Huseyin Celil and one of his youngest children in a photo taken shortly before his arrest in 2006.Supplied
Irwin Cotler is the international chair of the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights.
Mehmet Tohti is the executive director of the Uyghur Rights Advocacy Project.
China’s new visa-free policy for Canadians may appear to signal openness. In reality, it exposes Canadians to risks our government has found difficult to mitigate.
Consider Huseyin Celil, a Canadian citizen illegally detained in China for two decades.
Mr. Celil, a peaceful advocate for the rights of the Uyghur people, travelled to Uzbekistan in 2006, where he was detained and forcibly transferred to China. There, he was convicted on baseless “terrorism” charges in a sham trial condemned by Canada.
China has continued to refuse to recognize Mr. Celil’s Canadian citizenship, thereby denying him the basic protections owed to him under international law, including consular access. His family in Canada has been without meaningful communication or reliable information about his condition for almost two decades. Their uncertainty is continuing; their suffering is immeasurable.
His case is an enduring injustice and test of Canada’s capacity to protect its citizens abroad.
Carney pressed to raise plight of imprisoned Canadians, Jimmy Lai in meeting with Xi
It exposes a contradiction: How can a state that denies a Canadian citizen his rights simultaneously claim to welcome Canadians?
Some hailed China’s February announcement that Canadian citizens will be permitted to enter the country visa-free, calling this a convenience in support of renewed people-to-people exchange.
However, many members of diaspora communities, including Uyghur, Tibetan, Taiwanese, and Hong Kong Canadians, are not celebrating. They are asking what this policy means for their safety, rights and future.
Until now, visa applications provided at least one layer of precaution. Canadians could receive a decision while still on Canadian soil, offering predictability and some degree of protection. A denial, while disappointing, did not carry the risk of detention.
The removal of this process fundamentally shifts that dynamic. Now, individuals must make the decision to travel to China without knowing how they will be treated upon arrival.
For those engaged in human rights advocacy, political activity, or public criticism of the Chinese Communist Party, this creates a major vulnerability at the border. They may face increased risks of refusal of entry, disappearance or imprisonment.
For many Canadians in these diaspora communities, the question is no longer “Can I travel?” but “Will I be safe if I do – and will my country help me if I am not?” This risk is not confined to diaspora communities. If Canadian citizenship can be ignored in Mr. Celil’s case, it can be ignored in others’.
When a foreign state can detain a Canadian with impunity and deny their Canadian citizenship, the protection that citizenship is meant to guarantee erodes for everyone.
Liberal MP Michael Ma sparks backlash after casting doubt on forced labour of Uyghurs in China
Consular assistance – the protection governments provide to citizens abroad – is both a right of citizens and an obligation of governments. It is not discretionary, and not limited to situations where the host state is co-operative. By failing to effectively affirm the rights of its citizen, particularly over the last decade, Canada appears to be unable to prevent the gross violation of that individual’s rights.
The new visa-free policy intersects with a broader pattern of surveillance, intimidation and foreign interference. The Foreign Interference Commission concluded that China “stands out as the most persistent and sophisticated foreign interference threat to Canada.” Beijing targets democratic institutions, politicians, and the diaspora through intelligence services to advance its interests and manipulate Canadian politics. The PRC views Canada as a high-priority target, not only for foreign interference, but transnational repression, in violation of Canadian sovereignty and security.
Twenty years after Mr. Celil’s abduction, we call on the government of Canada to raise his case and to:
- Engage in high-level diplomatic representations to seek proof of life.
- As the home country, provide the necessary diplomatic and consular assistance and remedy. We likewise call on China, as the host country, to honour its obligations for that purpose.
- Restore family contact, including at least one phone call with his wife and children in Canada with all deliberate speed.
- Renew efforts to secure his release and reunite him with his family here.
These are not extraordinary demands. They are the minimum obligations owed to any Canadian citizen.
Convenience cannot come at the expense of protection. If Canada is to deepen its ties with China, it must do so with clarity, consistency and a firm commitment to defending its citizens at home and abroad.
When a Canadian can be detained, disappeared, and denied their recognition as a Canadian citizen by a foreign state, visa-free travel is not a benefit – it is a risk.
It exposes an uncomfortable truth: Canadian citizenship does not always guarantee protection.
If Canada does not confront that reality, it risks leaving its citizens to bear the consequences alone.