Canada Faces Questions Over Treatment of Iranian Conscripts as U.K., Australia Take Different Approach

The Canadian government’s decision to designate former Iranian conscripts as potential security threats has raised concerns about the country’s commitment to refugee integrity and its approach to national security. Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab’s department has issued procedural fairness letters (PFLs) targeting hundreds of individuals who served in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), sparking a wave of protests from the Iranian diaspora community.

The issue is not whether the IRGC should be designated as a terrorist organization, which many countries have done. Rather, it is the application of this designation to individuals who were forcibly conscripted into military service in their late teens and early twenties. These individuals argue that they should not be automatically considered “members” of a terrorist organization due to their conscription.

In contrast, both the United Kingdom and Australia have taken a more nuanced approach. In March, Australia’s Parliament published guidance distinguishing between involuntary conscripts and full-fledged regime supporters. Similarly, in August, the U.K. government issued guidance stating that military service is compulsory for men in Iran, making it unlikely that conscripts would be required to commit acts contrary to human conduct.

The implications of this policy go beyond the individuals directly affected. Family members, including children, have also received PFLs, exacerbating anxiety and uncertainty within these families. Yalda Ghani, an Iranian immigration consultant in Toronto, notes that her clients are “scared to death” by the prospect of being labeled inadmissible under security grounds.

This situation highlights a broader issue: Canada’s aggressive stance on national security issues often leads to decisions that seem absurd or unfair. The case of Mostafa Tasbandi illustrates this point. Tasbandi, who arrived in December 2023 and has been waiting for a work permit renewal, had self-disclosed his conscription on his permanent residency application. Now, he feels penalized for his honesty.

The decision to send PFLs without clear guidance on how to distinguish between conscripts and regime supporters raises questions about the fairness of the process. The Immigration Department’s response that some individuals “may have served as a result of conscription” is insufficient, given the complexity of this issue. Lorne Waldman, a Toronto-based immigration lawyer representing nearly 40 former Iranian conscripts, notes that Canada has a very aggressive policy vis-a-vis national security issues.

The current approach risks undermining the integrity of Canada’s refugee system by creating uncertainty and anxiety among refugees who have been honest about their past. It also raises questions about the country’s commitment to upholding human rights, particularly the right to seek asylum.

As the Federal Court begins to hear cases challenging these PFLs, it will be essential for the court to consider the nuances of conscription in Iran and the distinction between involuntary service and full-fledged regime support. The outcome of these cases will have significant implications not only for the individuals involved but also for Canada’s refugee policy more broadly.

Ultimately, this controversy serves as a reminder that national security concerns must be balanced with compassion and fairness towards those seeking refuge. By taking a more nuanced approach to designating former conscripts and providing clear guidance on how to distinguish between them and regime supporters, Canada can uphold its commitment to refugee integrity while also protecting the country’s national security.