Machjo

If it happens to one, why would it not happen to others? Humans are creatures of habit, so if the CBSA handled our case this way, then it's reasonable to suppose that that is because that is how it operates.

The sad part is that the CBSA could have saved thousands of dollars in this case had they just collected a few easy witness statements at a cost of no more than an officer's day's salary if that.

But we already have phone lines for that. In the worst case scenario, call 911. Why create more expensive bureaucracy for nothing?It's like the Office if Religious Freedom, a total redundancy.

Or an easier solution would be to rename the 911 emergency line as the BCP tip line.

Maybe the intent is that the BCP tip line would be a CBSA line. To incarcerate someone, you need to respect the presumption of innocence. To deport someone, you only need to respect the balance of probabilities, a much lower standard of proof. That way, those charged with committing a 'barbaric cultural practice' could be found guilty on a lower proof threshold and then summarily deported. Unfortunatly, serial killing and snuff films won't count as those are more English in nature.

My fiancée is in a similar situation. She is now allowed to go home due to a CBSA decision in her favour and a warning from her lawyer to the CBSA. However, since the CBSA has appealed the IRB decision, she will be legally bound to return to Canada for the appeal hearing or face a warrant for her arrest to do so. The most ironic part in this is that it is to appeal her right to remain in Canada so that the CBSA could then deport her. At first the CBSA wanted to force her to remain in Canada until the appeal hearing. In short, it does not want her to leave Canada of her own volition but insists on deporting her again at her will.

I'd found myself in the oddest conversation with a CBSA Officer this week. She'd illegally refused to return my fiancée's passport to her due to the fear that she would go back home and not return to Canada for an appeal hearing to determine whether to forcefully send her back home. When I pointed out the insanity of the Officer's statement, she just said that the CBSA did not want her to return home of her own free will but rather to be forcefully deported. Her lawyer then sent a fax to the CBSA informing it of the criminality of its refusal and that should it continue to refuse to return her passpprt, the person responsible would suffer the legal consequences of his actions. Sure enough, the CBSA returned her her passport the next day, but again reminding her that they are appealing the IRB decision and that should she go home, she would have to return for the appeal hearing or face a warrant for her arrest. So the CBSA first tried to force her to leave. Failing that, it illegally tried to force her to stay. Failing that, it is now going to force her to return should she leave so as to try to force her to leave. This parallels the niqab controversy. Just as an Asian woman should not be free to stay in, leave, or not return to Canada of her own free will, so a Muslim woman should likewise not get to decide what part of her body to cover. Just as the best way to protect the rights of Asian women in Canada is to disrespect the right to the presumption of innocence, to try to force them to leave when they want to stay, to stay when they want to leave, and to return should they wish to not return; so the best way to protect the rights of a Muslim woman from being forced to dress a certain way is to force her to undress a certain way. And just as an Asian woman should be punished through appeals for having dared to challenge the Power of the CBSA and win, so a Muslim woman should likewise be punished through appeals for challenging the Government and winning. The one constant in all of this is that a non-Canadian woman of non-British and non-French origin should never get to freely decide what to do and ought to be punished for fighting back and winning. In short, such women ought to know their place in Canadian society.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/topstories/canada-election-2015-conservatives-barbaric-cultural-practices-1.3254886 '911 Operator. What's the emergency?" "I'd like to report a murder." "What's the nature of the murder?" "What do you mean?" "If it was motivated by 'barbaric cultural practices,' we can't help you with that; then you'll need to call the BCP tip line at 1(800) barbara. That number again is 1 (800) 227-2272.' "But I don't know the motive for the killing." "I'm sorry sir, but you'll first have to determine the motive for the killing and then call the right number. If it's not motivated by 'culturally barbaric practices, you call us, otherwise you'l need to call the BCP tip line." "I suspect it's a serial rapist making snuff films." "Oh I see. That sounds more like an English cultural practice, so that would be us." "But I'm not sure. It might have been an honour killing." "Honour killing? Definitely the BCP tip line. Anyway, you'll have to find out which and then call us back, okay."

The funniest was that they'd initially feared that if her passport was given back to her, she would leave Canada to go back home but not return for the appeal hearing to determine whether to send her back home. That was Tuesday. I pointed out the odd logic of preventing her from going home so as to ensure she appear at the hearing to determine whether to deport her home. The officer explained that they did not want her to leave of her own free will but to be deported. Since the CBSA had to give her her passport back yesterday, they reminded her that if she leaves, she must return to Canada for the admissibility hearing or have a warrant out for her arrest. Because of that and the cost of flights, we're now thinking of marrying in the next month. It will just mean less time for family to buy flight tickets. She had wanted to go back home to see a doctor about psychosomatic and other skin allergies (too much of a wait time in Canada), but decided to just stay, especially seeing that most if her skin reaction was to stress, much if which is somewhat relieved. But seriously, hat a messed up, expensive and inefficient system.

