Florida woman granted asylum in Canada

[Rue]

The Federal Court judge addressed this in her decision at paras 70-73. That was the exact issue raised by the minister for immigration; That all avenues

of appeal in the US courts had not been taken.

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

As the judge says "The obligation on a refugee claimant to exhaust all domestic avenues of protection available to them prior to seeking refugee protection in Canada is not absolute. Indeed, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that it is only in situations where state protection mightreasonably have been forthcoming that a claimant’s failure to seek protection will defeat his or her claim"

Then the judge says that the IRB conclusion in this matter that all realistic mechanisms had been exhausted was a reasonable conclusion to make.

This then raises the question about the procedures of the US supreme court: Must they hear all appeals put before it? or can they, like the Canadian

Supreme Court refuse the appeal.

If the USSC must hear appeals then I would agree that that appeal must be made before considerations for protected status continue.

If, however, the USSC can refuse appeals, then I would say the IRB and Federal Court judge were right.

Actually Peter you did a great job getting to the point I was trying to explain. Thank you.

Now you note where you pointerd ouy say where the decision refers to the Supreme Court of Canada having held that it is only in situations "where state protection might reasonably have been forthcoming that a claimant’s failure to seek protection will defeat his or her claim"

Bingo that is precisely the wording I was referring to in my previously opinion (and its only that) that if this was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada they might very well say because Harvey had an Amendment 8 constitution argument she never raised, state protection in the form of a reduced sentence might reasonably have been forthcoming.

Since we use the almost identical wording in our constitution based on that wording in Amendment 8 to say sentences are too high, why was it assumed the US courts would not have done the same? I don't think that is a reasonable assumption. I could see if the wording was very different but not when its so similiar.

We will never know but I really believe the US court entertaining an Amendment 8 argument would have lowered the sentence using the exact same arguments we have and the Florida courts in turn may have then been forced to amend their sentence length.

We will never know. Our Federal Court presumed the Amendment 8 argument would have been ignored which to me is unreasonable if for no other reason its not based on anything. They never mentioned any cases where the Amendment 8 was unsuccessful as an argument from which to then make their assumption which is also not reasonable.

In any event its a moot point because our government does not want to take it to the SCC but at least you can see why I thought it should go there because I think this is a crucial legal point.

.

[On Guard for Thee]

We have no idea what the IRB was able to determine about the specific nature of the crime committed by Ms. Harvey.

Yeah we clearly do. They determined it was not a crime. That would be why she was granted protected status. I don't know how many times that needs repeated before it sinks in.

[On Guard for Thee]

Actually Peter you did a great job getting to the point I was trying to explain. Thank you.

Now you note where you pointerd ouy say where the decision refers to the Supreme Court of Canada having held that it is only in situations "where state protection might reasonably have been forthcoming that a claimant’s failure to seek protection will defeat his or her claim"

Bingo that is precisely the wording I was referring to in my previously opinion (and its only that) that if this was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada they might very well say because Harvey had an Amendment 8 constitution argument she never raised, state protection in the form of a reduced sentence might reasonably have been forthcoming.

Since we use the almost identical wording in our constitution based on that wording in Amendment 8 to say sentences are too high, why was it assumed the US courts would not have done the same? I don't think that is a reasonable assumption. I could see if the wording was very different but not when its so similiar.

We will never know but I really believe the US court entertaining an Amendment 8 argument would have lowered the sentence using the exact same arguments we have and the Florida courts in turn may have then been forced to amend their sentence length.

We will never know. Our Federal Court presumed the Amendment 8 argument would have been ignored which to me is unreasonable if for no other reason its not based on anything. They never mentioned any cases where the Amendment 8 was unsuccessful as an argument from which to then make their assumption which is also not reasonable.

In any event its a moot point because our government does not want to take it to the SCC but at least you can see why I thought it should go there because I think this is a crucial legal point.

.

HELLO! She did appeal. The sentence was upheld. Then she hightailed it.

