The Lennikov Case A case study on the concepts of justice and fairness

The Lennikov Case A case study on the concepts of justice and fairness

Teacher Introduction This case study is a lesson in the application of the principles of justice and fairness. The issue is the request by Mikhail Lennikov for residency in Canada and the subsequent denial of residency and deportation order issued to him by the government of Canada. The purpose of the case study is for students to understand principles of justice and fairness and determine how they ought to be applied in Canada. The procedure for the case study is for students to investigate the various participants in the issue. Students can work in partners or groups of three on one of the roles as assigned by the teacher. Depending on time available students may research more than one of the roles. Since there is a reporting out session they should not need to research all roles. This is not a role play. It is not intended for students to become the group or individual they are investigating. Rather they are to investigate and report on the positions being taken by that person or group on the matter of the deportation of Mikhail Lennikov. (The students looking at the media will not be reporting a position on the case but rather giving an overview of how the case has been reported and what the key issues are as they appear in the media.) Students are guided through the roles with a series of questions with links to relevant web sites provided. Their report will be based on their research on the questions. The reports should be concise and focused. Once students have heard all of the information from the various sources they will then determine through a critical thinking exercise whether or not Mikhail Lennikov should be granted residency in Canada or deported to Russia. The critical inquiry will focus on developing a definition of justice and fairness and then applying this to the Lennikov case. The roles for investigation are: Mikhail Lennikov Dimitri Lennikov The Government of Canada ( Minister of Immigration) First Lutheran Church of Vancouver Members of Parliament supporting the Lennikov family Members of the Ukrainian community in Canada opposed to Lennikov residency Members of the media The Federal Court of Canada has made a ruling on the Lennikov case and students should have some awareness of this. It is suggested that teachers take some time to explain the court case and decision before students begin their inquiry. A link to the court document is provided as well as some suggestions on what teachers should focus on in the ruling. 1

Background for Students The immigration case you are about to investigate involves a family of Russian origin, the Lennikovs, who have lived in Canada since 1999. In 2009 the father of the family, Mikhail Lennikov was ordered deported from Canada to return to Russia. The reason for his deportation according to the government of Canada and the Minister of Public Safety acting for the government is that Mr. Lennikov is not admissible to Canada because he is a risk to national security. The government based the decision to deport him on the fact that during the 1980s Mr Lennikov was an agent of the Russian ( then the Soviet Union) spy agency the KGB. According to Canadian immigration law anyone who was employed in an organization involved in spying against democratically elected governments is not admissible to Canada. Mr. Lennikov was an agent of the KGB but his job was as a translator. As such he claims he was not actually a spy. Mr Lennikov has never hidden his KGB work from Canadian immigration authorities. He told them he had worked for the KGB when he was first admitted to Canada on a student visa in 1999. This case is controversial and complex mainly because not only is Mr. Lennikov affected so is his family. The government is allowing his son Dimitri (who was 17 at the time of the deportation order) and wife Irene to stay in Canada but the effect of the deportation is that the family will be split up. Dimitri in particular is of concern because if he were to return to Russia he could be drafted into the Russian army but considered a foreigner (he has been in Canada since he was a young child and does not speak Russian well) and would be subject to very cruel treatment. While the government s case for deportation applies the law stating that he is a security risk, the family is asking the government for Canadian residency ( i.e. permission to live in Canada permanently) on the grounds of compassion. They have lived here for ten years on visitors visas. Dimitri has been educated here and has no connection to Russia. He is an excellent student. The family has established themselves as law abiding productive members of their community. Furthermore if the family returns what awaits them in Russia could be dangerous or at least harmful. Mr Lennikov believes since he has spoken out against the KGB he will be subject to treatment as a traitor and will have difficulty finding work. The government of Canada believes it is applying immigration law in this case in an open and fair manner. The decision to deport Mr. Lennikov is a fair one because it applies the law evenly. Anyone with Mr. Lennikov s background would receive the same treatment. The government s main responsibility is to uphold Canadian law in a manner that ensures citizens have confidence in the law. That means exceptions cannot be made. The law is the law. The Lennikovs and those who support them point out that the law also gives the Minister of Public Safety the discretion to make exemptions on compassionate grounds. They believe those certainly apply here. While the government may be concerned with fairness there is also the matter of justice and that as a question of right or wrong it would simply be wrong to deport Mikhail Lennikov given the circumstances. The central question here is, is there a fair and just resolution of the Lennikov case? 2

