Florida woman granted asylum in Canada

[On Guard for Thee]

In both cases they are charged with things that are not crimes in Canada which means they are being persecuted according to the IRB. Why do you think the IRB is expected to pass judgement on other crimes which the applicant may have committed?

Tampering with someone's medication, and lyeing about it, for the purpose of doing someone harm I think you will find IS a crime in Canada. The harm done, i.e. aborting a fetus, is not a crime in Canada, otherwise there would be a lot of Dr.s in jail here. But he still has comitted a crime in both countries. I should have said allegedly. He hasn't been tried yet. Or has he? I just read something that he has been sentenced to 14 years.

Edited May 29, 2014 by On Guard for Thee

[Rue]

Aside from you bringing up my name in the previous reply, I don't believe I have read or responded to any of your posts in this thread. Just to let you know, I haven't read this one either. I'll wait for the Coles Notes. So don't feel as though you need to respond to me because frankly I haven't been paying attention to you. Brevity is the soul of wit.

If you did not read what I wrote then why did you respond?

Lol.

Rather than pose an excuse just ignore. The its too long and taxes your brain whine is pointless.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Rue

[cybercoma]

Believe me, it's not taxing at all. It's just tedious.

[Bob Macadoo]

......now the logic further confuses me. As he plead down to 14 years instead of being convicted for life for aborting a fetus (non-crime), that makes it not cruel and unusual whereas she did NOT plead out, even though if she did she would've most likely had a much reduced sentence as to the circumstances, her punishment is cruel and unusual.

So if he received life for assault (the actual crime) would that constitute cruel and unusual?

[guyser]

......now the logic further confuses me. As he plead down to 14 years instead of being convicted for life for aborting a fetus (non-crime), that makes it not cruel and unusual whereas she did NOT plead out, even though if she did she would've most likely had a much reduced sentence as to the circumstances, her punishment is cruel and unusual.

So if he received life for assault (the actual crime) would that constitute cruel and unusual?

Probably not for reasons that have been explained yesterday.

The punishment for his crime is similar in scope as if he did that crime here. The max here is 14 yrs .

Had she remained in Fla, had she pled to a lesser charge like others have in her state, she may very well not qualify for residence here. It would make it hard to argue cruel and unusual now wouldnt it?

[On Guard for Thee]

I'd bet the state of Fla. realized the murder charge was going to be hard to make stick, since the victim was a 6 or 7 week old fetus so they agreed to the plea deal for tampering with a consumer product and mail fraud. I reckon the only point were xing the Canadian border would have helped this guy, is if he would have been tried/convicted on the murder charge and then been sentenced to death. The extradition process could then keep him from the "hotseat"

[Peter F]

In both cases they are charged with things that are not crimes in Canada which means they are being persecuted according to the IRB. Why do you think the IRB is expected to pass judgement on other crimes which the applicant may have committed?

Lordy, The act of administering the drug that caused physical harm would most definitely be illegal in this country.

The act of having non-exploitive sex with a 16 year old is not illegal in this country

Why do you think forcing a miscarriage (against the will of the mother) is legal in Canada?

In Canada and the USA his actions were criminal - albeit the charges wouldn't fall under the same crime - but criminal nonetheless.

Ergo extradition.

Should the guy have fled the USA to Canada after his trial he would certainly have a steep hill to climb in convincing the IRB that

he would be facing cruel and unusual punishment if sent back.

Cybercoma explained one criminal charge he would have been subject to had he have committed his act in Canada: Admistering a Noxious substance - and not merely annoying the victim but actually causing physical harm. Max sentence 14 years

The US court sentenced him to 14 years for murder.

So do tell, how would a IRB conclude that the sentence the man received in the USofA could be considered 'cruel and unusual'?

Edited May 29, 2014 by Peter F

[Rue]

Believe me, it's not taxing at all. It's just tedious.

Interesting. For someone who will not read my posts because they are tedious you still feel the necessity to keep responding.

All that establishes is you are engaged in an exercise with me where you feel the need to control and unilaterally dictate the discourse between us. Its not working. Instead of continuing to respond insulting my attempts to respond to you, just ignore my responses. Now move on and from now on I will not respond to you and you can ignore me to your heart's content.

[cybercoma]

I would read all of your posts if you got your point across in them as succinctly as you did in the last two.

[Rue]

I would like to get back to the pith and substance of what was brought out in this dispute and that was the assumption that since Canada has different sex crime definitions than Florida when it comes to sexual offences, ours must be superior and we can sneer at Florida laws as being archaic and giggle at American states whose laws are different then ours with this smug assumption we are superior in how we define these things.

I have taken the time to provide these references and say they are examples of the basis of the information I rely on when discussing female sexual criminals:

http://www.canadiancrc.com/Female_Sex_Offenders-Female_Sexual_Predators_awareness.aspx

http://www.child-abuse-effects.com/female-sex-offenders.html

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/so/female/female-02-eng.shtml

http://voices.yahoo.com/female-sex-offenders-classifications-594151.html

http://www.female-offenders.com/Safehouse/2010/09/toptenmythsaboutfemalesexoffenders.html

With the above as my base point, I now argue, some of you in your response to this debate engaged in classic myth building by suggesting when a woman has sex with a 16 year old its a right of passage or a lucky thing for the boy.

For me and others who have worked in the field of sex crime, we see sex as problematic when it is:

1-done between between two persons where one has more power than the other; and/or;

2-there is violence;

3-the acts are with any minor and non minors;

4-there is the threat of life or any kind of damage or harm;

5-one of the party;s is being hurt, humiliated or is having their privacy or human rights violated;

6-the sex is used to aid and abet or finance crime or terrorism.

