Peter F

The orphanages have been closed. Foster parents are few and far between. Child services are overstreched. If the parents don't make some effort to take care of the child that in 99% is the not-surprising result of their sexual congress, who will? The state? I'm all for birth-control; pills, condoms, aborltions, rhythm, spermicides, morning after pills; whatever it takes. But the responsibility for the child falls first upon the biological parents. If they can't manage it then the state will have to pick it up, But the children will not be left to fend for themselves. Somebody is gonna take care of em.

I would say there is no need to take the male off to the side. He made his decision when he had sex. Perhaps accepted the risk would be more accurate

Knocking off anyone is easy with a firearm. Is that not the point of the OP?

I think there's some confusion about what a mans supposed rights are regarding children. As long as the woman has not actually given birth then the father actually has zero rights since there is no child. Once the child is born then the father gets saddled with 50% responsibility just like mom.

Are you suggesting that units in the field get to peruse resumes when replacements are needed? I re-iterate : recruits are trained to do the job they were recruited for. If memory serves, each recruit undergoes testing at the end of training to see if they have actually learned something and can perform the job. Should they fail the test then they may undergo further training or be trained in something else or be released. I am damn sure that every one in the Armed forces can do the job they have been trained for.

I am quite sure that DND trains recruits to the required competence to do the required job. Even dumb-ass white guys.

I was under the impression that the military trained people to do the job they were recruited for.

yes, thanks for the correction.

I'm wondering why Argus doesn't display the courage of his convictions. Our culture is far superior to Islamic culture. Our superior culture will have no problem absorbing inferior cultures over time. This has happened over and over again in history. Of course, it is perhaps Islam that is the superior culture and our inferior culture will be absorbed. But then, is it not true that the inferior culture should make way for the superior? Its inevitable is it not?

I think you raise a good point here, Rue. Care must be taken in regards to determing the facts of a case - extra care when it comes to sexual matters of legal implications in regards to adolescents. I remember some of the legal and political spats involved in raising the age of consent to 16. I also take note of the resulting laws where exceptions were made to rules in order to account for exploitation matters, and wether 15 year olds can have sex with 16 year olds etc etc. All that hullabaloo resulted in the Laws we have. Perhaps they will change some more over time, perhaps even in a direction you would approve of. Nevertheless, The law as it stands is the law we have and the law that the IRB's, amongs others, have to work with.

Lordy, The act of administering the drug that caused physical harm would most definitely be illegal in this country. The act of having non-exploitive sex with a 16 year old is not illegal in this country Why do you think forcing a miscarriage (against the will of the mother) is legal in Canada? In Canada and the USA his actions were criminal - albeit the charges wouldn't fall under the same crime - but criminal nonetheless. Ergo extradition. Should the guy have fled the USA to Canada after his trial he would certainly have a steep hill to climb in convincing the IRB that he would be facing cruel and unusual punishment if sent back. Cybercoma explained one criminal charge he would have been subject to had he have committed his act in Canada: Admistering a Noxious substance - and not merely annoying the victim but actually causing physical harm. Max sentence 14 years The US court sentenced him to 14 years for murder. So do tell, how would a IRB conclude that the sentence the man received in the USofA could be considered 'cruel and unusual'?

True...except when the arrive on Canadian soil and claim Protected status. In which case the government is 'morally' bound by law to hear the claim and if granted protect that person from the long arm of their home nations Cruel and unusual practice.

So Cruel and Unusual punishment really means nothing then?

The law allows for granting refugee status for cruel and unusual punishment. A strict application of that law will mean we must grant protected status to those who have been sentenced to cruel and unusual punishment.