Writing Your Report You are assigned to write a report on one of the following individuals or groups that has had involvement in the Lennikov case. You can complete your report by focusing on the guiding questions and by obtaining information from the sources provided. Mikhail Lennikov He is the person at the centre of this case. The main question is whether or not he should be given permanent residence in Canada. In answering this question the information you provide in your report will be very important. Use the following questions and web links to develop your report. 1) What was ML ( Mikhail Lennikov) doing before he came to Canada and why is this a problem for him in terms of his request to become a permanent resident? 2) ML has lived in Canada for over 10 years. How has he been able to stay here that long and what has he been doing during that time? 3) What are the reasons ML is giving for why he should be allowed to stay in Canada? http://www.workpermit.com/news/2007_02_01/canada/ex-kgb_agent_ deported.htm 4) ML has taken sanctuary in a church in Vancouver. What are his reasons for doing this? How has it affected him and his family? What has he been doing since he has been living in the church? http://www.metronews.ca/ottawa/comment/article/234120--russian-man-maybe-unfairly-deported-over-kgb-past. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/06/02/bc-kgb-lennikovsanctuary.html Note : The link that follows is to a blog being kept by ML. It has a wide range of topics but in looking through it you can get an idea of what his life in sanctuary in the First Lutheran Church in Vancouver is like. http://mikhaillennikov.blogspot.com/ 5) Where is his case now in terms of his court appeals? As far as you can tell what seems to be next for ML? Note that the Federal Court has refused to overturn the Minister s decision but the family believes the Minister can and should allow him to stay on compassionate grounds. Try to explain what this means and why the family feels it is a reasonable way to go. 6) What would ML say are the reasons for why he should be allowed to stay in Canada? 3

Writing Your Report (con t) Dimitri Lennikov Dimitri is the only child of the Lennikovs. It is Dimitri s situation that has been one of the main reasons the Lennikovs have given for why they should be allowed residency in Canada. Recent developments have allowed Dimitri and his mother to stay in Canada but Mikhail must still go back to Russia. As a result the family would be broken apart. If Dimitri does go back to Russia with his parents the main concern is the possibility that he will have to do military service. The link bellow is a Facebook page that has been created to support Dimitri Lennikov. If you look through the material posted you will have an idea of why the Lennikovs believe Dimitri in particular must remain in Canada. http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=33363813633 1) One particular concern is that Dimitri will face hazing if he is sent to Russia. What is hazing and why would Dimitri be at risk for this treatment? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3756866.stm 2) According to the following web site many young men avoid military service. How do they do this and do you think Dimitri could do the same thing or would he be more likely to be drafted into the military? http://russia.suite101.com/article.cfm/conditions_in_the_russian_military http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/672230/posts 3) What are the main points the Lennikovs would make in their case for staying in Canada as it relates to Dimitri? Based on the information you have do they have a good argument or are they exaggerating the risk to Dimitri if he returns to Russia? The Government of Canada The Government is responsible for applying and upholding the laws of Canada. In the Lennikov case they say they are applying a law that prohibits people who have served in organizations engaged in spying on democratic governments from residency in Canada. As an officer in the KGB Mikhail Lennikov was working for a recognized spying agency in a country ( the USSR) that was at the time considered an enemy of Canada. Your assignment is to explain the law that the government is enforcing in denying Mikhail Lennikov residency in Canada. There are three features of this law you must consider: Section 34 (1) Immigration and refugee protection act. What is this act about and what does Section 34 say? Why does it apply to ML? Inadmissible to Canada. What does this term mean? Give some examples of how it might be used? How does it apply to ML? Detrimental to the national interest of Canada. What does this mean? Give some examples of how it is applied. How does it apply to ML? 4

