cybercoma Posted May 26, 2014 Report Posted May 26, 2014 All that being said... I would comment that a prison sentence is not "cruel and unusual" punishment, regardless of the length of the sentence.so you're cool with spending the rest of your life in prison for running a red light? I mean, there's no such thing as cruel and unusual punishment for prison sentences in your mind, right? Quote
Argus Posted May 26, 2014 Report Posted May 26, 2014 So show me where in the law Charles Manson would prohibited given your interpretation of the law? Whatever are you talking about? Manson is in prison for life for multiple murders. Why would anyone consider that 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
jbg Posted May 26, 2014 Report Posted May 26, 2014 #1. She did appeal, unsuccessfully. #2. She was granted asylum based on Canadian law, not US law. If people like her are the kind of people you want up there, may G-d be with you. 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).
jbg Posted May 26, 2014 Report Posted May 26, 2014 Whatever are you talking about? Manson is in prison for life for multiple murders. Why would anyone consider that cruel and unusual punishment?Under Canada's "faint hope" provisions limiting life terms to 25 years he would technically be a perfectly good import for Canada under the thinking of some here. 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).
Argus Posted May 26, 2014 Report Posted May 26, 2014 Under Canada's "faint hope" provisions limiting life terms to 25 years he would technically be a perfectly good import for Canada under the thinking of some here. Life terms are not limited to 25 years. That is the minimum time before the possibility of parole arises. But no one expects Paul Bernardo or his ilk to ever be released. 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
guyser Posted May 26, 2014 Report Posted May 26, 2014 If people like her are the kind of people you want up there, may G-d be with you.If thats the type of people America produces down there, may god be with you. Hey, sounds about as stupid either way ! Quote
TimG Posted May 26, 2014 Report Posted May 26, 2014 Whatever are you talking about? Manson is in prison for life for multiple murders. Why would anyone consider that cruel and unusual punishment?Well, Manson avoided the death penalty but anyone facing the death penalty can argue "cruel and unusual". Quote
guyser Posted May 26, 2014 Report Posted May 26, 2014 Well, Manson avoided the death penalty but anyone facing the death penalty can argue "cruel and unusual".Anyone convicted of murder and awaiting the death penalty is free to roam are they? If so we would have a problem,but of course they arent and ergo we dont. So...what was the point again? Quote
TimG Posted May 26, 2014 Report Posted May 26, 2014 (edited) Anyone convicted of murder and awaiting the death penalty is free to roam are they?People escape jails. The problem is the US imposes much heavier sentences for almost all crimes and given this ridiculous interpretation of the refugee act any criminal in the US is free to come to Canada and argue that their long sentence is "cruel and unusual". This is a potential nightmare that cannot be plugged unless the law is revised. Pretending it is not a problem is simply naive. The woman should be sent back to the US to serve her sentence or, at a minimum, Canada should ask that her sentence be reduced to something more reasonable as a condition of extradition. Edited May 26, 2014 by TimG Quote
jbg Posted May 26, 2014 Report Posted May 26, 2014 .....Canada should ask that her sentence be reduced to something more reasonable as a condition of extradition.I actually like that. There have been some extraditions from Europe where the U.S. or its states promised not to seek the death penalty. 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).
