bush_cheney2004 Posted May 23, 2014 Report Posted May 23, 2014 When it comes to convicted sex offenders, most Americans only care about where they are living, proximity to schools, location of treatment centers, etc. If this sex offender is now living in Canada with no hope to ever return to the U.S. without facing arrest and incarceration, then that's as good as being in a Florida prison. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Peter F Posted May 23, 2014 Author Report Posted May 23, 2014 Then all is well! Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
On Guard for Thee Posted May 23, 2014 Report Posted May 23, 2014 When it comes to convicted sex offenders, most Americans only care about where they are living, proximity to schools, location of treatment centers, etc. If this sex offender is now living in Canada with no hope to ever return to the U.S. without facing arrest and incarceration, then that's as good as being in a Florida prison. I'm sure you will have no problem finding others to fill up your Florida prison. And Dick Cheney will still get his cut from Haliburton. Quote
Argus Posted May 23, 2014 Report Posted May 23, 2014 She is a convicted sex offender Not under a law anyone here cares about. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted May 23, 2014 Report Posted May 23, 2014 We always prefer to take an humanitarian position but I question whether it's worth the cost when it comes to Americans. The political and economic blackmail we suffer from rattling their cage just isn't worth it anymore. They have created their own problems within their society and it's up to them to try to fix it. They express little concern over doing that. What can anyone think when re read of them bringing back the electric chair to kill their people? So you're all for us offering up refugee status for people fleeing cruel punishment from their governments... except where it might cause us some trouble... Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
cybercoma Posted May 23, 2014 Report Posted May 23, 2014 Not under a law anyone here cares about.Nor under any law in 30 states. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted May 23, 2014 Report Posted May 23, 2014 I say we tie her to a stake and burn her. Quote
Rue Posted May 24, 2014 Report Posted May 24, 2014 I say we tie her to a stake and burn her. No she should be sent back to Florida and take responsibility for her actions and if she does not like the sentence appeal it. I appreciate the melodrama but I would not waste any lighter fluid on her. Quote
monty16 Posted May 24, 2014 Report Posted May 24, 2014 So you're all for us offering up refugee status for people fleeing cruel punishment from their governments... except where it might cause us some trouble... Yeah, basically it's a matter of tough love for the Americans. They just will not learn! Quote
Rue Posted May 24, 2014 Report Posted May 24, 2014 When it comes to convicted sex offenders, most Americans only care about where they are living, proximity to schools, location of treatment centers, etc. If this sex offender is now living in Canada with no hope to ever return to the U.S. without facing arrest and incarceration, then that's as good as being in a Florida prison. This woman belongs in Florida and if she does not like her sentence she should appeal it. Period. You must love it having such a putz as a neighbour. Quote
jbg Posted May 24, 2014 Report Posted May 24, 2014 Yeah, yeah, I know that none of the states are part of the US when it's inconvenient to be so. It's like the US isn't bringing back the electric chair to kill their own people because it's a state doing it. What comes next, Alabama bombing Venezuela?Read the Constitution. It makes good reading. I've read the Charter. The Constitution reserves the right of armed action against foreign countries to the Federal government. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
On Guard for Thee Posted May 24, 2014 Report Posted May 24, 2014 This woman belongs in Florida and if she does not like her sentence she should appeal it. Period. You must love it having such a putz as a neighbour. Speaking of putz's. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted May 24, 2014 Report Posted May 24, 2014 No she should be sent back to Florida and take responsibility for her actions and if she does not like the sentence appeal it. I appreciate the melodrama but I would not waste any lighter fluid on her. Her actions were she had sex. Why does that seem dirty to you right wingers? Developmental problems? Quote
Michael Hardner Posted May 24, 2014 Report Posted May 24, 2014 Please stop the insults. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
On Guard for Thee Posted May 24, 2014 Report Posted May 24, 2014 Please stop the insults. That wasn't an insult, it was a question. I had sex before I was sixteen and I didn't feel like anything criminal had happenned. Entirely the opposite I'd say. From what I have read online about thgis case it doesn't seem anybody got beat up here. They just had sex. Why is that so hard to accept? Quote