In the case at hand so many of you lust laughed off what this woman did as a joke. Its not.

What she did may not have required 30 years in jail but to just laugh it off and welcome this woman as a victim of an archaic law misses the point and the point is she should not have had sex with any minor.

In Canada we have the basic concept that majority age is 18 and therefore someone lacks capacity to make decisions until they are 18.

We do state that minors 16 to 18 have the right to enter into contracts for life necessities but even they are not enforceable at the minor's option.

So this smug attitude some of you have that 16 year old boys can have sex with ladies and its fun and great is precisely the kind of ignorant response I want to challenge.

Florida may have too long a sentence but is their definition that its a sex crime for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old wrong? I say no.

I say if a grown man has sex with a 16 year old the attitude demonstrated on this forum would have been far different and this reflects a kind of sexism, a kind of sexual double standard that holds when the gender is female and the younger gender is male, its o.k.

Not its not. Its wrong when an adult male does it to a 16 year old female, its wrong when a female does it to a 16 year old male.

More to the point some of you if this had been an adult man having sex with a 16 year old boy, been the first on here screaming that homosexuals are all pedophile perverts for doing that.

I do not give a damn what the gender is of the adult or what the gender is of the younger 16 year old, its wrong.

I do not think any adult having sex with a 16 year old is doing so in good faith.

Maybe I can concede that some 16 year olds are very intelligent and have high iq's but does this mean their emotional iq is developed?

If someone of you can not understand why age difference in sex partners can be problematic you can read the above references.

For sex to be healthy it needs to be between consenting partners. Please do not tell me an adult and a 16 year old are consenting and it was all fun and games. Its not. The 16 year old is not emotionally developed. At 16 they are highly vulnerable to emotional

distress and injury as a fall out to such encounters. You think its a giggle? I don't.

I think we owe our minors the right to feel they can trust adults not to exploit them. I think the bigger the age difference between the 16 year old and his or her partner regardless of their genders, the more likely there can be harm.

Are there exceptions to the rule for sure but please do not tell me 16 year olds who have had sex with adults are not injured by it or are not screwed up by it.

When you work with teens and children who have been molested-when you see what happens to them when they confuse the line between their rights and the rights of adults to touch them you would not say that.

I have a bias because I worked with such kids and kids they are. Whether they were boys or girls the damages were the same.

This double standard some of you have is for me just another form of ignorance that needs to be addressed.

This woman should not walk away from what she did with no consequence. No I do not agree with a society that doesn't find that minors need to be protected from adult sex.

Do I think an 18 year old is a sex offender for having sex with a 16 year old. No not necessarily. What if that 16 year old though is of low intelligence? Maybe. For me the bigger the age difference of any two partners where one of the partners is under 18, is a problem.

I also believe children who have not completed puberty regardless of age should be protected.

I think we seriously need to revisit our sex crimes laws because as this planet shrinks and people are able to travel anywhere, we need uniform laws across the planet on the same page dealing with sex offenders.

[Rue]

I would read all of your posts if you got your point across in them as succinctly as you did in the last two.

I don't care whether you would read them or not.

[Peter F]

For sex to be healthy it needs to be between consenting partners. Please do not tell me an adult and a 16 year old are consenting and it was all fun and games. Its not. The 16 year old is not emotionally developed. At 16 they are highly vulnerable to emotional

distress and injury as a fall out to such encounters. You think its a giggle? I don't.

I think we owe our minors the right to feel they can trust adults not to exploit them. I think the bigger the age difference between the 16 year old and his or her partner regardless of their genders, the more likely there can be harm.

Are there exceptions to the rule for sure but please do not tell me 16 year olds who have had sex with adults are not injured by it or are not screwed up by it.

When you work with teens and children who have been molested-when you see what happens to them when they confuse the line between their rights and the rights of adults to touch them you would not say that.

I have a bias because I worked with such kids and kids they are. Whether they were boys or girls the damages were the same.

This double standard some of you have is for me just another form of ignorance that needs to be addressed.

This woman should not walk away from what she did with no consequence. No I do not agree with a society that doesn't find that minors need to be protected from adult sex.

Do I think an 18 year old is a sex offender for having sex with a 16 year old. No not necessarily. What if that 16 year old though is of low intelligence? Maybe. For me the bigger the age difference of any two partners where one of the partners is under 18, is a problem.

I also believe children who have not completed puberty regardless of age should be protected.

I think we seriously need to revisit our sex crimes laws because as this planet shrinks and people are able to travel anywhere, we need uniform laws across the planet on the same page dealing with sex offenders.

I think you raise a good point here, Rue. Care must be taken in regards to determing the facts of a case - extra care when it comes to sexual matters of legal implications in regards to adolescents.

I remember some of the legal and political spats involved in raising the age of consent to 16. I also take note of the resulting laws where exceptions were made to rules in order to account for exploitation matters, and wether 15 year olds can have sex with 16 year olds etc etc.

All that hullabaloo resulted in the Laws we have. Perhaps they will change some more over time, perhaps even in a direction you would approve of.

Nevertheless, The law as it stands is the law we have and the law that the IRB's, amongs others, have to work with.

[On Guard for Thee]

Lordy, The act of administering the drug that caused physical harm would most definitely be illegal in this country.

The act of having non-exploitive sex with a 16 year old is not illegal in this country

Why do you think forcing a miscarriage (against the will of the mother) is legal in Canada?

In Canada and the USA his actions were criminal - albeit the charges wouldn't fall under the same crime - but criminal nonetheless.