[Rue]

Hello she did not raise an Amendment 8 appeal.

[GostHacked]

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.

You won't mind if I slip something in your coffee then right? Let's have some fun.

I would like more info on that specific situation.

If the friend wanted the pregnancy, then we have assault, mental trauma ect.

If the friend did not want the pregnancy, then I am not sure how that plays out.

But if you are ever in a position to feel the need to punch a pregnant woman in the stomach, you may want to reevaluate your life.

y 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.

Facts of an individual cases do, and in face have set precedents. So yes they do matter. Laws are changed/modified because of these precedents. So yes, facts do matter in individual cases.

[On Guard for Thee]

Hello she did not raise an Amendment 8 appeal.

Well I think if I had pushed the legal system even as far as she did and was still looking at 30 years for something as benign as consensual sex (with someone of the opposite sex, that's for BC's edification) and I knew that just across the northern border was a place with much less archaic laws, I think I'd up stakes too.

[Bob Macadoo]

Well I think if I had pushed the legal system even as far as she did and was still looking at 30 years for something as benign as consensual sex (with someone of the opposite sex, that's for BC's edification) and I knew that just across the northern border was a place with much less archaic laws, I think I'd up stakes too.

Why do you need to be convicted first, get out of town as soon as you can......unless its b/c you want your cake and eat it too.

[Peter F]

Hello she did not raise an Amendment 8 appeal.

I'm not sure she had the opportunity to in the Florida courts. I gather they refused to hear her appeal. From my understanding - weak - of the USSC they could simply refuse to hear her appeal also.

[Rue]

I'm not sure she had the opportunity to in the Florida courts. I gather they refused to hear her appeal. From my understanding - weak - of the USSC they could simply refuse to hear her appeal also.

Yes you are exactly right we know the Florida court told her no appeal. As for assessing the USSC or making a constitutional challenge , we will never know its a moot point now. Obviously she thought she had a better choice in going to Canada then sticking around and making an Amendment 8 argument and who ever told her to high-tale it to Canada was dead on with their advise.

For what its worth, US state criminal Judges are elected just like politicians not appointed like our Judges. I think this makes them feel more pressured into giving higher sentences myself. That's just my personal opinion. I have no direct proof of that.

I do like our feature that we don't elect Judges for that reason. Our Judges may not feel as reluctant to make an unpopular decision because of that lack of possible political back-lash the next time they are up for running as Judge.

[guyser]

For what its worth, US state criminal Judges are elected just like politicians not appointed like our Judges. I think this makes them feel more pressured into giving higher sentences myself. That's just my personal opinion. I have no direct proof of that.

I do like our feature that we don't elect Judges for that reason. Our Judges may not feel as reluctant to make an unpopular decision because of that lack of possible political back-lash the next time they are up for running as Judge.

That should be (and has) quoted for truth.

This country would take a giant leap backwards if we decided to elect Judges in this country. FOr me its on of the dumbest things the US has. So ripe for abuse, and as has been seen , no shortage of stupidity coming out of 'some' cases due to political bents and wishes for re-election

Edited June 5, 2014 by Guyser2

[bush_cheney2004]

Criminal judges are not all elected in the U.S., as it varies by state. There are partisan and non-partisan elections, appointments, and merit based processes. Don't believe everything you read.

[On Guard for Thee]

That should be (and has) quoted for truth.

This country would take a giant leap backwards if we decided to elect Judges in this country. FOr me its on of the dumbest things the US has. So ripe for abuse, and as has been seen , no shortage of stupidity coming out of 'some' cases due to political bents and wishes for re-election

Agreed. We are all aware of how Harper tried to stack the deck with a SCC judge who wasn't eligible simply because they figured he'd follow the Con. agenda. Thankfully the constitution held sway.

[monty16]

Agreed. We are all aware of how Harper tried to stack the deck with a SCC judge who wasn't eligible simply because they figured he'd follow the Con. agenda. Thankfully the constitution held sway.