Writing Your Report (con t) In addition you should describe the government s concern with the KGB. What was the KGB? Why is the government so concerned with the KGB that it is denying ML residency because he once worked for it? http://noii-van.resist.ca/?p=1126 http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/eng/brdcom/abau/faq/pages/index.aspx#idfaq2 www.law.uvic.ca/galloway/342/documents/inadmissibility_000.ppt First Lutheran Church, Vancouver BC This is the church that has given Mikhail Lennikov sanctuary. ML went to live in the church only hours before he was to report to the Vancouver airport to be placed aboard a plane and deported to Russia. He and his family had been attending the church for some time and the church was prepared for him to live there. Your task in this report is to explain the concept of sanctuary and why First Lutheran has provided this to ML. Sanctuary is not legal in Canada but no religious organization has been prosecuted for providing it. You will also have to explain if seeking sanctuary would affect ML s request for residency given that what he and the church are doing is actually against the law. Use the following questions to guide your report: 1) Is sanctuary legal? What can happen to a church or a provider of sanctuary according to the law? Why do you think this law has never been enforced in Canada? 2) What are the reasons given by the pastor of First Lutheran for giving sanctuary to ML? 3) What does it mean to be in sanctuary? What can a person do and not do? 4) From what you can find out about other cases of sanctuary in Canada will ML s use of sanctuary have any effect on what eventually happens to him? For example has anyone in Canada who lived in sanctuary been refused residency in Canada because they were in sanctuary? How successful has sanctuary been in obtaining residency in Canada for those who have used it? 5) Is the fact that ML has gone into sanctuary another reason to deport him or is it a point in his favour? http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/06/02/bc-kgb-lennikovsanctuary.html http://www.globaltvbc.com/entertainment/providing+sanctuary+reinvigorates+l utheran+church/1919986/story.html http://www.united-church.ca/files/handbooks/refugees_sanctuary.pdf http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/immigration/sanctuary.html 5

Writing Your Report (con t) Members of parliament supporting the Lennikov family Mikhail Lennikov has received support in his bid for Canadian residency from Members of Parliament. This support could be considered important since it gives ML a voice in parliament and keeps his story in the news. The problem is all of the members supporting ML are members of the opposition. It is members of parliament who are in the government party (the Conservatives) who decide if he stays in Canada or goes back to Russia. Your report should use the following questions to guide you. 1) How many MPs ( Members of Parliament) have come out in support of ML. How many MPs are there in parliament and do you consider the amount of support he has significant? Why might MPs not offer their support to ML? 2) What are the reasons given by those supporting him for why he should be allowed to stay? 3) One of the MPs has been trying to get access to information. Explain what this is, why it is important and what has been happening with this request to date. 4) Explain whether or not you think the support of MPs will help ML and why you think this to be the case. http://www.bclocalnews.com/greater_vancouver/burnabynewsleader/ news/56756407.html http://communities.canada.com/vannet/blogs/commcons/archive/2009/06/26/ more-mps-back-mikhail-lennikov.aspx Ukranian Canadians opposing Lennikov residency in Canada The Lennikovs have received considerable support for their request for permanent residency in Canada. There are, however, some who disagree and argue that Mikhail Lennikov should be deported. The most active of those who make the case for deportation are members of the Ukranian-Canadian community. Your assignment is to review the information found on these links and prepare a report on the case being presented by those who support deportation. 1) The following links will give you some information on why some Ukrainian Canadians believe ML should be deported to Russia. What are the key points raised in these articles? You should focus on : How does this information describe the KGB? What does this information claim was the real work of ML in the KGB and what is offered as proof? What evidence is there that ML was willingly involved in the KGB? What evidence do they offer that indicates ML was not truthful in his application for Canadian residency? http://www.immigrationwatchcanada.org/index.php?module=pagemaster &PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=4837&MMN_position=92:90 6

Writing Your Report (con t) http://www.ukrcdn.com/2009/06/23/lennikov-hides-in-church-to-avoiddeportation-call-for-action-to-remove-all-kgb-from-canada/comment-page-1/ http://www.ukrcdn.com/2009/06/30/lennikov-and-the-kgb-what-the-mediadoes-not-want-you-to-know/ http://www.immigrationwatchcanada.org/index.php?module=pagemaster &PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=4940&MMN_position=92:90 http://communities.canada.com/theprovince/blogs/victoriassecrets/archive/ 2009/06/04/lennikov-the-kgb-and-the-search-for-facts.aspx 2) The following links provide some insight on why some Ukrainians have such strong views on the KGB and the relationship of the Soviet Union to the Ukraine. As part of your report on the Ukrainian opposition to allowing ML to stay in Canada you should provide some background that explains why there is such anger towards the KGB and why they believe ML s involvement in the KGB is reason enough to deport him from Canada. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6179818.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6193266.stm The Media The media has played an important role in presenting the Lennikov case to the public. Ideally the media presents an issue in such a manner that the public gets the whole picture. In other words a full understanding of what is at stake and in a case such as Lennikov s the arguments that are being presented to support them and the position of those that oppose their request for residency in Canada including the government. Your task is to prepare a newspaper style report on the Lennikov case. This means you are to try to present the case in a manner that allows your readers to make up their own minds. You are not arguing for one position or the other. Since this is a newspaper style article it cannot be too long (750-800 words). Use the following outline to guide your article. a) Who is Mikhail Lennikov? What did he do in the past that is now an issue with regard to residency in Canada? What has happened to his request for residency? ( Note his appeals to the Minister of Public Safety and the results of his appeals to the Federal Court) b) Why do the Lennikovs and their supporters believe they should be allowed to stay in Canada? c) Why is the government of Canada refusing to grant residency in Canada? d) What are the Lennikovs doing to obtain support from the public? e) What is the current status of the case? What are Mikhail Lennikov and his family doing in terms of staying in Canada? 7

