Florida woman granted asylum in Canada

[cybercoma]

By Rue's interpretation, someone convicted of a serious crime could be sentenced to vivisection and it would be fine. No asylum granted. Oh and I assume "serious" would be defined according to the jurisdiction that sentences the person.

Edited May 25, 2014 by cybercoma

[TimG]

By Rue's interpretation, someone convicted of a serious crime could be sentenced to vivisection and it would be fine. No asylum granted. Oh and I assume "serious" would be defined according to the jurisdiction that sentences the person.

People should not be able to claim refugee status simply because they face capital punishment for murders they did commit. Yet your interpretation implies that Canada should welcome these murders because their punishment is "cruel and unusual" by Canadian standards.

The problem is these cases create precedents. It really makes no difference that you think this woman should be let in - what matters are all of the similar cases that would then be allowed because of this precedent. That is why Rue and others argue that this ruling is wrong.

Edited May 25, 2014 by TimG

[cybercoma]

People should not be able to claim refugee status simply because they face capital punishment for murders they did commit. Yet your interpretation implies that Canada should welcome these murders because their punishment is "cruel and unusual" by Canadian standards.

What makes you think that? Because I don't agree with this statement at all.

The problem is these cases create precedents. It really makes no difference that you think this woman should be let in - what matters are all of the similar cases that would then be allowed because of this precedent. That is why Rue and others argue that this ruling is wrong.

All of the similar cases of a woman having a consensual relationship with someone--who is able to consent in not only our country but 50 other states--and subsequently gets sentenced to the rest of her life in prison. Yeah. I'm ok with that precedent.

[Rue]

Well you would Cyber because you do not understand that boards and lower courts often make incorrect applications of the law which are then subsequently appealed and overthrown.

[Rue]

Peter you have basically summarized an on-going legal debate. Does the serious non political crime exclusion over-ride consideration of a serious non political crime when the sentence is too long.

When reading a statute if you want to give it a new interpretation, i.e., expand it, to have a new purpose, it should state so in the law. It does not.

The exercise of adding a new meaning to a statute is sometimes called the mischief rule in that the more we tamper with the original intent of the law and stretch it the more likely it becomes an error of application of that law.

I and many others argue the intent of refugee protection was never for serious non political criminals when they are fleeing countries but not for reasons of discrimination due to political or religious belief, race, ethnicity, culture, gender, gender preference or disability.

We believe it turns the refugee definition into something it was not intended for and that is why I quoted the sections I did which state the intent of the law is not to provide a haven for simply criminals fleeing justice which is what this issue is.

I appreciate you feel the sentence is too long but that does not make her a refugee in need of protection. It means she is a criminal convict who does not like the sentence she got. If we start taking in criminals from the US every time they do not like their sentence when will it end? Can you not see what kind of precedent that sets? To start with it destroys our ability to extradite each other's criminals. It then makes it impossible for police forces across boards to act together in monitoring and apprehending sex offenders.

Letting this woman in Canada may seem groovy to some of the people on this forum who will use any excuse to be anti American but it will assist the ability of far worse sex offenders in using our refugee laws to engage in sex crimes and flee here. If nothing else it will open the flood gates of hundreds of sex offenders running here.

That is why they also put in another caution condition about enforcing the refugee law taking into mind the greater and bigger picture of whether it will harm our international relations with other countries.

[cybercoma]

What lower courts? We're talking about a refugee claimant. They all go through the same system.

[Rue]

By the way Peter I respect your arguments that is why my posts are lengthy to you. I am just trying to describe the legal arguments you can expect and why Bush said what he did and in my opinion was unfairly attacked personally in an anti American name calling session.

You and I do not disagree we don't like to see undue lengths of time in sentencing. I do not even think Bush does.What Bush and Tim and others are arguing is the kind of precedence this sets.

Its a political land-mine in undermining our extradition treaties with the US. Maybe this lady seems harmless to some of you but what if the next one is far worse. This precedent will clog our system with perverts seeking protection.

This is why I appreciate you are saying the sentence may be too long but I say its not the sole legal consideration.

BC also knows while I have disagreed with her on about every post, when it comes to sex crimes we are on the exact same page.

For me I am very concerned we do not allow any legal system to be used to facilitate sex offenders in avoiding the consequences of their actions.

