Jump to content

Florida woman granted asylum in Canada


Recommended Posts

responding to those persons who argue that Canadian law is superior to American law

Which persons were those? Because nobody was arguing that. Go ahead and show some quotes where people said "Canadian Law is superior."

[Canadian Law] believes the age of sexual consent is 16.

Canadian law believes the age of consent is 16? Canadian law is not sentient. It doesn't believe anything. The age of consent is 16.

But what's your point? The court compared Harvey's sentence to sentences for offenders that had consensual sex with persons under the age of consent, regardless what that age is. So the actual age is pretty much irrelevant, except to show the absolute absurdity of the sentence when you consider that the acts weren't a crime in most places on the planet.

Edited by cybercoma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 681
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bush its interesting because I think if Ms.Harvey moved next door to some of our anti American Canadians they might have a different take when she starts having sex with their 16 year old boy in the basement and gets pregnant and asks them for child support since the consenting 16 year old certainly has a consenting penis but no wallet to match.

Reality Bush. Its a concept elitists don't get. In their world no one has pimples.

Reality?

The only one not dealing in reality are you and Tim.Both of your tangents are proof of that

Oh and by the way, who is anti American in this thread. Probably another one of your made up ideas a la accusations hurled at Black Dog ...eh ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

I was not aware the IRB did a relative comparison of sentencing.....was that in the 2nd ruling? Interesting. This is what I was looking for in the first ruling.

That would be para 22 and 23 of the Federal Court review (the first ruling).

[22] The Board started its analysis by observing that while the acts committed by Ms. Harvey did not constitute a crime in Canada, it was open to other jurisdictions to establish different ages of consent.

[23] The Board then examined the types of sentences handed down by Canadian courts for similar offences, including those imposed in cases involving much younger children and cases where the perpetrator was in a position of trust in relation to the victim. From this, the Board determined that the sentence imposed on Ms. Harvey was at least 15 times longer than the sentence that she would have received in Canada, had her actions been criminal in nature in this country.

(underlining mine)

I see that my statement of "All the way down to sex with 5 year olds." was an addition of memory. There is no basis for that statement to be made.

Edited by Peter F
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to your comments that the sentence length had it been shorter would have led to Ms. Harvey not being protected is not accurate. She would be protected because even if her sentence had been lowered we still would not have deported her. We do not deport to the US any US criminal whose offence is not considered a crime in Canada and by the way not just with American criminals, but any criminals from any jurisdiction and that is interplayed with those who get failed refugee status to assure they can flee here and never be deported.

That is why I argue we need to reform our Immigration and Extradition laws.

There seems to be a contradiction here between what you say and what apparently happened.

The RCMP arrested the woman in Pike Lake upon the request of the Florida govt. While in custody of the RCMP she filed the refugee claim and so the extradition was put on hold pending resolution of her claim.

If "even if her sentence had been lowered we still would not have deported her. We do not deport to the US any US criminal whose offence is not considered a crime in Canada" then the RCMP would never have proceeded to Pike Lake to arrest her.

Why would the IRB proceed with determining wether she should get the sec.97 protected status when there was no need for them to do so since she could not be extradited?

Edited by Peter F
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter, can you provide a link to the full ruling please.

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/62421/index.do

Thats to the so-called 'first ruling'. It would seem there was a second one after that since the OP cbc article mentions 2 appeals by the government.

The second appeal apparently never got to the Federal Court as far as my google skills can determine.

No IRB records of decision either.

One thing that bothers me about this whole discussion is the almost complete lack of information except by what is available in the linked decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, it doesn't matter what the differing ideas of age of consent are on either side of the border. Stop wasting my electrons on that argument please. The only thing that matters is the law as written in Florida where the crime occurred. I PRESUME the woman had adequate knowledge of the law before entering into sexual relations with the minor. She knowingly broke the law, aware of the consequences. I agree with the idea that this may open the floodgates for every convicted U.S. citizen to see Canada as a convenient place to claim refugee status, if only to delay their incarceration.

I disagree with the age of consent definition as it exists in Florida, and I strongly believe that the sentence in this case is ludicrous, but i'm not in charge of Florida, the Floridians are. They can make any damn law they choose and enforce sentencing as they see fit, transgressors beware. The woman was living in Florida of her own volition, with opportunity to leave for other places if she wanted? Doesn't sound like a refugee to me, sounds like an opportunist.