Writing Your Report (con t) f) What would appear to be the next stage in this case? The following links will help you gather information: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/06/02/bc-kgb-lennikovsanctuary.html http://www.metronews.ca/ottawa/comment/article/234120--russian-man-maybe-unfairly-deported-over-kgb-past. http://www.workpermit.com/news/2007_02_01/canada/ex-kgb_agent_ deported.htm. http://www.bclocalnews.com/greater_vancouver/burnabynewsleader/opinion/ Is_a_chapter_missing_from_the_Lennikov_saga.html 8

The Lennikov Case Guide for Teachers The Federal Court decision on Mikhail Lennikov: The Federal Court of Canada has denied Mikhail Lennikov s request to overturn the decision of the Minister for Public Safety to refuse him Canadian residency. The following link is to the transcript of the court decision. http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2009/2009fc942/2009fc942.html Teachers may wish to use the following synopsis of the case to explain the key parts of it and the reason why it is important to their consideration of the issue. Synopsis of the Federal Court of Canada decision on the case of Mikahail Lennikov: Mikhail Lennikov took his case for residency in Canada to the Federal Court because he believed the Minister responsible (The Minister for Public Safety) had acted incorrectly in denying him Canadian residency. The court summarizes ML s background, his work in the KGB and comes to this conclusion: I have considered his ties to the community, established family in this country and other factors. However, the above noted negative factors are serious and outweigh any factors in Mr. Lennikov s favour. It would be detrimental to the national interest to permit the applicant to continue to remain in Canada. Ministerial Relief is denied. The reasons given for denying ML residency in Canada have to do with the court believing the reports of Canadian immigration authorities in which they claim ML has not been forthright in his description of his involvement in the KGB. For example while ML claims what he was doing for the KGB while he was in Japan was not spying the Canadian immigration authorities believed it was. (He was providing the KGB information on Japanese citizens). Also while ML claims he was not keen to work for the KGB his record shows that he was fairly successful and was promoted twice. The immigration authorities also said that they felt ML s claim that he and his family would be mistreated on return to Russia was exaggerated. The Federal Court agreed that this was likely an exaggerated claim. An important part of ML s claim is that the Minister for Public Safety and the immigration authorities did not give enough consideration to such factors as his good citizenship in Canada and his family situation. The Immigration authorities claim they did but decided he remained detrimental to the national interest. The federal court has also accepted the word of immigration authorities on this matter. The judge in this case also agreed with the concern that ML had not made all of the records of his work in Russia with the KGB available. ML has claimed he was uncomfortable approaching Russian authorities for his military and KGB records. 9

It should be explained to students that the court will not (cannot) make any statement about the reasonableness of the law that is keeping ML from getting residency in Canada. (i.e. that because he worked for a spy agency he is not admissible to Canada and is detrimental to the national interest )The court only rules on whether or not the exsiting law has been followed fairly and properly. Note on concepts of fairness and justice: The important point here is for students to see some distinction between the two and to present a reasonably clear understanding. Teachers should be looking for such considerations as: Fairness: Even handedness, everyone treated the same, everyone has an equal opportunity, rules are followed, exceptions are not made. Justice: A concern for what is right, reasonableness is important, compassion is a key consideration, individuals are judged according to circumstances ( IE not so much emphasis on strict applications of rules), people get their due and individual circumstances are used in part to determine this. Teachers may want to do the concepts of fairness and justice as a whole class activity rather than in small groups. Reaching a decision: What should happen to Mikhail Lennikov? Procedure: 1) Each reporting group should tell the rest of the class what they have found in their research. These reports should be around 5 to 10 minutes. The first group to report should be the media because they can give an overview of the case and where it stands at present. The other groups can follow as listed. 2) After hearing reports and reviewing the court document the class should divide into groups of three or four and develop their inquiry based on the directions to follow. Once they have decided on their responses ( all students should record these) they then decide on the central issue: 1. Mikhail Lennikov should be granted permanent residency in Canada because This is just or fair because Or 2. Mikhail Lennikov should be denied permanent residency in Canada because This is just or fair because CELS Guide for Teachers: The Lennikov Case 10