Now I know some do not think its a big deal for a 16 year old boy to have sex with an older woman.

However the law today is gender neutral. Faciiitate the sex exchange between an adult and child, it facilitates any sex exchange between adults and children not just some 16 year old boy and a lonely mother.

More to the point and BC knows my feelings on it, I am concerned when there is any power imbalance in a sexual relationship that could lead to harm.

However those are my personal views. Some of you clearly think you can place sex behaviour in neat little categories of what you think is ok and not ok but the problem is the law can not be drafted that way and it either allows it or it does not, it can't create little categories of what some of you think is ok.

Until those sections I mentioned are removed from the Immigration Act I would argue they can not be ignored and will have to be applied by the courts.

[Rue]

Cyber at this point you are asking me questions you can easily find out for yourself. Go to the government web-site.

When the refugee board makes a decision, it is appealed to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) then Federal Court of Canada and then Supreme Court of Canada.

Any court lower than the Supreme Court of Canada is a lower court.

The Federal Court of Canada hears appeals from either federal tribunals that have no appeal division, or the decisions of the appeal division of federal tribunals when they have an appeal division.

Just go on the Ministry web-site and read the appeal process.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Rue

[Peter F]

for gawds sake Rue, the government appealed twice, and has now accepted the boards decision.

Quoting origianal cbc story of 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.

end quote

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/florida-sex-offender-granted-asylum-in-canada-1.2646061

[Peter F]

If there was sexual exploitation happening, then what Ms.Harvey did would have been illegal, not only in Canada but in every other state of the USofA also.

If there was sexual exploitation in Ms.Harvey's instance, why was this not addressed by the RB? Why was their not addressing it passed over by the Federal Court judge? The same judge who quite sharply pointed out that the RB failed to address the accepted international norms of sentencing?

If there was sexual exploitation why was this never mentioned by any of the Florida media? by the RB? by the Federal court?

As far as i can tell, any time there is sexual exploitation the media are happy to publish some of the lurid facts of the case. It happens over and over again when reporting sexual crimes against minors.

In Ms. Harveys case there is not one peep regarding the exploitation of the 16 year old.

It is the exploitation aspect that usually results in time being added onto the minimum sentence.

As far as I can tell from the few news reports from Florida and from what can be gleaned from the Federal Courts review of the RB's decision, there was no aggravating exploitation. Nothing.

So why the maximum sentence on each of the five counts of having sex with a minor, and not just any minor but a 16 year old minor.?

Does Florida ever give a minimum sentence? If so why? Why not this case?

Edited May 25, 2014 by Peter F

[monty16]

No matter what Americans think is right, we as Canadians are at least morally bound to protect American citizens that could be subjected to their archaic justice system.

And the question of whether the law in question is archaic unjustified or not must be left to the judgment of Canada's government.

Sadly now with the Harper government, Canada's government doesn't always act in a morally responsible way.

[TimG]

All of the similar cases of a woman having a consensual relationship with someone--who is able to consent in not only our country but 50 other states--and subsequently gets sentenced to the rest of her life in prison. Yeah. I'm ok with that precedent.

You don't seem to understand the nature of precedent. It is like a virus that ever expands in scope. You want to believe that it would only apply to the exact same conditions but it won't - it will be applied in increasingly broader terms until it is used to grant refugee status to murders fleeing capital punishment. That is why strict interpretations of laws are required and that I why I think you want murders to be given asylum (despite your claims otherwise) because that would be the inevitable consequence of allowing this ruling to stand.

If you really don't want murders to be granted asylum then you have insist on strict interpretations of laws and that means this women should be shipped back to Florida to serve and absurdly long prison sentence.

Edited May 25, 2014 by TimG

[Peter F]

Canada's government determined that the florida laws weren't archaic or unjustified. Thus the appeals of the refugee boards decision. Nor was it morally irresponsible of them to do so. I would say the Government acted in a morally responsible way by appealing the boards decision.

edit to add: Address to Monty's post #436

Edited May 25, 2014 by Peter F

[Peter F]

You don't seem to understand the nature of precedent. It is like a virus that ever expands in scope. You want to believe that it would only apply to the exact same conditions but it won't - it will be applied in increasingly broader terms until it is used to grant refugee status to murders fleeing capital punishment. That is why strict interpretations of laws are required and that I why I think you want murders to be given asylum (despite your claims otherwise) because that would be the inevitable consequence of allowing this ruling to stand.