Ergo extradition.

Should the guy have fled the USA to Canada after his trial he would certainly have a steep hill to climb in convincing the IRB that

he would be facing cruel and unusual punishment if sent back.

Cybercoma explained one criminal charge he would have been subject to had he have committed his act in Canada: Admistering a Noxious substance - and not merely annoying the victim but actually causing physical harm. Max sentence 14 years

The US court sentenced him to 14 years for murder.

So do tell, how would a IRB conclude that the sentence the man received in the USofA could be considered 'cruel and unusual'?

No. They sentenced him to 14 years for tampering with a consumer product, and mail fraud. Murder was taken off the table in the plea bargain.

[Peter F]

No. They sentenced him to 14 years for tampering with a consumer product, and mail fraud. Murder was taken off the table in the plea bargain.

yes, thanks for the correction.

[On Guard for Thee]

I would like to get back to the pith and substance of what was brought out in this dispute and that was the assumption that since Canada has different sex crime definitions than Florida when it comes to sexual offences, ours must be superior and we can sneer at Florida laws as being archaic and giggle at American states whose laws are different then ours with this smug assumption we are superior in how we define these things.

I have taken the time to provide these references and say they are examples of the basis of the information I rely on when discussing female sexual criminals:

http://www.canadiancrc.com/Female_Sex_Offenders-Female_Sexual_Predators_awareness.aspx

http://www.child-abuse-effects.com/female-sex-offenders.html

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/so/female/female-02-eng.shtml

http://voices.yahoo.com/female-sex-offenders-classifications-594151.html

http://www.female-offenders.com/Safehouse/2010/09/toptenmythsaboutfemalesexoffenders.html

With the above as my base point, I now argue, some of you in your response to this debate engaged in classic myth building by suggesting when a woman has sex with a 16 year old its a right of passage or a lucky thing for the boy.

For me and others who have worked in the field of sex crime, we see sex as problematic when it is:

1-done between between two persons where one has more power than the other; and/or;

2-there is violence;

3-the acts are with any minor and non minors;

4-there is the threat of life or any kind of damage or harm;

5-one of the party;s is being hurt, humiliated or is having their privacy or human rights violated;

6-the sex is used to aid and abet or finance crime or terrorism.

In the case at hand so many of you lust laughed off what this woman did as a joke. Its not.

What she did may not have required 30 years in jail but to just laugh it off and welcome this woman as a victim of an archaic law misses the point and the point is she should not have had sex with any minor.

In Canada we have the basic concept that majority age is 18 and therefore someone lacks capacity to make decisions until they are 18.

We do state that minors 16 to 18 have the right to enter into contracts for life necessities but even they are not enforceable at the minor's option.

So this smug attitude some of you have that 16 year old boys can have sex with ladies and its fun and great is precisely the kind of ignorant response I want to challenge.

Florida may have too long a sentence but is their definition that its a sex crime for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old wrong? I say no.

I say if a grown man has sex with a 16 year old the attitude demonstrated on this forum would have been far different and this reflects a kind of sexism, a kind of sexual double standard that holds when the gender is female and the younger gender is male, its o.k.

Not its not. Its wrong when an adult male does it to a 16 year old female, its wrong when a female does it to a 16 year old male.

More to the point some of you if this had been an adult man having sex with a 16 year old boy, been the first on here screaming that homosexuals are all pedophile perverts for doing that.

I do not give a damn what the gender is of the adult or what the gender is of the younger 16 year old, its wrong.

I do not think any adult having sex with a 16 year old is doing so in good faith.

Maybe I can concede that some 16 year olds are very intelligent and have high iq's but does this mean their emotional iq is developed?

If someone of you can not understand why age difference in sex partners can be problematic you can read the above references.

For sex to be healthy it needs to be between consenting partners. Please do not tell me an adult and a 16 year old are consenting and it was all fun and games. Its not. The 16 year old is not emotionally developed. At 16 they are highly vulnerable to emotional

distress and injury as a fall out to such encounters. You think its a giggle? I don't.

I think we owe our minors the right to feel they can trust adults not to exploit them. I think the bigger the age difference between the 16 year old and his or her partner regardless of their genders, the more likely there can be harm.

Are there exceptions to the rule for sure but please do not tell me 16 year olds who have had sex with adults are not injured by it or are not screwed up by it.

When you work with teens and children who have been molested-when you see what happens to them when they confuse the line between their rights and the rights of adults to touch them you would not say that.

I have a bias because I worked with such kids and kids they are. Whether they were boys or girls the damages were the same.

This double standard some of you have is for me just another form of ignorance that needs to be addressed.

This woman should not walk away from what she did with no consequence. No I do not agree with a society that doesn't find that minors need to be protected from adult sex.

Do I think an 18 year old is a sex offender for having sex with a 16 year old. No not necessarily. What if that 16 year old though is of low intelligence? Maybe. For me the bigger the age difference of any two partners where one of the partners is under 18, is a problem.

I also believe children who have not completed puberty regardless of age should be protected.

I think we seriously need to revisit our sex crimes laws because as this planet shrinks and people are able to travel anywhere, we need uniform laws across the planet on the same page dealing with sex offenders.

Apparently courts in both Florida and Canda found found none of your 6 points to be valid. The issue comes down to age. And that is that.

[On Guard for Thee]

Peter F, on 29 May 2014 - 5:49 PM, said:

yes, thanks for the correction. 

My pleasure. And from what I have found your comment that the sentences in both Florida and Canada are pretty much the same is correct. Edited May 30, 2014 by On Guard for Thee

[Rue]

I think you raise a good point here, Rue. Care must be taken in regards to determing the facts of a case - extra care when it comes to sexual matters of legal implications in regards to adolescents.

