Machjo

Wrong. It's a Constitutional matter.

If the goal is to increase birth rates: 1. Improve access to quality trades or professional education for all. People with an unreliable income are not as likely to have children. 2. Establish a common educational standards for various trades and professions and a common labour market agreement with other states. Barriers to employment are not conducive to high birth rates. 3. Better respect the human rights of foreign nationals in Canada. To fail to do so will only motivate their Canadian spouses to emigrate. Somehow break the language barrier between English and French Canadians. Most Canadians are monolingual and so not as likely to marry other Canadians. For example, a monolingual French Canadian will marry a Frenchman before an English Canadian, and thus increase the possibility of emigration. A monolingual English Canadian likewise is more likely to marry a Briton than a French Canadian and so again be more likely to emigrate. Consider the example just this year of the Britons who was deported for 'taking work away from Canadians' for helping his Canadian girlfriend build her DIY patio. If I remember correctly, that experience alone led them to decide for her to emigrate. In our case likewise, though we were considering my emigration before our incident with the CBSA, that incident has sealed it that I will be emigrating within five years after our child is born. Just plugging the emigration drain would help to buoy Canada's population decline. Let's not kid ourselves. Most people place family before country.

Value to Canada or to Canadians? 'Value to Canada' is usually synonymous to 'value to politicians.' Value to Canadians can be happiness (marriage, children, parents, etc.), employment (if the employer is an immigrant), labour access (if the immigr Self-sustaining, I agree. But as for knowing French or English, many are self-sufficient merchants with a weak knowledge of these languages. If they're paying their taxes, what does what language they speak matter for permanent residency (not to be confused with citizenship, which not all permanent residents are interested in obtaining)ant possesses special skulls and knowledge that can be of value to a Canadian employer, etc. And since tourism falls into this, foreign tourists are of value to tourism companies. Since people disagree on what 'value to Canada' means, how about we define it as value to Canadians. In other words, if a Canadian provides an official statement that a foreign national is of value to him (happiness, employment, labour access, etc., then the state will recognize that he is of value to Canada since Canada is defined by Canadians not politicians.

Why I might cast a blank ballot. With the NDP, the LPC, CPC, and Green Parties all inscribing support for official bilingualism in their very constitutions and no party prepared to open the Constitution to remove the Separate school system (two important symbols of residential-school-era laws and Constitutional provisions that were inspired by the same or similar beliefs in 'two founding races'), I can't vote for any of them. I was leaning lately mostly towards a competent Libertarian candidate and in its absence a Bloc Candidate to help fight wasteful spending on official bilingualism and knowing that neither of these parties is likely to defend the Separate School System. With no Libertarian candidate in my riding, this leaves me with the Bloc. But I remember the Bloc's support for the PQ's 'Charter of values' and now the Bloc is invoking the notwithstanding clause to arbitrarily curtail religious freedom at citizenship ceremonies. There was another time in Canadian history when religious freedom was similarly curtailed, and that was under the Indian Act when indigenous religious ceremonies were banned. It's just a case of history repeating itself yet again, and I just can't vote for a party that wants to bring Canada back to that time in our history. So at present, this leaves me with no other choice but to cast a blank ballot.

I'm referring to my fiancée's case. I don't know the official title (maybe adjudicator), but we always referred to him as the judge. Our case involved a charge of working in Canada without authorization and us fighting a deportation order. She was and is here as a tourist allowed in the country for six months at a time. You are correct that deportation orders for foreign tourists charged with working or studying without a visa (as is the status of my fiancée at present) rarely make it to the IRB for the following reasons: 1. few will bother fighting it due to the lawyer fees involved just to stay in Canada for a few months, 2. the fact that they can reenter after one or two years without special permission and can easily obtain permission after marriage with a Canadian national, 3. the fact that they are arrested, detained and deported without being informed of their right to a lawyer or given the chance to contact one, and 4. due to 3 above, will not obtain a lawyer unless someone outside of detention obtain one for them, thus making it pointless from the standpoint of any material benefit; but we decided to fight it on principle. You are also correct that the IRB judges not on the basis of the presumption of innocence (requiring the CBSA to prove her guilt) but rather on the basis of a balance of probabilities (effectively requiring her to prove the probability of her innocence beyond the probability of her guilt), thus giving the CBSA a significant advantage over her at the hearing. Even with such a low burden of proof required, the CBSA still has to present something to show at least a probability of the accusation being true. They failed to meet even that low standard. As for a public tort, you are correct that the negligence demonstrated by the police must be significant, which could be difficult to prove (another reason she is reconsidering suing at present). However, had the police and CBSA made a small attempt to collect evidence at the scene, they would have saved the taxpayer a lot of money in fighting us at an IRB hearing only to lose their case. How exactly did all of this taxpayer money benefit the taxpayer?

