Florida woman granted asylum in Canada

guyser · May 27, 2014

Good observation, and the logical outcome for such an absurd policy / decision. Fast track emigration through underage buggery!

Quite right , its good only as far as one ignores VISA restrictions , facts of the case and so on. In other words, pretty stupid.

No surprise at your answer though.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Guyser2

On Guard for Thee · 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.

G2 certainly did do yeoman duty to point that out, many times. I found it interesting the attempt to try and make the arguments around it not being a crime in Canada, and the unacceptable sentence length, were somehow at odds.

Rue · May 28, 2014

Here since On Guard wants to engage me in legal terminologies its called an extradition treaty between federal governments and reciprocal agreements between provinces or between provinces and the US. In the case of criminal law there might be extradition treaties between the US federal government and Canada that level and there may be reciprocal agreements between states and provinces and then there are extradition treaties and reciprocal agreements that interconnect. It does not change a thing I said but it seems of semantic importance to Guard that we get that clear so I am pleased to help and I should have said both extradition and reciprocal agreement. reciprocity agreements do not just exist for criminal law was my point and if you interfere with Florida law it could cause negative conseqences with other reciprocal agreements between Florida and the provinces or the US extradition treaty with Canada on criminal law or other laws.

Guard your attempt to engage in semantics does not change a thing I said or the point I made.

As for the repeated references to not being a lawyer you and Gusyer and Cyebr at times have tried to make these responses personal engaging me in references to my profession. Go ahead. I am not sure what the little personal digs at my profession has to do with the issue.

As for Guyser, I am responding to what was said not pointing out anyone is wrong. This is a discussion forum. People are not right or wrong. Tim G in my opinion is not wrong. He made valuable points. So I am trying to discuss them with him. If I did not think he was "right" or more accurately put raising a great point, I would not respond. I do not respond to him as I do you because he does not take offence when I debate with him or discuss different views with him.

In our case though since you and Guard and Guyser think you are getting into some absurd contest with me over who is right or wrong may I simply state to you there is more than one way of looking at this issue and I agree with Bush on this, the same Bush who feels free to blast my face with words when he disagrees. Its not personal its a forum. Sometimes we agree sometimes we do not.

So now let me end this by sending the three amigos, Guyer, Guard and Cyber my fondest regards and wish you three a wonderful da

As for Bush I can hear his laughter from down South. Canada we stand on guard for thee and thine criminals fleeing US jurisdiction.

What a way to build a country and send a message to hard working immigrants waiting in line what we think of them,

In our country a woman who buggers a 16 year old gets fast track over some hard working person wanting to come here and build something. Better still who wants to help those actual real refugees in Sudan when you need to spend your resources on this woman instead.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Rue

guyser · May 28, 2014

Guard your attempt to engage in semantics does not change a thing I said or the point I made.

Of course it does, for obvious reasons. I want to say apple but say banana. people would get confused.

As for the repeated references to not being a lawyer you and Gusyer and Cyebr at times have tried to make these responses personal engaging me in references to my profession. Go ahead. I am not sure what the little personal digs at my profession has to do with the issue.

Thats no dig, merely pointing out that we arent lawyers.

As for Guyser, I am responding to what was said not pointing out anyone is wrong. This is a discussion forum. People are not right or wrong.

People are right and wrong all the time, and yes it matters, especially when someone is posting wrong information to make their points. IE....OHIP, money, motels and so on, treaties existing betw stats and prov's etc.

Disinformation is a bad thing to get into.

In our case though since you and Guard and Guyser think you are getting into some absurd contest with me over who is right or wrong may I simply state to you there is more than one way of looking at this issue

One is certainly free to have an opinion, that much cant be debated.

One is certainly free to post facts too, but they best have them right. In this case, the facts were not true, they were wrong.

As for Bush I can hear his laughter from down South. Canada we stand on guard for thee and thine criminals fleeing US jurisdiction.

And why would he be laughing? Actually I dont really care, but the fact is criminals fleeing to Canada is a rare event, nothing that has occurred in the last few years (incl this case) will change any number of thos e attempting to flee here for the reasons shown. Pretty much every scenario posted was shot to hell .....so yeah...maybe there is laughter, but I bet you dont want to know the whats and whys of such.

And back to your other point about semantics and right ands wrong........