If you really don't want murders to be granted asylum then you have insist on strict interpretations of laws and that means this women should be shipped back to Florida to serve and absurdly long prison sentence.

The law allows for granting refugee status for cruel and unusual punishment. A strict application of that law will mean we must grant protected status to those who have been sentenced to cruel and unusual punishment.

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada's government is not "morally bound" to protect Americans or other nationals from their own government. If that were true, then many domestic and foreign policies of Canada's own government are inconsistent with such an idea.

[TimG]

The law allows for granting refugee status for cruel and unusual punishment. A strict application of that law will mean we must grant protected status to those who have been sentenced to cruel and unusual punishment.

Nope. A strict application of the law means only people fleeing persecution for their beliefs or ethnic identity are entitled to protection. People facing hardship for economic deprivation, inadequate access to health care, punishments for crimes, et. al. are not entitled to protection. Edited May 25, 2014 by TimG

[Peter F]

So Cruel and Unusual punishment really means nothing then?

[Peter F]

Canada's government is not "morally bound" to protect Americans or other nationals from their own government. If that were true, then many domestic and foreign policies of Canada's own government are inconsistent with such an idea.

True...except when the arrive on Canadian soil and claim Protected status. In which case the government is 'morally' bound by law to hear the claim and if granted protect that person from the long arm of their home nations Cruel and unusual practice.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Peter F

[monty16]

So Cruel and Unusual punishment really means nothing then?

It does but they don't recognize the meaning of 'morality' or being 'morally bound'.

[TimG]

So Cruel and Unusual punishment really means nothing then?

Only as a basis for assessing whether someone already in the the protected class is deserving of protection. i.e. is it not enough to claim persecution for your identity - you have to show it. Being subjected to "cruel and unusual punishments" would be evidence that allows a person from a designated group to make a claim.

Think about it: if "cruel and Unusual punishment" was a criteria on its own then Canada would to accept every murderer fleeing the death penalty. There is no way that the original framers of the laws intended it to be used in that way. And there is no way that Canadians would accept this interpretation today.

Edited May 25, 2014 by TimG

[monty16]

Ultimately the decision will be made by the Harper government and that amounts to no protection whatsoever for any nationality attempting to escape cruel and unusual punishment. For exactly the same reason that Canada takes part in US led wars. Economics and protection against US blackmail. And that amounts to moral corruption.

[On Guard for Thee]

Nope. A strict application of the law means only people fleeing persecution for their beliefs or ethnic identity are entitled to protection. People facing hardship for economic deprivation, inadequate access to health care, punishments for crimes, et. al. are not entitled to protection.

Read section 12. It says nothing about ethnic identity. Plus Canada has for quite some time now refused to extradite people convicted of murder unless there is a promise they will not be executed, so I guess that precedent has already been set. However one rather glaring fact with this fear that all those American murderers are going to flock here for refuge is the fact that murder is illegal in Canada. Sex with a 16 year old is not.

[monty16]

Read section 12. It says nothing about ethnic identity. Plus Canada has for quite some time now refused to extradite people convicted of murder unless there is a promise they will not be executed, so I guess that precedent has already been set. However one rather glaring fact with this fear that all those American murderers are going to flock here for refuge is the fact that murder is illegal in Canada. Sex with a 16 year old is not.

That sort of puts that one to bed!

[TimG]

Sex with a 16 year old is not.

It is an arbitrary line. Adults having sex with children is illegal in Canada. Different jurisdictions drawing the line in different places do not make it any less a crime.

Plus Canada has for quite some time now refused to extradite people convicted of murder unless there is a promise they will not be executed.

So Canada should just hold this woman until the courts reduce the sentence to something reasonable? I could live with that. As long as she goes back.

[TimG]

Read section 12. It says nothing about ethnic identity.

Read my post. I said "beliefs or ethnic identity".

Section 12c:

A foreign national, inside or outside Canada, may be selected as a person who under this Act is a Convention refugee or as a person insimilar circumstances, taking into account Canada’s humanitarian tradition with respect to the displaced and the persecuted.

This women is neither displaced or persecuted. The laws in the US apply to everyone regardless of their beliefs or identity.