3) Inquiry procedure: a) The first step is for each small group of students to develop language differentiating the concept of fairness from justice. They can refer to student hand out # 1 for some ideas. They should then list several attributes or characteristics of each. Their definitions could then begin with the phrases, fairness looks like and justice looks like (Teachers may decide to do this a class activity rather than in small groups) b) The next step is for students to consider the facts of the issue. They can do this by developing a T chart that has on one side arguments/points in favour of ML and on the other arguments/ points against ML. Students should be instructed to use the words justice and fairness on their T chart as they understand them and they apply to the case. Student handout #2 will help them develop their points. c) Finally students should make their decision on the central question as presented in step 3. Students should be instructed that their decision must use the words fairness and/ or justice. Note: It is possible that students will not be able to decide. In this case have them answer both sides. Not being able to decide should not be considered negatively given the complexity of the case. CELS Guide for Teachers: The Lennikov Case 11

The Lennikov Case Student Handout #1 What is a fair and just response to the case of Mikhail Lennikov and his request to become a permanent resident of Canada? Justice means giving each person what he or she deserves or, in more traditional terms, giving each person his or her due. Justice and fairness are closely related terms that are often used interchangeably. There have, however, been more distinct understandings of the two terms. Justice usually has been used with reference to a standard of rightness. In the Lennikov case then the issue is what is the right or reasonable thing to do. So considering all of the evidence and the circumstances is it just, right, or reasonable to deny residency? Is it reasonable for example to deny him residency because he is detrimental to the national interest of Canada given what we know and considering his conduct during his 10 years of living in Canada? Applying the principle of justice to the Lennikov case would therefore mean that even though he did work for a spy agency the more important and reasonable consideration is what he has done since then. Finally, what is the appropriate place of compassion? The law allows the Minister discretion in making exceptions. Would the right or just action in this case be for the Minister to use his discretionary power and allow ML to stay? Fairness often has been used with regard to an ability to judge without reference to one s feelings or interests. In the Lennikov case this would mean the law that denies residency in Canada for anyone who has worked as a spy against democratic governments is more important than the feeling that Lennikov is a good person and should therefore be allowed to stay. While ML has claimed his work with the KGB was not spying the government and the Federal Court do not believe him given the evidence they have. In other words Canadian law has been violated. In the interest of being fair, exceptions cannot be made. Fairness has also been used to refer to the ability to make judgments that are not overly general but are concrete and specific to a particular case. For Lennikov this means the government and the courts have considered his particular case and given him an opportunity to make his claim. The government is not simply applying a rule and sticking to it. His specific case has been heard and he has therefore been treated fairly in the eyes of the government. 12

The Lennikov Case Student Handout #2 Guide questions for reaching a decision on Mikhail Lennikov: Use these questions to help you develop ideas for your T chart. 1) If you were to ask ML what his main reason would be for being allowed to stay in Canada what would be his answer? 2) What would the government say is the main reason for sending him back to Russia? 3) Why is ML s involvement with the KGB such a problem for the government? Since the KGB no longer exists and Russia is no longer an enemy of Canada why does his KGB connection remain a problem? Should it? 4) Given the evidence you have has ML been truthful and forthright about his past? Should this matter? If he has not been truthful or forthright should this be a point against him? 5) Is seeking sanctuary in a church a point in his favour ( ie he is making a huge sacrifice to stay in Canada and has strong support in the community. The church is demonstrating compassion which is what the government should do.) or is it a point against him. ( ie he is breaking the law by refusing to leave and this shows he does not respect the laws of Canada.) 6) Is the fact that ML has strong community support including members of parliament a point in his favour? 7) Is the point raised by Ukranian Canadians about the conduct of the KGB a point against him or old history he had nothing to do with? 8) Is the situation involving Dimitri Lennikov and the possibility of him being drafted into the Russian army a factor in ML s favour or is it irrelevant? 9) The possible splitting of the family with ML in Russia and his son and wife in Canada is offered as one of the compassionate reasons why ML should be allowed to stay. Is this in his favour or does his service in the KGB prevail as a reason to deport him? 10) The Federal Court of Canada has ruled against ML. Is this a point against him or is the court decision beside the point because it does not give enough consideration to the compassionate reasons for ML to stay 13