We 'won' our case. All charges have been dismissed and she's now free to stay in Canada for the six months that she was originally allowed. The IRB judge ruled that the police and CBSA officers had made no effort to collect proof of her innocence that her counsel had been able to collect cheaply and with ease. My conclusion: this lack of attempt on the part of the police and the CBSA cost the taxpayer and us out of pocket much money for nothing, and wasted much of our time. We're still debating suing, but leaning against it because of all the time and money it would involve. But requiring the CBSA to respect the right to protection from arbitrary detention and to the presumption of innocence would have saved the taxpayer much money. I guess this proves that cutting corners doesn't pay and costs the taxpayer even more in hearings.

'Old stock Canadians' a storm in a tea cup? As far as I can tell, Harper's 'old stock Canadians' comment pales in comparison with historical manifestations of identity politics in Canada. The first major manifestation of identity politics in Canada is the BNA Act and the establishment of English and French in Parliament and of the Protestant and Catholic separate school systems, soon followed by the Indian Act and the Indian Residential School system. The second major manifestation of identity politics in Canada was the publication of Book I of the Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism with its development and promotion of the idea of 'two founding races' (i.e. a 'Grand Collusion') which led to the Official Languages Act and was soon followed by the infamous Indian Act of 1969 that aimed to assimilate the indigenous peoples into the provincial school systems. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms further re-enforced the separate school system and official bilingualism. The beginning of the gradual unwinding of identity politics came with the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in the early 90's followed by the end of the residential school system and later the Prime Minister's statement of apology to the survivors of the Indian Residential School system in 2008 and the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. In relative terms, if anything, Canada is just beginning to adjust to the new realities of reconciliation and of the de-ethnicization of Canadian policy. From the time of the publication of the B&B Commission Report to the time of the Prime Minister's statement of apology, all of the major parties adhered to the principkes of the 'Grand Collusion.' Some parties still adhere to it but are now trying to find a way to balance it against the principles of reconciliation with Canada's indigenous peoples. (e.g. all but a fringe minority of New Democrats and Greens, probably all Liberals, and a small majority of Conservatives). Others want to end 'the Great Collusion' for their own ends (e.g. the Francisist BQ that dreams of an ethnically French Quebec and a large minority of Britishist Conservatives that dream of a return to a mythical British Canada. I suspect Harper belongs to the Britishist camp. Though I'm unaware of a truly de-ethnicist party in Canada, the Libertarian Party of Canada and a few fringe elements of the NDP and of the Green Party might come closest to that ideal at present. Given how identity politics permeates most of Canadian politics at present, I don't see how anyone can say that Harper's 'old stock Canadians' comment is really that different from the policies of all of the major parties.