You might be correct for some cases. By the way, it's amazing how co-operative the CBSA becomes once it gets a fax from a lawyer informing it that it is illegally withholding someone's passport and continuing to do so will result in legal consequences for the persons doing so. They handed the passport back yesterday after filling out a little paperwork. But seriously, it never should have come down to this. How can we trust the CBSA to uphold the law when the CBSA itself has to be reminded by a lawyer's fax that it's breaking the law?! Shockingly enough though, the CBSA is still bent on appealing the IRB's decision in our favour for such a relatively small matter. Just think of the thousands of dollars being wasted on all of this all because a CBSA officer failed to collect the easiest of evidence, and soon in an appeal because someone wants to save face at taxpayers' expense. Add to that that we enquired today about suing the CBSA over its illegally withholding her passport for so long, which was damn stressful icing on the cake of it all. We'll decide whether to sue based on her lawyer's response in the next week. But if we do, there go a few thousands more taxpayer dollars wasted. Then we wonder why the CBSA succeeds mostly only in detaining people but rarely deporting them. The simple answer is that while they love to arrest and detain people, they're too quick to presume people guilty without collecting the least evidence and then get caught at the IRB with their pants down.

One scenario that would force them all to resign is if they were caught together in a threesome

Reducing taxes or any other source of government revenue promotes growth. Increasing Government expenditure promotes growth too. So if the government's sole objective is to promote growth, it's best option would be to eliminate taxes and print more money. Now if the goal is not necessarily growth but rather sustainability, then lowering taxes and increasing spending at all costs might not be the best option.

It's precisely people who think like you who opposed Confederation. Had you been the majority, Canada would never have come into existence. Ironically enough, people who are open to world federation are the same ones who would have supported Confederation.

Military integration makes sense for efficiency.

There is also a basic question of justice. Why not give your vote to the one who most deserves it independently of his ability to win?

Let's put it this way. If I vote for the best candidate even if he stands no chance of winning, I'll have at least expressed my general support for his ideas, and so encourage other candidates to won my vote next time. If I merely vote for the second-best candidate, I falsely signal that I like his ideas and so encourage future candidates to adopt his ideas to win my vote.

Because it rewards and thus encourages mediocrity by rewarding the pursuit of the 'anything but' vote rather than presenting actual competence.

I'm quite non-partisan actually, preferring to vote for the best local candidate independently of party affiliation.

Strategic voting guarantees that the second-worse candidate will always win. Principled voting might allow the worst in, but only until people smarten up and start voting for the best candidate. It's a price worth paying.

Now it's getting to be ridiculous. Since the ruling in her favour over a week ago, the CBSA has refused to return her passport. Finally today her lawyer sent out faxes informing them that their refusal is illegal and that whoever refuses to return her passport tomorrow will be held legally accountable. Seriously, is this for real? Are CBSA officers that incompetent in their jobs? Or is it just that their motive for working there is that they personally hate foreign nationals and so will push every boundary of the law and even cross legal boundaries just to harass foreign nationals? I don't know what the problem is, but law enforcement officers who violate the law should be held accountable by the department right away and not need to wait for an outside lawyer to inform them that what they are doing is illegal. When it reaches that stage, we've got a structural problem within the administration of the organization. I swear, I feel murderously infuriated right now. No I won't do anything illegal, but I'm just tired of CBSA incompetence in this matter.

On the matter of the Charter applying only to Canadian citizens, you can only imagine the possible abuses. For example, a foreign national seeking recourse against a Canadian marriage fraud to then divorce him for his money. A neighbour's visiting foreign relative looks at a Canadian the wrong way and the Canadian makes a false accusation to get him deported because he just doesn't like him. A CBSA officer decides to deport someone out of spite. Let's not think for one moment that government officials can't be incompetent, spiteful, prejudiced, or even outright corrupt.

We never took the CBSA to court. The CBSA took my fiancée to 'court' (the IRB to be exact) and she won. The CBSA (and I think I know who precisely, albeit not by name since I forgot it) didn't like the decision and now wants to appeal it. What makes it suspicious though are that: 1. The CBSA representative at the IRB hearing did seem to take the IRB decision personally, and 2. The reason for the decision in our favour in the first place was due to a total lack of evidence or even attempt to collect evidence on the CBSA's part among other reasons. The IRB does not respect the presumption of innocence, but it still respects at least the balance of probabilities. While the balance of probabilities does not require nearly as much proof as the presumption of innocence, it still requires at least some proof none-the-less. Given that she'd won on a balance of probabilities (which is much harder to win than one based on a presumption of innocence), and that even on that basis she had a solid case, the CBSA officer appealing the IRB decision must certainly be aware of the nonexistent chance of a decision in favour of the CBSA here. This leads us to believe that the CBSA representative is just wielding the appeals process as a personal weapon of revenge at taxpayers' expense. Now if we're lucky, the Federal Court will deny the appeal. But still, why would the CBSA want to appeal a case that it must know it will certainly lose?

I think it would be a mistake to assume that being a government officers proves one's objectivity or that a government officer couldn't decide to manipulate government policies for personal reasons.

Appeals don't automatically happen as a matter of government policy. If that were the case, the CBSA would automatically appeal every case it loses as a matter of policy. So someone had to consciously decide to appeal the IRB decision. I don't know who it was specifically, but given the solid case against the charge, plus the fact that it's not a major charge to begin with, make the motive for the appeal suspicious. One thing we'd noticed was that the CBSA's representative at the IRB hearing seemed angry at the decision as if she took it personally. Fine, so she was not happy with the decision. But given the solid case in our favour, it does make us wonder about her motive if she is the one who intends to make the appeal, whether she is in fact using taxpayer dollars to appeal with the intent of using the appeals process as a punishment in its own right, essentially making it a form of harassment under the guise of a legal process. And if she is doing this to us, on how many other people might she have wasted taxpayer dollars like this just out of spite as punishment for daring to win a case against the CBSA because she took the loss personally?

Essentially circumscribed by official bilingualism and while maintainingetting the separate school system.