I remember some of the legal and political spats involved in raising the age of consent to 16. I also take note of the resulting laws where exceptions were made to rules in order to account for exploitation matters, and wether 15 year olds can have sex with 16 year olds etc etc.

All that hullabaloo resulted in the Laws we have. Perhaps they will change some more over time, perhaps even in a direction you would approve of.

Nevertheless, The law as it stands is the law we have and the law that the IRB's, amongs others, have to work with.

Acknowledged Peter. These are the laws we have now and we work with them unless we change them. As well I am keely aware well intentioned laws to regulate sex offenders could unintentionally go too far and be abused for other reasons as well. Its complex.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Rue

[Rue]

Apparently courts in both Florida and Canda found found none of your 6 points to be valid. The issue comes down to age. And that is that.

Your comment above makes no sense.

I raised the 6 above as general criteria when discussing sexual behaviour. Period.

I never suggested in the particular case at hand the 6 points I raised were considered relevant by the court or should have been considered relevant by the court.

For your information the 6 criteria I did mention are already contemplated in existing sex offender laws in both the US and Canada and across the world.

Canadian criminal law does consider the above criteria with any sex act as part of any criminal investigation before they rule out a crime was committed..

Criterias 2,4,5 and 6 for example could be considered as grounds for a criminal charge with existing laws today, if applicable, even if a 16 year old consents to sex with an adult to find a sexual criminal offence or other criminal offence.

May I suggest since you do not understand what I raised or the points I am making and are trying to challenge me on something I did not argue, you just move on. From what Cyber says my posts may be too lengthy for you as well.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Rue

[On Guard for Thee]

Your comment above makes no sense.

I raised the 6 above as general criteria when discussing sexual behaviour. Period.

I never suggested in the particular case at hand the 6 points I raised were considered relevant by the court or should have been considered relevant by the court.

For your information the 6 criteria I did mention are already contemplated in existing sex offender laws in both the US and Canada and across the world.

Canadian criminal law does consider the above criteria with any sex act as part of any criminal investigation before they rule out a crime was committed..

Criterias 2,4,5 and 6 for example could be considered as grounds for a criminal charge with existing laws today, if applicable, even if a 16 year old consents to sex with an adult to find a sexual criminal offence or other criminal offence.

May I suggest since you do not understand what I raised or the points I am making and are trying to challenge me on something I did not argue, you just move on. From what Cyber says my posts may be too lengthy for you as well.

Maybe you don't understand, in Canada he is not a minor. That's the first thing that gets her off the hook. The second thing is the sentence which offends out constitution (section 12) but I assume you already know of that particular section.

[Rue]

Ghost a 16 year old is a minor in Canada. that is a fact. This is why contracts are not binding on 16-18 year olds or anyone under 16 and between 16-18 minors can only enter into contracts of necessity and even then back out of them. This is also why we have an alternative criminal law for persons under 18 although sometimes a 16 to 18 year old can be tried as an adult. We created an different kind of criminal procedures, sentencing alternatives and procedures for those under 18.

In regards to our second point the English got a bit garbled in your response. I think you are referring to section 12 of the Charter.

At no time did I discuss that issue.

In regards to how the Charter is applied if raised to challenge a sentence it's usually been raised and been successful in those situations where the person was never charged but left in jail too long and in the past the writ of habeas corpus was used to get people out with the basic argument their right to be charged in a timely manner was not afforded them.

Its also been used in regards to arguing someone should be released when there has been a delay in proceedings not caused in any way by the accused which is considered excessive. At this point that can be more than 6-8-12 months and it can get any charge provincial or federal tossed and even parking tickets..

In terms of whether a sentence is cruel or unusual, the federal government will not deport people back to their countries even if they are illegal aliens or declared not to be refugees where we believe they face death or imminent threat of life.

Right now our country has many drug pushers and criminals who fleed from their country applied and failed to get refugee status and are allowed to stay in the country.

We already have a precedent where more and more criminals including child molesters when caught flee to Canada precisely for that reason.

In terms of the particular sentence with the woman in the case of this thread at no time did I argue or raise the point that a 30 year sentence for a non violent, consensual sex crime with a 16 year old minor justified a 30 year sentence.

Sentencing is a complex matter. The length of sentence alone does not determine whether its cruel or fair. One has to look at the type of offence, whether it as imposed on the victim or consensual, whether there was violence, the degree of mental,emotional, physical damage if any to the inflicted party, whether the offender has remorse and is capable of being rehabilitated,, the impact on public policy, and so on.

In Canada sentencing has always taken into consideration such things. I personally believe our sentences for sexual assault with violence are too low and I also stated personally I think when an adult has sex with anyone under 18, the larger the age gap between the minor and the adult the more problematic it becomes. I said sentencing for sex offences should consider not just the length of age difference but other factors such as the financial status of both parties, their level of intelligence, whether the adult is an employer or in a position that gives them added influence such as being a clergy or police officer. its a complex manner. The 6 criteria I listed are already being considered for most sex offences as criteria when sentencing or even defining rimes and I said we need to revisit them.

I said that because I do not agree with some that an adult who screws a 16 year old is engaging in a harmless exercise. I stated the anaology if a 40 year old man screwed a 16 year old boy people would be livid. I stated if a 40 year old man screwed a 16 year old girl people would be livid.

I then stated in this case since its a woman who screwed a 16 year old boy it got some giggles.I happen to agree with those who say when an adult has sex with any minor its problematic. How problematic at is depends on all the factors I stated.