Just one more attempt by Harper to turn Canada into a cesspool of political hate and racism as we see south of the border. He's trying to rig our elections so we won't be able to get rid of him.

And was there ever any doubt that he would love to destroy our health care system, along with his accomplices at the Fraser institute?

[On Guard for Thee]

Just one more attempt by Harper to turn Canada into a cesspool of political hate and racism as we see south of the border. He's trying to rig our elections so we won't be able to get rid of him.

And was there ever any doubt that he would love to destroy our health care system, along with his accomplices at the Fraser institute?

Yes I fear he may be trying to gut our health care and turn it into a hodge podge of private enterprise such as they have in the US. The kind of "them that has, gets" system.

[bush_cheney2004]

With her Canadian asylum, convicted sex offender and fugitive felon Denise Harvey will have to get used to the long health care wait times. Unlike other Canadians who do so, she won't be traveling to the U.S. for faster health care for fear of being apprehended and returned to Florida.

[cybercoma]

Like a broken record

[On Guard for Thee]

With her Canadian asylum, convicted sex offender and fugitive felon Denise Harvey will have to get used to the long health care wait times. Unlike other Canadians who do so, she won't be traveling to the U.S. for faster health care for fear of being apprehended and returned to Florida.

Like most Canadians she will be well served and she won't have to break the bank in doing so.

[On Guard for Thee]

Like most Canadians she will be well served and she won't have to break the bank in doing so.

And she won't make war criminals like Dick Cheney rich in the process.

[bush_cheney2004]

No cross border shopping for this sex offender, something that so many law abiding Canadians enjoy as a birthright.

[On Guard for Thee]

Like a broken record

And just as irritating.

[On Guard for Thee]

No cross border shopping for this sex offender, something that so many law abiding Canadians enjoy as a birthright.

Boy did that ever fall flat. What else ya got?

Edited June 7, 2014 by On Guard for Thee

[bush_cheney2004]

No cheaper air fares for this fugitive felon, as she won't be able to scoot down to U.S. cities for much less expensive air travel like many other Canadians. In a way, she will actually have to walk the talk far more than some double-talking Canadians manage to do.

[On Guard for Thee]

No cheaper air fares for this fugitive felon, as she won't be able to scoot down to U.S. cities for much less expensive air travel like many other Canadians. In a way, she will actually have to walk the talk far more than some double-talking Canadians manage to do.

Apparently she scooted away from the US so she wouldn't have to spend the rest of her life in jail for getting laid. And don't talk to me about double talk. According to Bush 2 the French don't have a word for entrepeneur. You right wingers do provide a lot of humor I must say.

[On Guard for Thee]

I must admit I have been chastized a time or two here for bating "the troll" but it's so much fun I can't help myself.

[waldo]

Like a broken record

notwithstanding the U.S. spends the most and has one of the worst overall healthcare systems returns, that broken record, as I'm aware, has never been formally substantiated on MLW. As in just what is the measured reference behind the broken record? I can certainly find info detailing U.S. appointment times for specialists/family physicians... appointments only, not actual wait times for surgery. The OECD speaks to the difficulty in comparative harmonizing wait times between countries, but points to Canada's methodology/accounting/tracking as a model for other countries to follow... a point that speaks to the comprehensive nature of how Canada monitors/publishes wait times. I question whether there is a comprehensive accounting of U.S. surgical wait times (again, surgery wait time, not the time for an initial consultation appointment)... in that regard, the latest OECD report I referenced doesn't include the U.S. among the 13 representative OECD countries reported on. And, of course, key to the broken record is a focus on elective surgery... something that conveniently somewhat negates the inherent prioritization within Canadian healthcare. Equally, of course, the broken record ignores U.S. categorizations. like the ~50 million Americans on Medicaid... where, as I read, it is more difficult for those on Medicaid to even find doctors willing to see them, to operate on them... which begs the question around that categorization facet: just what are the U.S. surgery wait times for those ~50 million Americans on Medicaid, versus Medicare, versus employer insured, etc.? Again... a broken record without qualification!