Rue Posted May 24, 2014 Report Posted May 24, 2014 On Guard you can turn this into a personal attack on me all you want it does not prove anything other than you need to do just that. As well this issue is not simply because she had sex and the fact you turn it into such a simplistic issue in addition to your personal insult simply shows you do not understand the legal issues Bush has raised. The definition of refugee is defined as someone persecuted because of their religious or political beliefs or solely because of their gender, gender preference, ethnicity, race, culture. No the refugee definition did not intend and does not define a refugee as someone who is convicted of a sex offence and then flees the jurisdiction of the sentence if that law was applied equally to all people in that jurisdiction. When this decision is appealed and thrown out the court will say there was zero evidence the law was applied to convict this woman because of her political beliefs, religion, race, ethnicity, culture, gender, gender preference. There was an error in the application of law and that law is the refugee definition you clearly have no idea about. You also clearly evidence someone who has no idea that this same refugee law excludes from refugee process persons who engage in serious non political crimes which is what this individual did. You assume since you do not like the length of the sentence you can arbitrarily reinvent the refugee process and definition as this board did. Wrong. This law is applied equally to all Floridans. If this woman felt the sentence was too long, she had the legal right to appeal the length and argue it was too long. The US criminal laws allow that right. She in fact fled never exercising that right. That makes her a fugitive criminal, period. This has nothing to do with sex. It has to do with you thinking because you do not like an American law you can encourage criminals to escape to Canada. Absolute b.s. if the US did this to us you would be screaming US imperialism. Bush has the right to laugh at any of you who try sound sanctimonious about US laws. This is a self indulgent woman not some starving or persecuted refugee. If you want to equate the suffering of the people of Sudan for example with this woman, it shows how absurd your moral standards are. Now go on call me a putz. Lol. Quote
Argus Posted May 24, 2014 Report Posted May 24, 2014 The definition of refugee is defined as someone persecuted because of their religious or political beliefs or solely because of their gender, gender preference, ethnicity, race, culture. In fact, there are three grounds for Canada to grant refugee status. They are: 1 Well-founded fear of persecution for a Refugee Convention ground 2 Danger of torture 3 Risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/Eng/BoaCom/references/LegJur/Pages/ProtectTorture.aspx If this woman felt the sentence was too long, she had the legal right to appeal the length and argue it was too long. As has already been stated in this thread, she did appeal, and it was denied, she appealed to the state supreme court, which refused to hear the appeal. This has nothing to do with sex. It has to do with you thinking because you do not like an American law you can encourage criminals to escape to Canada. In fact, it has to do with a belief in fundamental justice, and that the sentence for this 'crime' constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted May 24, 2014 Report Posted May 24, 2014 On Guard you can turn this into a personal attack on me all you want it does not prove anything other than you need to do just that. As well this issue is not simply because she had sex and the fact you turn it into such a simplistic issue in addition to your personal insult simply shows you do not understand the legal issues Bush has raised. The definition of refugee is defined as someone persecuted because of their religious or political beliefs or solely because of their gender, gender preference, ethnicity, race, culture. No the refugee definition did not intend and does not define a refugee as someone who is convicted of a sex offence and then flees the jurisdiction of the sentence if that law was applied equally to all people in that jurisdiction. When this decision is appealed and thrown out the court will say there was zero evidence the law was applied to convict this woman because of her political beliefs, religion, race, ethnicity, culture, gender, gender preference. There was an error in the application of law and that law is the refugee definition you clearly have no idea about. You also clearly evidence someone who has no idea that this same refugee law excludes from refugee process persons who engage in serious non political crimes which is what this individual did. You assume since you do not like the length of the sentence you can arbitrarily reinvent the refugee process and definition as this board did. Wrong. This law is applied equally to all Floridans. If this woman felt the sentence was too long, she had the legal right to appeal the length and argue it was too long. The US criminal laws allow that right. She in fact fled never exercising that right. That makes her a fugitive criminal, period. This has nothing to do with sex. It has to do with you thinking because you do not like an American law you can encourage criminals to escape to Canada. Absolute b.s. if the US did this to us you would be screaming US imperialism. Bush has the right to laugh at any of you who try sound sanctimonious about US laws. This is a self indulgent woman not some starving or persecuted refugee. If you want to equate the suffering of the people of Sudan for example with this woman, it shows how absurd your moral standards are. Now go on call me a putz. Lol. #1. She did appeal, unsuccessfully. #2. She was granted asylum based on Canadian law, not US law. Quote