guyser Posted May 26, 2014 Report Posted May 26, 2014 People escape jails.Yup, and they would be stopped and arrested at the border since an APB would be out. He would also be denied entry based on his conviction, murder is the same in both countries. ...and given this ridiculous interpretation of the refugee act any criminal in the US is free to come to Canada and argue that their long sentence is "cruel and unusual".Dont know what else to call this but right wing hyperbole. Its not a ridiculous interpretation, you may not like it but the rules are set up and they followed them. We may not like it but 30 yrs is not only dumb, but Florida dumb , and no one knows dumb like Florida. No criminal is free to come to Canada. Its not hard to understand really, even having a DUI makes you inadmissable. This is a potential nightmare that cannot be plugged unless the law is revised. Pretending it is not a problem is simply naive. The woman should be sent back to the US to serve her sentence or, at a minimum, Canada should ask that her sentence be reduced to something more reasonable as a condition of extradition.The latter of this part suggests that the first part is not needed. Canada should no ask the Yanks anything, it is none of our business to dictate,ask, suggest anything. Now, Florida could , on its own, make amends to the sentence, then request her back, and we could happily walk her to the border. Quote
TimG Posted May 26, 2014 Report Posted May 26, 2014 (edited) Now, Florida could , on its own, make amends to the sentence, then request her back, and we could happily walk her to the border.BS. Canada has an extradition treaty with the US. Canada is repudiating that treaty by granting her refugee status. i.e. Canada is being the bad neighbor. The extradition treaty already allows Canada to place conditions on returning a criminal so the onus is on Canada to lay out what those conditions should be. Simply pretending the extradition treaty does not apply is wrong. Edited May 26, 2014 by TimG Quote
guyser Posted May 26, 2014 Report Posted May 26, 2014 I actually like that. There have been some extraditions from Europe where the U.S. or its states promised not to seek the death penalty.Canada has done that numerous times. Chalres Ng ring a bell? He was hadned back even tho the spectre of death was always there. (and in fact he is on death row) Quote
guyser Posted May 26, 2014 Report Posted May 26, 2014 BS. Florida cant do anything? Wow...who knew? Florida is a state, and has legal people, a State Attorney too. Lots of people who do great work. Sorry you think them too stupid to do so. Canada has an extradition treaty with the US. Canada is repudiating that treaty by granting her refugee status. i.e. Canada is being the bad neighbor. The extradition treaty already allows Canada to place conditions on returning a criminal so the onus is on Canada to lay out what those conditions should be. Simply pretending the extradition treaty does not apply is wrong. Best neighbour the US will ever have. Except for that cheap supply of labour but I digress. They arent repudiating anything. They have their laws, we have ours, they entered into an extradtion as did Canada. Maybe you think the Yanks too dumb not to forsee any of this, I believe they know whats in the treaty and signed it willingly and knowlingly. Your low opinion of Americans is sad to see. The struck out part of your post is mindless pontificating and not germane to any of this. Quote
guyser Posted May 26, 2014 Report Posted May 26, 2014 The idea is the same in reverse. Canada should not ask the US to amend their laws. (publically) USA should not ask Canada to amend its laws. So if Florida comes calling for her, reply nicely that No we cannot do that. She sought asylum here and for reasons of A B C D we cannot do that. End of conversation. Now should Florida suggest they may amend the law or the sentence, then reply politely "well then we'll have lots to discuss soon. Call us back when you have" In the end, Canada minds its own business, America minds its own business. Quote
Argus Posted May 26, 2014 Report Posted May 26, 2014 Well, Manson avoided the death penalty but anyone facing the death penalty can argue "cruel and unusual". And how many people facing the death penalty do you expect to escape to Canada? And if they do, based upon previous precedents, we will return them if the state involved commutes the death penalty to life. This case has nothing to do with that sort of thing. 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
The_Squid Posted May 26, 2014 Report Posted May 26, 2014 The really stupid Manson/murderer analogy isn't getting any less stupid as it's repeated... Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted May 26, 2014 Report Posted May 26, 2014 The really stupid Manson/murderer analogy isn't getting any less stupid as it's repeated... Let's see now, we have consensual sex, and a mass murderer. yeah a bit of a reach I'd say. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted May 27, 2014 Report Posted May 27, 2014 Well I've heard it all now. The state of Tennesee has reinstituted the electric chair as a way of carrying out the death penalty. The laughable part (in a sick sort of way) is that they also give you the choice of lethal injection so therefore it's no longer cruel and unusual punishment. Gotta luv that logic! Quote
TimG Posted May 27, 2014 Report Posted May 27, 2014 (edited) Well I looked at the extradition laws in Canada and it is pretty clear that you cannot be extradited unless the offense is a crime in both countries. Since this is the case for this woman this ruling does not represent the precedent that I feared. Future similar rulings for things which are not crimes in Canada would likely be reasonable. Edited May 27, 2014 by TimG Quote