'Old stock Canadians' a storm in a tea cup? As far as I can tell, Harper's 'old stock Canadians' comment pales in comparison with historical manifestations of identity politics in Canada. The first major manifestation of identity politics in Canada is the BNA Act and the establishment of English and French in Parliament and of the Protestant and Catholic separate school systems, soon followed by the Indian Act and the Indian Residential School system. The second major manifestation of identity politics in Canada was the publication of Book I of the Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism with its development and promotion of the idea of 'two founding races' (i.e. a 'Grand Collusion') which led to the Official Languages Act and was soon followed by the infamous Indian Act of 1969 that aimed to assimilate the indigenous peoples into the provincial school systems. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms further re-enforced the separate school system and official bilingualism. The beginning of the gradual unwinding of identity politics came with the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in the early 90's followed by the end of the residential school system and later the Prime Minister's statement of apology to the survivors of the Indian Residential School system in 2008 and the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. In relative terms, if anything, Canada is just beginning to adjust to the new realities of reconciliation and of the de-ethnicization of Canadian policy. From the time of the publication of the B&B Commission Report to the time of the Prime Minister's statement of apology, all of the major parties adhered to the principkes of the 'Grand Collusion.' Some parties still adhere to it but are now trying to find a way to balance it against the principles of reconciliation with Canada's indigenous peoples. (e.g. all but a fringe minority of New Democrats and Greens, probably all Liberals, and a small majority of Conservatives). Others want to end 'the Great Collusion' for their own ends (e.g. the Francisist BQ that dreams of an ethnically French Quebec and a large minority of Britishist Conservatives that dream of a return to a mythical British Canada. I suspect Harper belongs to the Britishist camp. Though I'm unaware of a truly de-ethnicist party in Canada, the Libertarian Party of Canada and a few fringe elements of the NDP and of the Green Party might come closest to that ideal at present. Given how identity politics permeates most of Canadian politics at present, I don't see how anyone can say that Harper's 'old stock Canadians' comment is really that different from the policies of all of the major parties.

Similar to the B&B Commission's idea of 'les deux peuples fondateurs.'

What I think is beside the point. The vast majority of Canadians accept the B&B Commission's belief in 'two founding races' which it defines in Book I, General Introduction, Paragraph 21 of its report as 'Canadians of British and French origin' apart from 'the other ethnic groups' to the explicit exclusion of 'the Indians and the Eskimos.' In fact the Commissioner of Official Languages commemorated the 50th anniversary of that report at the University of Ottawa just a few years ago as had the CBC. The belief in 'two founding races' is a widely held belief in Canada even if the vocabulary to describe it has changed over the years. I figured 'old-stock Canadians' might just have been the latest name for it.

What I think is beside the point. The vast majority of Canadians accept the B&B Commission's belief in 'two founding races' which it defines in Book I, General Introduction, Paragraph 21 of its report as 'Canadians of British and French origin' apart from 'the other ethnic groups' to the explicit exclusion of 'the Indians and the Eskimos.' In fact the Commissioner of Official Languages commemorated the 50th anniversary of that report at the University of Ottawa just a few years ago as had the CBC. The belief in 'two founding races' is a widely held belief in Canada even if the vocabulary to describe it has changed over the years. I figured 'old-stock Canadians' might just have been the latest name for it.

My first guess was that he understood 'old stock Canadians' similarly to how the B&B Commission defined 'the two founding races' (i.e. 'Canadians of British and French origin'). I'm happy he clarified his meaning though so as to correct any misunderstanding.

Wouldn't the guilty decline trial anyway?

The human right to protection from arbitrary detention, to the presumption of innocence, and to a fair trial. Right now the CBSA is in the habit of skipping a crucial part: obtaining proof that the accused actually committed a violation in the first place. Without that, anything that follows is an abuse of a person's fundamental human rights. How do you explain that a CBSA officer can decide that helping one's girlfriend put a DIY patio together constitutes 'working in Canada without a visa?' For all we know, the officer just disdn't like Britons so came up with such a bogus charge. Without protecting fundamental human rights, we must expect such abuses of power.

The link above is a direct consequence of foreign nationals not being protected by th Charter. And that us just what is reported.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3136134/Brit-helped-girlfriend-DIY-given-eight-days-leave-Canada-immigration-officials-ruled-doing-local-job.html