Does a mechanism exist in Florida for her to appeal the sentence, if not the conviction? If so, then I would rather see the Floridians, or the woman /her family foot the coming large legal bill, rather than Joe Canadian Taxpayer. You can bet my flexible green plastic ass on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If so, then I would rather see the Floridians, or the woman /her family foot the coming large legal bill, rather than Joe Canadian Taxpayer. You can bet my flexible green plastic ass on that.

Joe Canuck isnt paying for any legal bill.

Guess your green ass loses then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....Canadian law believes the age of consent is 16? Canadian law is not sentient. It doesn't believe anything. The age of consent is 16.

Point of order please...the age of consent for anal sex is 18 in Canada. We don't know what kind of "consensual" acts this sex offender performed with the Florida minor.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will cost a million to solve the extradition paperwork now. Supple wire-core moss-colored buttocks intact for the moment.

Please provide a citation on the costs... or did you pick the million dollar figure out of the air?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guilty of assumption. I assumed a high profile case like this with international implications would cost at least a million. If others are estimating a lower cost we will see how off the mark my assumption is. I'm thinking a million is way low. Time will tell. I could, however, argue that a citation is needed for a high profile extradition case that cost LESS than a million. This case is destined for astronomical legal fees. I shall endeavour to provide cites in future, and not make wild baseless assumptions about legal costs. My rubbery bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This case is destined for astronomical legal fees.

Why would you think that though?

The case is over, she would have paid her own legal fees, the system paid the Crowns fees......since they are on the payroll already no extra money was spent....but I say that presumably

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you think that though?

The case is over, she would have paid her own legal fees, the system paid the Crowns fees......since they are on the payroll already no extra money was spent....but I say that presumably

I would agree. All she has left to do now is go through the procedure of turning her "protected" status into permanent resident and finally full citizenship if that's her choice. I would assume she will have to pay a lawyer to submit the proper paperwork. Done deal. Who knows whether the state of Florida will piss away a bunch of dough to try and prove a point of some sort or other, but hey, it's their taxpayes dough to fritter away as they choose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guilty of assumption. I assumed a high profile case like this with international implications would cost at least a million. If others are estimating a lower cost we will see how off the mark my assumption is. I'm thinking a million is way low. Time will tell. I could, however, argue that a citation is needed for a high profile extradition case that cost LESS than a million. This case is destined for astronomical legal fees. I shall endeavour to provide cites in future, and not make wild baseless assumptions about legal costs. My rubbery bad.

You brought up cost. If you think cost is an issue, you should actually know the cost and not just make crap up out of thin air. Since you introduced it to the argument, it's on you to provide support for your argument.

Edited by cybercoma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seems to be a contradiction here between what you say and what apparently happened.

The RCMP arrested the woman in Pike Lake upon the request of the Florida govt. While in custody of the RCMP she filed the refugee claim and so the extradition was put on hold pending resolution of her claim.

If "even if her sentence had been lowered we still would not have deported her. We do not deport to the US any US criminal whose offence is not considered a crime in Canada" then the RCMP would never have proceeded to Pike Lake to arrest her.

Why would the IRB proceed with determining wether she should get the sec.97 protected status when there was no need for them to do so since she could not be extradited?

Here is the existing extrad law Peter:

ARTICLE 2

(1) Persons shall be delivered up according to the provisions of this Treaty for any of the offenses listed in the Schedule annexed to this Treaty, which is an integral part of this Treaty, provided these offenses are punishable by the laws of both Contracting Parties by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year.

The fact that the police in Florida asked the police in Canada to pick up this woman does not mean the above does not apply. The police cooperate with each other cross border to take people in for questioning. The police can take someone in for questioning and then they have to release them if they can't charge them but they can take them in and ask them questions and in this case the police took her in to determine what she was doing in Canada, i.e., where was she planning to live, how long, on what basis. They took her in to ask questions about Immigration Act regulations for persons with no visa such as a work visa, student visa. That's why she then declared refugee status once the police took her in and said look you are an illegal alien what's your intent? She had to have a reason for staying in Canada but it does not mean they could deport her.

In fact if she said I am returning to the US on her own to the RCMP presumably they would have phoned Florida police and informed them of that. Both police forces were going through standard procedures for fleeing convicts that cross the border.

Hope that explains it. Yes it sounds contradictory but there is more than one law the RCMP could have been investigating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,770
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Akalupenn
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...