Nonetheless, it is an act of civil disobedience, and for ordinary law-abiding, church-going Canadians, the choice to break the law and grant sanctuary to a refused refugee facing deportation is an agonizing one. It is therefore rather startling that a record number of six individuals and families were in sanctuary in Canadian churches during the summer of 2003. As we write this in early October, five are still in sanctuary.

A church that has agreed to offer sanctuary has most likely been approached by an individual or family who is facing removal and has asked to be allowed to seek refuge in the church building. For the Minister or Priest and the church members the decision is usually taken only after they are convinced that the person needs protection and that no other alternative exists. This means carefully interviewing the people and seeking the opinions of the congregational members and the decision making body. Another important consideration is that the refugees need to be fully aware of the implications of their request. These include the physical limitations of living in a building that is not designed as a residence, with little privacy, perhaps without basic necessities such as a shower and of course without any opportunity to go outside. Children will be denied formal schooling. Of even greater concern is that this desperate action has no guarantee of ensuring the protection that the refugees so earnestly desire.

So why indeed do normally conservative, cautious church folk make this move? After much soul searching, they believe it is the only right and just thing to do. It is a decision of both the head and the heart, reason and compassion, and it is not a decision taken lightly.

Canada, like other countries, has an obligation in international law not to deport someone to torture or persecution. Canadians look to the government to live up to this obligation to ensure that refugees are protected. When the government denies protection to certain refugees, some Canadians feel morally compelled to step in and provide the protection that the government has failed to offer.

Aware of the revival of the sanctuary tradition within the contemporary context, the 34th General Council of the United Church of Canada (1992) endorsed "the moral right and responsibility of congregations to provide sanctuary to legitimate refugee claimants who have been denied refugee status".

The Social Affairs Commission of the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops noted in June 1993 that "[t]he decision in conscience to offer sanctuary, which is a decision of last resort, is a part of every major faith tradition."