Quantifying life

It's not the first time that I've run in to the oddities of refugee law and the way it plays out in the everday lives of everyday people.

I distinctly recall being in the office in Barcelona with two asylum seekers from the Ivory Coast, one of which - call him Bob - had been in Barcelona for some time trying to pull together enough documents to make a solid case for asylum and the other - call him George -, recently arrived, having brought all of his documents in a neatly kept folder. George was bemoaning the fact that his mother had just passed away and he was unable to return for her funeral, Bob minced no words as he told him to shut up ... "at least his mother got a funeral". Bob then leaned over and told me that it's a good thing this isn't Africa; otherwise he would kill him (George) right now.

You see, Bob's entire village, including all his family and friends, were wiped out in the genocide and, because he had fled with no notice, he had no documents - no birth or wedding certificates, no passport to show to facilitate the asylum process. George - though there is no evidence that he carried out any killings himself - was on the "guerilla" side ... the side who was told exactly what documents to bring and present so that their request for asylum in Europe would be quickly processed. When I left Barcelona, George had acquired refugee status (in 7 months, no less), while Bob was still awaiting a decision.

Needless to say, these memories came to mind when I was at a UNHCR deployee training last week, as we we lectured on the criteria for refugee status eligibility. Instigators of "crimes against humanity", for example, are never eligible to be granted refugee status. The question, however, is just HOW you define "crime against humanity".

Imagine, for instance, that you have been attacked and taken hostage by a rebel group, along with 20 others from your hometown. The rebels pull you out of the group, lead you in front of everyone, hold a gun to your head and order you to shoot the other hostages. Never, in a million years, would you dream of doing such a thing, yet the gun gets pressed harder into your temple and you make the desperate - and perhaps selfish - decision to shoot as ordered in order to save your own life. Your life is saved; you've just killed your fellow hostages; and you've just committed a "crime against humanity".

Why? Because international law has quantified lives. In a sheer game of numbers, you being shot and killed is but one life lost. You killing two, three, five, ten people means that many more lives were lost and, since it would be impossible to say who's live was more important, the decision dissolves into mere numbers. Better to lose one life than multiple. Never mind acts of self defense nor the very real possibility that the others would have been killed eventually anyhow.

Indeed, with all of our laws, standards, protocols, declarations, resolutions, decisions ... with all of our nobley intentioned legal frameworks we have attempted to protect and defend humanity, but is it really possible to fit the impossibilities of reality into stark, man-made definitions?