REFUGEE mothers demonstrated outside the presidential palace on Sunday to protest against state discrimination. They argue that they are victims of sexual discrimination as they are prevented, by law, from passing their refugee status to their children as male refugees are entitled to do. The son of a male refugee is given refugees status, whereas the son of female refugee is not, which is a blatant case of institutional discrimination.
Deputies from all the political parties, for years, have been trying to eliminate the discriminatory provision of the law but have been prevented from doing so by the government. The Papadopoulos government openly defended the law, for practical reasons. If it were changed, more than half the population would have refugee status and be entitled to state help.
The current government, with its populist mentality, had suggested it would change the law, but had a change of heart when it considered the financial implications of swelling the numbers of people with refugee status. It is now avoiding dealing with the matter, the Movement of Refugee and Displaced Mothers of Cyprus, accusing it of going back on its promises.
Fed up of the government inaction, the Movement had filed 40 recourses to the European Court of Human Rights and planned to file more in the future. They would probably win if the ECHR decided to deal with such a trite issue, because they are being discriminated against by the state. What would happen then? Would the government be obliged to issue refugee ID cards to another 50 or 100 thousand people?
This is what happens when populist politicians pass laws without thinking them through. Making refugee status a hereditary right was a resoundingly stupid measure that only the populist political parties of Cyprus would have approved. Someone born after 1974 in the free areas is quite clearly not a refugee, because he was not forced to leave his home by anyone, and the state should never have treated him as one. Thanks to this absurd law, we now have more ‘refugees’ than we had in 1974.
Perhaps poor non-refugees should also organise themselves into a movement and demand equal treatment with the refugees, because they are victims of discrimination as well. Why should a poor, young couple whose parents were not refugees be denied interest-free housing loans? They may have a lower income than the offspring of refugees and therefore be more deserving of state help. In effect, the state is penalising them, depriving them of financial assistance, not because they can afford to buy a house, but because their parents were not refugees. How fair is that?
The only solution is for the government to put an end to all this ‘refugee status’ business. Apart from being unfair, the mass production of refugees is a costly business for the state.