In our country a woman who buggers a 16 year old gets fast track over some hard working person wanting to come here and build something. Better still who wants to help those actual real refugees in Sudan when you need to spend your resources on this woman instead.

Please explain to us how a woman can bugger a 16 yr old male? Does this woman have a penis?

'Buggery' is an exacting phrase , ergo one can use it right or wrong.

On Guard for Thee · May 28, 2014

Yes I was wondering when someone was going to correct the incorrect use of the term by at least a couple of posters here.

Wilber · May 28, 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.

Except under some circumstances it can be a crime in Canada. Those circumstances can include the difference in age of the participants.

Rue · May 28, 2014

Gusyer asked me in post 504:

Please explain to us how a woman can bugger a 16 yr old male? Does this woman have a penis?

Buggery' is an exacting phrase , ergo one can use it right or wrong."

Then of course Guard joins in with post 505 and states:

"Yes I was wondering when someone was going to correct the incorrect use of the term by at least a couple of posters here."

Now look I do not doubt these two posters may feel they have strong expertise in this area and therefore think I need to be challenged on my use of this term. I am pleased to concede I do not doubt their expertise and defer to it.

However as it is obviously bothering these two, I felt in the spirit of amicable exchange of ideas I might suggest why "buggery" is not necessarily an "exacting phrase that can only be used in one context".

First off let me refer to the followingd dictionary to explain using the word bugger as a verb can have more than one meaning: http://www.yourdictionary.com/bugger

Verb
(third-person singular simple present buggers, present participle buggering, simple past and past participle buggered)
1.(vulgar, UK) To sodomize.To be buggered sore like a hobo's whore (Attributed to Harry Mclintock's 1920s era Big Rock Candy Mountain)
2.(slang, vulgar in UK) To break or ruin.This computer is buggered! Oh no! I've buggered it up.
3.(slang, UK, Australia, New Zealand) To be surprised.Bugger me sideways! Bugger me, here's my bus. Well, I'm buggered!
4.(slang, UK, Australia, New Zealand) To feel contempt for some person or thing.Bugger Bognor. (Alleged to be the last words of king George V of the United Kingdom in response to a suggestion that he might recover from his illness and visit Bognor Regis.)
5.(slang, UK, Australia, New Zealand) To feel frustration with something, or to consider that something is futile.Bugger this for a lark. Bugger this for a game of soldiers.
6.(slang, UK, Australia, New Zealand) To be fatigued.I'm buggered from all that walking.

From wikepedia:

Bugger is a slang word. The term is a general-purpose expletive, used to imply dissatisfaction, or to refer to someone or something whose behaviour is in some way displeasing or perhaps surprising.

Buggery

The word buggery today also serves as a general expletive (mild, moderate or severe depending on the context and company), and can be used to replace the word bugger as a simple expletive or as a simile in phrases which do not actually refer literally in any sense to buggery itself, but just use the word for its informal strength of impact, e.g., Run like buggery, which is equivalent

Now if we really want to be technical in law it has been used to refer to anal sexual acts between males and between males or females and animals.

I am confident most people other than Guyser and Guard will understand that the word can be used in many ways just as people can engage in sex in many ways and there is no further need for clarification if for example I were to use the word "bugger off" in a sentence.

Now in this specific case I wish to assure people I was referring to this woman placing electronic hearing devices on the boy. She was in fact spying on the boy and got caught and once her cover was blown fled to Canada. Its all a false flag operation. She was a Mossad agent.

cybercoma · May 28, 2014

As for the repeated references to not being a lawyer you and Gusyer and Cyebr at times have tried to make these responses personal

This happened once, in a completely different thread, and I thought we had settled that. I don't care about your profession.

cybercoma · May 28, 2014

Anyone arguing that this opens the floodgates, I would like you to provide links to cases where Americans have sought refuge in Canada for persecution or cruel and unusual punishment in the US. Most of the cases I can find involve war objectors. There's a case of a young man from Tennessee charged with child pornography. The case took a bizarre turn when he claimed refugee status because he says the NSA is persecuting him for his ties to Anonymous. He says the child pornography charges are something they trumped up agains him when they found out he had sensitive information.

To advance this discussion, it would be helpful to look at various cases of Americans fleeing the US to Canada due to "persecution" or "cruel and unusual punishment." Let's see how often it happens and in what circumstances, as well as the Canadian government's response to them. How many are allowed? How many are denied?

guyser · May 28, 2014

'a woman who buggers a 16 year old ' was the phrase used. Not that you;ll admit it, but there ya go. Others understand, you dont.