Rue Posted May 27, 2014 Report Posted May 27, 2014 (edited) Tim its not crystal clear that you can not be extradited unless the offense is a crime in both countries. I will tell you why. Extradition treaties do not just apply to criminals but people fleeing with children over custody issues which could be provincial or there could be reciprocal treaties requiring the state of Florida's cooperation over provincial laws, business laws,environmental laws to name but a few that could either be provincial or federal in Canada or state or federal in the US. So this notion its only limited to cooperation over criminal law with Florida is not true. It will force Florida to examine any treaty or cooperation agreement it has with any Canadian government at the federal or provincial level How could it not? It will also force the US federal government to conclude if they have federal crimes that have no equivalent in Canada, we will provide shelter to these people. You think this therefore is limited to one woman who buggered some 16 year old boy? The implications are far wider. Criminal law as you know in Canada is federal jurisdiction but in the US its state and sometimes federal. It is possible therefore while there may be no criminal federal law in Canada equivalent to the Florida state criminal law, there would be a provincial offence in some or all of the provinces with the same equivalence as that Florida criminal law. So it is now possible someone convicted of a crime in Florida who would be convicted of the same offence in a province could try use the refugee route and then what? No one thought that through. Here is the next issue that is not being acknowledged from anyone. Oh yes you can say in theory a criminal can only come to Canada where there is no equivalent crime in Canada and so if he does he will be sent back. Really that simple? Well take a look at the arguments on this board to see why it won't be simple. On the one hand Cyber and Guyser and Guard are quick to point out that there is no equivalent law in Canada and so this person should flee here. Then they suddenly switch and say, oh its the length of sentence. Well which one is it because each argument creates a different set of legal issues. If it was strictly the length of sentence that makes this person entitled to refugee status then why isn't she in jail in Canada? Using that argument she should be in jail albeit for a shorter time. Clearly that is not the issue because these anti US legal experts do not think she should be in jail at all since there is no Canadian criminal law. So? So... someone who has committed a crime in the US even where there is an equivalent crime in Canada can now come to Canada and argue even though the crime is the same, the length of sentence is cruel and inhumane. Nothing in the decision as it rests now stated length of sentence will not be considered even where crimes are the same. Its opened up this country to any serious non political criminal coming to this country and clogging up our refugee determination process and keep in mind the moment these criminals step forth in our country they have automatic entitlement to the Charter of Rights, OHIP, dental care, welfare, free legal counsel and a motel. Oh but wait. Someone try explain to these legal experts that the majority of the world has criminal laws different than Canada. Start with the fact that in the vast majority of countries one is presumed guilty until proven innocent. That precept is used in all nations other than British common law jurisdictions. So using their Canada laws sueprcede the world argument, anyone presumed guilty in a jurisdiction until proven innocent is entitled to refugee status in Canada. But why stop there. Round up every criminal in any sharia law nation, Russia, China, South America, Asia, whose criminal conviction is based on a different law than we have and get those motels ready. So will Guyser, On Guard, Cyber hug them when they come, get them jobs, and applaud them for buggering 16 year old boys? is that what our system is about? . . The refugee process in Canada incorporated the UN convention refugee treaty. We signed an international treaty agreeing to abide by the UN Convention on Refugees and then took that convention and placed it into our federal laws. The original definition deliberately put in the exclusion of serious non political criminals deliberately so as to avoid the very absurd decision he federal court came up with and the Supreme Court has review. Our Federal Court has now ignored that exclusion and created a situation that contradicts the most fundamental principal of international law and relations and that is respect other nations right to make laws just as we expect them to respect our right to make laws. They ignored key provisions as to how the definition should be applied. They leave the current government no choice but to pass an amendment through a regulation to close the loophole and then let that amendment get tested in the Supreme Court of Canada if it has to be. . As for Argus' comments on serving sentences no one serves a full sentence regardless of their crime. They are let out early if for no other reason, there is over-crowding. Then they get automatic time off as long as they do nothing violent. Then they get early release on day programs. Yes sir waiting in line too long? Well no problems. Go back home, commit a crime that does not exist in Canada, get a conviction then come on back and we will bump you right to the front of the line. Yes sir. That makes sense. Doesn't undermine our immigration laws at all. Edited May 27, 2014 by Rue Quote
guyser Posted May 27, 2014 Report Posted May 27, 2014 Well I looked at the extradition laws in Canada and it is pretty clear that you cannot be extradited unless the offense is a crime in both countries. Since this is the case for this woman this ruling does not represent the precedent that I feared. Future similar rulings for things which are not crimes in Canada would likely be reasonable. Tell that to mr long winded above. Quote