I raised discussion points in general for determining whether something should be a sex crime and if so what the sentence should be.

In regards to your now raising the Charter of Rights and I now believe s.12, I am not sure why you are raising it to me.

Its not germaine to anything I have raised.

Sentence length is not automatically defined as violating the Charter simply because its too long. Its considered in light of sentencing crinteria such as:

1-the ages of the victim and offender

2-the intelligence levels of the victim and offender

3-the socio economic status of the victim and offender

4-whether the offender was a fiduciary, guardian, professional, teacher, clergy;

5-whether the offender has been convicted of the same offence in the past

6-whether the offender engaged in violence or any hate act or humiliation act

7-whether the act was against public policy

8-whether the act was consensual

9-whether there are religious or cross cultural issues

10-whether the act was done by a soldier engaging in a declared state of war.

The above is not an exhaustive list but the point is no court just jumps to the conclusion a sentence is unfair without looking at many criteria such as the above.

More to the point this woman had the right to challenge the length of her sentence as being unconstitutional under the US constitution which she did not avail herself of.

I believe our laws should say be changed to say as long as the criminal fleeing to Canada has the equivalent right as they would in Canada too to appeal their sentence and have not exhausted that right its premature to consider them for admittance under any criteria they should be sent home to the US or any other country we have listed as non refugee producing and be exempt from applying for refugee status. we would have to amend our Extradition Treaty.

Edited May 31, 2014 by Rue

[cybercoma]

Hey, guess what? I read your post.

Ghost a 16 year old is a minor in Canada. that is a fact.

The issue isn't whether the person is a minor or not. The issue is age of consent. The crime is having sex with someone who is not of the age of consent. The crime is not having sex with a minor. A 16 year old by law can legally give his or her consent freely. The only person they cannot give consent to is someone in a position of authority or trust. On their 18th birthday, they can give consent in those situations too. Like it or not, that is the law. Review the facts of Ms. Harvey's case against this, not the age of majority which is entirely irrelevant here.

In terms of whether a sentence is cruel or unusual, the federal government will not deport people back to their countries even if they are illegal aliens or declared not to be refugees where we believe they face death or imminent threat of life.

Cruel and unusual punishment is different from facing death or imminent threat of life.

There are different classifications of refugees. What you keep referring to here are "convention refugees." Harvey is not a convention refugee. She's a "protected person." They have different definitions and prerequisites. Here is the exact text from the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

96. A Convention refugee is a person who, by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion

This is what you keep telling us Harvey fails. She is not looking for protection for those reasons. So you claim she is not a valid refugee and the IRB made an incorrect ruling. At least that's my understanding from your posts, correct me if I'm wrong.

Where you are mistaken is that you are using the definition of a "convention refugee" for Harvey and she is not a convention refugee. She is a "protected person."

97. (1) A person in need of protection is a person in Canada whose removal to their country...would subject them personally...( to a risk to their life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if...(iii) the risk is not inherent or incidental to lawful sanctions, unless imposed in disregard of accepted international standards

This is the protection that Harvey falls under. You're arguing that the decision is incorrect because you are referring to the wrong part of the Immigration Act.

Right now our country has many drug pushers and criminals who fleed from their country applied and failed to get refugee status and are allowed to stay in the country.

Completely irrelevant.

We already have a precedent where more and more criminals including child molesters when caught flee to Canada precisely for that reason.

Also completely irrelevant, since she's not a child molester. Her relationship wasn't one where the 16 year old was molested or sexually assaulted or exploited. It was consensual and when a 16 year old consents in Canada or 30 other states besides Florida, it's legal.

In terms of the particular sentence with the woman in the case of this thread at no time did I argue or raise the point that a 30 year sentence for a non violent, consensual sex crime with a 16 year old minor justified a 30 year sentence.

Good. Because not only is it not justified, but the IRB ruled that it is egregiously disproportionate to the crime. Sending a 47 year old to jail for 30 years is a life sentence. For lack of a better word, it is simply idiotic. The courts nearly used that word to describe it themselves.

Sentencing is a complex matter. The length of sentence alone does not determine whether its cruel

You're wrong. The length alone can be cruel. How does life in prison sound for running a red light? The a longer sentence is a harsher punishment, how could anyone argue otherwise? That's why we give murderers and rapists longer sentences than shoplifters and vandals. When a punishment is far harsher than is reasonable it becomes cruel. You want to define cruel as something else, like torture or a threat to life. The problem is that the phrase is cruel and unusual. A 30 year sentence for having consensual sex with someone who is a teenager, but a year under the age of consent is completely unusual and putting someone behind bars for the rest of their life for it is cruel. It's not torture. It's not murder. But it is depriving someone of their life with a harshly disproportionate sentence by international standards. And that's what the court argued. In any case, your argument was predicated on the definition of a convention refugee anyway and that's not her status. She's a protected person under the section of the Immigration Act that I cited above.

One has to look at the type of offence, whether it as imposed on the victim or consensual, whether there was violence, the degree of mental,emotional, physical damage if any to the inflicted party, whether the offender has remorse and is capable of being rehabilitated,, the impact on public policy, and so on.

And in this case none of that existed, which is why her sentence was cruel and unusual.

I personally believe our sentences for sexual assault with violence are too low

Which is irrelevant.

I also stated personally I think when an adult has sex with anyone under 18, the larger the age gap between the minor and the adult the more problematic it becomes.