Supposing that we replaced one year of incarceration with deportation and a re-entry ban for life with few exceptions (only possible through due process). It's not as simple as visa or no visa. Was the person working at all? In one case an Australian was deported for working illegally in Canada without a visa for helping his Canadian girlfriend build her patio for free! Also, does neglecting due process really save money? In our case, taxpayer money was wasted in arresting and detaining her for deportation when she would have eventually bought her own flight ticket anyway. Had the police sent a plainclothed undercover police officer with a hidden video or audio camera, we would not have even known. He would have noticed the suspicions were unfounded case closed. That not having been done, collecting witness statements, DNA, and alibi names and contact information would likewise have been less expensive. They had not expected someone would have found her a lawyer from the outside. It had to spend taxpayer money on a bail hearing only to prove some comments in the CBSA statement to have been false. The admissibility hearing is costing taxpayers even more money and now her lawyer is saying that not only should she win the case but, depending on how the next hearing date turns out, it might even be possible to sue the CBSA! (though we have yet to consider the costs in time and money vs. how much we could get, plus my fiancée's emotional state at the time). As it's turning out, not only does the CBSA have no proof of her guilt, but she has proven able to prove her innocence to a high degree thus showing the charges to be highly suspect. Yet even a win is shallow given the cost in time and money. Both we and the taxpayer lose and the CBSA shall have accomplished nothing of its original aim; only waste everyone's money for nothing. Taxpayers' money aside, losing a case harms the CBSA's public image of competence, especially if she does end up suing (which is still a possibility). So tell me, how does this save money compared to had the police at least offered to collect evidence, especially seeing that it was so easy to obtain?

Should working or studying in Canada without a visa be a criminal offence? Right now, working or studying in Canada without a visa is not considered to be a criminal offence. It merely involves deporting a person and preventing him from returning to Canada for a year. Not making it a criminal offence has two drawbacks: 1. The punishment is not severe enough to serve as an effective deterrant and worse yet 2. Since the fundamental human rights of foreign nationals who are detained for deportation to protection from arbitrary arrest and detention, to the presumption of innocence, and to a fair trial are not protected, many innocents likely get deported too. To make it a criminal offence with one year of imprisonment followed by deportation would: 1. Serve as an effective deterrant to working or studying in Canada without authorization, and more importantly 2. Protect the fundamental human rights of the accused since Charter rights would then apply to them, and in so doing protect Canada's reputation as a country that respects due process.

It can also be useful in plea bargains.

The main purpose that I can see for capital punishment is not as a sentence to be handed out like candy but rather as a Damacles sword hanging over the head of a potential murderer as a deterrent. Even if it should rarely be used if ever, the fact that people are aware that the potential is there could deter at least some.

One thing I will say is thank God our judges are not answerable to any politician. From my personal observations of the IRB (which decides only deportation cases) which is ultimately answerable to an elected politician, the CBSA makes no effort to collect evidence and worse yet, can make false statements without requiring to back those statements with corroborating evidence, doesn't even need to inform the accused of his right to counsel, and essentially follows a process of guilty until proven innocent (meaning that even if one can prove his onnocence, he has to go through the costly motion to do so, I'd hate to see a murder trial where the death penalty were on the table waiving the right to the presumption of innocence and due process as you are proposing.Proof is essential. There was a case in France a few years back where an insane woman charged with child abuse made up a story of a child trafficking ring, accused a bunch of random people, and because her word was accepted as gospel by the first judge who was completely incompetent, a whole bunch of other people ended up in prison for a few years as they were fighting appeals and the second judge was initially defending the first until the lawyer of one of the defendants eventually managed to make the woman crack and finally tell the truth. By that time one of the falsely accused had already committed suicide in prison. The presumption of innocence is essential even for the most heinous of crimes.

Given my recent personal experience of police officers presenting official statements that were later proven in court to have been false, and my awareness of one case of a medical examiner who had stood as a witness on at a number of trials against those accused of child abuse if I remember correctly and then losing his licence for gross incompetence and all of those convicted having to be given a retrial as a result, definitely the judge should always reserve the right to sentence the convicted to life instead.

Twins can have identical DNA. What happens if the accused does not know he has a twin. Additionally, DNA must be interpretted. A woman has sex with a man and then another man murders her not long after. Does the first man's DNA prove that he killed her? DNA must still be interpreted.

I can agree to the death penalty in principle, with conditions. I could accept the death penalty for murder and arson at least, but on the condition that the judge always reserve the right to sentence the convicted to life in prison and maybe even in some cases (such as when it was not self-defence on the one hand but the victim severely provoked the murderer none-the-less for example, like if it had been proven that the victim himself had murdered a loved one of the murderer for no reason) exile for life from the city of the murder.

That's why the presumption of innocence exists. Should William's wife, friends and colleagues all have been detained with him by mere association?