Peter F

Dang. I had a long a brilliant reply all typed up for Rue. but I lost it by clicking in the wrong place. But I shall respond to Overthere's post above since it addresses much of the same issues. Ms. Harvey's Crime: She had sex with a minor. Illegal both in Florida and Canada. Apparently that is the entire extent of her crime. There was nothing else to it. No beatings or other violence. No manipulation to commit crimes. No profit through prostitution, drug running, robbery. No forceable confinement. Nor any other known extenuating circumstance. She had a fling with a minor. She offered no defence and did not testify. The State went to town and proved beyond all doubt that she had sex with a 16year old minor. See? we even have the condom proving she had sex with the boy. Not one peep though about all the abuse she subjected the boy. Maybe there was no need. Maybe there was no abuse. Such a fling in Canada would get a few tut-tuts from the church ladies, and no doubt the boys parents would be grounding the lad. But there'd be no cops, lawyers or courts involved because the minor in this case and these circumstances was a 16 year old male. Rue suggests that by allowing this woman asylum in Canada we are making this country a haven for sexual offenders. No we are not...or actually we are not changing anything because some adult women do in fact have sex with 16 year old males in this country from time to time. And its generally no big whup unless there are other circumstances and/or manipulation involved. Canada already is a haven for sexual intercourse with 16 year olds. Granting Ms. Harvey asylum doesn't change a damn thing. As for appeals, according to the Federal Court ruling ( http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/62421/index.do ) she made appeals; Her motion for reconsideration of the sentence was dismissed; Her appeal to the Florida Court of Appeal was dismissed; Her appeal to the Florida Supreme Court was dismissed. The refugee board (again based on what is revealed in the Federal Court ruling linked) reasonably found that her chance of being granted clemency by the Governor or her case being heard by the US Supreme court was unlikely. I quote para 73 of the FC decision: But yes...If you can't do the time then don't do the crime. As Cybercoma said a page or two ago, if the sentence had have been 2 or 3 years this claim for protected status would have been tossed and rightly so. But instead she was sentenced to 30 years. And that is what refugee boards are for.

The foundation for the asylum came from the 30 year sentence. The fact that her actions would have been legal in Canada was neither here nor there. It seems the board actually looked at what were the sentences for Canadian perps in Canada for sexual assault of a minor and found that the sentence imposed by the Florida court supported the womans claim: IE cruel and unusual punishment. According to the reviewing judge of the Federal Court (see: http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/62421/index.do) para 22 says : "The Board started its analysis by observing that while the acts committed by Ms. Harvey did not constitute a crime in Canada, it was open to other jurisdictions to establish different ages of consent." so it would seem that it was accepted that Florida gets to make its own laws and the refugee board need consider Florida's law and not Canadian law. The next para says: " The Board then examined the types of sentences handed down by Canadian courts for similar offences, including those imposed in cases involving much younger children and cases where the perpetrator was in a position of trust in relation to the victim. From this, the Board determined that the sentence imposed on Ms. Harvey was at least 15 times longer than the sentence that she would have received in Canada, had her actions been criminal in nature in this country." The board found such a sentence “so excessive as to outrage standards of decency and surpass all rational bounds of punishment”. Funny thing about refugee boards, sometimes they get to say 'yah, you are being treated very badly where you come from. So we wont send you back there.' Sorta like Americans do from time to time.

I shall quote the CBC article again: . The doors are always open to refugee claims....the hard part is getting the board to agree.

Statutory rapists can only find asylum in Canada if the refugee board thinks they have a point...whatever that point may be. For example, all those US soldiers that sought refugee status in Canada all got sent back because the refugee boards didn't think they had a point. As for sentencing being moot, you are obviously mistaken. The sentence had a huge impact on the boards decision.

The Federal court judge sent the decision back to the IRB for them to evaluate the 'international standards' issue. That was in June 2013.According to the CBC article linked in the OP This year being 2014 which, I think, means the thing is a done deal. Refugee status granted. No further dispute.

But it did make it asylum worthy - proven by the fact she recieved asylum.

The USofA can be, is, and always shall be, as autonomous as it wants. Who's stopping them? Nobody. The State of Florida has not and cannot decree what the law shall be anywhere else but Florida. Thus all the Cuban refugees. Canada decrees its own laws also; one of them being that this government shall not send persons to places where they would undergo cruel and unusual punishment without certain guarantees from that government.

Well?what the hell are you waiting for? C'mon up and commit all the non-crimes you want up here.

well, not in Florida. I get that.

and then only when the polygamy has been fraudulent: ie the various spouses were under the impression that the marriage was mono-something.

Well, it would be abhorrent to the law to sentence one to 30 years for such transgressions.

No we don't know yet...so why all this talk of tyrants? It may very well work out just fine. I bet lots of anti-abortion catholics vote conservative knowing full well Harper will not allow the abortion debate. Why cant these catholics you mention vote liberal for the very same reason?

Sure...and if JT and the Libs manage fine then whats the problem?

Yes, length of punishment has everything to do with 'cruel'. True its not a death sentence, but does cruel only apply to death or torture?

well, our suspicions are boundless. What bad precedent? Recognizing a 30 year sentence being inhumane ?

The woman was sentenced to 30 years in a florida court for having sex with a 16 year old. She fled to Canada and claimed refugee status on grounds of fleeing cruel and unusual punishment. Assylum granted by a Federal court. Canada's Immigration Minister, Chris Alexander says: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/florida-sex-offender-granted-asylum-in-canada-1.2646061 I find it mind-boggling that the man doesn't realize that a 30 year sentence for what is a non-crime in Canada is more than a little 'unusual' and certainly 'cruel'.

Has yet to be tested? He just decreed that all liberal party candidates (incumbents excepted) shall support the status quo. I figure thats as much a test as any other political leader gets. We've seen Harper tested on this very thing: No abortion laws will be brought before parliament. Hows that for not giving a goddamn for what the anti-abortionists in his causes think?

Let me get this straight: Harper is a good man for not allowing the abortion issue come to a vote Trudeau is a bad man for not allowing the abortion issue come to a vote

I think the pope is ineligible to run for the Conservative party too.

I'd tell you what I'm guessing, but I don't want the demerit point.

Must be? Who knows. Its a secret and has been a secret for 10 odd years. All peons like us can do is 'Hope' the powers that be are behaving in a competent manner and not like incompetent boobs (see Arar and CSIS actions in Guatanamo)

If that were true there'd be an arrest and a trial. But there isn't so there's not.

yumpin yimminy. Did the Crown cede land to FN's or not?

You're talking about taxes now. Did the FN's have land ceded to them or not?

Ah, so FN's have exclusive access to the area ceded to them by treaty. Got it.