Rue Posted May 24, 2014 Report Posted May 24, 2014 Peter F's assumption that the length of a sentence is what can define it as cruel and unusual is dead wrong. The cruel and unusual punishment definition is not detached from political, religious persecution or discriminatory act based on ethnicity, race, skin colour, gender, gender preference or physical disability-it must be attached to one of those grounds. to come under the refugee definition. Its interesting how Peter you think you can just ignore the refugee definition in its entirety and suggest all one has to do is look at a length of criminal sentence and nothing else and if they think its too long that presto they magically are a refugee. That is not how the definition works as much s some Board members have tried in the past. Think about it logically, How does a board member have the qualifications to analyze let alone attempt to analyze he laws of all countries in all 4 corners of the world then impose an arbitrary standard of what a fair sentence should be. Talk about imperialist colonialist mentality-those of you on this forum claiming you can impose your length of sentences on someone else are engaging like classic superiority complex people. Lol. More to the point did you not notice on this discussion Peter it started off the length of sentence was allegedly cruel and unusual but then it turned into a piss session on the US and this absolutely idiotic debate over whose sex laws are better. What because ours are different they are better? What kind of bs reasoning is that. If the Americans did that in reverse these same people scream US imperialism. What the heck is going on? Is it the length of sentence that has you people in a bug a boo or is it the fact you think you are morally superior to Americans and think you have a better way of life? Read back the replies to Bush-all I read was someone having anxiety over the size of their pee pee thinking the US pee pee is bigger then ours. Enough. Criminal law is defined by each state in the US. Our refugee laws were not created to protect sex offenders no Peter. No Peter you don't simply look at the length of the sentence, ignore anything else attached to the issue and then in such a narrow and rigid consideration say the sentence is too much. If that was it, if its simply a matter of the sentence being too long, then you just blew your argument up because the US has an appeal process where this person could have appealed her sentence on the grounds you seem to be claiming. She certainly wasn't going to be tortured. She certainly wasn't being given punishment simply because of her gender, race, etc. Being sent to prison for breaking a law in the US is no different than in Canada so that necessarily does not make it cruel. All you have is the sentence is too long? Then appeal the damn sentence in the appropriate legal jurisdiction no you do not turn Canada into a haven for sex offenders. No this is not a good ground for refugee status it makes a mockery of the process-it places on the same moral level entitled to protection sme self indulgent women with people suffering in countries all over the world from real persecution. Talk about having your priorities screwed up. This country has nothng better to do then try act like its morally superior to the US and will offer refuge to its criminals? What a joke. Its no wonder people treat Khadr like some victim as he sits in his prison stating Canada is an infidel nation and if he has the opportunity he will re-engage in jihad again. This country is full of sheltered know it alls who presume they can impose on the world their take on what is right. If there was a referendum held the majority of Canadians would tomorrow say send this person back to Florida where she can appeal her sentence. By the way, you think this woman should push ahead of hard working immigrants trying to get into this country? You think this woman should push in front of legitimate refugees trapped in camps with no future? I don't. No simply stating her sentence length alone is sufficient to give her protection makes no sense to me at all. Quote
Argus Posted May 24, 2014 Report Posted May 24, 2014 Peter F's assumption that the length of a sentence is what can define it as cruel and unusual is dead wrong. The cruel and unusual punishment definition is not detached from political, religious persecution or discriminatory act based on ethnicity, race, skin colour, gender, gender preference or physical disability-it must be attached to one of those grounds. That's simply not true. You are speaking about 'convention refugees' and the IRB clearly shows on its web site that they are separate from the other categories. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Rue Posted May 24, 2014 Report Posted May 24, 2014 (edited) Your referral to refugee status comes from an act that repeats the UN definition of refugee. The act was specifically intended not to contradict the UN convention definition just clarify it further. If you read the appropriate act (see next post) and compare it to the convention definition they are not contradictory to one another. Argus there was no risk to life or torture with this woman. further her being put in jail in the US is no more cruel than going to jail in Canada so the fact she would have to go to jail is not a grounds of persecution. So your argument comes to assuming you can recreate the refugee definition to read that length of sentence alone if the board thinks it is too long, supercedes anything else and automatically allows refugee status. it does not as I shall explain in the next post. With due respect the sentence as I stated has to be attached to conviction granted because of a political belief, religious belief or because of discrimination on the grounds of race, gender, gender equality, disability, ethnicity, culture. There has to be that necessary attachment between the conviction and one of those grounds because otherwise there is a clear exclusion which you have not mentioned and that is, someone is not eligible for any refugee protection if they engage in a serious non political crime. You skipped that exclusion. As for the other poster who claims she appealed her sentence. No she did not follow the appeal process offered to her to its full conclusion. He is wrong. Edited May 24, 2014 by Rue Quote
Rue Posted May 24, 2014 Report Posted May 24, 2014 (edited) The operative wording is s.3(2) d of the Immigration and Refugee Act and I would caution people you can not read the last part of that section as if it does not relate to the rest of the section of for that matter the objectives stated in s.3. I also refer you to 3(2)h that clearly states the intent of our refugee law is not to provide a haven to persons who are "serious criminals". Please read that wording. Most of you appear totally unaware of it. Our law in fact simply reiterates the UN convention refugee definition and clarifies it further. It did not change it and that is why 3(2)h is there just like it was in the convention refugee definition. No one who drafted these laws intended refugee protection to be used by criminals escaping justice. The act also goes on to state in s.3(3)a that this law should be interpreted in favour of supporting Canadian domestic and international interests. Now you tell me how the hell is a sex offender not a serous criminal and how is it in Canada's international interest to make itself a haven for people escaping US criminal laws? That necessarily will undermine the entire criminal extradition process and not just between us and the US but all other countries in the world. That will create chaos between police forces needing to cooperate across different jurisdictions. For those of you who think this is a simple issue no its not. What this board did in the decision was to ignore .3(2)h and 3(3)a. They had no legal right to do that. More to the point how does anyone read.3(d) to infer that being a refugee simply means anyone who does not like their criminal sentence in another country? Surely you can see it was designed to protect people fleeing torture and death. To put this woman on the same level as say someone being persecuted and tortured in prison for being a Bahaii in Iran is absurd. To put this woman on the same level as someone being persecuted in Sudan is just dead wrong. I will also add this. I believe any grown adult who has sex with a 16 year old is an idiot. Do I think they belong in jail? Depends how old they are. The older they are the more serious it becomes. I would ask questions like, what emotional harm or psychological harm was done the 16 year old? Was a disease spread/ Was it voluntary or forced... I would word the law in such a way as to consider all the above as aggravating or mitigating factors to the sentence. Do I agree with the Florida law. No. That to me is not the issue. The issue for me is its up to the people of Florida not me to decide what laws they want. They have a democratic process whereby they elect their legal representatives and Judges. I think it is absolute b.s. to think as a Canadian I can tell these people I have no respect for their laws and welcome criminal convicts from their state. Its disrespectful to a good neighbour who respects our laws. its not how allies act. That's a huge assumption made predicated on the notion that sentence length alone is automatically cruel if a board member thinks its too long? really? Where does it say that you mind telling me? Edited May 24, 2014 by Rue Quote
cybercoma Posted May 24, 2014 Report Posted May 24, 2014 Peter F's assumption that the length of a sentence is what can define it as cruel and unusual is dead wrong.its not an assumption. It was the court's decision. I find it rather odd that a lawyer would call a judicial decision a "dead wrong assumption." Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted May 25, 2014 Report Posted May 25, 2014 its not an assumption. It was the court's decision. I find it rather odd that a lawyer would call a judicial decision a "dead wrong assumption." Well unless it was Stephen Harper's lawyer. Quote
Peter F Posted May 25, 2014 Author Report Posted May 25, 2014 (edited) 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. Edited May 25, 2014 by Peter F Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.