What does 18 have to do with anything? The age of consent is 16. It was recently increased from 14. When it comes to giving consent for sex 18 means nothing, unless it's anal sex. Even then, it's unclear how the Supreme Court would handle a challenge to that statute. No one is charged under it unless they're being charged with rape or incest at these same time and usually the "buggery" charge is dropped at trial. I highly suspect that any charge of anal sex between a homosexual couple with a consenting 17 year old and someone over the age of 18 would be overturned by the Supreme Court and the law would be struck down as discriminatory against gay men. We don't know because it has never been challenge. Why? Because prosecutors aren't that stupid to pursue it.

Anyway, my point being that 18 is meaningless when it comes to consent. It's a number that you want to throw around and it's a number that's worthless. Teenagers have sex. Making it criminal is oppressive and overbearing.

I said sentencing for sex offences should consider not just the length of age difference but other factors such as the financial status of both parties, their level of intelligence, whether the adult is an employer or in a position that gives them added influence such as being a clergy or police officer. its a complex manner. The 6 criteria I listed are already being considered for most sex offences as criteria when sentencing or even defining rimes and I said we need to revisit them.

What do you mean by "sex offences"? You're being pretty vague. There is a wide range of different kinds of sex offences. I'm going to assume you mean age of consent related offences, since that's what the thread is about. Those things that you list are inconsequential because we already have another law when it comes to age of consent. The law is sexual exploitation. It involves someone in a position of trust exploiting a minor under the age of 18. If the minor is a dependent and relies on the adult for financial support, it's exploitation. If the minor has a developmental disability and the adult is a care taker of some sort, then it's exploitative. If the adult is an employer, clergy, teacher, or in a position of influence or "trust," as its written in the law, then it's an exploitation charge. That already exists in our laws. And it's also completely irrelevant here because Harvey was none of those things in her situation.

I said that because I do not agree with some that an adult who screws a 16 year old is engaging in a harmless exercise. I stated the anaology if a 40 year old man screwed a 16 year old boy people would be livid. I stated if a 40 year old man screwed a 16 year old girl people would be livid.

Actually, no I wouldn't. Because that 16 year old girl is of the age of consent. People have said time and again in this thread, as long as the adult is not in a position of authority or trust. That is a separate law called "sexual exploitation." It's also not the situation that Harvey was in.

I then stated in this case since its a woman who screwed a 16 year old boy it got some giggles.I happen to agree with those who say when an adult has sex with any minor its problematic. How problematic at is depends on all the factors I stated.

And none of those factors existed in this case. She wasn't in a position of authority or trust over the 16 year old and in Canada and 30 US states, he can freely give his consent to sex with an adult who is not in one of those position over him. She wasn't.

I raised discussion points in general for determining whether something should be a sex crime and if so what the sentence should be.

You're raising points in general without referring back to the legislation that exists. You're conflating crimes and even confusing types of refugees. Go back to the legislation. Read it. Make your arguments based on that. If you had done that you would see she's not a convention refugee and you would know that sexual exploitation is a different charge from having sex with someone who is underage. You would know that there are already different ages of consent based on all the factors you're saying need to be considered and as a result they are considered. You would also see that in this case she did nothing that would have been illegal in Canada and the IRB correctly awarded her protected persons status due to the egregious unbalanced sentencing in Florida.

More to the point this woman had the right to challenge the length of her sentence as being unconstitutional under the US constitution which she did not avail herself of.

Under what section of the US Constitution? Regardless, it doesn't matter. She chose to flee and seek refugee status in another country. It was a different option and probably a more difficult option, having to pack up not only herself but her family and move to a new country, find new jobs, a new home, new schools for her kids and essentially start over again. All for what? Having a consensual relationship with someone who was old enough to consent in Canada and 30 US States.

I believe our laws should say be changed to say as long as the criminal fleeing to Canada has the equivalent right as they would in Canada too to appeal their sentence and have not exhausted that right its premature to consider them for admittance under any criteria they should be sent home to the US or any other country we have listed as non refugee producing and be exempt from applying for refugee status. we would have to amend our Extradition Treaty.

That's just silly. You want her to wait until she's locked up in prison before fleeing to Canada to seek refuge? Think about that for a minute.

[Rue]

Cyber you took comments I made addressing a general discussion as to what should go into considering sex laws and said I claimed they applied directly to the specific situation of this woman who came to Canada. I did not. So most of your responses are not relevant as I never argued the points you are arguing back. I never said for example we do not have sexual exploitation laws in Canada.

In regards to whether this woman is a refugee or not, you claimed I said she was a convention refugee. I did not. I argued she should not be treated the same as one and explained she would not be considered a conventional refugee and in my opinion creating a second criteria for refugees based soley on the fact they committed a crime in their country that does not exist in Canada makes no sense and places fleeing criminals on the same moral basis as fleeing political refugees.

I stated this concept of offering fleeing criminals automatic citizenship in Canada is absurd and I explained why.

Interestingly in your response you said I was wrong to say length of sentence alone determines whether its cruel or not and then went on to contradict yourself in the very next sentence stating the appropriateness of the length of sentence determines as I said in examining many factors including the type of offence, the very example you gave.

You also responded that the age of the victim is not relevant in this case. I never said the court found it relevant. I said I do, and I feel its relevant because the criminal law in Canada treats people under 18 differently than it does people over 18. You did not address that disparity in criminal treatment, you simply stated "anyways".

The point I made and you did not address is in Canada we have said age does matter. You think 16 year olds can have consensual sex. The point of the matter is when they rape, they can get a lighter sentence than an adult. The point is in civil law they can have consensual sex at 16 but not be held to contracts they sign.

