Florida woman granted asylum in Canada

[BC_chick]

Yes and a judge did look at the circumstances in this case. One issue that did surface that still needs to be addressed in the case is the 'international standards" portion of cruel and unusual. It doesn't appear there is much contest here, just that the issue wasn't properly addressed in the original case. The conclusion was no crime was committed and therefore the asylum is temporarily on hold until that formality is laid to rest.

The thread seems to have shifted to this angle as to whether or not a crime was even committed. Many seem to agree with the presiding judge, others don't.

I hold no opinion one way or the other. I've simply argued that even if this incident was deemed a crime - in Canada or Florida - the decision to grant asylum was a just one based on the sentencing alone.

Edited May 20, 2014 by BC_chick

[On Guard for Thee]

The thread seems to have shifted to this angle as to whether or not a crime was even committed. Many seem to agree with the presiding judge, others don't.

I hold no opinion one way or the other. I've simply argued that even if this incident was deemed a crime - in Canada or Florida - the decision to grant asylum was a just one based on the sentencing alone.

Yes I think in this case, even if you think a crime was committed, based on what they say in Florida, it was committed 5 times by the same people, and in a consensual fashion, so there is a question of consecutive sentencing. Which I think is where the "cruel and unusual" comes from. We're not talking 5 different bank jobs if you get my drift.

[Bob Macadoo]

Well I guess if you think there is a chance that the outstanding issue so mentioned will be judged based on the international standards of Saudi or South Sudan, then perhaps there will be a problem for her with this case.

As I've repeatedly said, she was sentenced to 6 yrs for every count, of which 5 were proven. 6 years for statatory rape is not unreasonable even by western standards and consecutive sentencing for the counts is again an accepted convention by western democracy. The logic is sound, you are professing on emotion......if you feel a judge will be swayed by emotion alone you have a lower valuation of our judicial system than I.

It doesn't matter what the age of consent in Canada is, it hinges on does the IRB have respect for the rule of law in the US, not if they agree with it. If not we have a real problem diplomatically going forward.

[On Guard for Thee]

As I've repeatedly said, she was sentenced to 6 yrs for every count, of which 5 were proven. 6 years for statatory rape is not unreasonable even by western standards and consecutive sentencing for the counts is again an accepted convention by western democracy. The logic is sound, you are professing on emotion......if you feel a judge will be swayed by emotion alone you have a lower valuation of our judicial system than I.

It doesn't matter what the age of consent in Canada is, it hinges on does the IRB have respect for the rule of law in the US, not if they agree with it. If not we have a real problem diplomatically going forward.

And as I've repeatedly said, the IRB and a judge have deemed the sentencing "cruel and unusual" I happen to agree, but that's beside the point.

[Bob Macadoo]

And as I've repeatedly said, the IRB and a judge have deemed the sentencing "cruel and unusual" I happen to agree, but that's beside the point.

The judge never said that. His ruling in the appeal, that threw out the order, was actually the IRB didn't define/show how it was "unusual" as evaluated against international standards. He gave them another kick at the can, and I have yet to read their new evaluation to see their argument this time.

[On Guard for Thee]

The judge never said that. His ruling in the appeal, that threw out the order, was actually the IRB didn't define/show how it was "unusual" as evaluated against international standards. He gave them another kick at the can, and I have yet to read their new evaluation to see their argument this time.

The judge was actually a lady. Her name is Anne Mactavish. She granted an appeal to be heard based on the "international standards" portion of the asylum request.

[Peter F]

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

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.

This year being 2014 which, I think, means the thing is a done deal. Refugee status granted. No further dispute.

[cybercoma]

Ya and that never happens in the USA

WWWTT

not even remotely on the same scale, but if you'd like to compare then you ought to start a new thread.

[cybercoma]

The thread seems to have shifted to this angle as to whether or not a crime was even committed. Many seem to agree with the presiding judge, others don't.

I hold no opinion one way or the other. I've simply argued that even if this incident was deemed a crime - in Canada or Florida - the decision to grant asylum was a just one based on the sentencing alone.

of course a crime was committed. She was convicted of a crime. The sentencing is sheer stupidity though.

[Bob Macadoo]

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.

No....it was an appeal, so it went back to IRB and they redeclared their result......no way to know if they did a competent job this time until we can see the report, or the gov't appeals again.

Hey somebody should call this lady, let her know the door's open;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/19/mom-arrested_n_5349846.html?utm_hp_ref=canada&ir=Canada

Edited May 20, 2014 by Bob Macadoo

[WWWTT]

not even remotely on the same scale, but if you'd like to compare then you ought to start a new thread.