The next post should have been...oopps, I made a mistake and used the wrong word. But no, you made a great effort to find some way to appear as if you used it w close proximity to other meanings,a semantic mistake.

No it wasnt. Not to mention no other corrections to put forward , such as OHIP, Treaties, et al?

TimG · May 28, 2014

Except under some circumstances it can be a crime in Canada. Those circumstances can include the difference in age of the participants.

Here is a case that should be discussed:

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/is_killing_a_fetus_murder/

Welden is facing first-degree murder charges for allegedly giving his pregnant girlfriend Remee Lee an abortion pill and telling her it was an antibiotic.

Given this ruling this guy would be entitled to claim refugee status in Canada because he is being charged with something that is not a crime in Canada.

If people are OK with the woman getting refugee status the should be OK with this guy getting refugee status.

If someone is not OK with this guy getting refugee status then they shouldn't be OK with the woman getting refugee status.

Under the law the two cases are identical and cannot be treated differently because the law is supposed to be applied fairly and not based on the whims of the person doing the judging.

Edited May 28, 2014 by TimG

cybercoma · May 28, 2014

.

Edited May 28, 2014 by cybercoma

cybercoma · May 28, 2014

Here is a case that should be discussed:

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/is_killing_a_fetus_murder/

Given this ruling this guy would be entitled to claim refugee status in Canada because he is being charged with something that is not a crime in Canada.

If people are OK with the woman getting refugee status the should be OK with this guy getting refugee status.

If someone is not OK with this guy getting refugee status then they shouldn't be OK with the woman getting refugee status.

Under the law the two cases are identical and cannot be treated differently because the law is supposed to be applied fairly and not based on the whims of the person doing the judging.

1) Yes it's a crime to drug someone in Canada.

2) The cases aren't even remotely identical.

TimG · May 28, 2014

1) Yes it's a crime to drug someone in Canada.

He is not being charged with that. He is being charged with murder. The issue in this woman's case was the 30 year prison term. I doubt she would have been viewed as favorably if she was facing a 1-2 year term.

2) The cases aren't even remotely identical.

For purposes of determining refugee eligibility they are identical. The only difference is the sympathy the individual involved can generate among a public who is not tasked with making a ruling based on the law. Edited May 28, 2014 by TimG

cybercoma · May 28, 2014

He is not being charged with that. He is being charged with murder. The issue in this woman's case was the 30 year prison term. I doubt she would have been viewed as favorably if she was facing a 1-2 year term.

The activity that he was being tried for is illegal in Canada. It doesn't matter that the charges are different. What Harvey did was not illegal in Canada at all. If she did the same thing here, she would not be a criminal. If he did the same thing here, he would be. That's the point.

For purposes of determining refugee eligibility they are identical.

No they're not. They're completely different cases. The circumstances aren't even remotely similar and as I pointed out above what he did is illegal here too.

TimG · May 28, 2014

What Harvey did was not illegal in Canada at all.

Yes it is. The only difference is the arbitrary line used to determine when charges can be laid are different in different jurisdictions.

If she did the same thing here, she would not be a criminal.

If she did it six months earlier (prior to his 16th birthday) then it would have been criminal in Canada too. You are arguing irrelevant semantics.

What these issues are decided on are the actual charges laid - not based on the activity.

In this case, the charge was for first degree murder - a charge which would not apply in Canada.

Edited May 28, 2014 by TimG

cybercoma · May 28, 2014

Seriously, where do you come up with these comparisons? First you try to argue that this ruling would lead to Paul Bernardo like criminals to get entrance into Canada if they face execution, now you're comparing this case to someone drugging a woman to cause an abortion. What compels you to compare consensual sex to murderers? Harvey's relationship was completely legal in 30 states and all of Canada. It would have been legal in nearly every country on the planet. But it's not the fact that it's not even a crime that's important, it's the fact that Florida feels it's just to put someone away for what would be the rest of her life for doing something that's legal almost everywhere else in the United States. That's the very definition of disproportionate. The fact that she would likely die in prison (she would be 77 at the end of her sentence) makes it cruel and unusual punishment. The facts and circumstances here aren't difficult to understand. Yet you continue to make really ridiculous comparisons and have such a uninformed view of case law that you think they apply.