guyser Posted May 27, 2014 Report Posted May 27, 2014 (edited) Tim its not crystal clear that you can not be extradited unless the offense is a crime in both countries. I will tell you why. Good ...cant wait. And dont forget, I am NOT a lawyer. Extradition treaties do not just apply to criminals but people fleeing with children over custody issues which could be provincial or there could be reciprocal treaties requiring the state of Florida's cooperation over provincial laws, business laws,environmental laws to name but a few that could either be provincial or federal in Canada or state or federal in the US. So this notion its only limited to cooperation over criminal law with Florida is not true. It will force Florida to examine any treaty or cooperation agreement it has with any Canadian government at the federal or provincial level How could it not? It will also force the US federal government to conclude if they have federal crimes that have no equivalent in Canada, we will provide shelter to these people. Uh....Nope. How could it not? Oh thats easy for a non lawyer guy like me. Federal govts sign, control, negotiate, extradition treaties. Individual US states and CDN Prov's dont. There are two types, DC and L treaties. Dual Criminal and List treaties. All signed by feds in respective countries. You think this therefore is limited to one woman who buggered some 16 year old boy? The implications are far wider. Not really. This one IS limited to one woman. So it is now possible someone convicted of a crime in Florida who would be convicted of the same offence in a province could try use the refugee route and then what? No one thought that through. If thats the case then its pretty easy to answer, send back unless the sentence is really really stupid like this one....and you can read their decision if you wish. Well take a look at the arguments on this board to see why it won't be simple. On the one hand Cyber and Guyser and Guard are quick to point out that there is no equivalent law in Canada and so this person should flee here. Then they suddenly switch and say, oh its the length of sentence. Well which one is it because each argument creates a different set of legal issues. Never said anyone should flee here.....but of course if your argument sucks then of course put words in others mouthes to bolster your stance and try to flaunt some percieved knowledge of law.....but I m not a lawyer of course. If it was strictly the length of sentence that makes this person entitled to refugee status then why isn't she in jail in Canada? Golly gee Counsel, what crime did she commit in Canada? None ? Oh well then.....lock her up !! Using that argument she should be in jail albeit for a shorter time. Clearly that is not the issue because these anti US legal experts do not think she should be in jail at all since there is no Canadian criminal law. So? 'Using that argument..' then one already trashed? Yea.....use that Anti-US legal experts? Frankly, the ones who claimn not to be lawyers are kicking the faux lawyers ass all over the place. And using 1/100 of the words to do so. ..... keep in mind the moment these criminals step forth in our country they have automatic entitlement to the Charter of Rights, OHIP, dental care, welfare, free legal counsel and a motel. Oh boy. You best research a lot more Any person on Canadian soil is entitled to Charter protection. Im not a lawyer but I know that much. No OHIP is granted , the Fed govt (IHF prgram) covers for the first 3 months, but only special urgent care,including dental on same basis. No welfare, motel only on temp basis. Loans yes...but a loan has to be paid back Oh but wait. Someone try explain to these legal experts that the majority of the world has criminal laws different than Canada. Start with the fact that in the vast majority of countries one is presumed guilty until proven innocent. That precept is used in all nations other than British common law jurisdictions. Oh oh....water is wet. Didja know ? So using their Canada laws sueprcede the world argument, anyone presumed guilty in a jurisdiction until proven innocent is entitled to refugee status in Canada. Nope, wrong....again. We have Visa jurisdictions, meaning plenty wont get one, and the CDN govt is looking to expand that once again. The expansion last year or year before that has worked very well. It stops them even getting onm the plane. Facts are a funny thing, even in a court room. But why stop there. Probably because continuing on this road is silly as it is now. Round up every criminal in any sharia law nation, Russia, China, South America, Asia, whose criminal conviction is based on a different law than we have and get those motels ready. Lets see now.....a VISA is needed if from Russia China South America , Asia....and having a VISA necessary means one could not easily (if at all) get to Canada. Cancel the non existent fairy tale motel rooms stat ! So will Guyser, On Guard, Cyber hug them when they come, get them jobs, and applaud them for buggering 16 year old boys? is that what our system is about? . . No probably not, but then again, we wont go on discussion boards attempting to be smart know it all and completely shit the bed with a post riddled with falsehoods lies and animosity. The LSUC has been informed. We signed an international treaty agreeing to abide by the UN Convention on Refugees and then took that convention and placed it into our federal laws. Wait...did all the Provinces sign it or US States individually? Im tired, too long to keep going. The point has been made. Edited May 27, 2014 by Guyser2 Quote
cybercoma Posted May 27, 2014 Report Posted May 27, 2014 This is why I don't often respond to Rue. You can only point out how and why a person is wrong so many times. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 27, 2014 Report Posted May 27, 2014 ....Yes sir waiting in line too long? Well no problems. Go back home, commit a crime that does not exist in Canada, get a conviction then come on back and we will bump you right to the front of the line. Good observation, and the logical outcome for such an absurd policy / decision. Fast track emigration through underage buggery! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
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.