You may think a 16 year old can have consensual sex but does it mean they are emotionally ready for the consequences of looking after the children they produce? Where have you been? Most 16 year olds who have children end up under the poverty line and their children become a financial burden of the state or grandparents. What world do you live in? Of course 16 year olds can have consensual sex. Kids as young as 9 are telling their teachers and guidance counsellors the sex was consensual.

Spend some time with unwed teenage mothers who are struggling and ask them what they thought of their consensual sex. Spend some time ina youth clinic with a repeat 16 year old offender who has multiple children and thinks its cool.

Your concept of the world is elitist in my opinion. You think Canada has superior criminal laws to anyone else in the world and so if its not a crime in our country it can't be a crime? I suggest you need to travel the world to understand the vast difference in legal systems and cultures and understand violent criminals in other nations are charged for things we do not charge them for here but it does not make them any less a danger to our society and this concept you will welcome them in and let them push to the front of the line ahead of hard working immigrants is bull.

Now you asked me about the US constitution. Why didn't you look it up youself? Well? You could have found Amendment 8. Why do you think you are entitled to make me look things up for you? Where does that sense of entitlement come from? I do not know but it is the same sense of entitlement I believe that shapes your concept of why people should get protection in Canada. I do not say that as an insult either. I do not think you are rude. I do believe you feel entitled as do these criminals.

The woman you speak of has the right to call on Amendment * to say her sentence was too lengthy. She never did. She could have reduced her sentence making the length a moot point. However in your argument if she got just 1 day or even a probationary sentence, since what she did was not a crime in Canada, she should flee here and become an automatic citzen. That makes no sense to me and that's why I say she should not get away with what she did in Florida.

[Rue]

That should read Amendment EIGHT of the US constitution.

[cybercoma]

I stated this concept of offering fleeing criminals automatic citizenship in Canada is absurd and I explained why.

I'm not sure if I need to read further, but I will when I get a chance. However, this statement is completely wrong and utterly absurd. We do not offer fleeing criminals automatic citizenship in Canada. So writing a lengthy rant describing why that's absurd is pointless. The only people to get automatic citizenship here are people born here. So if that's what your post was about, it's a giant strawman.

[cybercoma]

in my opinion creating a second criteria for refugees based soley on the fact they committed a crime in their country that does not exist in Canada makes no sense

Good thing that's not what has happened, nor does that exist anywhere in Canadian law. Did you read the decision? The ruling was made because her sentence amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. It has very little to do with the crime not existing anywhere in Canadian law, although that does offer some support to the notion that the punishment was far too harsh. It's also a point to be made to those who say she shouldn't be allowed in the country because she's a criminal. Not in Canada she isn't and not even if she did the same "crime" in Canada would she be a criminal.

Interestingly in your response you said I was wrong to say length of sentence alone determines whether its cruel or not and then went on to contradict yourself in the very next sentence stating the appropriateness of the length of sentence determines as I said in examining many factors including the type of offence, the very example you gave.

The length of the sentence in relation to the circumstances of the crime is what's used to determine if the length of the sentence is cruel and unusual punishment. How else do you determine if a punishment is cruel and unusual? A punishment is necessarily tied to a crime. The length of the sentence is the punishment. The length of the sentence is necessarily tied to the circumstances of her case. You're trying to make it seem like you have some insightful point here, but you're essentially saying that punishments are determined by circumstances. Thanks. But that's obvious. But does the punishment FIT the crime is the question. So we're looking at whether the length of her sentence FITS the facts of her case. The IRB made a determination that the length of the sentence was not commensurate with her crime. Your insightful point is to tell us that sentences are determined by the facts of the case. That's not insightful at all. It's a vapid point that is obvious. The length of sentence is the only thing that's important because it is a sentence for something. Otherwise it's just a number of years without any meaning. What absurdly twisted reasoning brings you to make the point that the number of years don't stand on their own? I have no idea, but the point is that it's a sentence for something and it must fit the crime. In her case it didn't.

You also responded that the age of the victim is not relevant in this case.

That I did not say. I said that 18 years old is not an important age to the discussion, since being a minor is a different thing than the legal age of consent. I said you're conflating the ideas of age of majority and age of consent.

I said I do, and I feel its relevant because the criminal law in Canada treats people under 18 differently than it does people over 18. You did not address that disparity in criminal treatment, you simply stated "anyways".

The way criminal law treats offenders is entirely irrelevant to the topic. What odes the way minors are treated as offenders have to do with a so-called victim and his age of consent? Absolutely nothing. I don't need to address the "disparity in criminal treatment" for those over 18 and under 18 because the "criminal" in this case was 47 and it's entirely irrelevant to the victim's age of consent. So I have no idea where you're going with that and the point is so moot that I couldn't possibly care less where you're going with it.

The point I made and you did not address is in Canada we have said age does matter. You think 16 year olds can have consensual sex. The point of the matter is when they rape, they can get a lighter sentence than an adult. The point is in civil law they can have consensual sex at 16 but not be held to contracts they sign.

And? You say these are points, but I see non sequiturs and irrelevant statements.

You may think a 16 year old can have consensual sex

I don't think. I know. That's what our law says.

does it mean they are emotionally ready for the consequences of looking after the children they produce? Where have you been? Most 16 year olds who have children end up under the poverty line and their children become a financial burden of the state or grandparents. What world do you live in? Of course 16 year olds can have consensual sex. Kids as young as 9 are telling their teachers and guidance counsellors the sex was consensual.

More irrelevant nonsense. Sex doesn't have to lead to child birth. That's why we have contraception. That's why we teach children about sex from an early age. All of those things you mention are more likely to happen to teenage parents, but they're not a predetermined outcome. There's a lot of variability and it depends a lot on the amount of support those kids have.