Canada's government determined that the florida laws weren't archaic or unjustified. Thus the appeals of the refugee boards decision. Nor was it morally irresponsible of them to do so. I would say the Government acted in a morally responsible way by appealing the boards decision. edit to add: Address to Monty's post #436

If there was sexual exploitation happening, then what Ms.Harvey did would have been illegal, not only in Canada but in every other state of the USofA also. If there was sexual exploitation in Ms.Harvey's instance, why was this not addressed by the RB? Why was their not addressing it passed over by the Federal Court judge? The same judge who quite sharply pointed out that the RB failed to address the accepted international norms of sentencing? If there was sexual exploitation why was this never mentioned by any of the Florida media? by the RB? by the Federal court? As far as i can tell, any time there is sexual exploitation the media are happy to publish some of the lurid facts of the case. It happens over and over again when reporting sexual crimes against minors. In Ms. Harveys case there is not one peep regarding the exploitation of the 16 year old. It is the exploitation aspect that usually results in time being added onto the minimum sentence. As far as I can tell from the few news reports from Florida and from what can be gleaned from the Federal Courts review of the RB's decision, there was no aggravating exploitation. Nothing. So why the maximum sentence on each of the five counts of having sex with a minor, and not just any minor but a 16 year old minor.? Does Florida ever give a minimum sentence? If so why? Why not this case?

for gawds sake Rue, the government appealed twice, and has now accepted the boards decision. Quoting origianal cbc story of OP: The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Chris Alexander, sought a review of the IRB ruling on two occasions, however the federal court upheld Harvey’s protected person status. The ruling was accepted by Citizenship and Immigration Canada in April of this year. end quote http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/florida-sex-offender-granted-asylum-in-canada-1.2646061

Perhaps Rue can explain what the purpose of section 97 of the act is there for? Does section 97 have any meaning at all or is it only of use for crimes not referred to in 3.2h. That is to say only sentences for non-serious crimes can possibly result in 'cruel and unusual punishment' ? For you to be correct in your interpretation of the act, then it would be impossible for a serious crime to result in cruel and unusual punishment. You said that Ms.Harvey committed a serious crime therefore 3.2h must override 3.2d even though you agree that the sentence was excessive. I think a more reasonable interpretation is that 3.2h and 3.2d exist happily side by side. A serious crime can indeed result in cruel and unusual punishment. 3.2h does not override 3.2d. If it is possible for a serious crime to result in cruel and unusual punishment, does the refugee board have the power to decide wether there was indeed cruel and unusual punishment? If so do they have to power to grant protected status to that claimant? subject to appeal and review by those learned in the law.

Yes we should. Encouraging corruption is not a good idea. It should be discouraged. This law, and this sentence, does that. Its a good thing. Cryptometrics should perhaps actually try employing some entrepreneurial and managerial skill to be competitive. Imagine the harm caused to Air India should the bribery have succeeded and continued.

Then all is well!

Of course Americans are worth it. Everybody's worth it. Sure its up to them to fix their society (assuming they think it needs fixing) but wether they 'fix' themselves or not has nothing to do with granting Protected status to folks who lawfully should get it. And Canadians spend an inordinate amount of time killing each other too.

Sending claimants back is indeed the norm. In this case the board agreed that she had a point and shouldn't be sent back. I doubt very much that Ms. Harvey's purpose was to make a political statement.

And just imagine what wide-spread birth control had on our populations! If it wasn't for birth control we'd have no need for temporary foreign workers!

Few have argued that the sentence was appropriate - except maybe BC2004, and i'm not sure he did either. But thats the whole point isn't it? The sentence was well outside the norm, perhaps not Florida norm. It maybe that a thirty year sentence is the norm in Florida for what Ms. Harvey did. Too bad for Florida. Canada also has laws that need be respected - in Canada anyways. One of them being the immigration and refugee act. By that act, the Florida sentence reached into the realm of cruel and unusual punishment. Florida can enact whatever laws it pleases them to enact but by doing so does not mean Canada must change its own laws to comply.

Rue claims that the refugee board is fundamentally wrong in its decision to grant asylum because refugee claims need be based on religious political or racial ground. Section 97 of the immigration and refugee protection act (which Ms. Harvey's claim was based) says nothing at all about race, religion or political activities. Section 97 allows protected status to persons who would be subject to either torture, loss of life or cruel or unusual treatment or punishment if sent back to where they came from. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-37.html#h-50 Personally, I think those are pretty good grounds to grant protected status.