TimG · May 28, 2014

But it's not the fact that it's not even a crime that's important, it's the fact that Florida feels it's just to put someone away for what would be the rest of her life for doing something that's legal almost everywhere else in the United States.

The same is true of the guy who gave his friend an abortion pill yet you seem to have no problem with him going away for the rest of his life for doing something that would be considered no worse than a punch to the face everywhere else in the United States. It is shameless hypocrisy on your part.

Yet you continue to make really ridiculous comparisons and have such a uninformed view of case law that you think they apply.

My comparisons are not ridiculous because, unlike you, I understand that law is about precedent and facts of an individual case are not that important. What is important are the similar cases that could be accepted based on the precedent. My examples simply show how incredibly naive you are when it comes to the law. Edited May 28, 2014 by TimG

On Guard for Thee · May 28, 2014

Yes it is. The only difference is the arbitrary line used to determine when charges can be laid are different in different jurisdictions.

If she did it six months earlier (prior to his 16th birthday) then it would have been criminal in Canada too. You are arguing irrelevant semantics.

What these issues are decided on are the actual charges laid - not based on the activity.

In this case, the charge was for first degree murder - a charge which would not apply in Canada.

I think the irrelevant part is saying "if she did it 6 months earlier" but she didn't, therefore no crime in Canada. You could apply the same thinking to driving a car. Get caught doing that before 16, busted. After 16, with a license of course, no prob. Same activity, legal age.

jbg · May 28, 2014

And back to your other point about semantics and right ands wrong........

Please explain to us how a woman can bugger a 16 yr old male? Does this woman have a penis?

'Buggery' is an exacting phrase , ergo one can use it right or wrong.

In the interest of gender-neutrality many terms are changing their name or meaning.

guyser · May 28, 2014

Here is a case that should be discussed:

Before we do that, perhaps you should be aware of the previous one? It appears you dont.

Given this ruling this guy would be entitled to claim refugee status in Canada because he is being charged with something that is not a crime in Canada.

Evidenced by that, you are not aware of the discussion so far. So go read. In the meantime, I will correct you insofar as yes it is a crime in canada.

Administering a Noxious Substance , 14 years max.

1)If people are OK with the woman getting refugee status the should be OK with this guy getting refugee status.

2)If someone is not OK with this guy getting refugee status then they shouldn't be OK with the woman getting refugee status.

3)Under the law the two cases are identical and cannot be treated differently because the law is supposed to be applied fairly and not based on the whims of the person doing the judging.

#1-Why shoudld they? The first isnt a crime here, this one is.

#2-The guy commits a crime thats on the books in both countries...so no ref status given.

#3-Under the law they are COMPLETELY different.

One cannot fit a square peg into a round hole.

Dont know what to say, but this desperation to try and find an equivalent is alarming. And lousy grasps too !

guyser · May 28, 2014

In the interest of gender-neutrality many terms are changing their name or meaning.

Not in this case it isnt.

It is quite specific. Rue knows that too, or at least should considering, but to save face he keeps amping up any irrelevant thing he can grasp.

On Guard for Thee · May 28, 2014

I would venture a guess that if this guy was able to get across the border, and was dumb enough to to show up at the IRB looking for ref. status, he'd find his ass on a plane back to Fla. toute suite. He may not be guilty of murder in Canada, but he is guilty of a crime here.

guyser · May 28, 2014

I would venture a guess that if this guy was able to get across the border, and was dumb enough to to show up at the IRB looking for ref. status, he'd find his ass on a plane back to Fla. toute suite. He may not be guilty of murder in Canada, but he is guilty of a crime here.

The fact that he has not been tried is key. SO yes, they would have him back tout de suite.

Chances are, an alert CBSA dude would see his record and walk him back to US Customs and tell them...hes yours boy s!

TimG · May 28, 2014

Administering a Noxious Substance , 14 years max.

Max 2 years.

Administering noxious thing

245. Every one who administers or causes to be administered to any person or causes any person to take poison or any other destructive or noxious thing is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

a. to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years, if he intends thereby to endanger the life of or to cause bodily harm to that person; or

b. to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, if he intends thereby to aggrieve or annoy that person.

The guy commits a crime thats on the books in both countries...so no ref status given.

Wrong - the guy is *charged* with something that is not a crime in Canada. It makes no difference that he could be charged with other crimes what matters are the crimes he is actually charged with. Edited May 28, 2014 by TimG