The important point, however, is that this is entirely irrelevant. It couldn't be more irrelevant. Whether individual children or even the majority of children are ready to have sex at that age doesn't matter. The law says that it's legal for a 16 year old to give consent, but here's why it couldn't be more irrelevant. Let's pretend that the age of consent in Canada was 18, just to take your point that kids aren't ready to consent at that age. How does that change Harvey's case for protected person status? She may have been barred entry into Canada for having sex with someone who's underage, but then again maybe she wouldn't be. The point of her claim was that the punishment far exceeded the crime. That doesn't change regardless of what age you want to place the age of consent at. So I'm not really interested in your moral objections and your personal opinions about what you think the age of consent should be. The fact is that it's 16 and Harvey therefore committed no crime by Canada law. That's why she was allowed into the country. The reason her protected person claim was successful is that the punishment for her actions, which incidentally wasn't a crime, far exceeded the nature of the "criminal" activity.

Spend some time with unwed teenage mothers who are struggling and ask them what they thought of their consensual sex. Spend some time ina youth clinic with a repeat 16 year old offender who has multiple children and thinks its cool.

More irrelevant aside. You're talking about teen mothers. This isn't relevant to anything, as only a small fraction of teens end up pregnant and having children. Yes they struggle. Yes it's difficult. But it has absolutely nothing to do with anything in this thread.

Your concept of the world is elitist in my opinion. You think Canada has superior criminal laws to anyone else in the world and so if its not a crime in our country it can't be a crime? I suggest you need to travel the world to understand the vast difference in legal systems and cultures and understand violent criminals in other nations are charged for things we do not charge them for here but it does not make them any less a danger to our society and this concept you will welcome them in and let them push to the front of the line ahead of hard working immigrants is bull.

At this point, I'm getting really tired of all the irrelevant garbage you put into your posts. This is why I rarely take the time to read them all.

I never made any claims about the superiority of our laws. The claim here is that Florida's punishment was excessive. I didn't make it. The courts decided that was the case. They also stated in their decision that it was in "complete disregard of international standards of jurisprudence." So it's nice that you're invoking international context, but the court considered that.

But let me ask you, what exactly is your point here? That different legal systems are different? That's nice and all, but the courts here decided that Florida's legal system gave out a punishment that was excessive by Canadian and international standards. Now I'm sorry, but if you want to invoke comparisons to countries like Sudan or Pakistan where they stone women in the streets, I'm going to laugh at you because this is not the benchmark by which we decide whether punishment is cruel and unusual. Women in those societies would also be granted asylum here for those sentences.

You bring up sentences for violent criminals in your reply here too, which is yet again completely irrelevant. Harvey had a consensual relationship. Her "crime" was not violent. She's was not convicted of a sexual assault equivalent law. So bringing up that other countries treat violent criminals much more harshly is like bringing up late payment fees through your bank as a comparison. It has nothing to do with anything here.

Now you asked me about the US constitution. Why didn't you look it up youself? Well? You could have found Amendment 8. Why do you think you are entitled to make me look things up for you? Where does that sense of entitlement come from? I do not know but it is the same sense of entitlement I believe that shapes your concept of why people should get protection in Canada. I do not say that as an insult either. I do not think you are rude. I do believe you feel entitled as do these criminals.

My sense of entitlement comes from the forum rules and guidelines that say you have to back up your arguments. If I ask you to expand on something, it's because what you're saying probably doesn't make the point you think it is.

In any case, you were arguing that she should have appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court. First of all, the cost of doing so is insanely prohibitive. It was probably cheaper to pack up and start over in Canada than to go through years and years of appeals, hoping that the SCOTUS would hear her case. At the end of the appeals process, she wouldn't have had an opportunity to flee, as I already mentioned to you.

So essentially, her appeal was to international standards of criminal justice and our courts found in her favour by deciding that Florida's sentencing did not fit the crime. Could a challenge up to the SCOTUS find the same thing under the 8th Amendment? Who knows, but why does it matter? What is your interest in keeping her out of this country? Her conviction was for something that isn't a crime in Canada and only 12 states take 18 as the age of consent. You and TimG think that this opens the floodgates to violent criminals, which completely ignores the nature of her so-called crime and the arbitrariness of her sentencing. It ignore the fact that Florida gave her 30 years for something that won't even get you arrested in nearly all of North America.

if she got just 1 day or even a probationary sentence, since what she did was not a crime in Canada, she should flee here and become an automatic citzen.

That's not what I argued at all. You seem to really have trouble understanding people's arguments. First of all, there's nothing to indicate she would become an automatic citizen. And second, I posted in this thread that if she received a shorter sentence, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. If her sentencing was concurrent, instead of consecutive, she would be serving 6 years behind bars and I can almost guarantee you that the refugee board would not have found that cruel and unusual punishment. Thirty years behind bars, however, puts her in jail likely for the rest of her life. This isn't a case of "automatic citizenship" as you keep saying. I don't know what gives you that idea. Nobody anywhere in this thread argued for automatic citizenship for people that are convicted of crimes that don't exist in Canada. Not once did that happen. So instead of getting all high and mighty about your moral indignation and talking about the absurdity of people's arguments, maybe you should take the time to actually understand what is being argued.

I'm not going to wade through another one of your lengthy posts. This is such a colossal waste of my time when you can't even have the common decency to understand people's arguments fairly and accurately. You then respond with mountains of irrelevant garbage and argue against fabricated positions that nobody has taken in this thread. It's utterly insulting and I refuse to devote any more time to it than I already have.