Ok then provide the link of all those people you think that went missing in China as a result of breaking laws.

Don't forget to provide names too!

You want to start making claims, start backing them up!

I call BS on your unsubstantiated biased opinion!

As well, this discussion fits perfectly well within a thread about Canada providing asylum to a foreign national due to their home countries cruel punishment!

WWWTT

[On Guard for Thee]

of course a crime was committed. She was convicted of a crime. The sentencing is sheer stupidity though.

She was convicted of a Florida "crime" not a Canadian crime. The woman in south Sudan was convicted of a Sudanese "crime". Would we ever consider sending her back if she was able to get here? I hope not.

[Bob Macadoo]

USA = Sudan.....gotcha.

[On Guard for Thee]

USA = Sudan.....gotcha.

Cruel and unusual =cruel and unusual

[Bob Macadoo]

30 years in a state pen = stoning

[Bob Macadoo]

Hey maybe we should take in this guy.....I don't think consenual sex with an automated machine and/or inanimate furniture is illegal in Canada.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/19/lonnie-hutton_n_5353460.html

[On Guard for Thee]

Hey maybe we should take in this guy.....I don't think consenual sex with an automated machine and/or inanimate furniture is illegal in Canada.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/19/lonnie-hutton_n_5353460.html

Forward that to Jerry Springer. The low lifes who tune in there will love that.

[bush_cheney2004]

I disagree, if a 43 year old man was give a 30 year sentence, I think the support would be similar. That's the part you seem to be having a difficult time comprehending. It's not about 'jurisdiction', she was granted asylum based on the notion that the punishment exceeded the crime.

My 'comprehension' is just fine thank you very much. If there was no crime committed according to Canadian Law, then the severity of the punishment is moot. Statutory rapists with cases on point can now find asylum in Canada regardless of the length of their sentences, fugitive status, or sex offender registration. The new sign at the border reads, "Sex Offenders Welcome".

[Peter F]

If there was no crime committed according to Canadian Law, then the severity of the punishment is moot. Statutory rapists with cases on point can now find asylum in Canada regardless of the length of their sentences, fugitive status, or sex offender registration. The new sign at the border reads, "Sex Offenders Welcome".

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.

[Peter F]

No....it was an appeal, so it went back to IRB and they redeclared their result......no way to know if they did a competent job this time until we can see the report, or the gov't appeals again.

Hey somebody should call this lady, let her know the door's open;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/19/mom-arrested_n_5349846.html?utm_hp_ref=canada&ir=Canada

I shall quote the CBC article again:

The ruling was accepted by Citizenship and Immigration Canada in April of this year

.

The doors are always open to refugee claims....the hard part is getting the board to agree.

[bush_cheney2004]

...As for sentencing being moot, you are obviously mistaken. The sentence had a huge impact on the boards decision.

Not so obvious if the foundation for asylum begins with Candian Law for the age of consent. Otherwise any number of perps from around the world could seek asylum based solely on their sentences, regardless of the crime committed.

I used the term "on point" in a legal context for cases with like attributes.

Edited May 20, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Peter F]

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.

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

Then the age of consent is moot, despite what many maintain here (16 years vs. 18 years). There would have been no consideration for the age of consent in Florida, only the punishment as "cruel and unusual". The "board" would have us believe that the statutory rape of even younger children by adults should be "punished" by far shorter sentences upon conviction, regardless of counts and multiple victims. This would not be acceptable in many jurisdictions in the U.S. and around the world.

However, reading the decision, it appears that age of consent under Canadian law was taken into consideration for purposes of exclusion from the Refugee Convention:

In the circumstances, the Board was satisfied that the activities that led to Ms. Harvey’s convictions in the United States would not have constituted a crime, let alone a serious crime, had they occurred in Canada. As a consequence, the Board found that Ms. Harvey was not excluded by Article 1F ( of the Refugee Convention).

Edited May 20, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Boges]

Now what of people seeking asylum claims in Canada because of more lax sentencing on possession of drug charges?

Many states in the US have prisons populated with people that have been caught in with a bit of MJ. What's to stop those people from moving to Canada as we are very close to having de-criminalization of pot.

[dre]

Now what of people seeking asylum claims in Canada because of more lax sentencing on possession of drug charges?

Many states in the US have prisons populated with people that have been caught in with a bit of MJ. What's to stop those people from moving to Canada as we are very close to having de-criminalization of pot.

Theres no question in my mind that putting someone in prison for merely USING soft drugs is cruel, unusual, and also extremly stupid.